Why is it hard to score at soccer?

[The Bith Shuffle]

First off, I'd like to say that I am not a soccer outsider. I have played lots of soccer in my life. When I was five (in 1994), my dad purchased and brought home five soccer videos for my family, each one about the World Cup. We have watched them so many times over the years, as a family, that I can recall many of the announcements (all British) from memory. Some of them are truly incredible, such as this:

"The first hatrick of the World Cup is celebrated Spanish style, and it's been a hatrick awesome style by Michel".

Wow! Or how about this:

"This man can do no wrong! Fifty-seven million people celebrate as Schillaci gets his fifth goal of the 1990 World Cup. If you've never heard of the name before this month, you'll remember if for a long time to come, believe me."

I have watched some of every World Cup since. I've also watched recordings of English Premier League games.

---

Yet it seems to me, looking at the game objectively (so to speak), that scoring should be easy. First, consider these facts:

- the goal is really huge. In hockey, the goalkeeper can cover at least half the goal at any given time with his body, sometimes more. But the soccer goal is enormous.
- you can move the ball upfield really fast, often. If you lob the ball right, you can move forward half the field without impediment. Sometimes lobs miss, but generally speaking, it's not hard to get into the opponent's nearest third of the field.
- the soccer ball is not incredibly hard to handle. Dribbling around a goalkeeper (if he is the last impediment) is not that hard. It's not that hard to get it to curve. Most college-level players can chest-trap and head the ball with respectable accuracy, if not great accuracy.

Yet soccer is a very low-scoring game. It's very hard to score in soccer, at almost any level of play.

I have an intuitive grasp and feel for why it is hard to score at soccer, but if I had to explain why soccer is the lowest-scoring of all major sports (by far, I'd say), I would be at a loss.

Can anyone here put into words why it's hard to score at soccer?

[USCDiver]

The first two of your points are off-set by the fact that the ball doesn't travel very fast. Especially not compared to a hockey puck. So shots on goal and long up-field passes can be intercepted by a defender with relative ease given any reasonably well-positioned defender. Whereas in hockey, a slap shot will have to be deflected almost by reflex and positioning only due to the speed of the puck.

[Omniscient]

Soccer balls move much, much slower than just about every other goal/net sport. Lacrosse, Hockey, Field Hockey, Handball etc. The foot is much, much less dexterous than the hands and most sticks used in those sports. The field is much, much larger than any of those sports. Defenders can move much faster relative to ball handlers in soccer compared to those other sports. Soccer balls move less predictably and are more effected by the weather than the balls/pucks in any of those sports.

Pretty much everything about soccer is harder on the scorer/ball handler than its analogs.

[VarlosZ]

Speed is the most important factor, I'm sure. It's also worth mentioning that the only player on the field who's allowed to use his hands is a defender.

[cmosdes]

A soccer ball is 27 inches around with a diameter of 8.59 inches. The cross sectional area at the widest part of the ball is .40 ft^2. A soccer goal is 8' high by 24' wide, giving an area of 192 ft^2. In other words, the ball is 477 times smaller than the area of the goal.

In hockey, the puck is 1" high by 3" wide. This is a cross sectional area of 0.02 ft^2. The hockey goal is 6' by 4' which is 24 ft^2 cross sectional area. The puck is 1152 times smaller than the area of the goal.

So, two factors. First, stopping something that is 20 times smaller (puck is 20 times smaller than a ball, cross sectionally) and moving faster is going to be more difficult. Second, even though the hockey goal is smaller, the puck itself is smaller relative to the size of the soccer ball to the soccer goal so in effect it should be easier to put a puck in vs a soccer ball. Trying to get a basketball that is 0.001" smaller than the width of the rim would be far more difficult than trying to get a golf ball through the same rim.

As others have said, speed is probably the biggest issue.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Also, the field is monstrously large, and there are so many players on the pitch that it becomes much less likely that an individual's brilliance will create much scoring. And since the ball is so light and there's so much space to be negotiated, there's lots of opportunity for an attempted cross, pass, or shot to go awry.

The idea that a soccer ball isn't that hard to control is a relative thing, and so it's hard to argue, but keep in mind that the degree of control required to score a goal is that control which allows you to get the ball upfield with your feet while being opposed by a bunch of other people who can control it just as well as you can, and who also can put their hands on you, dive at the ball, grab your shirt, hack it into touch, etc. Emphasis there on with your FEET. Sure, you can trap the ball reasonably effectively to your feet, but now do it while I'm leaning on you and jumping into your field of vision. And once you've done that, congratulations, you can now think about starting to get closer to the goal or making a pass.

Really, the explanation is just that soccer is nothing like other sports.

[Omniscient]

Really, the explanation is just that soccer is nothing like other sports.

I disagree. Soccer is very much like many other sports, it just happens to have several very notable obstacles which others do not.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Well, OK. I'm just saying, those obstacles make scoring very different.

