J.R.
5-24-05, 6:00 PM
This was my web log (http://jrhippe.blogspot.com/2005/05/problem-with-overtimes.html) entry yesterday and I felt it was a general sports topic, so I posted it here.
On Saturday, in a great Football Association Cup final, the dominant Manchester United club lost to the sleepy-looking Arsenal Gunners, because it came down to penalty kicks.
This has got me thinking about overtime formats in european football and other sports in general. You see, I have a real problem with a team sport being decided in the most important moments by individuals. The sport of european football isn't played one on one.
In this game in particular, the Red Devils controlled the majority of the match and had significantly more chances than Arsenal. It was their goal keeper that kept them in the game and scoreless through 45, 90 and 120 minutes, or else Man. U would have came away with at least a one-nil victory. Instead, the penalty shootout came, and one saved goal cost the United a repeat at the F.A. Cup championship.
It is very easy to compare this sort of insane way of deciding ties, to a free throw shooting contest at the end of a tied basketball game, a field goal kicking competition if an american football game is tied or a home run derby if a baseball game goes longer than ten innings. That's sounds crazy doesn't it? It is. So why is european football and some hockey leagues deciding games with a small group of the participants, when it's the team that should determine the winner.
If it were up to me, I would get rid of these shootout types when the game is tied and allow it to continue until one team scores. Believe me, sudden death is just as exciting.
So what do you think? Are they exciting and necessary or a sappy way to decide a game's winner?
On Saturday, in a great Football Association Cup final, the dominant Manchester United club lost to the sleepy-looking Arsenal Gunners, because it came down to penalty kicks.
This has got me thinking about overtime formats in european football and other sports in general. You see, I have a real problem with a team sport being decided in the most important moments by individuals. The sport of european football isn't played one on one.
In this game in particular, the Red Devils controlled the majority of the match and had significantly more chances than Arsenal. It was their goal keeper that kept them in the game and scoreless through 45, 90 and 120 minutes, or else Man. U would have came away with at least a one-nil victory. Instead, the penalty shootout came, and one saved goal cost the United a repeat at the F.A. Cup championship.
It is very easy to compare this sort of insane way of deciding ties, to a free throw shooting contest at the end of a tied basketball game, a field goal kicking competition if an american football game is tied or a home run derby if a baseball game goes longer than ten innings. That's sounds crazy doesn't it? It is. So why is european football and some hockey leagues deciding games with a small group of the participants, when it's the team that should determine the winner.
If it were up to me, I would get rid of these shootout types when the game is tied and allow it to continue until one team scores. Believe me, sudden death is just as exciting.
So what do you think? Are they exciting and necessary or a sappy way to decide a game's winner?