Two things stood out for me in the wake of the World Cup of 2010: the sheer number of low-scoring games and the number of bad calls. The latter was the easier to fix. FIFA could have relaxed its opposition to instant replay even though it was not feasible technologically or financially for every game in the world. The organization could have simply stated that every game in the World Cup would be subject to instant replay. The problem of low-scoring games, which has plagued other World Cup tournaments, is seemingly more intractable, but actually quite easy to solve if practicality is allowed some wiggle room in an otherwise fixed notion that the game not only should not be reformed, but also can not be changed.
One "possible" solution would be to elongate the goal area so it is more difficult to defend. If that doesn’t work, the area could be heightened—then it would be a matter of skill in kicking the ball in the added area above the defending players’ reach. Either way, a typical game would see more scores, thus adding excitement.
The problem lies in the hegemony of the status quo, which takes on a life of its own especially in sports. Even though low-scoring games can be insufferingly boring, some people might object that too much scoring would become boring as well. There would be a solution for that too, however, as the goal area could simply be retracted if it it has been set too large.
In fact, a twenty-first century technology-driven way of approaching the problem would be to have the goal parameters movable within a game by means of a computer program that enlarges the area if there is little or no scoring and retracts it if there has been too much. Such changes would presumably only be made when the score is tied so not to disadvantage the losing side.
One "possible" solution would be to elongate the goal area so it is more difficult to defend. If that doesn’t work, the area could be heightened—then it would be a matter of skill in kicking the ball in the added area above the defending players’ reach. Either way, a typical game would see more scores, thus adding excitement.
The problem lies in the hegemony of the status quo, which takes on a life of its own especially in sports. Even though low-scoring games can be insufferingly boring, some people might object that too much scoring would become boring as well. There would be a solution for that too, however, as the goal area could simply be retracted if it it has been set too large.
In fact, a twenty-first century technology-driven way of approaching the problem would be to have the goal parameters movable within a game by means of a computer program that enlarges the area if there is little or no scoring and retracts it if there has been too much. Such changes would presumably only be made when the score is tied so not to disadvantage the losing side.
Of course, the stats-oriented fans would object to the problems terms of the consistency of records. In the case of a one-time reform of the goal-area, scoring stats would not be comparable with those before the reform. Even if the goal area is movable within a game, the scoring stats once the innovation begins would not be comparable with those before the commencement of the reform. Interesting, as every game would be under the same reform, they could be compared.
I contend that improving the enjoyment of the game is worth the cost in terms of impaired comparisons with pre-reform tournaments and games. Sadly, change itself, even to improve something, often faces and up-hill battle even against the sheer gravity of foregone comparisons. Strictly speaking, comparing the stats of World Cup tournaments separated by decades is not accurate, given the improvements in nutrition and targeting muscles in weight-lifting. Perhaps the illusion of perfectly valid comparisons is the underlying hindrance. In other words, the fixity in a sport's rules and specifications may be needlessly valued. To be sure, tradition has its rightful place even in terms of practicality, but the former should not necessarily have a veto on improvements in the latter.
I contend that improving the enjoyment of the game is worth the cost in terms of impaired comparisons with pre-reform tournaments and games. Sadly, change itself, even to improve something, often faces and up-hill battle even against the sheer gravity of foregone comparisons. Strictly speaking, comparing the stats of World Cup tournaments separated by decades is not accurate, given the improvements in nutrition and targeting muscles in weight-lifting. Perhaps the illusion of perfectly valid comparisons is the underlying hindrance. In other words, the fixity in a sport's rules and specifications may be needlessly valued. To be sure, tradition has its rightful place even in terms of practicality, but the former should not necessarily have a veto on improvements in the latter.
