The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **Stephen Day** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:26 pm

kingbeavis wrote:
Why even have a clock if it doesn't really matter? Why not just make it first team to 3, other then the fact that some soccer games might last 2 days in that case?

Because the game still has a general time frame in which it will be played. Generally its less than a minute that the head referee gives in terms of leeway. It's not like it takes all that long for him to see if the scoring chance he's allowing will be successful or not. Like I said, I'm glad that soccer gives that option.

Let me ask you guys a question. Say you're a basketball fan, and a player on your team makes a last second shot to put you ahead at the final buzzer. The only problem is that he took the shot just a second too late and it's ruled that the basket doesn't count. Then the opposition wins in overtime. Would you really be happy with that?

In the end, all I'm saying is that I wouldn't be happy and that I'm glad that that situation doesn't happen in soccer..

by **Stephen Day** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:28 pm

Herald wrote:
Heck, why not just keep playing until the head ref is no longer entertained by the spectacle??

It reminds me of that funny drill sergeant chant:
"I am smart!
Oh, I'm inspired!
YOU'RE gonna march
'Till I get tired!!"

OK, now that's just a totally silly argument. There comes a point where professionalism comes into play.

by **pastajoe** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:32 pm

Stephen Day wrote:

I wouldn't have a problem with the rule, because everyone knows that time is running out, and the clock is visible to the players. I'd be upset that my player didn't get the shot off, but that's his fault. He knows the rules. The rules are objective, not subjective.

What would upset me is if the clock ran out and the refs still gave the other team time to score, but then no time for my team to score.

by **Stephen Day** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:35 pm

pastajoe wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with the rule, because everyone knows that time is running out, and the clock is visible to the players. I'd be upset that my player didn't get the shot off, but that's his fault. He knows the rules. The rules are objective, not subjective.

What would upset me is if the clock ran out and the refs still gave the other team time to score, but then no time for my team to score.

Fair enough, in the end that's the point where we disagree.

by **kingbeavis** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:07 pm

The Czech Republic has a smoking hot girl on the beach volleyball team on NBC right now.

Marketa Slukova

by **bkthomson** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:05 pm

It was a good match but I was still rooting for US Walsh and May.

by **Amoebas** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:30 pm

bkthomson wrote:It was a good match but I was still rooting for US Walsh and May.

My wife has cast me out from the living room. :smt013

Because I've read the news and know the outcome of everything NBC is showing before they show it. :lol:

by **Herald** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:00 am

Stephen Day wrote:

OK, now that's just a totally silly argument. There comes a point where professionalism comes into play.

While my example is amusing, my point is the same as Pastajoe's: The clock determining when the game ends is objective, while having some official arbitrarily and unilaterally deciding when the game ends is eerily subjective.

You're already justifying "It's over when that guy says it's over!", so gee, why not take it a little further??

by **Herald** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:07 am

pastajoe wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with the rule, because everyone knows that time is running out, and the clock is visible to the players. I'd be upset that my player didn't get the shot off, but that's his fault. He knows the rules. The rules are objective, not subjective.

What would upset me is if the clock ran out and the refs still gave the other team time to score, but then no time for my team to score.

Co-signed.

Part of the strategy of timed games is using the clock as your ally. Like you said, if the game really ends only when some official says so, why bother having a clock in the first place??

by **Amoebas** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:47 am

NBC spoiled the Missy Franklin win SIX minutes before they actually aired the race. :lol:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics ... 56597752/1

by **Punchy** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:13 pm

Team BB Women's Football Team just beat Brazil! Fucking Brazil!

Awesome.

Currently watching USA Vs Tunisia in the Basketball, Tunisia were doing well at the start, but now USA are actually trying.

by **kingbeavis** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:12 pm

Best name of the Olympics.

by **Stephen Day** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:52 pm

Herald wrote:
Co-signed.

Part of the strategy of timed games is using the clock as your ally. Like you said, if the game really ends only when some official says so, why bother having a clock in the first place??

Why does it bother you so much? Why does every sport have to be so uniform, so controlled? What's wrong with some variety in the thinking of the way things should be run?

by **Stephen Day** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:01 pm

Herald wrote:
While my example is amusing, my point is the same as Pastajoe's: The clock determining when the game ends is objective, while having some official arbitrarily and unilaterally deciding when the game ends is eerily subjective.

You're already justifying "It's over when that guy says it's over!", so gee, why not take it a little further??

Because the rules state that the official can't take it a little further. They only allow the official to allow a scoring chance to continue that he feels is already in the process of happening when time runs out. That's it, nothing more than that. You're trying to make an argument that things can go further than that when that simply isn't the case.

by **Herald** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:27 pm

Stephen Day wrote:
Because the rules state that the official can't take it a little further.

They shouldn't have been given this inch in the first place, whether or not they will ever get to take a mile.

They only allow the official to allow a scoring chance to continue that he feels is already in the process of happening when time runs out.

And what if his "feeling" about said "process" is debatable, at BEST?? Anytime a team is running down the field with the ball can be subjectively argued as being "a scoring chance". Do ALL the games get to run late, then??