0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 38707 times.
Anyone with expert knowledge of the mathematics of probability and statistics knows that the difference in the number of 'successes' (i.e., goals, in soccer) between the two opponents in a game is a better indicator of which is the better team when the total combined number of successes is larger. This means that, in a game like soccer, where scores like 1-0, 1-1, 2-1 are common, two teams would have to play each other many times before we could be reasonably confident which is really the better one. For this reason, if I were the world czar of soccer I would change the rules so that combined game scores typically would be in the range 15-30 or so. (One obvious way to do that would be to simply widen the net.) This would reduce (but not eliminate) the probability that a good team is eliminated by a lesser one, and also would reduce the number of tie scores.Another benefit of such a change is that one bad mistake by an official, such as in the recent case with the U.S. team, instead of making a 50% change in the team's score, would have only about a 10% effect, which might be the difference in which team wins.(Of course, I don't think it will ever happen. Most people are inherently opposed to change.)
Making the goals wider would certainly increase scores in the games, but it would also change the way the game is played. Consequently, the team that wins in the wide-goal version of the game need not correlate well with the "superior" team in the narrow-goal version of the game. If the rule change, then, just generates a more clear-cut and statistically reliable predictor of the superior team in an inferior game, why would that be a step forward? For example, the wide-goal rule change may well favor teams packed with guys who can kick the ball very hard and far. And the skillful players, capable of beating the opposition with fancy footwork and speed are likely to become less valuable. Fewer of them will be seen in the competitions, and the competitions would be less interesting. Furthermore, a greater premium would be placed on keeping possession of the ball, and on keeping the ball at a great distance from one's goal. Both of these would encourage more conservative play. Despite the higher scores, I suspect the soccer would be a lot less interestingPeople who go around advocating for rule changes in sports like soccer rarely appreciate that those rule changes will affect many dimensions of the sport. The idea of the game is not to have the most robust and accurate gauge of a team's superiority, but to encourage the most interesting and exciting contest. Given that soccer is the single most popular sport in the world, with millions of people in essentially every country in the world playing and following the sport fanatically, I think soccer in its current form gets things pretty right. Chad
If you have ever tried goalkeeping, you would have a better appreciation for its size...making it wider would make it almost impossible to save goals.
8 yards by 8 feet.
Not know yard, how many cm is a yard??
Yep, 1yard=91cm731cm X 243cm. wide x high
1 yard = 3 feet
