Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 21 Jul 2014, 11:39 am

It isn't mandated by tradition. had it not been the most important game of football for four years then Kramer would almost certainly have gone off as a precaution, but it's a biog call to take a guy off in the World Cup final when he's stood up and eager to get back on the pitch. Yes, he should have been taken off anyway because he clearly wasn't up to it, but that's a criticism of Yogi Low not of the whole sport.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 21 Jul 2014, 12:49 pm

I get it, life threatening injuries don't matter if the game is big enough.
...Check!

The game means more than player safety
and yes you enjoy a high scoring game, you want to believe it's because of the rarity. I have seen 0 -0 American Football games, those are very rare and guess what, while it's a close game and that is "exciting" in itself, I find those games far less interesting than a 35-35 game. You can talk yourself into believing anything but the facts speak for themselves. Why were so many people talking so much about the sudden increase in scoring this world cup? That answer is because they LIKE the increased scoring and if you did something to increase it permanently, trust me, you would love it in short ordrer!
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 21 Jul 2014, 1:00 pm

I get it, life threatening injuries don't matter if the game is big enough.
...Check!


No. The reason it was such a big call to remove himis because the game in question was unarguably the biggest game of his younglife and in all probability he'll never play in a bigger one. To deny somebody the opportunity to at least try and run the injury off when they were so desperate to play is a big decision to make. I think he made the wrong decision, but that doesn't mean that head injuries are not taken seriously in football or that the rules suddenly need changing in a way that will certainly have a major impact on the competitive dynamic of a match.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Jul 2014, 1:50 pm

sass
I
ncreasing the size of the goals is another bad idea. Where is the purpose other than to artificially boost the number that are scored ? The size of the goal is the same for everybody, and over the years it's not like scoring rates have noticeably changed all that much from era to era despite the huge improvements in athletic performance, better pitches and much lighter balls. All actual football fans who love the sport would be appalled at the idea of making the goals bigger. It would seriously invalidate the performances if it suddenly became that much easier to score than it ever has been before.


When increasing the size of goals was first proposed, a study was done on the cost of replacing all of the goals in Germany.... because every field would be obsolete without the new size goal frame. Enormous cost.
Oliver Kahn, the famous German Keeper drolly suggested that it would far cheaper just to legislate in the rules that all keepers had to be 5 foot 5 or less.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 9:41 am

Post 21 Jul 2014, 2:01 pm

Tom, you must have loved the steroid era in baseball, no?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 22 Jul 2014, 7:36 am

Sass,
I clearly said if the game is big enough, then personal safety means nothing.

You said no
and went on to explain the game was more important than the persons life.
You SAY no but confirmed exactly what I had said.

The game has been around for how long?
The modern game was established in the mid 1800's
People are on average taller than they were back then, the participants are without a doubt far better athletes than they were at that time as well. I looked it up and while someone here CLAIMS scoring is the same, no, in fact it has declined over time. It simply is not the same as it used to be!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 22 Jul 2014, 7:48 am

and I was trying to think of a similar situation in another sport. Basketball came to mind. The basket is still the same 10 foot the same as it has always been. Using the same logic, we should raise the basket!?

I would agree with you to a point. If we want the game to be closer to what it used to be, maybe it should be raised a foot (or more). HOWEVER, scoring has increased and that's what we are talking about here, making the game more exciting. Raising the BB rim would decrease scoring, hell if you like low scores so much, why not play basketball with 20 foot goals? No, scoring is exciting and the buzz in this world cup was that scoring was up, people loved it!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 9:41 am

Post 22 Jul 2014, 8:23 am

Basketball scoring has definitely not increased. In the 80s, scores were a lot higher. Teams play way better defense now.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 22 Jul 2014, 8:26 am

But the game was not invented in the 80s was it?
In fact, to try to combat lower scores, the NBA long ago added a shooting clock, they made zone defense illegal, etc.
What I was saying is the game is not the same as it was when invented, is not the same as it was say 50 years ago. The hoop remains at 10 feet but scoring went up from that time.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 9:41 am

