Is It Time For More Golden Moments?

Is modern day sport about the contest, or is it purely about entertainment?

Ask the television executives who are now the ones predominantly funding sport, and they will tell you that is all about entertainment. Ask the average fan and they will tell you that it is only ever about the contest, how their team plays, and the result.

So based on those two facts it seems strange that in a world where everyone is trying to find a way, or an algorithm to tap into the subconscious of the consumer, which in this case is the fan, how few sports are actually listening to the fans.

It is very easy to gauge public opinion these days as there are numerous platforms on which the average sports fan will share their views and vent their frustrations. Television stations are often able to gauge this by the number of viewers that tune in; however that can be deceiving when it is a major tournament or a big game. In this instant many fans will stick with the game, because of the importance of it or the tournament irrespective of the quality of what is being aired. It is however the pre-game and post game shows that are a good benchmark as to whether the television stations are on the right track or not. If most of those who watched the game switch off immediately the game is over, clearly the panel reviewing the game are not the right people to engage the viewers.

As we all know the broadcasting of games is one of the biggest revenue streams for sport. That is why they are all vying to be regarded as a mainstream sport.

Unfortunately this thirst for broadcast dollars has seen some sports sell their soul. We have seen various sports create abbreviated versions of the traditional game, but how many have truly succeeded?

Cricket would possibly be one of the few that could claim that this has been the case. Yet the buried Cricket Australia report of a few years ago showed that the Big Bash League had actually failed to increase cricket’s following and its participation. Yet clearly in a world where everyone is short of time the abbreviated versions of the game are more accessible.

Another major issue facing cricket is that while betting continues on various aspects of a game, the shadow of match-fixing will always hang over it; especially the shortened versions. So much money is to be made from betting that those who assist by relaying information from the grounds are made offers that are truly staggering.

Sometimes innovations or compromises agreed upon by the sport in order to gain coverage on television actually work against a sport.

When Major League Soccer was launched in the USA, they wanted a result at the end of each game. The idea was sold to those in power that the fans wanted an outcome at every match. So if a game finished in a draw they had to have a shoot-out to decide who would be declared the winner. This proved to be a major piece of misinformation. Fans wanted their league in the USA to be played the same way as other competitions around the world, that they had watched and that had helped them fall in love with the game. The shoot out was eventually canned, so too was the clock counting backwards. It would run the way it runs around the globe counting up to the full ninety minutes.

Hockey is another that has “taken advice” or “listened to experts,” and they cut the game’s duration from being a seventy minute game played in two 35 minute halves to a one hour game played in four 15 minute quarters. The reasons given were that it would enable to sport to attract more sponsors and that the broadcasters could run advertisements in the quarter-time breaks, yet that rarely happens. As a result many have asked why have they stuck with quarters?

The FIH Pro League and the Hockey One League in Australia have to a degree followed the US idea that fans want to see a result. In the FIH Pro League if a game finishes all square both teams are awarded a point each and then they have a shoot-out to give one team a bonus point. Surely if a bonus point is up for grabs there should be a shoot out at the end of every game irrespective of the result at the end of normal time?

By only having a shoot out after a draw even the media departments of the National associations have incorrectly claimed victory in the match in season two, and confusion has followed. Probably because in a knock-out tournament such a format decides who goes through to the next round. Here it doesn’t.

In the Australian Hockey One competition, which replaced the Australian Hockey League the message was clear, “Real Hockey Reimagined.” In this tournament when a field goal or penalty stroke awarded during field play was scored, the same athlete had an automatic one-on-one shootout with the goalkeeper for the chance of an extra goal.

The Hockey One League rules followed the example of the FIH Pro League by wanting an outcome, a winning team. According to the rules on their website they too added to confusion by stating “All matches must also have an outright result, with drawn matches to be decided by a penalty shootout.” Yet not one drawn game was decided from the penalty spot, they all went to a shoot out! Here a player has eight seconds to go one-on-one with the goalkeeper from the 23 metre line and try and score.

The fans were told that the rule changes and innovations would “help us give fans more celebratory moments.” Yet did they really? The extra goal attempt after a field goal in fact killed that particular celebratory moment, and the extra goal tended to be politely applauded rather than being met by raucous applause and fans going wild.

In business there is the KISS principle, Keep It Simple Stupid. This clearly does not apply to sport, which is a great shame. One of the the reasons that many of the team sports have survived and garnered so much popularity is because they are in essence simple for everyone to understand.

Football – the world game – is a prime example of that. Yet now we have witnessed the powers that be changing the interpretation of hand ball, and there has been bedlam. Why and who made a decision to change a rule that was steeped in commonsense? All they have done is turn lifelong fans away from the game. The Video Assisted Referee is another innovation that is absolutely throttling the game. It was supposed to be used primarily to confirm if goals scored were legitimate or not. Now the VAR is interfering in all aspects of the match and killing the fans enjoyment, and unfortunately on many occasions reaching the wrong decision.

