Soccer Penalty

I've said this before, possibly until you're sick of it. But I'll say it again, because soccer (football, which is a more proper term, to you non Yanks) needs to hear it. You need a better way to break ties.

The latest example is the US women's national team losing to Sweden in the Women's World Cup. By all measures I've read they dominated the game, yet lost on penalty kicks. Without getting into all the details, the process involves too much dumb luck. Single players line up against a goalie and try to 'score' by slipping the ball past the netminder. Kicker guesses right? Goal. Kicker guesses wrong? No goal. Goalie guesses wrong?  Goal. Guesses right? You go home. It's stupid.

There's things I like about soccer. The teams have no say about the clock, which is how it should be in timed games. That clock keeps going, which I also like. But guessing games to determine championships? Oh, come on. 

Take an equal number of players off the field in extra time. Remove the goalie in extra time. Make the goal wider and higher to increase scoring during normal play to make ties less likely. Take turns with corner kicks even, until one team scores. Base tiebreakers on game stats such has shots on goal. Something, soccer. I'm ready to say anything, because anything has to be better than the current nonsense.

Win the game on the entire field, not the last 12 yards where they set up the penalty kicks. That's just a travesty against sportsmanship and integrity.

Whither Ties?

Why can't we have ties? Why can't a game end with each team having the same score? Why must there be a winner and a loser? And aren't some ties in fact really good games?

The National Hockey League has held for several seasons now 'shootouts' to break ties. Soccer has had championship matches decided in like fashion. If there's a dumber way to break a tie I cannot imagine what it is. Such a process cheapens, indeed I would argue that it mocks, a victory anyhow. Winning on luck is nothing to be proud about.

There is fear, now that the National Football League has cut overtime periods to 10 minutes, there will be more ties in football this coming season. But so what? If teams played to a draw, it's a draw. Let it stand.

Even in championship games, why can't there be co-champions if the result is a tie? They're only games after all; entertainments; diversions. They aren't really that important.

Let ties stand. If it buggers your standings or your ratings, or especially if it buggers your demand that someone must win and someone else lose, I don't think you're particularly sportsmanlike at all.

Why must we have a winners and losers?

A tie is like kissing your sister.

-Attribute this quote to your preferred source.

Why can't we have ties? Why can't a game end with each team having the same score? Why must there be a winner and a loser?

Aren't there games where a tie is the ideal outcome? My curling team played a game last night against (obviously) another curling team. Both squads read the ice well, swept well, called good line, and made impressive shots. And to be fair, I suppose, we each made similar mistakes. And we tied.

It was a great tie. I don't see where either team outplayed the other so as to merit a win or deserve a loss. Why not let ties stand?

Even in championship matches, even at the highest levels, why not let them stand? Why must we have one single champion? If each team played equally, why can't they each, in effect, win?

I ask, are sports about winning or losing or about sportsmanship? If about the former, I wonder how sportsmanlike they actually are. If about the latter, then we should let ties stand.

Last night's curling match did not feel like kissing my sister (although I would only do that on her cheek, and only when there were no easy way to avoid it). It felt like both teams won. So, let both teams win. It seems appropriately sportsmanlike to me.