Thesis 1:
More goals would be good for football. And this is indeed the case in many respects (explained in more detail later). The introduction of the three-point rule basically provides proof that even the rules officials have noticed a lack of goals, or at least of action. More goals, more excitement, more action, more fans, more even neutral spectators, that’s the simple formula. “Oversaturation” of goals would only be an acceptable counter-argument from handball results onwards.
Thesis 2:
The application of existing rules is sufficient to ensure more goals.
Thesis 3:
The referee is the “weak point” in the whole system.
He bears a very high, too high responsibility, which he cannot cope with as an individual, especially in the still existing principle that the assessment of an action must be made immediately by him and, after he has assessed it, by whistle or non-whistle, this decision is at the same time irrevocable.
This includes the goals themselves, but also already goal chances, goal situations in their genesis (here especially: offside and penalty situations, for or against the attackers) and consequently the decisive manifestations. A goal has such a high weight in modern, highly professional football that the recognition or enabling of a goal is purely intuitive to the individual responsible with the whistle. In case of doubt, the decision will go against the attacking party.
There is this justification for this: a goal that counts has a much stronger impact than a non-goal, in the event that there is an underlying wrong decision. On the one hand, it is entered in the score-sheet, the table, the statistics, the annals – and for that, please let it apply: everything was regular. On the other hand, it causes much more extensive discussions than would be the case if a goal was wrongly disallowed (a wrongly assessed offside, a penalty not awarded). But beyond that, it also has a direct impact on the character of the game and the ultimate outcome. Again, this would not be the case with a wrongly disallowed penalty. The score remains the same – it remains as it was. Even if not justified, because the goal, or at least the goal-scoring opportunity, should have been awarded.
The penultimate point to be mentioned is: a recognised goal which is tainted (assessed as “irregular”) always has the effect of a whole goal. The awarding of a (justified) penalty, an “onside” situation that is wrongly assessed as offside, a disputed duel situation that is interpreted against the attacker before a goal is scored (“striker’s foul”, despite equal processing) almost without exception only stand for a potential goal and are thus worth less than a whole goal in the sum of their faultiness (penalty denied – “only” 0.75 goals stolen, because the chance is far less than 1 to use it). The referee thus decides in very frequent cases, because he cannot judge it perfectly, purely intuitively for the smaller sum of errors, i.e. against the (possible) goal.
There are, of course, the much rarer cases in which a penalty is awarded by mistake. If it is awarded, the extensive discussions begin and the referee (undesirably) becomes the focus of attention. If, on the other hand, the penalty is not awarded, it is seen as “poetic justice” and it is business as usual: no harm done, no lengthy discussions.
The same applies to offside decisions that favour the striker. An attacker is allowed to run, although the pictures show that he was irregular, i.e. offside. If he doesn’t take the chance, the referee may say he was “lucky it wasn’t a goal”, but he doesn’t have to reckon with the matter being pursued for a long time.
So, in sum, on this point: the increased attention is given exclusively to those scenes in which a goal is scored that should not have counted.
A very last point: the increased attention that is paid to wrongly recognised goals compared to the much more frequent situations in which a goal chance is wrongfully denied has, on the one hand, the reasons mentioned above, which also apply to the referee’s decision itself (a goal weighs heavily as soon as it finds this entry as a goal, the error is 1 and no smaller than that), but at the same time also a let’s call it “deep psychological” one: intuitively, everyone actually feels that the wrong decisions, which go against the goal chances, occur too often in relation to the opposite mistakes of wrongly recognised goals. By paying more attention, a certain balance is established for the purpose of clearing one’s conscience.
The one mistake that allowed the goal to be scored is rare, but the attention paid to it makes it as memorable as the five situations when it was not offside or should have been a penalty, as everyone often agrees afterwards.
Interesting in this context, by the way, is the reporting, which in its own way contributes to the fact that nothing changes, while at the same time, of course, ensuring the same clearing of consciences.
As an example: an assistant on the line, for example, is credited with an “eagle eye” in a critical offside situation, which he correctly (as the slow motion proves) judges to be offside, but in the next situation, which he has wrong the other way round, he is merely given a “he was wrong here, but it was also very difficult” to exonerate him. The fact that in both cases he took the path of least resistance (as explained above) and, as it were, voted against the goal both times, does not seem to be noticed, that goes under He has a “good eye” or he made “an insignificant mistake”?! Here the analogous disparity, which reassures the speaker and makes him advise the man with the flag to wave next time (again: intuitively). So all is well?
Thesis 4:
The change in thinking in favour of goal situations, in favour of goals, covered by the rules, i.e. without the need for major changes, would have a number of positive side effects. Not only a guaranteed increase in excitement and fun factor through a higher number of goal situations and strikers who can hold their own in a duel (because they have the same rights and a foul against them is also whistled), more beauty, which football guarantees, more neutral spectators who enjoy the game, the football, No, there is another more than desirable side effect that makes further rule modifications completely superfluous, for example, the simply unfair three-point rule, which would become obsolete.
If there were more goals, accompanied by the only necessary rethinking per goal situations – always remember: a harmony with the current rules –, the responsibility that has so far been heaped on the shoulders of the referee team would be considerably reduced. Above all, the responsibility not to allow a goal that could be tainted because one goal would seal the game, the championship and relegation. 1:0 – and from that moment on a defensive battle, as one would have to fear? Belonged to the past. 1:0 in front, 2:0 in front, even sometimes the underdog. Not “the thing is through” after 2:0, but instead “now it’s getting exciting”.
Advantages without end. Shady sides? Not in sight. The oversaturation of goals would definitely not be a problem in the near or distant future. Hockey results? Yes, and? Sometimes a 4:3, sometimes a 1:6, sometimes a 2:2. What was the goal sequence? In any case, more interesting than 0:0 or 1:0? Above all: more goals, covered by the rules. Would we now start modifying the rules so that everything would be as nice as it used to be, back then, remember, when it was always 0:0 and when a goal was scored, you knew who the winner was?
