I remember hearing my 4-year-old granddaughter Katelyn celebrate her team’s “tie,” after the Pinky Pies lost 25-1 (that’s a guess).
A “tie” is OK in a 4-year-old’s mind.
But I’m positive there is no logical reason why any soccer game ends in a tie when a score is kept.
I’m sure the answer to why ties are allowed is because, “That’s the way it’s always been done.”
Teams should always play to win a soccer game, not play to “win a tie.”
When winners have to be determined, there are obviously no ties. There’s extra time and penalty kicks. Only one team goes home a winner.
I’m guessing some soccer purists would argue that making teams play an extra 30 minutes in qualifying games in a tie game would be too physically taxing. There’s one easy way to solve that — it’s called free substitution.
Allowing ties allows the silly possibility of Germany and the United States of “playing nice,” and tying so that both teams qualify for bracket play in the 2014 World Cup.
That’s downright un-American. That’s one reason why Americans don’t understand the psychology behind soccer. We don’t understand ties and we don’t understand celebrating a tie result.
If the United States trails by one goal against Germany, there is also the distinct possibility that the Americans will play soft and make sure they only lose by one goal because of a scoring advantage over Portugal and Ghana.
Once again, this makes no sense. In that case, the Americans would be playing to lose by one goal, which is even sillier than playing for a tie.
If every soccer team played to win, and played to win by as many goals as possible, teams would not have to worry about goal differential.
Creating no ties would also provide extra incentive to avoid an extra 30 minutes, which would raise the intensity in the later stages.
The best teams would win more games and win by more goals.
They would play to win.

Jim Misunas