The Worst Things in Sport
-
A Snippet of an MISL game....the Cleveland Force. They would often outdraw the Cavaliers.
-
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
-
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
Eh, well a guy once tried to pull that "90 minutes of hell" stuff on me many years back it was during the Olympics or was it the FIFA WC? Doesn't matter I only follow the USA in both -but- so I decided to do my very unscientific study of the USA and other games. GUESS WHAT I discovered most of the guys on one side of the field, goalies included, were standing around waiting while the ball was near the other goal! EUREKA! No 90 minutes of hell.
I also tracked all of the scores (no names) and posted them daily, 0-0, 0-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-1......and the occasional blowout thriller 4-0
Summary: for me at least soccer is boring as hell but probably good exercise. Or recess for big kids. Oh he had no comeback for the 90 minutes thing.
But the hell with me how about a more scientific study: https://www.active.com/soccer/articles/how-far-do-you-run-during-a-soccer-game-872900
.......The first time-motion study over a full season was done on Everton FC (Liverpool, England) in the mid 1970s and the estimated distance covered was just under 8,800 meters per game.
Movement speeds were walking, jogging, cruising ('running with manifest purpose and effort'), sprinting and backing.
About 2/3 of the distance was covered at the low intensities of walking and jogging and around 800 meters sprinting in numerous short 10-40 meter bursts.
..........A player was in control of the ball for an average of 200 meters for a whopping total of 90 seconds (that means you spend 88.5 minutes trying to get or keep someone from getting the ball)......... MORE IN LINK.........
*SO don't try and confuse soccer with running any marathon regardless of the distance, naturally. And we won't compare it to baseball either which is close to birdwatching.
-
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
Eh, well a guy once tried to pull that "90 minutes of hell" stuff on me many years back it was during the Olympics or was it the FIFA WC? Doesn't matter I only follow the USA in both -but- so I decided to do my very unscientific study of the USA and other games. GUESS WHAT I discovered most of the guys on one side of the field, goalies included, were standing around waiting while the ball was near the other goal! EUREKA! No 90 minutes of hell.
I also tracked all of the scores (no names) and posted them daily, 0-0, 0-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-1......and the occasional blowout thriller 4-0
Summary: for me at least soccer is boring as hell but probably good exercise. Or recess for big kids. Oh he had no comeback for the 90 minutes thing.
But the hell with me how about a more scientific study: https://www.active.com/soccer/articles/how-far-do-you-run-during-a-soccer-game-872900
.......The first time-motion study over a full season was done on Everton FC (Liverpool, England) in the mid 1970s and the estimated distance covered was just under 8,800 meters per game.
Movement speeds were walking, jogging, cruising ('running with manifest purpose and effort'), sprinting and backing.
About 2/3 of the distance was covered at the low intensities of walking and jogging and around 800 meters sprinting in numerous short 10-40 meter bursts.
..........A player was in control of the ball for an average of 200 meters for a whopping total of 90 seconds (that means you spend 88.5 minutes trying to get or keep someone from getting the ball)......... MORE IN LINK.........
*SO don't try and confuse soccer with running any marathon regardless of the distance, naturally. And we won't compare it to baseball either which is close to birdwatching.
Eh, well a guy once tried to pull that "90 minutes of hell" stuff on me many years back it was during the Olympics or was it the FIFA WC? Doesn't matter I only follow the USA in both -but- so I decided to do my very unscientific study of the USA and other games. GUESS WHAT I discovered most of the guys on one side of the field, goalies included, were standing around waiting while the ball was near the other goal! EUREKA! No 90 minutes of hell.
I also tracked all of the scores (no names) and posted them daily, 0-0, 0-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-1......and the occasional blowout thriller 4-0
Summary: for me at least soccer is boring as hell but probably good exercise. Or recess for big kids. Oh he had no comeback for the 90 minutes thing.
