MLS playoffs format changes

[mgarbowski]

Not quite a playoff format change but it is a rule change.

MLS to allow fourth substitution in extra time of 2017 postseason matches

It's an IFAB sanctioned experiment. We're not the first to be part of the testing. You get a fourth sub in games that go to 120 minutes, including when you did not use all 3 in the first 90 minutes.

 

[Ulrich]

Not quite a playoff format change but it is a rule change.

MLS to allow fourth substitution in extra time of 2017 postseason matches

It's an IFAB sanctioned experiment. We're not the first to be part of the testing. You get a fourth sub in games that go to 120 minutes, including when you did not use all 3 in the first 90 minutes.

Could you imagine getting to 90min in the Cup having used only 1 sub, and then being able to bring three sets of fresh legs on - especially if they're speedy attackers?!?

 

[413Blue]

Not quite a playoff format change but it is a rule change.

MLS to allow fourth substitution in extra time of 2017 postseason matches

It's an IFAB sanctioned experiment. We're not the first to be part of the testing. You get a fourth sub in games that go to 120 minutes, including when you did not use all 3 in the first 90 minutes.

I'm generally against rule changes, but this is something that I always felt was something that should have been in place. Hopefully this becomes the global standard, even if it sometimes ends up getting used for just last second penalty kick focused changes.

 

[SoupInNYC]

I'm generally against rule changes, but this is something that I always felt was something that should have been in place. Hopefully this becomes the global standard, even if it sometimes ends up getting used for just last second penalty kick focused changes.

Yup, I'm a fan of it as well.

There is one other rule change I'd like to see in regards to subs, though its mostly concussion related.

Have independent doctors evaluate players for potential concussions and not team doctors. If a player is determined by the independent doctor to have suffered a concussion, then that team is allowed one additional sub for the game. I would limit that at only one additional sub per game.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Funny timing. I was watching the Red Fools - Cincinnati game on Tuesday with my freshly minted 10-year-old, and when it went to extra time, he asked whether the teams got an extra sub. When I told him "no", he provided a pretty good argument for "yes".

 

[413Blue]

Funny timing. I was watching the Red Fools - Cincinnati game on Tuesday with my freshly minted 10-year-old, and when it went to extra time, he asked whether the teams got an extra sub. When I told him "no", he provided a pretty good argument for "yes".

My general rule of thumb is, any rules changes must have a positive impact on the quality of the game.
Having an exhausted, or semi-injured player out there during extra-time is not good for the game. Replacing him/her with a fresh player leads to a better quality of soccer. Soccer is a 90 minute game, so extra-time is a bit of an unusual occurrence, and is generally reserved for important elimination games. Teams, and fans, should be compensated for the added time.

 

[Rimil]

Funny timing. I was watching the Red Fools - Cincinnati game on Tuesday with my freshly minted 10-year-old, and when it went to extra time, he asked whether the teams got an extra sub. When I told him "no", he provided a pretty good argument for "yes".

great anecdote, kind of reminds me of this joke:

A teenage boy is getting ready to take his girlfriend to the prom. First he goes to rent a tux, but there’s a long tux line at the shop and it takes forever.

Next, he has to get some flowers, so he heads over to the florist and there’s a huge flower line there. He waits forever but eventually gets the flowers.

Then he heads out to rent a limo. Unfortunately, there’s a large limo line at the rental office, but he’s patient and gets the job done.

Finally, the day of the prom comes. The two are dancing happily and his girlfriend is having a great time. When the song is over, she asks him to get her some punch, so he heads over to the punch table and there’s no punchline.

What was the good argument for yes!!!?

 

[Gotham Gator]

great anecdote, kind of reminds me of this joke:

A teenage boy is getting ready to take his girlfriend to the prom. First he goes to rent a tux, but there’s a long tux line at the shop and it takes forever.

Next, he has to get some flowers, so he heads over to the florist and there’s a huge flower line there. He waits forever but eventually gets the flowers.

