What if… you double-attach a game delay?
One of the worst bad habits that has crept in is playing time. Especially since the timing of the same is being shifted further and further forward. If a spokesman used to say that “you can’t play for time yet?”, that may still have been partly true — especially since there was a chance that you might not have time later if the game turned. Saying it today, the only point would be to keep the viewer hooked (which, however, is an unlikely reason given the vastly overblown negative and suspense-killing comments). In terms of content, it would only be a (further) mistake: it happens, sometimes in the first half. “First come into the break with the 1-0, and then it’s not that long anymore…”.
If you watch a game today, the leading team (1-0, as always) has at least one substitution up its sleeve. As soon as the overtime minutes board is held up — showing three minutes, as always — the substitution board goes up next to it. Surprisingly, the player whose number is on it is the last to count, but curiously enough this player is the maximum distance to the substitute bench, but very gradually the opponents have to draw their attention to the board with his number that is being held up. He is horrified, looks there again, points to himself, asks again in turn whether he really has this number, then gradually realizes that he is meant, but also realizes just in time that the coach could only replace him . Because his legs have become so tired that they can hardly make the way to the bench, which is so endlessly far away.
Nevertheless, the strength is just enough to say goodbye to the fans by clapping into the audience, to shake hands with the teammates, one by one, even to shake hands with the referee, who has the evil eye and the index finger as his only means, with which he points in the direction of the outer line, and also very energetically. But the man feels really badly put under pressure. Because, as you can see, he even starts to trot apologetically for a brief moment, whereby he then realizes that his tired bones are absolutely not up to it anymore and he sneaks the last 18 meters exactly as before, and then the Finding time to hug the substitute and wish him well. But the game is far from going any further, because, no question, there has to be so much time and apart from that, it has to be “fair” after all, because first of all the substitute has to take the orphaned position, fill the gap, which left by the substituted player. Hardly one of the three minutes has passed and it can go on.
If, after 3 minutes of added time, the score is still 99.8% (the 0.02% goes to the 2:0), the leader demands the final whistle very energetically. However, the referee does not agree, because he has registered the interruption of the game. The leading team has just attacked the corner flag, as usual – true to Otto’s motto “one goal is enough to win”, so why a second? – and just received the fourth throw-in there, as well as two opponents who received the yellow card, who gradually became angry that it was no longer possible and at one point were so bold as to play the ball away from the touchline, whereupon the opponent, however, with a theatrical fall this evokes yellow. But now the time had come and the first sensible attack was in the offing, which theoretically could have brought in the equalizer. Now the referee actually waits after 28 seconds for the ball to enter the dangerous zone – and then to blow the whistle long, persistently and penetratingly, shrugging his shoulders apologetically towards the angry players of the team behind and at the same time pointing to his watch: “I added playing time, didn’t I? Really couldn’t do any more. Did you want to score a goal or what? Well, that’s still to come!”
Another slap in the face to every friend of justice, which basically everyone is, and another sign of helplessness in the face of the children dancing on the tables in the garden set up for them. The few who profited from it – fans of the team and the team itself – only use the excuse that “everybody would do it that way”, which, by the way, is the ridiculous view of the representatives of the nonsense-babble industry – the commentators – agree. And if everyone is unsportsmanlike, then everything is fine again? No, it’s not made up to one bit. Eliminating injustices with injustices only has this one consequence: Turning away those who were previously impartial and could perhaps become or once were friends, but are no longer deterred, as in all the other examples, and shake their heads with bewilderment and to document waving.
If you were to add the time twice, it would be extremely questionable whether it would even be tried?
New trial:
Let’s take a fairly everyday situation, so to speak, an average situation in an average game in a professional league, thus achieving the highest hit rate: it’s the 80th minute, red is playing against white, red is leading 1-0, one player is down. This is the information you get. Now you can guess or give a guess what color jersey the player lying on the ground is wearing. Maybe you should even try a bet?
If you actually find a betting partner who feels committed to the purely mathematical approach “player injured, red or white, no idea, 50:50”, and if you could persuade them to bet for even money, then you would have to probably actually put up with the accusation on which the saying is based: “You want to bet? Then you want to cheat too!”