But the hell with me how about a more scientific study: https://www.active.com/soccer/articles/how-far-do-you-run-during-a-soccer-game-872900
.......The first time-motion study over a full season was done on Everton FC (Liverpool, England) in the mid 1970s and the estimated distance covered was just under 8,800 meters per game.
Movement speeds were walking, jogging, cruising ('running with manifest purpose and effort'), sprinting and backing.
About 2/3 of the distance was covered at the low intensities of walking and jogging and around 800 meters sprinting in numerous short 10-40 meter bursts.
A player was in control of the ball for an average of 200 meters for a whopping total of 90 seconds (that means you spend 88.5 minutes trying to get or keep someone from getting the ball).........
..........A player was in control of the ball for an average of 200 meters for a whopping total of 90 seconds (that means you spend 88.5 minutes trying to get or keep someone from getting the ball).........
SO don't try and confuse soccer with running any marathon regardless of the distance, naturally. And we won't compare it to baseball either which is close to birdwatching.
For one the game has changed a lot since the 70s, it is much faster paced.
Have you ever heard of HIIT training? It’s an extremely intense form of cardio where you sprint for a short period of time, then jog. Then repeat. Extremely taxing on the CNS. Soccer is like that for 90 minutes straight.
-
B. College OT was much better than the old NFL rules. Now it is just a little better.
C. They cheated in a way to get recruits. Which meant better players. Which meant better on court performance.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
I don't like shootouts, but I don't see any other solution. In soccer, after 120mins of playing time, players are exhausted and at risk of suffering an injury. It has to end some way or another (plus it's a heck of an intense way to decide an eliminatory match). It might not be fair to a team if they "played better". But if you are better, you should simply score more.
Continuing with soccer, I hate there's a lot of diving and complaining to the referees. I've always defended that getting kicked with those boots (or a hit with the elbow to the head on a jump) is really painful and it is a tough sport, but they have reached an embarrasing point exaggerating stuff.
Actually.....there is a very easy simple solution to it in soccer: Eliminate the "Offsides" rule. That rule fuyucks up that game sideways and over.
In a shootout....you just have mano a mano...with the goalie against the (not sure what you call it) the "striker" Have those mano a mano matchups during the course of the game organically. Now the offside rule basically says that there must be one defender AND the goalie between a player who is on the offensive. Screw that. Any time it seems that you have something exciting going on....that rule gets called to slow the whole game down. What is that goalie there for....to be a potted plant? If there is a breakaway scoring opportunity.....goddamn it, let it happen. Let the goalie do his job!
I mean....that would be like saying that a football (not futbol) player is not allowed to score a TD unless there is a defender between him and the goal line at all time. Or like the same in basketball...the you could not have a fast break
What do you have to lose by doing this? You would have more scoring, more excitement....more of what you get in the shootouts in the flow of the regular game. Now....soccer is a drag...a boring pile of manure. Eliminate offsides. Over here there were/are "indoor soccer leagues". Played on a smaller surface in an arena. The ball would bounce off the walls and still be in play....and there was no offsides. It was a much faster, more entertaining version of the sport. (I also think there were fewer players "on the pitch").
And FYI....in NHL hockey....at least in the playoffs, there are no "shootouts"....you play til someone scores. Even if it goes to quadruple OT.
As for the "Preening Pansies"....as my English Cousin calls them that you have in soccer....maybe their penalty for that should be a swift kick in the balls.
Actually.....there is a very easy simple solution to it in soccer: Eliminate the "Offsides" rule. That rule fuyucks up that game sideways and over.
In a shootout....you just have mano a mano...with the goalie against the (not sure what you call it) the "striker" Have those mano a mano matchups during the course of the game organically. Now the offside rule basically says that there must be one defender AND the goalie between a player who is on the offensive. Screw that. Any time it seems that you have something exciting going on....that rule gets called to slow the whole game down. What is that goalie there for....to be a potted plant? If there is a breakaway scoring opportunity.....goddamn it, let it happen. Let the goalie do his job!
I mean....that would be like saying that a football (not futbol) player is not allowed to score a TD unless there is a defender between him and the goal line at all time. Or like the same in basketball...the you could not have a fast break
What do you have to lose by doing this? You would have more scoring, more excitement....more of what you get in the shootouts in the flow of the regular game. Now....soccer is a drag...a boring pile of manure. Eliminate offsides.
The offsides was invented because if you eliminate offsides, you have 20 people in a 80-100 meters, whereas with offsides you have 20 players in 60 meters (considering the goalkeepers stay in the goals)
That makes a huge difference, because without offsides most of the game would consist on 'covering the distance' with the rival's defense waiting and no midfield, and playing in a smaller area (but being able to make a deep pass behind the defense) makes more important strategy, positioning and sprinting.
I tell you this because I feel like your reasoning is the following: "I've seen offsides that have prevented an offensive action from happening, thus if there was no offsides, I would have seen more offense." And that's not correct at all, because it assumes that the defense would play the same way, when in fact it wouldn't.
I have to say that I love both football and soccer and it is all about the mindset and pacing. I have to switch my mindset when watching one or another because they are really very different in the pacing. For a soccer fan (including me when I started watching football) it is HORRENDOUS the amount of pauses there is on football. It takes 3 and a half hours for 20 minutes of playing time.
Eh, well a guy once tried to pull that "90 minutes of hell" stuff on me many years back it was during the Olympics or was it the FIFA WC? Doesn't matter I only follow the USA in both -but- so I decided to do my very unscientific study of the USA and other games. GUESS WHAT I discovered most of the guys on one side of the field, goalies included, were standing around waiting while the ball was near the other goal! EUREKA! No 90 minutes of hell.
I also tracked all of the scores (no names) and posted them daily, 0-0, 0-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-1......and the occasional blowout thriller 4-0
Summary: for me at least soccer is boring as hell but probably good exercise. Or recess for big kids. Oh he had no comeback for the 90 minutes thing.
But the hell with me how about a more scientific study: https://www.active.com/soccer/articles/how-far-do-you-run-during-a-soccer-game-872900
.......The first time-motion study over a full season was done on Everton FC (Liverpool, England) in the mid 1970s and the estimated distance covered was just under 8,800 meters per game.
Movement speeds were walking, jogging, cruising ('running with manifest purpose and effort'), sprinting and backing.
About 2/3 of the distance was covered at the low intensities of walking and jogging and around 800 meters sprinting in numerous short 10-40 meter bursts.
..........A player was in control of the ball for an average of 200 meters for a whopping total of 90 seconds (that means you spend 88.5 minutes trying to get or keep someone from getting the ball)......... MORE IN LINK.........
*SO don't try and confuse soccer with running any marathon regardless of the distance, naturally. And we won't compare it to baseball either which is close to birdwatching.
Nowadays, midfielders (who are the ones that cover a bigger area of the field) cover between 10,000-12,000 meters, defenders 8,000. I won't check the rest of the data but that stat alone shows that it is outdated.
The thing is not that "no man can play soccer for longer than 120 minutes". The question is that they train and play almost everytime for 90 minutes, so prolonguing the activity it's taking them to 'unknown territory'. They train their body like in any other sports for a specific activity with a specific playing time. After that time, the body plummets.
And I can say that because it makes a huge difference when two teams face each other and one of them has played an OT in the last match. Those extra 30mins make it much harder to recover for the next game.
-
Eh, well a guy once tried to pull that "90 minutes of hell" stuff on me many years back it was during the Olympics or was it the FIFA WC? Doesn't matter I only follow the USA in both -but- so I decided to do my very unscientific study of the USA and other games. GUESS WHAT I discovered most of the guys on one side of the field, goalies included, were standing around waiting while the ball was near the other goal! EUREKA! No 90 minutes of hell.
I also tracked all of the scores (no names) and posted them daily, 0-0, 0-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-1......and the occasional blowout thriller 4-0
Summary: for me at least soccer is boring as hell but probably good exercise. Or recess for big kids. Oh he had no comeback for the 90 minutes thing.
But the hell with me how about a more scientific study: https://www.active.com/soccer/articles/how-far-do-you-run-during-a-soccer-game-872900
.......The first time-motion study over a full season was done on Everton FC (Liverpool, England) in the mid 1970s and the estimated distance covered was just under 8,800 meters per game.
Movement speeds were walking, jogging, cruising ('running with manifest purpose and effort'), sprinting and backing.
About 2/3 of the distance was covered at the low intensities of walking and jogging and around 800 meters sprinting in numerous short 10-40 meter bursts.
A player was in control of the ball for an average of 200 meters for a whopping total of 90 seconds (that means you spend 88.5 minutes trying to get or keep someone from getting the ball).........
..........A player was in control of the ball for an average of 200 meters for a whopping total of 90 seconds (that means you spend 88.5 minutes trying to get or keep someone from getting the ball).........
SO don't try and confuse soccer with running any marathon regardless of the distance, naturally. And we won't compare it to baseball either which is close to birdwatching.
For one the game has changed a lot since the 70s, it is much faster paced.
Have you ever heard of HIIT training? It’s an extremely intense form of cardio where you sprint for a short period of time, then jog. Then repeat. Extremely taxing on the CNS. Soccer is like that for 90 minutes straight.
For one the game has changed a lot since the 70s, it is much faster paced.
Have you ever heard of HIIT training? It’s an extremely intense form of cardio where you sprint for a short period of time, then jog. Then repeat. Extremely taxing on the CNS. Soccer is like that for 90 minutes straight.
I'll agree most all if not all major sports have changed from the 70s, 80s even 90s from rule tinkering to the nutrition, conditioning, coaching, training and overall performance of the current athletes from high school on up.
The dimensions of the fields may be the same but it is a different game.
-
Do away with refs and umps altogether. Let the players call the games as they play. They all know when they have been fouled, held, thrown out, or clipped. Players would all simply be on the honor system to call only the obvious fouls. In baseball, catchers would call balls and strikes and i am sure they would be more accurate and consistent.
-
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
I played competitive hockey and no offsides would be worse there than in soccer. I'll explain later.
-
I don't understand why a tie can't be a valid outcome. Sure it sucks. Losing sucks too. Some kids play sports without keeping score. Then they're taught that there MUST be a winner or loser.
No wonder people get confused easily anymore.
-
I don't understand why a tie can't be a valid outcome. Sure it sucks. Losing sucks too. Some kids play sports without keeping score. Then they're taught that there MUST be a winner or loser.
No wonder people get confused easily anymore.
I don't understand why a tie can't be a valid outcome. Sure it sucks. Losing sucks too. Some kids play sports without keeping score. Then they're taught that there MUST be a winner or loser.
No wonder people get confused easily anymore.
"A tie is like kissing your sister"
At various times attributed to Duffy Daugherty, Bear Bryant and Darrell Royal
(Of course in Arkansas this is a turn on)-
-
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
Then let the "shootouts" come naturally within the course of the game. Allow the fielders to attack the goal without worrying that he has to make sure that some slower less skilled defender is in between him and the goal.
-
B. College OT was much better than the old NFL rules. Now it is just a little better.
C. They cheated in a way to get recruits. Which meant better players. Which meant better on court performance.
B. College OT was much better than the old NFL rules. Now it is just a little better.
No...that is just stupid.
C. They cheated in a way to get recruits. Which meant better players. Which meant better on court performance.
Well...they all cheat. Did you see the FBI report that came out? Vacating wins/titles/awards is just stupid and vindictive
-
Actually.....there is a very easy simple solution to it in soccer: Eliminate the "Offsides" rule. That rule fuyucks up that game sideways and over.
In a shootout....you just have mano a mano...with the goalie against the (not sure what you call it) the "striker" Have those mano a mano matchups during the course of the game organically. Now the offside rule basically says that there must be one defender AND the goalie between a player who is on the offensive. Screw that. Any time it seems that you have something exciting going on....that rule gets called to slow the whole game down. What is that goalie there for....to be a potted plant? If there is a breakaway scoring opportunity.....goddamn it, let it happen. Let the goalie do his job!
I mean....that would be like saying that a football (not futbol) player is not allowed to score a TD unless there is a defender between him and the goal line at all time. Or like the same in basketball...the you could not have a fast break
What do you have to lose by doing this? You would have more scoring, more excitement....more of what you get in the shootouts in the flow of the regular game. Now....soccer is a drag...a boring pile of manure. Eliminate offsides.
The offsides was invented because if you eliminate offsides, you have 20 people in a 80-100 meters, whereas with offsides you have 20 players in 60 meters (considering the goalkeepers stay in the goals)
That makes a huge difference, because without offsides most of the game would consist on 'covering the distance' with the rival's defense waiting and no midfield, and playing in a smaller area (but being able to make a deep pass behind the defense) makes more important strategy, positioning and sprinting.
I tell you this because I feel like your reasoning is the following: "I've seen offsides that have prevented an offensive action from happening, thus if there was no offsides, I would have seen more offense." And that's not correct at all, because it assumes that the defense would play the same way, when in fact it wouldn't.
I have to say that I love both football and soccer and it is all about the mindset and pacing. I have to switch my mindset when watching one or another because they are really very different in the pacing. For a soccer fan (including me when I started watching football) it is HORRENDOUS the amount of pauses there is on football. It takes 3 and a half hours for 20 minutes of playing time.
Eh, well a guy once tried to pull that "90 minutes of hell" stuff on me many years back it was during the Olympics or was it the FIFA WC? Doesn't matter I only follow the USA in both -but- so I decided to do my very unscientific study of the USA and other games. GUESS WHAT I discovered most of the guys on one side of the field, goalies included, were standing around waiting while the ball was near the other goal! EUREKA! No 90 minutes of hell.
I also tracked all of the scores (no names) and posted them daily, 0-0, 0-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-1......and the occasional blowout thriller 4-0
Summary: for me at least soccer is boring as hell but probably good exercise. Or recess for big kids. Oh he had no comeback for the 90 minutes thing.
But the hell with me how about a more scientific study: https://www.active.com/soccer/articles/how-far-do-you-run-during-a-soccer-game-872900
.......The first time-motion study over a full season was done on Everton FC (Liverpool, England) in the mid 1970s and the estimated distance covered was just under 8,800 meters per game.
Movement speeds were walking, jogging, cruising ('running with manifest purpose and effort'), sprinting and backing.
About 2/3 of the distance was covered at the low intensities of walking and jogging and around 800 meters sprinting in numerous short 10-40 meter bursts.
..........A player was in control of the ball for an average of 200 meters for a whopping total of 90 seconds (that means you spend 88.5 minutes trying to get or keep someone from getting the ball)......... MORE IN LINK.........
*SO don't try and confuse soccer with running any marathon regardless of the distance, naturally. And we won't compare it to baseball either which is close to birdwatching.
Nowadays, midfielders (who are the ones that cover a bigger area of the field) cover between 10,000-12,000 meters, defenders 8,000. I won't check the rest of the data but that stat alone shows that it is outdated.
The thing is not that "no man can play soccer for longer than 120 minutes". The question is that they train and play almost everytime for 90 minutes, so prolonguing the activity it's taking them to 'unknown territory'. They train their body like in any other sports for a specific activity with a specific playing time. After that time, the body plummets.
And I can say that because it makes a huge difference when two teams face each other and one of them has played an OT in the last match. Those extra 30mins make it much harder to recover for the next game.
The offsides was invented because if you eliminate offsides, you have 20 people in a 80-100 meters, whereas with offsides you have 20 players in 60 meters (considering the goalkeepers stay in the goals)
GOOD....that is exactly what the sport needs......it needs to have the goal attacked much more.
That makes a huge difference, because without offsides most of the game would consist on 'covering the distance' with the rival's defense waiting and no midfield, and playing in a smaller area (but being able to make a deep pass behind the defense) makes more important strategy, positioning and sprinting.