Then he heads out to rent a limo. Unfortunately, there’s a large limo line at the rental office, but he’s patient and gets the job done.

Finally, the day of the prom comes. The two are dancing happily and his girlfriend is having a great time. When the song is over, she asks him to get her some punch, so he heads over to the punch table and there’s no punchline.

What was the good argument for yes!!!?

Ha!

Longer game = more subs
Players more tired = more subs

 

[Ulrich]

My general rule of thumb is, any rules changes must have a positive impact on the quality of the game.
Having an exhausted, or semi-injured player out there during extra-time is not good for the game. Replacing him/her with a fresh player leads to a better quality of soccer. Soccer is a 90 minute game, so extra-time is a bit of an unusual occurrence, and is generally reserved for important elimination games. Teams, and fans, should be compensated for the added time.

Im all for adding an extra sub and think it'll help the game a lot.

But what if in Bizarro World, the opposite took place..... in OT, each team had to remove one player from the field ?!? That could really open up the game with the same tired players and more open space, thus possibly fewer games going to penalty shootouts. Hell, could still give one more sub while removing a player - but the idea of 10v10, or whatever the number of somebody was already ejected, is kinda neat.

 

[Joseph Bianco]

Im all for adding an extra sub and think it'll help the game a lot.

But what if in Bizarro World, the opposite took place..... in OT, each team had to remove one player from the field ?!? That could really open up the game with the same tired players and more open space, thus possibly fewer games going to penalty shootouts. Hell, could still give one more sub while removing a player - but the idea of 10v10, or whatever the number of somebody was already ejected, is kinda neat.

i love Penalty Shootouts. and no not that i really think games should be should decided from them, but theyre so damn exciting.

 

[Ulrich]

i love Penalty Shootouts. and no not that i really think games should be should decided from them, but theyre so damn exciting.

I like the idea of penalty shootouts for deciding who buys beers, and the excitement is definitely real, but I cannot stand the idea that a system so opposite of the flow of the game, based on a lot of luck, can determine the outcome and decide the champion of a season-long campaign (domestically) or a multi-year saga (WC Finals).

 

[413Blue]

I like the idea of penalty shootouts for deciding who buys beers, and the excitement is definitely real, but I cannot stand the idea that a system so opposite of the flow of the game, based on a lot of luck, can determine the outcome and decide the champion of a season-long campaign (domestically) or a multi-year saga (WC Finals).

FIFA and the Champions League are giving up so much money by not requiring a replay to determine championships instead of penalties. Don't do it for earlier rounds (or lesser tournaments), but for the final of the biggest two events in the world, have a second final a few days later!

I would also support modifying the penalty shootout. My crazy idea is an NHL style from midfield, with two strikers against a defender and the keeper. It may be stupid, but i'd like to see it! The primary argument for this would be that as you mentioned, regular penalties have so little semblance to the actual game. This styles would at least create a more complete soccer experience to break the tie. Other wild idea's would be a half field 5v5 mini game or something. Anything other than penalties, which is not much different from flipping a coin.

 

[SoupInNYC]

FIFA and the Champions League are giving up so much money by not requiring a replay to determine championships instead of penalties. Don't do it for earlier rounds (or lesser tournaments), but for the final of the biggest two events in the world, have a second final a few days later!

I would also support modifying the penalty shootout. My crazy idea is an NHL style from midfield, with two strikers against a defender and the keeper. It may be stupid, but i'd like to see it! The primary argument for this would be that as you mentioned, regular penalties have so little semblance to the actual game. This styles would at least create a more complete soccer experience to break the tie. Other wild idea's would be a half field 5v5 mini game or something. Anything other than penalties, which is not much different from flipping a coin.

An idea that I saw somewhere else I thought was very interesting (it may have been on this forum, but I can't recall).

