But the game is not decided on skills, it’s decided on goals.
Yes, but the rule set should be set up so you’re more likely to win if you play better fundamentals. Penalties don’t do that very well.
As I said, I don’t know for certain what the best answer could be, but I proposed one solution I think would work really well. I’d love to hear alternatives.
I’d have been happy to have a discussion, but apparently you just came to abuse anyone with a different point of view
Incredibly ironic considering how directly rude you’re being to me, as a person. I criticised a bad argument by attacking the argument. I would appreciate a response in kind.
I’m happy to have a discussion. Genuinely, that’s why I’m here. Why I’ve spent as much time writing about this.
But I care about having quality discussions. With people engaging in good faith rhetoric. I don’t have any interest in dealing politely with obvious poor rhetoric. An argument from tradition is one of the worst examples of lazy, bad rhetoric.
Soccer’s popularity is in spite of, not because of, its glaring flaws. It’s because of a history colonialism and clever marketing. And because it’s easy to play informally with a few mates. All you need is something vaguely ball-like, a bit of open space, and some basic way to mark goals. The same reasons for the world’s second most-popular sport, which just needs a ball, a strong stick, and a few weaker sticks or other object that can stand vertically on the ground. This is neither an insult nor a complement to the sports, it just is.
The whole point of this thread is to discuss rule changes to improve sports. If you think “because it’s always been done that way” is a reason not to improve a sport, I don’t even know why you’re here. But I don’t want to make this about you, I want to be talking about the substance of the arguments. If you’re willing to do that, I’d be happy to continue.
Yes, but the rule set should be set up so you’re more likely to win if you play better fundamentals. Penalties don’t do that very well.
As I said, I don’t know for certain what the best answer could be, but I proposed one solution I think would work really well. I’d love to hear alternatives.
Incredibly ironic considering how directly rude you’re being to me, as a person. I criticised a bad argument by attacking the argument. I would appreciate a response in kind.
I’m happy to have a discussion. Genuinely, that’s why I’m here. Why I’ve spent as much time writing about this.
But I care about having quality discussions. With people engaging in good faith rhetoric. I don’t have any interest in dealing politely with obvious poor rhetoric. An argument from tradition is one of the worst examples of lazy, bad rhetoric.
Soccer’s popularity is in spite of, not because of, its glaring flaws. It’s because of a history colonialism and clever marketing. And because it’s easy to play informally with a few mates. All you need is something vaguely ball-like, a bit of open space, and some basic way to mark goals. The same reasons for the world’s second most-popular sport, which just needs a ball, a strong stick, and a few weaker sticks or other object that can stand vertically on the ground. This is neither an insult nor a complement to the sports, it just is.
The whole point of this thread is to discuss rule changes to improve sports. If you think “because it’s always been done that way” is a reason not to improve a sport, I don’t even know why you’re here. But I don’t want to make this about you, I want to be talking about the substance of the arguments. If you’re willing to do that, I’d be happy to continue.