“scoring more goals” is not a skill. It’s an outcome.
Your first argument against stopped clocks is utter nonsense. It’s an argument from tradition. “We’ve always done it this way, so we should continue to do so” is bullshit reasoning. Defend it if you genuinely think it’s better, but explain the actual reasons it’s better. “Because we always have” is not a valid argument.
Stopped clocks would just lead to commercial breaks.
This is, in principle, a better argument. It presents itself as an actual disadvantage of the changed rule.
The problem is that it doesn’t make any sense. It wouldn’t change the game itself at all. The refs in soccer already stop their stopwatches. They just don’t communicate this back to production. And then when the game is supposed to be over (because the clock reads “90”), the ref says “actually we’re doing another 12 minutes”. The amount of time played would be the same. The amount of time spent with the game stopped due to injuries, corners, etc. would be the same. The only difference is that the number you see on the screen would be the correct time, not made up nonsense.
“scoring more goals” is not a skill. It’s an outcome.
That’s fair. But the game is not decided on skills, it’s decided on goals.
Unless you want a label of judges along the touchline holding up 9.8 9.7 9.9, etc for a keepie uppie competition, I think penalties is the best way so far devised.
Your first argument against stopped clocks is utter nonsense.
Is it? Maybe in your opinion.
Yes, it’s an argument from tradition, and that’s a fundamental part of football culture. Tradition is at the heart of everything that has made, and still makes, the sport great.
I don’t feel any need to defend it beyond that, particularly not to someone who is talking like a belligerent prick for no apparent reason. I’d have been happy to have a discussion, but apparently you just came to abuse anyone with a different point of view. So bite me.
But the game is not decided on skills, it’s decided on goals.
Yes, but the rule set should be set up so you’re more likely to win if you play better fundamentals. Penalties don’t do that very well.
As I said, I don’t know for certain what the best answer could be, but I proposed one solution I think would work really well. I’d love to hear alternatives.
I’d have been happy to have a discussion, but apparently you just came to abuse anyone with a different point of view
Incredibly ironic considering how directly rude you’re being to me, as a person. I criticised a bad argument by attacking the argument. I would appreciate a response in kind.
I’m happy to have a discussion. Genuinely, that’s why I’m here. Why I’ve spent as much time writing about this.
But I care about having quality discussions. With people engaging in good faith rhetoric. I don’t have any interest in dealing politely with obvious poor rhetoric. An argument from tradition is one of the worst examples of lazy, bad rhetoric.
Soccer’s popularity is in spite of, not because of, its glaring flaws. It’s because of a history colonialism and clever marketing. And because it’s easy to play informally with a few mates. All you need is something vaguely ball-like, a bit of open space, and some basic way to mark goals. The same reasons for the world’s second most-popular sport, which just needs a ball, a strong stick, and a few weaker sticks or other object that can stand vertically on the ground. This is neither an insult nor a complement to the sports, it just is.
The whole point of this thread is to discuss rule changes to improve sports. If you think “because it’s always been done that way” is a reason not to improve a sport, I don’t even know why you’re here. But I don’t want to make this about you, I want to be talking about the substance of the arguments. If you’re willing to do that, I’d be happy to continue.
“scoring more goals” is not a skill. It’s an outcome.
Your first argument against stopped clocks is utter nonsense. It’s an argument from tradition. “We’ve always done it this way, so we should continue to do so” is bullshit reasoning. Defend it if you genuinely think it’s better, but explain the actual reasons it’s better. “Because we always have” is not a valid argument.
This is, in principle, a better argument. It presents itself as an actual disadvantage of the changed rule.
The problem is that it doesn’t make any sense. It wouldn’t change the game itself at all. The refs in soccer already stop their stopwatches. They just don’t communicate this back to production. And then when the game is supposed to be over (because the clock reads “90”), the ref says “actually we’re doing another 12 minutes”. The amount of time played would be the same. The amount of time spent with the game stopped due to injuries, corners, etc. would be the same. The only difference is that the number you see on the screen would be the correct time, not made up nonsense.
That’s fair. But the game is not decided on skills, it’s decided on goals.
Unless you want a label of judges along the touchline holding up 9.8 9.7 9.9, etc for a keepie uppie competition, I think penalties is the best way so far devised.
Is it? Maybe in your opinion.
Yes, it’s an argument from tradition, and that’s a fundamental part of football culture. Tradition is at the heart of everything that has made, and still makes, the sport great.
I don’t feel any need to defend it beyond that, particularly not to someone who is talking like a belligerent prick for no apparent reason. I’d have been happy to have a discussion, but apparently you just came to abuse anyone with a different point of view. So bite me.
Yes, but the rule set should be set up so you’re more likely to win if you play better fundamentals. Penalties don’t do that very well.
As I said, I don’t know for certain what the best answer could be, but I proposed one solution I think would work really well. I’d love to hear alternatives.
Incredibly ironic considering how directly rude you’re being to me, as a person. I criticised a bad argument by attacking the argument. I would appreciate a response in kind.
I’m happy to have a discussion. Genuinely, that’s why I’m here. Why I’ve spent as much time writing about this.
But I care about having quality discussions. With people engaging in good faith rhetoric. I don’t have any interest in dealing politely with obvious poor rhetoric. An argument from tradition is one of the worst examples of lazy, bad rhetoric.
Soccer’s popularity is in spite of, not because of, its glaring flaws. It’s because of a history colonialism and clever marketing. And because it’s easy to play informally with a few mates. All you need is something vaguely ball-like, a bit of open space, and some basic way to mark goals. The same reasons for the world’s second most-popular sport, which just needs a ball, a strong stick, and a few weaker sticks or other object that can stand vertically on the ground. This is neither an insult nor a complement to the sports, it just is.
The whole point of this thread is to discuss rule changes to improve sports. If you think “because it’s always been done that way” is a reason not to improve a sport, I don’t even know why you’re here. But I don’t want to make this about you, I want to be talking about the substance of the arguments. If you’re willing to do that, I’d be happy to continue.