After regulation time is ended and its at a draw. Have PKs until someone "wins" PKs. Then play your added time up to 120'. This way if added time ends and its still even, we have a winner "decided" by added time. Additionally, it forces added time to have a bigger purpose, as nobody will hold out for PKs.

 

[Ulrich]

An idea that I saw somewhere else I thought was very interesting (it may have been on this forum, but I can't recall).

After regulation time is ended and its at a draw. Have PKs until someone "wins" PKs. Then play your added time up to 120'. This way if added time ends and its still even, we have a winner "decided" by added time. Additionally, it forces added time to have a bigger purpose, as nobody will hold out for PKs.

I like it but it does create a +/-60min segment. PKs always seem to drag for 30min or so and then another two mandatory 15min periods. Will definitely make for a long event and highly problematic if beer stopped selling at the 70min mark.

 

[Fantazma]

i dont mind penalties at all.....you had 120 mins ( or 90 if its a tourney that goes straight to it) to get yourself thru....if its stalemate and someone must go thru you do this "coin flip" to determine the winner. the chances were there for regulation & extra time.

i never see it as luck though.....players are tired ( physically/ mentally) or legit just get nervous and fail to perform in penalties....it depends who can handle being tired and perform in the situation. Yes there are balls that hit the post and go in with lucky bounce....but similar things happen in regular play as well.

can a team that does not "deserve" go thru? totally....but so are teams that only get one shot in goal and score and win when they were attacked from all angles but never got scored on all game....so im cool with it.

i do have my bias though...i fucking hate replays.....teams are already playing a large amount of games no way they are going more games...plus international footy etc and all the calendar congestion.

 

[Fantazma]

FIFA and the Champions League are giving up so much money by not requiring a replay to determine championships instead of penalties. Don't do it for earlier rounds (or lesser tournaments), but for the final of the biggest two events in the world, have a second final a few days later!

I would also support modifying the penalty shootout. My crazy idea is an NHL style from midfield, with two strikers against a defender and the keeper. It may be stupid, but i'd like to see it! The primary argument for this would be that as you mentioned, regular penalties have so little semblance to the actual game. This styles would at least create a more complete soccer experience to break the tie. Other wild idea's would be a half field 5v5 mini game or something. Anything other than penalties, which is not much different from flipping a coin.

old NASL i think had something like this...but i never knew the specifics....based on a timbers vs sounders histiry book.....some the players really hated them.

 

[sbrylski]

I like it but it does create a +/-60min segment. PKs always seem to drag for 30min or so and then another two mandatory 15min periods. Will definitely make for a long event and highly problematic if beer stopped selling at the 70min mark.

What if you changed the PK format too, where you just go until someone ends the round up one goal. So if Team A's first shooter scores, then Team B's first shooter misses, PKs are over. Then play the two 15-min periods.

 

[Joseph Bianco]

What if you changed the PK format too, where you just go until someone ends the round up one goal. So if Team A's first shooter scores, then Team B's first shooter misses, PKs are over. Then play the two 15-min periods.

y'all got some crazy ass ideas.

 

[SoupInNYC]

Yes there are balls that hit the post and go in with lucky bounce....but similar things happen in regular play as well.

I actually never get this in soccer. Its a completely spherical ball, there is no such thing as a lucky bounce, unless you're talking about some collision in the middle of the field where the ball ricochets off of multiple players. Now in American football? Lucky bounces are definitely a thing as the ball is not spherical.

And to further clarify, I don't mind the more general statements in regards to teams "getting lucky" or "unlucky" when they put a bunch of shots on frame but don't finish for whatever reason. I'm just saying that with a spherical ball, there is no such thing as a lucky bounce, or even the goalposts/crossbar made the save or were the keeper's friend. Its a matter of the shot was good enough or not good enough.

Apologies for the unnecessary rant.

 

[LionNYC]

I would like to see a change in penalty shootouts from the ABAB method to the ABBA method as in the former the A team wins 60% of the time.