In a league competition why do you need to have a winner? If a team that is on paper inferior to their opposition, battles to achieve a draw why should they have that taken away from them? Even if it is only through the awarding of a bonus point. If you are going to give teams the opportunity to gain a bonus point for drawing a game, maybe you need to reduce the value of a win. Maybe it should go back to being two points on the league table for a win? This would still ensure a closely contested competition.If you want teams to attack give bonus points for the number of goals scored.

The Hockey One competition went the other way giving five points for a win, two to each team that played out a draw and one point to the team that won the shoot out. What this did was confirm the teams that would play in the semi finals well before the regular season was completed. (Hockey, One Step In The Right Direction).

As with the trialled field goals being worth double at the Hockey India League you saw scorelines blow out.

The problem here is that those who are not across the new innovative rules will see a team leading by four goals and will think the game is over and switch channel. Even the players who played in the Hockey India League under the field goals being worth double rule, said that when they were trailing it was hard to condition the brain that at 3-0 down, one field goal would see you back at 3-2.

So the very thing that many of these rule changes are designed to do, they actually have the opposite effect.

If ever you needed proof that such changes are not necessary you should have watched the Western Australian Premier Grade finals in 2020. Here the administrators have stuck with the old way of deciding a drawn game in a knock out match, where there has to be a winner. They played extra time Golden Goal. A soul-destroying way to lose a game, but one that most players will tell you is easier to accept as you are still essentially playing the game.

International matches in hockey used to see two periods of seven and a half minutes played before they went to a penalty shoot-out, – which were from the penalty spot – but that was stopped in 2013.

FIFA introduced a similar format in 1993, with two periods of 15 minutes with the first team to score being the Golden Goal winner; they did not like the negative connotations attached to the term “sudden death.” The first Golden Goal recorded was on 13 March 1993 by Australia against Uruguay in a quarter-final match of the World Youth Championship! The last was ten years later at the 2003 Women’s World Cup final. A header by Nia Künzer in the 98th minute decided the game as Germany defeated Sweden 2–1. Germany had also benefitted from this rule int the 1996 European Championship final, won by Germany over the Czech Republic. Oliver Bierhoff scoring the golden goal in this final.

Football still has extra time, but no longer is the first team to score the winner. Hockey has in the main done away with extra time and most competitions opt to go straight into a shoot-out.

In the Western Australian Women’s Hockey Finals in 2020 three of the four games in the Finals series went into Golden Goal extra time. Only one of those three games had to be decided via a shoot-out. The final saw Victoria Park win their first ever Premiership with just 24 seconds left in extra time.

This was not manufactured excitement. This was a real contest, with all of the parts that make it memorable, fatigue, passion, determination, missed chances, dejection and unbridled joy. Drama played out before your eyes the way sporting contests are supposed to be. Contests in which you were happy for the winners, but felt sorry for the losers as you had witnessed two teams and 32 players giving their absolute all.

If ever a sports administrator needs proof that you do not need to mess about with the rules by trying to create moments of celebration, this was it.

Sure the International administrators will say that television demands that the game fits in a predetermined time slot. This is where they need to stand firm, back their sport, and tell the TV executives that they will not regret the decision. On the few occasions a match is decided in such a way it will be a game that viewers will love. Back your sport and if you have to pay for the added air time if it requires extra time, do so.

To put things into perspective in the 2019 Women’s FIH Hockey Pro League there were 76 games played. Only 12 ended in a draw and went to a shoot out. In the men’s competition 60 games were played, and again there were 12 draws where a bonus point was played for in a shoot out. So in the men’s competition had this been a knockout tournament rather than a league on 20% of occasions you would have needed extra time and in the women’s only 15% of the time. If you played the old seven and a half minutes each way, the chances are the game would be over before the shoot out had finished!

Football has now made a rod for its own back with the way it officiates penalties. (Crossing The Line – World Cup Debate) Making a penalty shoot-out now an incredibly unsatisfactory way to decide an important game. When FIFA ruled out the Golden Goal the reasons given were that it had not brought about more active and attacking play as originally intended. Instead teams had become more defensive and cautious. It was also claimed that the reactions of the losing side were far more intense and harder to control!

With so many teams now playing such negative football where their first concern is not to concede one wonders what the issue would be today. With penalty shoot outs now coming down to an interpretation as to whether a goalkeeper has come off his or her line or not, when their momentum is always going to see them come forward, you may find that second time around teams may find trying to win in extra time Golden Goal far more appealing than the current lottery of a penalty shoot out.

Remember KISS, keep it simple stupid, stop mucking about with the games that millions love. Be warned, continue to mess about with the formats and the rules and it will be the sport that kisses its fans/consumers good bye. Sadly by then the bright spark who came up with the changes will have moved on to another sport!