Weird as you like, but hats off to Barbados.
This comment has been deleted by xth
<ni> komet: You are functionally illiterate as regards trashy erotica.
Apropos of nothing, here are three arbitrary modifications I'd make to the rules of football:
Woodwork is a team-mateRegarding corners and throw-ins, the frame of the goal counts as a member of the team which is trying to defend it. If shots hit the bar/post and go behind, it's a corner, not a goal kick etc.
Rationale: Reward attacking play.
Earth the ballThe usual rules of when the ball is out-of-play apply, except the ball isn't actually out-of-play until it touches something (fan, stadium, player, ground, anything) while being in that state.
Rationale: Get rid of those stupid corner kick / goal kick calls where the ball happens to cross the plane of the line before drifting back 'in'. Encourage players to make use of a bent trajectory on corners, clearances and passes down the wings without poxy, time-wasting throw-ins and goal kicks. Reward skill over obduracy.
They shoot horses, don't they?Get rid of penalty shootouts. Play normal extra time and then individual fifteen minute 'halves' (effectively silver goal rules) until someone wins outright.
Rationale (Man in the pub version): Football is a game of perception, individual skill, collective skill, stamina and will. If a game can't be decided on the the first three of these, it should be decided on the last two.
Rationale (More considered version): Disincentivize procrastination and 'waiting for penalties'. For whatever reason, penalties are seen as a 'more acceptable form of loss' by players, fans and the media alike. There's less 'disgrace' associated with losing on penalties as they're deemed 'a bit of a lottery'. A poor team will often 'park the bus' and wait for penalties, believing their odds of winning a shootout are better than their odds of out-playing the opposition without conceding. A good team will often accept going to penalties believing they can out-shoot their opponents.
The 'golden goal' rule failed as it actively encouraged defensive play more than it did attacking play. The 'silver goal' rule failed on the same basis but, importantly, it failed because of the existence of penalties at the end of thirty minutes. Why take the risk?
Removing penalties removes the 'end in sight'. I'd wager that, by removing penalties, you'd see more games resolved inside extra time, not fewer. Game theoretically, there's less advantage to waiting; you're going to have to try and win the game at some point, and you may as well do it while you've got your maximum reserves of fit and functioning players. For the winning team, there's no point getting into a prolonged endurance match, as every extra minute you have to play is an extra minute's worth of exhaustion and damage you'll inflict upon yourselves, affecting your efficacy for the next game.
Removing penalties would actually encourage attacking play. Having them encourages teams to play for them and makes extra time frequently less interesting than 'normal' time. If you remove the easy way out, it incentivizes teams to take the hard one.
"Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no libertarians in financial crises." -Krugman
Also, what happens if the teams are so evenly matched that the match went on for hours? That's why they put a limit to rounds on boxing, after this bout went on for 6 hours and 15 minutes, and the tennis also provides a recent example.
The longest NHL playoff game in history required 6 extra 20-minute overtime periods to settle. (A normal game is 3 periods, so we're essentially talking 3 games back-to-back)
"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger