“scoring more goals” is not a skill. It’s an outcome.
Your first argument against stopped clocks is utter nonsense. It’s an argument from tradition. “We’ve always done it this way, so we should continue to do so” is bullshit reasoning. Defend it if you genuinely think it’s better, but explain the actual reasons it’s better. “Because we always have” is not a valid argument.
Stopped clocks would just lead to commercial breaks.
This is, in principle, a better argument. It presents itself as an actual disadvantage of the changed rule.
The problem is that it doesn’t make any sense. It wouldn’t change the game itself at all. The refs in soccer already stop their stopwatches. They just don’t communicate this back to production. And then when the game is supposed to be over (because the clock reads “90”), the ref says “actually we’re doing another 12 minutes”. The amount of time played would be the same. The amount of time spent with the game stopped due to injuries, corners, etc. would be the same. The only difference is that the number you see on the screen would be the correct time, not made up nonsense.
“scoring more goals” is not a skill. It’s an outcome.
That’s fair. But the game is not decided on skills, it’s decided on goals.
Unless you want a label of judges along the touchline holding up 9.8 9.7 9.9, etc for a keepie uppie competition, I think penalties is the best way so far devised.
Your first argument against stopped clocks is utter nonsense.
Is it? Maybe in your opinion.
Yes, it’s an argument from tradition, and that’s a fundamental part of football culture. Tradition is at the heart of everything that has made, and still makes, the sport great.
I don’t feel any need to defend it beyond that, particularly not to someone who is talking like a belligerent prick for no apparent reason. I’d have been happy to have a discussion, but apparently you just came to abuse anyone with a different point of view. So bite me.
“scoring more goals” is not a skill. It’s an outcome.
Your first argument against stopped clocks is utter nonsense. It’s an argument from tradition. “We’ve always done it this way, so we should continue to do so” is bullshit reasoning. Defend it if you genuinely think it’s better, but explain the actual reasons it’s better. “Because we always have” is not a valid argument.
This is, in principle, a better argument. It presents itself as an actual disadvantage of the changed rule.
The problem is that it doesn’t make any sense. It wouldn’t change the game itself at all. The refs in soccer already stop their stopwatches. They just don’t communicate this back to production. And then when the game is supposed to be over (because the clock reads “90”), the ref says “actually we’re doing another 12 minutes”. The amount of time played would be the same. The amount of time spent with the game stopped due to injuries, corners, etc. would be the same. The only difference is that the number you see on the screen would be the correct time, not made up nonsense.
That’s fair. But the game is not decided on skills, it’s decided on goals.
Unless you want a label of judges along the touchline holding up 9.8 9.7 9.9, etc for a keepie uppie competition, I think penalties is the best way so far devised.
Is it? Maybe in your opinion.
Yes, it’s an argument from tradition, and that’s a fundamental part of football culture. Tradition is at the heart of everything that has made, and still makes, the sport great.
I don’t feel any need to defend it beyond that, particularly not to someone who is talking like a belligerent prick for no apparent reason. I’d have been happy to have a discussion, but apparently you just came to abuse anyone with a different point of view. So bite me.