Hey FIFA, here’s a novel idea: why don’t you actually have overtime in your opening round games so we can actually get some winners

SCOTT JACOBS

You know what a tie is? It’s a great movie dying with 15 minutes left in the movie.  It’s your favorite band walking off the stage in the middle of their final song at the chorus.  It’s your TV dying as a team attempts to kick the game winning field goal.

It’s bull-you know what.  A middle finger straight to someone’s face.  It’s just flat out annoying.

So my feelings towards ties finally boiled over today, when I saw this gem of a headline on SI.com: Shocker in South Africa. New Zealand earned its greatest result in World Cup play and pulled off this year’s biggest upset by battling Italy to a 1-1 draw.

A draw.

Are you bleeping kidding me?

And then quotes like this:

“I think that stopped the nation,” New Zealand coach Ricki Herbert said. “It’s the most incredible result we’ve had across the board. As a football coach, it’s way above anything we’ve achieved in the history of the game.”

Incredible.  New Zealand gets one shot on goal their entire match against Italy and gets a tie.  Afterwards their coach says it’s the most incredible thing ever.  Something is very wrong here.  I don’t care how over-matched you are against a team, this whole tie thing needs to go.

Enough is enough. Determine a winner for goodness sake. Soccer is already a pretty odd sport, being the only one I can think of that counts time upwards.  And the extra time, well I wonder in how many shaky soccer institutions does the extra time turn into a total joke?  But that’s neither here nor there, because what really grinds my gears is how many ties there have been in the World Cup.

The Americans tie with Slovenia was as exciting a finish as you’re going to see in soccer.  But it ended in a tie, not just because of a brutally horrendous call, but because there is no overtime or penalty kicks in the first round of the World Cup.

I get that it’s a round robin tournament, where each of the four teams in a pool get to play each other once.  Three points for a win, one for a tie, zero for a loss.

Here’s an idea: if we can’t get overtime, why not penalize teams that tie.  That’s right, no points for ending even, because, well, technically nothing happened.  Try telling a teacher that you got half the questions right, when the other half of the test kicked your ass, and see if she hands you any credit for well, trying?  Ha. If you take the value of a tie out of the equation it forces teams to play with some more balls (and I’m not talking about soccer balls).  It would make the sport incredibly exciting, and if there is a tie at the end, it won’t be because a team played conservative and safe at the end.

The way I see it, there’s two ways to play this FIFA:  Either allow our teams to play overtime (they only get like 5 days off in between games, which is way too long methinks) or take the point away for teams that tie.

There have been 8 ties as of the ending of the Italy-New Zealand finish.  There have been 28 games played. That’s nearly 29% of games ending in well… “what if’s.”

Clearly New Zealand is better than any of us have been giving credit them credit for (Actually I know nothing about their team, though I did do a school project on Australia a zillion years ago).  But just how good are they?  Can they beat the mighty Italians in a game where someone has to win?  Can they take the grit and toughness they showed in their 1-1 tie and carry it to a 15 minute overtime or maybe even a shootout?

Here’s another suggestion: if you implemented overtime in these opening round games, and they were still tied, add a shootout, and the team that ends up on top there gets 2 points while the loser gets 1.  Model it like hockey.  That way if you’re good enough to tie and get to a shootout you deserve like a cookie or something.  In this case a point.  The winner gets 2, giving them a valuable edge over teams that get to overtime but lose.

Let’s revisit the earlier proposal I offered, which would give teams 3 points for a win and 0 for a tie, and how it would affect the current pool the U.S. is in.

Current Standings, with 1 point for a tie
1. Slovenia (1-0-1, 4 pts)
2. United States (0-0-2, 2 pts)
3. England (0-0-2, 2 pts)
4. Algeria (0-1-1, 1 pt)

With the current standings the U.S. controls their own destiny, despite not having a single win.

Here’s what the standings would look like with the new system:

Current Standings with no points for a tie
1. Slovenia (1-0-1, 3 pts)
2. United States (0-0-2, 0 pts)
3. England (0-0-2, 0 pts)
4. Algeria (0-1-1, 0 pt)

With Slovenia versus England and the U.S. versus Algeria still to be played that would make for a wild finish to Group C play.

Ah yes, a world without ties.  And questionable officiating.  And vuvuzelas.

What a wonderful world that would be.

Photo: Reuters

Popularity: 4% [?]