Bobthe4th

Apparently TJ stands for Tiger Junior

Haha, all you ever do is indirectly insult people who disagree with you. But thanks for contributing to the debate!

One thing I would like to see introduced is the abolition of subs having to be completely off the field before the new guy goes on. It's a waste of time (even though the ref stops his stopwatch it delays the game). Football should use the rugby style of the new guy goes on as the replaced player is going off - would cut out the sloooow walk of a substituted player on a team with a narrow lead.

There is a big misconception here that football doesn't change. FIFA is constantly reviewing the rules, and you fairly regularly see small changes that are aimed to improve the game. And any good ideas that are more than very minor changes are not just introduced. They use one of the hundreds of professional leagues from around the world to trial the change, and if it's successful it gets introduced on a wider level. But you rarely see major changes, because the sport is already very popular, and there isn't a "if only they did that, it'd improve the game" smoking gun. Things like next goal wins, bigger goals, additional referees, sin bins have all had unsuccessful trials, and so weren't adopted. Things like goal line technology (a sensor tells the ref if the ball goes over the goaline), assistant refs behind the goals, tweaks to the offside, handball, and professional foul rules have all had successful trials and so were introduced. The last change that made a big improvement was the introduction of the passback rule. Your goalkeeper used to be able to pick up the ball if his own player passed to him. So you'd see some teams wasting time by passing it back for him to pick it up. It was outlawed and it improved the game.

That's how the referee adds time on, he stops his stopwatch - it's why you see the ref keep checking his watch, and it's why you get told the minutes to be added on by an assistant holding up the board. He stops it for time wasting, subs and goals - not for free kicks, the ball going out etc. They trialed this and it didn't work very well (see earlier post for details). It's difficult because of how subjective a foul is (see earlier post for details). But people normally do get bans for blatant dives (i.e. not even touched). Re American leagues, I'd argue basketball has an issue with flopping, but obviously regulating effectively one league isn't the same as 100's. For example in South America and some of the latin countries like Spain, diving isn't considered as bad as hard tackles are. What you or me might call conning the referee can be seen as "winning" a freekick. They have radio contact with the ref, and a flag, not really sure a whistle would add anything. See earlier post for why this doesn't work, and it's been trialed before and wasn't successful. It's an idea, not sure it's any more "valid" then pens, which are already in the game, but sure trial it. It's obviously not completely chance, just because the keeper dives the right way, doesn't mean he's guaranteed to save it. Roughly 1 in 3 pens are missed, including those the goalkeeper doesn't save. Why would moving the pen spot back improve it? It's still an artificial way to end a game. It sounds like it wasn't a very good game, but even so it's very rare something like this could happen with no shots on target for the winning team, unless the team is playing all out defense - which can be interesting to see an attacking team try to break down a defensive team. The better the attacking team, the more chance they have to score.

Haha, I originally came to this forum for the baseball chat as literally no one I know in England can name a baseball player other that Derek Jeter, but the off topic forum has lots of good stuff too!

This isn't a valid comparision though as very few sports have comparable conditions. The North American sports for example have either rolling subs like hockey and basketball, or players that aren't even on the field for a lot the game. Also they have lots of stoppages to rest and recuperate. The closest sports to football, that have the majority of the players on the pitch at all times, normally have much higher chance of goals/points. E.g. rugby. Even if you completely ignore the risk of injury, you still have the issue that a fully fit side can fail to score in normal conditions. When the players are tired, and you know next goal wins, the quality of the play is going to be lower, and the game could go on for a long time. Which no one wants, hence penalties. It's not perfect, but next goal wins is not a realistic alternative (and again it's been trialed before and it didn't work, and was very unpopular).

Haha, you mean you can't come up with any more arguments? I'm disappointed in you, you rarely stop debating until the other person quits in disgust! Major changes are not needed, hence why most changes are relatively minor. "Soccer" is the fastest growing sport in America (not sure about Canada). Most of the big teams also tour the US in the break and play in front of sell out crowds. But even if it wasn't it's not like any of the American sports that are only popular in a few countries outside of North America. FIFA isn't going to placate the American market by giving them things they want if the rest of the world doesn't. But sure they'd love to increase the market in America, which was why we had USA 94 and the MLS established in the first place. The MLS would need to be a genuine rival to the Premier League, La Liga, Seria A etc for the best players to have soccer on the level of the big 3 American sports in the US. It's very difficult to imagine this happening, in part because Europe has a 150 year head start on professional football teams.

That's your opinion so that's fair. I obviously disagree. I've watched live sport all over the world, from Aussie Rules to Sumo, and football is by far the most exciting sport overall for me. It's got that perfect blend of impressive skill, competition, variety (i.e. not a repetitive action over and over), history, accessibility, and atmosphere.

Are you trying to say you've never seen a boring baseball or hockey game? Or are you trying to say you've never seen an exciting football game?

Not entirely accurate, as you can be awarded a penalty in normal time. Most people agree that penalties are not an ideal way to end an important game. Unfortunately, after 40 years of looking for alternatives, a decent one hasn't yet been introduced. They trialed a "golden goal" for extra time where the first goal wins. Most teams just sat back and didn't attack at all. You'd likely have this for a lot longer, as players would have to conserve energy after 90 minutes and presumably a tournament of football. Quite possibly you'd have people diving even more, trying to win a freekick/penalty to score from.