Because this player wears the red jersey, you could say “every bet”. Whereby one would perhaps have to express this in odds as follows: 50:1 the odds or the probability of the order of 98% that this statement is correct.
If you don’t believe this, you just have to watch any game, then wait for a favorable (tight) score for one of the teams and wait for the final minutes. It will happen.
The aspects of it are multi-layered. First of all, the ethical principle. The prone player knows full well that he is not acting properly. On the other hand, he is subject to the principle spread by the media that “only the result counts”. This makes things complicated. The opportunities that present themselves are manifold. Furthermore, one is convinced that one cannot get caught. Because even if you hop around like a young deer for a few seconds: who says you weren’t really in pain at that moment? There is always this excuse: the others would not have done it any differently. Now we’re lucky to be in the lead, so we’re going to take advantage of that, as our opponents did in reverse last week.
Third try:
First of all, four game scenes are to be described as they occur every day in practically any football game between two “teams at eye level”. And “at eye level” is as good as everyone, especially in those below the top divisions. Whereby it is not even centrally about the equally high quality of the teams but about game goals and tight results, which one would like to bring over the finish line. That every team that scores the opening goal agrees if things don’t get too hectic and maybe their concerns are no longer focused on building up the lead but rather on defending it – always with the view that it will come from a counterattack out, if the opponent opens more and more it could succeed – it may still be understandable and even justifiable. The choice of means would be more likely to be questioned. The game scenes here, however, first of all, before it is to be analyzed a little more deeply: it is the 84th minute, red is playing against white, it is 1:0 for red. One player is on the ground. The question: what color jersey is he wearing? Well, he wears red, no question about it or vice versa: every bet. If you doubt it, watch a game today or tomorrow. A game from everyday league life. It will happen, almost inevitably. In any that is close and the leader wants to get the result over time or, occasionally, an underdog is happy with a point. The second scene is analogous and just as common: the team behind completed an attack with a shot on target that missed the goal. What will the goalkeeper do now? Definitely don’t put the ball back in play. At least not at high speed. How often he has to roll up his socks at that moment, lace up his shoes, adjust the ball precisely, several times and put it down, then take about fourteen steps, then finally run there, but making gestures that his teammates should come towards them or forward, then shrug his shoulders so that he absolutely cannot find any free play partners – and finally the referee admonishes him to find a good reason for another interruption with a short discussion after this admonition, about the content of which butterfly he is currently doing Repulse would have irritated. The second time he behaves like this, the referee can’t help himself. Now he interrupts the game himself to run up to the goalkeeper and rub the yellow card in his face. Now he is outraged, which costs more seconds, but then the time has come: the game continues after the run-up had to be timed again. The third scene of this, and now really unavoidable in every game to be found exactly like this: the board with the (three) minutes of overtime is held up, exactly at this moment the leading team indicates that they want to replace a player. He is initially surprised that it hits him, he also happens to have the furthest way to the bank, but the moment his number shows up and he realizes that he is actually meant, he realizes what he didn’t know before : the trainer had noticed the weakening of strength long before he did, now he does it too. For the 45 meters to the bench he needs just as many seconds. He claps into the audience, shakes hands with each of his fellow players he meets, passing the referee he also offers his hand, which the referee rejects with an angry and energetic look towards the player and bench, while pointing to his watch. Only: he points to his watch, but when the team behind finally comes up with an attack that could perhaps work the miracle, exactly when 3:28 are on the overtime clock, he blows the whistle in the middle of the attack, but not without shrugging his shoulders and apologizing: “I answered the call, didn’t I? It really wasn’t possible anymore!”
The fourth would be this: there’s about a minute of overtime left. The leading team captured the ball. Well, every neutral spectator would think, let’s go forward with it, there’s a lot of space, maybe create a goal situation, maybe have a little more fun? What do you see instead? The leading ball reaches the opponent’s half, on the outer lane. Not that much would stand in the way of a trip in the direction of Kasten. Nevertheless, he heads straight for the corner flag. When he reaches it, he steps on the ball and waits for attacking opponents. They appear, no question, and poke for the ball. They have two options: either the referee recognizes foul play after the leading ball does a somersault at the first minor touch, suggesting the foul, or they force another throw-in by poking the ball out of bounds. Now the whole thing starts all over again. However, should the miracle happen and the referee finds it too colorful and the team behind wins the ball, frantically hits it forward, wants to start one last attempt at attack, then you are guaranteed to hear the final whistle in this attempt.
