On 06/30/2010 04:24 PM, Declan Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 30, 11:15 am, chuckers<chucker...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 10:35 am, "John W."<worthj1...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> On Jun 29, 6:53 pm, The
>>> 2-Belo<the2b...@msd.bigREMOVETHISlobe.ne.jp> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But like they say, if you've gotta go, make sure it's in as
>>>> irritating a way as possible. Going 0-0 through extra time only
>>>> to lose because you missed one (1) penalty kick is pretty
>>>> irritating.
>>
>>> Better that than the way England or the US went out, IMHO.

At least the US went out on their feet ... unlike the UK who are already 
begging for forgiveness. Seems as though the BBC Sports pages have a new 
excuse from another player every day.

>> A straight out loss versus something that could have been done in
>> its place and saved 2 hours of running around the pitch?
>> Hrmmm...not sure I agree with that.

A straight loss leaves no doubt.  It isn't contrived (well, if you leave 
out the comments about the quality of refereeing at the World Cup).

> A straight out loss such as that to the Netherlands, will never be
> remembered the way a PK shoot out is. It sears the memory and gets
> the "what if" stories told. I'd prefer the old fashioned golden goal
> solution to draws at the end of extra time, but apparently letting
> the teams run each other into the ground for additional hours is
> risky from a health (read insurance) point of view.

Surely the NFL, NBA, and MLB will be fascinated to hear that their 
insurance agents think the Sudden Death formula is too dangerous.  Then 
again, insurance agents and statisticians are people who found 
accountancy too fast and exciting ,,,

>> They had a good go at it and holding Paraguay to a 0-0 draw is a
>> pretty good effort. Bit of a shame it had to go down to PKs.

It's only soccer, for Gawshsakes.  We can soon get back to sport.

> Every kid in the local park this morning was practising their spot
> kicks.

Here, too.

-- 
CL