GOOD..make them cover the distance.
I tell you this because I feel like your reasoning is the following: "I've seen offsides that have prevented an offensive action from happening, thus if there was no offsides, I would have seen more offense." And that's not correct at all, because it assumes that the defense would play the same way, when in fact it wouldn't.
Of course...I would NOT expect the defenses to play the same way. Without offsides they would have to play defense...and not just rely on the fact that they can get away with being slower and less skilled than the attacker and let the rule of offsides bail them out.
I have to say that I love both football and soccer and it is all about the mindset and pacing. I have to switch my mindset when watching one or another because they are really very different in the pacing. For a soccer fan (including me when I started watching football) it is HORRENDOUS the amount of pauses there is on football. It takes 3 and a half hours for 20 minutes of playing time.
Well....you just cannot compare the two sports. They are completely different. The reasons there are pauses in football is because football is based on "Plays" that start at the snap of the football. That is what the sport is. But often there is more action in one 10 second football play than in 10 minutes in soccer.....as...in soccer, the pauses are still there...its just that they are moving pauses. The other reason for the stupid pauses in football is so that TV can show its damned commercials...and yes, that is completely annoying. But remember, these guys are in it for the money...and not for the game.
Nowadays, midfielders (who are the ones that cover a bigger area of the field) cover between 10,000-12,000 meters, defenders 8,000. I won't check the rest of the data but that stat alone shows that it is outdated.
The thing is not that "no man can play soccer for longer than 120 minutes". The question is that they train and play almost everytime for 90 minutes, so prolonguing the activity it's taking them to 'unknown territory'. They train their body like in any other sports for a specific activity with a specific playing time. After that time, the body plummets.
And I can say that because it makes a huge difference when two teams face each other and one of them has played an OT in the last match. Those extra 30mins make it much harder to recover for the next game.
Well...that brings up another dumb thing about soccer: they should have free-er substitution. Football, hockey, basketball...all have free substituion rules (baseball does not). And yes....soccer guys do a lot of running around. So, let more people play...give guys a rest...then let them go back in and out more frequently. All that would do would be to allow the players to be fresher....and not be so sluggish
-
Do away with refs and umps altogether. Let the players call the games as they play. They all know when they have been fouled, held, thrown out, or clipped. Players would all simply be on the honor system to call only the obvious fouls. In baseball, catchers would call balls and strikes and i am sure they would be more accurate and consistent.
Do away with refs and umps altogether. Let the players call the games as they play. They all know when they have been fouled, held, thrown out, or clipped. Players would all simply be on the honor system to call only the obvious fouls. In baseball, catchers would call balls and strikes and i am sure they would be more accurate and consistent.
Chaos and Anarchy. Maybe not for our current major sports....but you are free to invent a sport that does that.
Maybe like Rollerball...or something.
-
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
I played competitive hockey and no offsides would be worse there than in soccer. I'll explain later.
-
I don't understand why a tie can't be a valid outcome. Sure it sucks. Losing sucks too. Some kids play sports without keeping score. Then they're taught that there MUST be a winner or loser.
No wonder people get confused easily anymore.
I don't understand why a tie can't be a valid outcome. Sure it sucks. Losing sucks too. Some kids play sports without keeping score. Then they're taught that there MUST be a winner or loser.
No wonder people get confused easily anymore.
Well....there IS the occasional tie in the NFL.....and I believe there are frequent ties in the NHL.
It is a reason that I hate the freaking college OT rules. Sometimes a tie is not terrible. But you cannot have them in playoffs.
The NHL in their playoffs play hockey until someone wins.
-
The dumbest thing about soccer - and the list is impressive - is that they still can't figure out how to keep accurate time.
"And that ends another thrilling 1-0 soccer match... oh wait... no, there's 'extra time' being added on! The clock was at triple zeros, but magically we've pulled three minutes out of our asses! I know every other sport in the world with a clock can keep up-to-date time, but not us!"
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login