Mike Fichtner Indianapolis, In. The USL has banned the shootout. Apparently the fans feel that ties are a result after all. But wait. … two 10-minute overtime periods? Have any of you folks seen a rationale offered as to why a tie is a result after 110 minutes, but not a result after 90 minutes? Ridge Mahoney: Well sure, Mike, a tie is a result, and so is a win and a loss. The idea of overtime or shootouts or penalties is to bring a more powerful dynamic into the ranking of teams — i.e., the standings — than the inconclusive deadlock of both teams coming out even. Unfortunately, the shootout brings a huge luck factor into the equation, and penalties are just another artificial tiebreaker. Ties are certainly an accepted part of soccer, but a competition mired with too many of them can be frustrating. The NHL instituted overtime some years ago after decades of leaving matches tied after regulation, and has recently refined its brief overtime period into a 4 v 4 competition in an effort to increase overtime goals, and thus, reduce ties. And this is in a sport which won’t consider three points for a win, despite the fact approximately 25-30 percent of games end in ties after regulation. You also have to remember that the USL has a long history of rule changes, gimmicks and experiments. I like the point system of four for a win, one for a tie, and a bonus point awarded if a team scores three goals in a game. I think it, and overtime, is worth trying. I’m not locked into any system, I believe tinkering, particularly in a lower division, is part and parcel of the sport’s evolution in this country. MLS is truly in a dilemma. By adopting such sideshows as the shootout, it alienated the pure soccer fans in an effort to eliminate ties, which league officials felt the majority of sports fans would not tolerate. Now, they are backtracking, despite their aversion to ties. And I can’t see MLS jamming a 10-minute overtime into a two-hour television window — the USL doesn’t have to worry about TV time slots, and so overtime is a viable option. I like to see ties broken, if possible, in a reasonable manner, for I’ve seen an awful lot of games just disintegrate in the last 20 minutes or so with both teams happy with a point. There’s nothing morally wrong with it, yet why not see if some incentive can be applied to entice teams not to play so conservatively? And I don’t feel ties are as universally accepted by fans around the world as many purists in the U.S. believe — if Inter or Man United or Leeds is at home in a tied match and starts patting the ball around in their own half, the whistles are deafening. Those fans don’t want ties, unless a tie is enough to clinch advancement in a cup competition or clinch a league title, and those fans — the ones that are paying money to see their team, not sitting at home watching passively on TV — are the ones that matter. The rationale for limiting overtime is for the health and safety of the players, so an overtime that fails to produce goals stands as a tie. But why shouldn’t the USL try it? A lot of people might like it. The only way to know is to test it, and then either keep it, drop it, and/or try something else. Or not. Freedom of choice, you know. (If you have a question for a Soccer America Magazine editor, click “Q&A with SA Editors” in the left column of the home page under “Interactive.”)