90 minutes is enough time (plus 30 minutes if required), it's that long to take account of stoppages. If you had the clock stop, it would delay the game and you'd see longer and longer breaks to allow adverts for the tv broadcasters, just like virtually all North American sports. How is it simple to determine who's faking 100%, who's exaggerating, and who's genuine? Who decides? What if the ref gave a card to someone injured? What if someone is fouled and goes down, how much do they have to do before they get a yellow card? They already try to book divers and crack down on it but it's very difficult because a foul is so subjective. If someone kicks you is that a foul? Or do you need to fall over? Do you not give it if you think he could have not fallen over? This doesn't make any sense if you're advocating for additional officials. Linesmen have a different angle and so will often see something the ref can't. This was trialed by UEFA a few years ago and it didn't work very well. Lots of delays while the refs consulted with other after stoppages. Refs stay close to the play so the potential benefits of a second ref aren't that great. This is inaccurate. Changes to improve the game are made all the time. This season the 2 main ones are you no longer have to take a kick off by playing the ball forward (you might have seen kick offs where there is only one taker in the centre circle), and a last man foul that gives away a penalty is no longer a red card. There are rarely major changes, because there doesn't need to be - football is a pretty simple game with few complex rules. Instant replay is discussed constantly by pundits and fans. The main argument against it is that it would delay the game. One of the major plus points of football is the flow of the game, and lack of stoppages. Any changes should be looking to reduce delays not increase them. Replays - difficult for most tournaments for logistical problems and unfair to other teams, it is an option that could be considered for the MLS final though. Unlimited extra time - wouldn't work, increases injury risk, you have tired players, becomes a farce, what if no one scores? Flipping a coin - assume you're trolling

One of the problems with playing longer than 90 mins plus 30 for extra time, is that all the players are tired effecting the chances of good play and you're risking injuries both in that game and any future ones. You can argue a final shouldn't be decided on pens, but what's a realistic alternative? In major competitions a replay normally isn't realistic because of logistics. For example the FA Cup has replays until the semi finals, which are then played at neutral venues.

This wouldn't work as you'd never get any serious players playing in a league like that, it'd be a joke. It can work for the CFL because there aren't many alternatives if you can't cut it in the NFL. But 70-90% of the world's countries have a professional football(soccer) league. MLS is aiming for the "homegrown" and immigrant fans who love football but can only watch the big European and South American teams on tv. The more investment in the league, the better players that'll be attracted, the better the games will be.

That's one of the reasons that explains why it's so popular for people to play. And because so many people play the talent pool of professionals is enormous. One of the major reasons it's by far the most popular spectator sport in the world is that if you watch a football game live, in the stadium, the difference between professionals and amateurs (i.e. you and your mates playing in the local pub team) is draw dropping. And because of the massive talent pool, it's not just limited to the top few teams.

f*** no this is a terrible idea. 45 minutes is the perfect length for a half, with a few minutes of injury time to account for stoppages. Not too long, not too short. Agree but what do you suggest? It's very difficult to say someone has cheated unless it's blatant. A blatant dive is punished with a yellow card. There is, what used to be called linesmen (the guys with the flags) are now assistant referees who will tell the referee if there is a foul. The reason there is one guy in charge is to keep the game flowing, his decision is final. What's your alternative suggestion? At least pens are exciting. Haha no, this isn't ice hockey Nope, football isn't a sport where the only enjoyment comes from the goals. If that's what you're after watch futsal which is 5 a side. It's a bit like saying the only good thing about baseball is homeruns, ignoring all the other aspects of the sport. Agree with this one!

How would you feel if the Orioles signed Bautista? Do you want Trumbo back?

They are on record as saying they don't want to trade him at all. However, after another season of missing playoffs, and his price significantly increasing (even though he's worth it) not only will the pressure to trade be too large to ignore, Trout himself will surely start to be unhappy that he's wasting his career.

3 years of Trout still gets you as much as anyone in baseball could get, he's that good. Agree that if they wait any longer after the end of 2017 season that they could live to regret it though.

If that's the route we go down, we only need one outfielder so we'd have lots of spare cash for the bullpen. Our outfield would be one of the worst offensively though.

Boston could scrape together that deal right now, JBJ, Leon, Benintendi, Devers, Groome, Sam Travis, but as above it's something to revisit in a year when Trout may actually be on the table for a trade. Without Moncada, I'm not sure that's enough anyway.

To make it work it'd probably have to be like the Shelby Miller trade on steroids. Miller got a can't miss prospect, a decent MLB player (c3 WAR), and a close to ready prospect. Obviously Miller sucks and the D'backs were idiots, but that's not relevant for this comparison. Trout = something like: 2 decent MLB players, 2 top 10 prospects, and 2 top 150 prospects. If the deal was prospects only, it'd cripple the acquiring team's farm, but the Angels have the option to flip the 2 MLB players for prospects later on if required.

What happened to Coghlan last year? -0.5 WAR I missed Brandon Moss - thought he'd signed somewhere. He's probably the best on that list, which isn't saying much.

I really, really hope that we're not even considering Trumbo as a 1B/OF alternative to Bautista.

The remaining free agent options for OF if we fail to sign Bautista are pretty poor: Austin Jackson Ben Revere Gregor Blanco Angel Pagan Chris Coghlan Colby Rasmus Nolan Reimold Michael Saunders I'm not sure any of these are a significant upgrade on Upton or Carrera.