That's assuming it's sudden death. It sounds like the rule goes into effect at the end of regulation. That would make it so that the team that goes up by six would be encouraged to then take the ball back and score on themselves to make the score 6-1 and therefore keep the victory.

That would make a entertaining game of soccer won't it. Everybody trying to score on their own goal.

And it's happened in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Caribbean_Cup_1994#Anomal...

They you'd suck at soccer but be good at game theory. Maybe that was their plan all along :-)

This was my first thought as well. Actually, my first thought was "Pass to keeper, own-goal, drop to my team, repeat". I can't see any way to lose.

It would turn into a game of defending your opponents goal to prevent them from scoring on themselves. Actually if you think about it, it could add a whole new element to the game and maybe even be exciting, if not more confusing...

From the strange but true files: the Caribbean Cup once had a rule that awarded a two goal victory to teams that won in overtime, so Barbados scored an own-goal against themselves to create a tie that would force overtime. Once their opponent figured out what had happened there was three minutes of football in which one team was trying to defend both goals against another team that was just trying to make sure the game did not end in a tie.

The "suicide" strategy is much harder to pull off effectively. The team to go to that strategy would need to "win" by more than five goals. If the other team can score only enough to keep the difference less than five, then they win by the regular rules.

This would mean that a team attempting the "suicide" strategy from the outset would need to be much better in that paradigm than the other team. If we assume that the skills involved are similar, this would mean that they could probably win anyway using the normal rules. Adopting the strategy partway through the game -- say, when behind by three goals -- could be effective, but if the other team knows about this, they would keep the difference to only two goals.

It would result in either a heavy emphasis on defense, or a strategy of scoring one goal and then passing the ball around for the rest of the game.

There is one problem with your analysis. The team that gets scored 'on' is the one that gets the ball for the kick-off.

Since different teams get the initial and half-time kick-offs, it boils down to which team is capable of scoring the most own-goals in the same (lengthy) amount of time. The second team has a huge advantage, because they win by scoring 4 less own-goals than the leading team.

It would turn into a game of defending your opponents' goal to keep them from scoring and attempting to score in your own goal. It's like real soccer, only goalies can only pick the ball up when they're trying to score.

ah, the misere game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misère

Modify the rules so scoring in your own goal doesn't count?

Without modifying the rules, you could effectively reverse the game into a race to score goals in your own goal. Goal keepers would be the strikers (much more effective strikers since they can use their hands). Most players would be just trying to control the ball and move it towards their goalie/striker

Awesome. I wish more opportunities for exploits like this would open in sports, the games would take some interesting intellectual twists. Oh wait, we're playing calvinball.

Ultimate frisbee captains can, I believe, agree on any subset of rules before a game begins. The inclusion and use of dodgeballs on the field was one modification of note.

There are lots of them. One enterprising swim coach figured out that you could swim breaststroke much faster if you brought your hands forward above the water instead of under it. This'hack' gave birth to the Butterfly Stroke.

Another figured out that swimming upside-down under water was faster than back-stroking above the water. Alas, this innovation was banned. And so it goes.

Politics gets into it, as anyone who followed the UCI's wars with Graeme Obree would remember:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeme_Obree

Slight technicality--goalkeepers can't use their hands if the ball is passed back to them by their own team.

This league would be better off modifying the rules so that every team finishes undefeated by default.

If you're in a youth soccer league and you spend your time trying to think of ways to game the rules to win... you would be far better off studying for your LSATs than playing soccer.

My daughter's second grade team would come to the own-goal conclusion within about 3 minutes of being told this rule. Winning within the confines of the rules is a very big part of sports. :)

Well, I imagine this view is unpopular in a community devoted to hacking, but winning has very little to do with the value of sports. As a referee, I would yellow-card a youth who deliberately scored an own-goal to attempt to circumvent a rule designed to encourage fair play. It isn't, well, sporting.

Of course, I prefer Ultimate, where "SOTG" is part of the basic ethos and the game is played without referees. I don't play organized hockey and I'm in no hurry to introduce my kids to it. I've heard too many horror stories about parents and coaches who believe that winning is the only reason to play.

Winning is important. It's why I go to the field. It is what gives sport value. Without the opportunity to prove I'm the best, I might as well go for a quiet walk.

That doesn't mean 'win at all costs,' but it does mean you need to teach kids why a level playing field is important. I don't think a 5 point auto-win rule is the right way to do this.

Referrers are coming to Ultimate. It turns out than in practice, you need them in top games. There's too much room for abuse. Look at the recent College championship for an example. The winning team did it by calling 'cheap' fouls. SOTG is still valid with referees -- there are no punishments in ultimate for breaking the rules (except for offsides). Everyone is supposed to be playing without the intent of breaking the rules and that's the difference between ultimate and other sports right now.

> Winning is important. It's why I go to the field. It is what gives sport value. Without the opportunity to prove I'm the best, I might as well go for a quiet walk.

Winning is important to you. But not to others. many of us find other reasons to train, to suffer, to strive, and to enjoy a unique camaraderie with our fellow players.

> The winning team did it by calling 'cheap' fouls.

In what sense did they "win?" Why stop at cheap calls, why not trash your opponent's sleeping bags so they can't sleep the night before the finals? How about trash talking them so that they're too upset to play their best? Maybe 'accidentally' stomp a downed player's throwing hand?

All of these things value the score above proving you are the best at anything except being able to limbo lower and lower under the minimum bar of civility. Such actions cheat everyone, including the people who 'won.' Now they'll never enjoy what you say you value, proving they are the best. Maybe they were the best, maybe they weren't. They'll never know.

Back to youth soccer.

In this particular case, we aren't even really talking about winning, we're talking about a rule that you aren't to win by more than five goals and a team choosing to score on their own net to "win." Honestly, if I took the field and someone did that, I would join you on a quiet walk and leave them to enjoy their "win" alone.

That is neither winning nor losing soccer, it's something from a parallel universe where all that matters are some little black marks on a white piece of paper that gets tacked up on a bulletin board somewhere.

This may be just me but I've found Ultimate players to be by far the most competitive. It is almost as if people who know they have a problem are self selecting for a sport that is the most restraining in that particular way.

"If winning is not important, then Commander, why keep score?" --Lt. Worf

My dad's the sorta person who would have encouraged me to do that.