FanDuel - WFBC

December 20, 2002

Heart-stopping entertainment.: A recently published report has shown that that penalty shoot-outs in important football (like, with the feet, dude ;-) matches cause people to have heart attacks. The researchers have therefore suggested that penalty shoot-outs be removed from the beautiful game. Noooo!

posted by BigCalm to soccer at 05:02 AM - 20 comments

I hate penalty shootouts for two reasons. First, they're a heartbreakingly mundane way to decide a game, esp. when teams have exhausted themselves trying to win in regular and overtime. And yes, they're heartstopping. However, I can't think of a more efficient way to finish a game that also gives control to the teams (yes, they could just flip a coin, but that's even more ridiculous). Keep the shootout and ask the doctors to shut up. Nobody's forcing people to watch. They could post warnings right before the kicks about "viewer discretion" if the game's on TV or radio. If you're at the stadium, the program leaflets and stadium announcer can post similar messages. It's absurd, but so's the research.

posted by worldcup2002 at 09:45 AM on December 20

Fucking doctors...fucking low life people that can't stay healthy enough to watch sports!! IF YOU HAVE A FUCKING HEART CONDITION, DON'T WATCH STRESSFUL EVENTS!! GOD DAMN! Whats next?! Full physicals for everyone before they watch TV?!? I can't take it anymore...everytime something ridiculous like this happens, i think "surely, this is as far as they will go..." But nooooooooooooooo, next thing you know we have warnings on hammers that read, "Do not hit self on head". We are slowly becoming a population that cannot think for itself because we keep warning everyone of the slightest dangers for which most "normal" people can comprehend! If you're dumb...you lose! Simple as that!

posted by StarFucker at 11:05 AM on December 20

OH MY GOD! I just read the article! From now on, NOBODY DO ANYTHING!! SIT STILL ON YOUR HANDS AND WAIT FOR INSTRUCTIONS!

posted by StarFucker at 11:20 AM on December 20

Just another sign that England is turning into a bad copy of the US. Like a forty-something mother dressing up like her teenage daughter, with the same painfully clownish results.

posted by worldcup2002 at 12:30 PM on December 20

I have to say that during the Blues v Norwich shoot out last season I really thought I was going to die. I coudn't fucking breathe, I couldn't speak, I was in another world altogether...never again.

posted by Fat Buddha at 12:39 PM on December 20

Uh..can you elaborate on the Worldcup?

posted by StarFucker at 01:17 PM on December 20

So y'all are saying that whether or not people will die because of them should have no bearing on what the rules of an activity should be? I don't get it. If it were up to me, and I knew shootouts were going to kill people, I'd change the rule as soon as I could come up with a better alternative. What's there to think about? Do you actually believe that because other people will fail to take care of themselves you're somehow excused from considering that your decisions might harm them?

posted by ajax at 02:08 PM on December 20

I agree. I just read your post and had a heart attack. You need to stop posting. Actually SpoFi needs to turn off the comments function completely. And delete all the comments.

posted by worldcup2002 at 02:30 PM on December 20

Hey ajax...do you drive?!? Do you know people get killed in car accidents everyday?! BAN ALL CARS!! NO MORE TRANSPORTATION! WE MUST PROTECT THE IDIOTS!

posted by StarFucker at 02:30 PM on December 20

Oh, great, the all-caps argument. I tremble before your mighty display of incontrevertible genius and cutting wit, StarFucked. I'm not talking about banning anything or protecting anyone. I'm talking about deciding what's the right thing to do. On the one hand you have an entertainment, an activity people are paid to do so the people who pay them can make money. On the other hand you have the people they make the money off of. Now what you all are saying is, the fucks who make the money shouldn't care if it so happens they're going to kill some of the fucks whose money they take, because... because those other poor fucks just don't know better? Brilliant. You obviously have a profound and subtle understanding of morality.

posted by ajax at 03:07 PM on December 20

I am not a fan of the shootout myself. I believe that they should just continue playing until someone scores a goal. As the overtime (or extra time, if you prefer) wears on, the players would become more aware that if they did not score soon, they would wear themselves down for the next game, and that would prompt more risk taking and chances for goals would become more plentiful.

posted by jasonbondshow at 11:44 AM on December 21

There was for a while a thought that a way to settle these situations would be to play extra-time, removing a player from both sides every 5 minutes, until someone scored. Never caught on for some reason. I've yet to see anyone come up with a reasonable alternative to penalty shootouts, that at least didn't run the risk of exhausting the players for the next game. I think this is the major objection to jason's idea. Also given some of the woeful finishing I've seen over the last 30 years some teams would still be playing now. I was at the penalty shoot-out Fat Buddha refers to. Thankfully, I was too drunk to be in his state.

posted by squealy at 12:50 PM on December 21

I like the idea of a shootout. With guns. Take that, bleeding heart liberals!

posted by Samsonov14 at 11:10 AM on December 23

The two mascots should come together in the centre circle and let winner take all at blow football.

posted by Fat Buddha at 05:10 PM on December 23

AJAX...i suppose you would take away everyone's freedom to do ANYTHING remotely dangerous... Life would then just be dandy for you ay?

posted by StarFucker at 08:17 AM on December 24

i suppose you would take away everyone's freedom to do ANYTHING remotely dangerous... Starfucker, can you read? Here, for example. What I said was:

I'm not talking about banning anything or protecting anyone. I'm talking about deciding what's the right thing to do.
The various soccer organizations are free to decide what they think is best. That doesn't mean that whatever they happen to decide is necessarily the best thing to do, however.

posted by ajax at 10:27 AM on December 24

I think this is a lot like the NHL's decision to use nets around the boards so that no more deaths occur from stray pucks. I personally don't like the nets, because I don't believe that they're necessary. If you're at a hockey game, either stay alert or sit in a section where you don't need to. Common sense can go a long way to preventing stupid accidents. The same applies to soccer games. In the silky smooth words of our resident bard Starfucker: IF YOU HAVE A FUCKING HEART CONDITION, DON'T WATCH STRESSFUL EVENTS!!

posted by Samsonov14 at 11:26 AM on December 24

In Wales they banned flare guns after an old dude got killed by a flare. Silly old sod should have stayed home if he isn't alert enough to dodge missiles. Now he's spoilt it for everyone.

posted by Fat Buddha at 12:35 PM on December 24

Okay Fat Buddha, you've got me there. There are certain things that we should be eliminating at games, just as there are certain precautions that should be taken to make sure that accidents don't happen anymore. Obviously, the guy who was killed by a flare wasn't at fault. Nor do I blame the little girl that was clocked by a puck at a hockey game. Both were flukes, and awful tragedies. I was definitely being unnnecessarily crass when I implied that her dad should have sat them farther back from the ice. The puck killing that girl was the first time a person had been killed as a result of on-ice action in an NHL game, after thousands of NHL games. You can't outlaw pucks, though. Flare guns, on the other hand, you most certainly can outlaw. It seems pretty obvious that bringing one of those to a game in the first might be a bad idea. But I get your point. I just think that there are always going to be some flukey deaths associated with sporting events. There's no reason to change the game because of that. Everything can be dangerous, just because you never know what's going to happen in life. Sports events, getting laid, and going drinking with the boys can all be potentially lethal, but I wouldn't change any of them. I just think the odds of dying doesn't outweigh the fun.

posted by Samsonov14 at 03:06 PM on December 24

Yep, Samsonov 14, I agree with you. I still hate penalty shoot outs though.

posted by Fat Buddha at 03:51 PM on December 24

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.