Post 22 Jul 2014, 8:37 am

It has gone up from the 50s, yes. Some rules have changed, like adding a 3-point line, along with the things you mentioned. But it's not at all as if it's been a steady increase in scoring ever since then:

http://sportslistoftheday.com/2012/11/07/nba-league-scoring-averages-1946-47-through-2011-12/
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 22 Jul 2014, 10:07 am

and your link ...scoring was MUCH lower back in the early days
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 22 Jul 2014, 11:05 am

tom
In fact, to try to combat lower scores, the NBA long ago added a shooting clock, they made zone defense illegal, etc


Actuallly the shot clock was brought in to increase scoring... Because teams couldn't play keep away just to protect a lead.
And the zone defence is not illegal anymore. It isn't used much because once recognized most teams can beat a zone quickly. But defensive 3 second was brought in to stop defenders just sitting in the lane...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 9:41 am

Post 22 Jul 2014, 2:10 pm

GMTom wrote:and your link ...scoring was MUCH lower back in the early days


It was lower than today, yes. But my point was that it spiked, then leveled out, and even came down quite a bit. And basketball is still pretty damn popular, probably even gaining popularity worldwide at the moment. So it's not only about scoring.

But your general argument raises an interesting point. Several sports are taking measures, some overt and some not, to make the game more appealing to fans, thus making the league more money, etc. A lot of times they try to increase scoring to do so.

One example is with all these new rules in (American) football that protect mostly quarterbacks and wide receivers. I'm talking about all the penalties for hits to the head, etc. This issue is interesting because it's a safety precaution, but it's also having the subsequent effect of increasing scoring, something the NFL is obviously happy about, whether they want to admit it or not.

But it raises the question: Is any change that would increase interest for the casual fan necessarily a good one? Or are the real diehards right about maintaining the integrity of the game?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 22 Jul 2014, 6:42 pm

In the 90s, there were ideas to make soccer more popular in the US, with larger goals, and scoring zones that gave different points. it didn't work - the MLS plays with the proper rules instead.

I can see your point of view, Tom, but I disagree with some of your ideas. We have changed rules such as offside and pass-back so as to give advantage to the attacking team.

On injuries, Rugby Union does allow 'blood injury' substitutions above the normal replacements. And you know what happened? A team figured out how to get a free substitution by faking a blood injury, and that was a scandal in the game.

Sass has said he disagrees with the decision to keep Kramer on the pitch, one which the player himself was instrumental in, as well as the coach. No need to keep piling on the emotional blackmail. The real issue was that the number of fouls leading up to that incident, particularly on Schweinsteiger, should have led to more cards, and perhaps a second yellow for at least one Argentinian. Which would have meant a German player coming off injured would make less of a difference.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 8:01 am

Ricky
Defensive 3 is what i meant of course (it's not like the traditional college zone defense)
and the shot clock, that's exactly my point (not counter to it) the rule was made to increase scoring!

Rules such as these were made to increase scoring and over time, scoring did increase. The link shown earlier showed a slight drop from a higher level, but all the rules were designed to increase scoring! In American football, same thing there. Not just rules to protect players but the rules that now favor receivers are a huge difference from the old days and scoring is up and the game has taken to the air because of those rules changes.
You can't touch a receiver past 5 yards, interference is tighter, offensive linemen can block much more efficiently than the old days (giving the QB more time in the pocket), rules have changed that allowed scoring to go up and the popularity of the game has exploded.

I fully understand and even appreciate why some like things to stay the same. But change is not always bad and if changes made help player safety, who can argue with that? Rules that open up scoring ...harder for some to support, but the game would be more exciting no doubt.Why is it so wonderful to have your political beliefs be progressive but change in sports is unthinkable!?

Gay marriage ....wonderful
bigger goals ...no way!