Emotion, grit, heart, toughness? Yeah some of those storylines are great, but the main thing about the playoffs is the super high quality hockey. It consists of the best teams trying as hard as they possibly can and often finding another unexpected gear. Kings / Hawks was, let's be honest, not a particularly gritty, toughness-filled series compared to many, but it might have been the best playoff series in a decade because of how damned GOOD the teams were, how experienced they were under pressure, and how hard they played. Nothing in that series would have been affected by calling penalties correctly and consistently, and really the refereeing on the whole wasn't bad in those 7 games.
I think it would have been a minor controversy... the reason there might not have been much uproar is that very few people care about these teams. If it had been England or Brazil or France? No one would have shut up about it for a week. Even so, this is silly; you want a ref to decide not to make a call on the basis that it won't cause a massive uproar? I continue to be absolutely baffled by your line of thought.
Of course if it involved England there would be change, there's goal line technology because England got screwed at the last World Cup (sorry England fans...). The uproar level would actually want me to have the call cost an England or Brazil because then it would result in change (i.e. replay). I just found it to be a very soft call is all. Sometimes you just gotta let it go, it wasn't an egrigious, obvious call, it was very close.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
It wasn't the most egregious, obvious foul, no. It was a foul, though, and was much more of a foul than many that are given, including for penalties. It was only the timing that could make one complain, and in that case, you have to ask why it matters whether the rule is broken at 10' or 90+3?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor
Why not move it back and even the odds a bit and at the same time add a bit more excitement?
Because this would no longer approximate the quality of the chance taken away and would incentivize defenders to foul players in good position so as to reduce their chance of conceding?
This is seriously baffling, that some people take the view that what produces the fair outcome is less important than artificially maximizing drama and suspense, integrity of the result be damned. But then, I hate the shootout, too.
Last edited by 19Yzerman19; 06-24-2014 at 07:24 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to 19Yzerman19 For This Useful Post:
Because this would no longer approximate the quality of the chance taken away and would incentivize defenders to foul players in good position so as to reduce their chance of conceding?
This is seriously baffling, that some people take the view that what produces the fair outcome is less important than artificially maximizing drama and suspense, integrity of the result be damned. But then, I hate the shootout, too.
What exactly is baffling? You are making the assumption that all penalties are awarded for goal chances being taken away and that the quality of the chance was so high a goal was the likelihood.
However, and this is where I am coming from, many, many penalties are awarded in situations where there is a likelihood that a goal would not have resulted had the play continued (e.g. edge of the box dribble, running to the byline to put in a cross, back to the goal, or dare I say it a dive).
Obviously you feel that 80% of penalties would have resulted in goals anyways hence your random claim that I am unconcerned about a "fair outcome". I actually feel the % to be lower, in fact quite a bit lower so my suggestion to lower the odds in favour of the taker might in the overall picture be fairer than you think.
Based on the numbers I presented. 80+% suggests the penalty highly favors the taker.
Why not move it back and even the odds a bit and at the same time add a bit more excitement?
I don't see how for example 1/2 or 1/3 odds would be somehow inherently more exciting than 1/4 or 1/5?
At the moment failed penalty kicks are epic events that still happen fairly regurarly. That's about as good as it gets in my books. It might not be worse if the odds were different, but I don't see how it would be better.
Besides, the whole point of the penalty kick is that it generally goes in. The idea is that it's usually better to let the striker take his shot than to foul him. This results in more goals from open play.
Very probably if the odds of penalty kicks going in were lower, you would just have more penalty kicks and less goals from open play due to more deliberate fouls by defensemen. Or in other words, games would be even more about "referees deciding the game".
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
That's a reasonable argument, though this case is not a good example in support of it. It would be interested to see how often penalties are awarded in situations where the player was in a food scoring position as opposed to not.
The Following User Says Thank You to 19Yzerman19 For This Useful Post:
However, and this is where I am coming from, many, many penalties are awarded in situations where there is a likelihood that a goal would not have resulted had the play continued (e.g. edge of the box dribble, running to the byline to put in a cross, back to the goal, or dare I say it a dive).
I pretty much said this already, but a penalty kick going in more likely than a normal scoring chance is kind of the point.
If you want to see goals scored from open play with both teams playing by the rules, you absolutely want the cost of rule-breaking to be significantly higher in almost every situation than playing by the rules.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I pretty much said this already, but a penalty kick going in more likely than a normal scoring chance is kind of the point.
And? You think moving the ball back one or two yards would change that significantly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
If you want to see goals scored from open play with both teams playing by the rules, you absolutely want the cost of rule-breaking to be significantly higher in almost every situation than playing by the rules.
You seriously think moving it back a couple of yards would encourage defenders to foul? Seriously? Where the conversion rate would probably remain at (guess) least 70%.
I'm not suggesting they shoot from the half way line. Just make it a tad harder.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that's the way it has to be always. He's got a decent point though. Penalties ARE too easy to convert and it's not a massive rule change to move the spot back a couple of yards. More excitement and more skill involved.
Rules have been changed before, I'm sure you can remember snoozing through games where defenders passed the ball to the goalie , he picked it up. Rolled it back, and repeat.
Thankfully I'm was too young for that
The Following User Says Thank You to scottish_flame For This Useful Post:
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
I'm so glad I had a chance to read today's GDT. I may still have enough time tonight to go find a few threads about stuff I don't like, so I can go tell people that they are interested in things that suck.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to 4X4 For This Useful Post:
I'm so glad I had a chance to read today's GDT. I may still have enough time tonight to go find a few threads about stuff I don't like, so I can go tell people that they are interested in things that suck.
