Should track flip a coin if all races aren't clearly decided with 100 meters left to make it popular like the World Cup?

I'm all for coin-flips in field events where the standard error exceeds the margin of victory.

rojo wrote:

I love the drama of the World Cup but what a joke PKs are.

I've been saying this for years and I'll say it again.

World Cup games - particularly the final - should not be decided by PK. End of story.

Soccer has modernized with VAR. The need to modernize with the end of the game as well. I don't want to hear that it's dangerous to let them to continue to play. Guess what? Someone would score. If you want to make it a little easier, make the goal 1 foot bigger ever 10 minutes in overtime. It's 2018. I think designing an expanding goal is something Elon Musk could handle in about 5 minutes.

If the race is close enough at 9000m, stop the race and have the top three do five 50m races. Finish based point system for eacg race is totaled and then the result determines Olympic Gold, Silver and Bronze.

This is a good idea.

not certain why it hasn't already been done.

When a team gets behind by 2 or 3 the game would not be over.

The other team would have a chance.

I agree with rojo. If one team is truly better than the other, then how come you end in a 0-0 or 1-1 tie? If one team is truly better it would score more goals in regulation.

If the net is larger it's easier to score. Add a foot vertically, and a couple feet horizontally.

Also, some of the regulation goals are scored from penalty kicks.

This seems like the way to go but why hasn't this already been done years ago?

There has to be a reason for leaving the goal the way it is.

I have no idea what that reason could be.

I don't understand the argument that it is "dangerous" to play for more than 120 minutes. How is it dangerous?

Whatever pharmaceuticals you consume to come up with the stuff you post - can you let me know the names and dosages so I can try them too?

ABdistance18 wrote:

Please don't ever speak about soccer ever again, your logic is flawed entirely and you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's incredibly exhausting to play 120 minutes of soccer at that high of a level and continuously adding time is unsafe whether you want to acknowledge that or not. Penalties aren't a coin flip, they're a skill and as the top keepers have proven it isn't a guaranteed conversion. (see Subasic and Schmeichel in the Denmark and Croatia game)

I don’t buy the whole exhausted argument. There are a bunch of guys sitting on the bench all game. They are not exhausted. Just open up the substitution rule in extra time. If the starters can’t settle it, the team with the greater depth wins.

Why did you do 2) twice?

In reality, it might take even more time to score if you knew the other team scoring meant you lost. You know that's the reason why it's a pretty low scoring game in general?

It's a way to settle a game, it's exciting, some teams even play for it.

It's ridiculous to suggest that penalty shoot outs are the or even a reason the sport is popular. If I'm not mistaken, domestic leagues are very popular, and competitions like the Champions League are rarely decided in a shootout because of away goals.

Clearly Baseball should sue Soccer for stealing this idea of man vs man, thrower vs hitter, and incorporating it as PK into their own game. :-)

Actually, in order to get things f*cking rolling there should be one PK for each team at both the start and end of each half; i.e at least four PKs for each team already during full time - that would change up the dynamics to something more modern.

sdfadfsdfsdfsdfs wrote:

I don't understand the argument that it is "dangerous" to play for more than 120 minutes. How is it dangerous?

The argument is a bit exaggerated - but yes, do a 120 minute fartlek yourself and evaluate the risk of strain, shin splint or cramp during the last rushes. Also, other runners will deliberately trip you, stamp your feet and/or pull your shirt while you're at top speed. ;-)

wild is the wind wrote:

This seems like the way to go but why hasn't this already been done years ago?

There has to be a reason for leaving the goal the way it is.

I have no idea what that reason could be.

Because it would be too expensive and impractil at all levels below elite. Minor leagues in the third world still have problems affording real balls (no pun intendend).

ABdistance18 wrote:

Please don't ever speak about soccer ever again, your logic is flawed entirely and you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's incredibly exhausting to play 120 minutes of soccer at that high of a level and continuously adding time is unsafe whether you want to acknowledge that or not. Penalties aren't a coin flip, they're a skill and as the top keepers have proven it isn't a guaranteed conversion. (see Subasic and Schmeichel in the Denmark and Croatia game)

+1

It would make no difference, they'd still accuse the Russians of doping the coin.

They could be playing for hours. That has long term consequences for the rest of the tournament. It’s a fair and equal solution to end a stalemate.

And in terms of historical flipping of the coin...in the fifties, your country used to lynch black people...what’s your point?

Idiot.

Here is a different spin: treat ties as if both teams lose. Tie = your opponent gets a bye the next round.

I bet if a tie and a loss have the same end result in the knockout stages, we would see a lot more aggressive attacking.

Not saying it is the RIGHT move... but no bad ideas when brainstorming, right?

FtR, I still think the best way would be to remove a man from both sides every 5 (2?) minutes on a dead ball. (Boy, a red card 10v11 isn’t great, but imagine 5v4, lol.)

If some type of shootout is necessary, I’d rather see 2v2 from the 35y, 10 sec shot clock.

Using some of these same ideas and applying them to distance Track events we all know how boring a 5000 is in the Olympics or World Championships when they go out in a very slow pace. They then run the last two laps in just blazing speed. Here's a better idea and will have the athletes run more true to form. In the 5000 for example let them run at whatever pace they so dictate. However, after the first 1800m have been completed whoever is in last place is then pulled off the track. Then each lap after that the last place runner is removed. This would mean that every 400m after 1800 a runner would be removed from the race. Would definitely motivate some runners to not sit back at a dawdling pace.

I like this idea.

It might also be used for every distance race other than the 800 meter as Dave Wottle would have been yanked in Munich.

Doesn't have to say the same thing for hockey b/c hockey (NHL) has evolved. In all NHL playoffs, overtime periods are played like regulation periods except for the golden goal rule. Teams are at full strength, there is no shootout, and each overtime period is 20 minutes with full intermissions between overtime periods.