These four scenes have certain things in common. Above all, however, they should not: be called into question. They happen, they happen every day, in every second game, in any frequency and sequence.
Now you can ask a few questions: is it nice, is it sporty, is it fair, is it exciting, is it entertaining, is it interesting? One might
do not certify any of these attributes as “true”. Nevertheless, the almost more important question still arises, which is basically no longer one: does it benefit the team that initiates this behavior? Does this increase her chances of finishing the game in a way she desires? yes she can
Since none of the positive attributes can be considered accurate, it must be labeled as ugly, unsightly, unsportsmanlike, unfair, suspense-killing, annoying and whatnot. Surely no one on the part of the rule makers could claim that they like it that way? Who could ever find it so that you wouldn’t love to do without a repeat? Please, please, away with it!
The questions are neither closed nor answered definitively: the person who engages in this behavior is by no means a bad person. He does it for two reasons: a) there is nothing but the result that counts, as he is told over and over again, and b) the others wouldn’t do it any differently if the result were on their side.
Absolutely true. It’s just that wrongdoing doesn’t become right because everyone does it. If you transferred it to a child’s game, one child would react like this: “Oh, you’re cheating!” “So what?” says the game partner, “what do you want to do about it?” If there is nothing against it in the rules then the playing partner has three options: either start cheating as well, or stop playing with that person because cheating isn’t fun, or accept the repeated defeats.
Applied to “real life” it would be something like this: “You, they broke into my house. Nothing insured, jewelry gone, TV gone, computer gone. ” Don’t get upset. Happened to me too. That’s when I came up with the idea: you have to do it yourself. You can really harvest something there. Are you in tonight?”
If you do it, then you do it for the reasons mentioned, meaning “buying time”. Because there doesn’t seem to be any other way to prevent it. “You have to do it too.” “Yes, but that’s not fair and not… and not…?” “Yes, but otherwise you’re the best….” You have to, otherwise you’ll get nothing out.
If you look at it from the side of the rule makers: they have capitulated. In her kindergarten, the children dance on the table. When a kindergarten and parenting tester comes by and asks: “What’s going on here? Are they dancing on the table? Isn’t that forbidden or what?” “Uh, of course it’s forbidden. But they did it anyway. What should we have done?
They are everyday annoyances that can only damage the general image of football. If you call the behavior of these players “exemplary for millions of children” – then you shouldn’t be surprised if everyone “cheats” at some point. Something is wrong, and not at all. It’s so rotten it stinks to high heaven.
A simple thought, to perhaps get rid of it after all: what if the time obviously gained by such measures were not only appended at the end – which unfortunately does not even happen, which would be the least – but simply appended it twice? A player sneaks off the field for 45 seconds — now just add 90 seconds? What problem could arise with this? You don’t want the kids dancing on the table – so you look for a punishment that hurts them as good coaxing doesn’t seem to help, as the referee does: “Now please hurry up young man, we want to get on here.” If it doesn’t work, another penalty must take its place.
Please consider that it should actually go without penalties and that the goal is by no means that penalties should be imposed permanently. Werder free kicks or penalties, no yellow or red cards either. The positive rules should be observed. If this fails, penalties must be noted to prevent the sinner from breaking the rules. This is also the case with the time game.
So any argument that would go in the direction that a game would then last endlessly and you wouldn’t get there with the time, to the viewers, the television stations, whatever would have to think: there shouldn’t be any time games anymore. If attaching it twice didn’t help – because the opponent would still be interested in taking time off the clock with the recognizable one, for example breaking the flow of the game – then you would have to attach it four times. It shouldn’t be worth it, it shouldn’t happen. The playing time might even be a little shorter overall if everyone followed the rules?
Conclusion: it would be so easy. And, as always, there would only be one winner: football itself. Whereby the neutral one would be meant here, because, as always, the fans of both camps neutralize each other in their wishes. The advantage would also be there: the fans could respect each other more if the players did it that way.