[John DiFool]

Also, the field is monstrously large, and there are so many players on the pitch that it becomes much less likely that an individual's brilliance will create much scoring.

My theory. Oh, before the Defenders of the One True Faith jump me bones, I'll say out front that, no, I am not suggesting that I favor completely bowdlerizing your sport into something completely different (already done that debate here before, not interested in a rerun), but to me it's clear that the scoring is low because there are too many players clogging the defensive zone, and in soccer with the big ball it's all too easy to deny possession to the offense (either by a turnover or by simply poking it back out of danger). In other words, if one defender royally screws up, someone else can probably easily cover for him. If you like the kind of play that this large number of defenders engenders, that's fine and dandy, but just once somewhere I'd like to see a league try 8/9 a side.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Indoor soccer is generally 6 on 6, I think. And yes, the scores are much higher.

I'm a big fan of soccer, by the way, so it isn't like I think the things I mention are fatal flaws.

[Hal Briston]

Make the goal four feet wider, and voilà, soccer is no longer the Worlds Most Boring Sport.

[Omniscient]

My theory. Oh, before the Defenders of the One True Faith jump me bones, I'll say out front that, no, I am not suggesting that I favor completely bowdlerizing your sport into something completely different (already done that debate here before, not interested in a rerun), but to me it's clear that the scoring is low because there are too many players clogging the defensive zone, and in soccer with the big ball it's all too easy to deny possession to the offense (either by a turnover or by simply poking it back out of danger). In other words, if one defender royally screws up, someone else can probably easily cover for him. If you like the kind of play that this large number of defenders engenders, that's fine and dandy, but just once somewhere I'd like to see a league try 8/9 a side.

Well, that's not that different from indoor soccer. And it does work to create more goals. Another improvement (IMHO) would be restricting the ability of forwards to fall into the defensive zone. Essentially you could still have 11 to a side but only allow 8 into each side of the field respectively.

Of course none of that is likely to happen because the current system in entrenched and the MLS is committed to competing with and sharing players with the big European and Latin leagues.

[Isamu]

I like the relatively low-scoring nature of soccer. When (OK, if :p) someone scores a goal it's a real event justifying celebration and cheers. I don't get the same feeling when watching a goal scored in a game like say, basketball. Although I do get the same feeling when watching someone make a touchdown, or complete a long pass in American football.

[Omniscient]

I like the relatively low-scoring nature of soccer. When (OK, if :p) someone scores a goal it's a real event justifying celebration and cheers. I don't get the same feeling when watching a goal scored in a game like say, basketball. Although I do get the same feeling when watching someone make a touchdown, or complete a long pass in American football.

If matches tended to be 4-3 or 5-4 affairs as opposed to 1-0 or 1-1 I can't imagine the excitement would be much different. No one is trying to make soccer into basketball. Hockey goals are quite the event afterall.

[yendis]

If high scores made for exciting sports then test cricket with scores of 400+ would be the most exciting thing in the world,

its not.

If goals are easier to get, then a lot of the tension goes out of the last half of the game. A single goal can secure a win so every attempt at goal is exciting because it could be the game winner.

[footballisplayedwithyourfeet]

You should really look at where the defensive football style is ccomming from. In the fifties teams used to play with 5 atackers (striker, left wide, left inside, right wide, right inside) and the scores were a lot higher. It is just the evolution of football that made teams adopt more defensive approaches, the main example is probably the extremely defensive Italian cattanacio that could stifle attacking teams and win by scoring just one or two goals.

I think were are actually seeing a reversal of this trend now. I've the feeling that nowadays the scores are a lot higher than in the nineties; this may be because 4-4-2 has now largly been replaced bu 4-5-1 fromations that are actually more like 4-2-3-1. So there are now 4 purely attacking players in some of the teams (note this isn't the case for all teams, but I'm seeing it at Arsenal, Barca, Real, ManU, Chelsea, Liverpool, Dutch national side, etc.)

[JoseArcadio]

You should really look at where the defensive football style is ccomming from. In the fifties teams used to play with 5 atackers (striker, left wide, left inside, right wide, right inside) and the scores were a lot higher. It is just the evolution of football that made teams adopt more defensive approaches, the main example is probably the extremely defensive Italian cattanacio that could stifle attacking teams and win by scoring just one or two goals.

I think were are actually seeing a reversal of this trend now. I've the feeling that nowadays the scores are a lot higher than in the nineties; this may be because 4-4-2 has now largly been replaced bu 4-5-1 fromations that are actually more like 4-2-3-1. So there are now 4 purely attacking players in some of the teams (note this isn't the case for all teams, but I'm seeing it at Arsenal, Barca, Real, ManU, Chelsea, Liverpool, Dutch national side, etc.)

This was what I came in to say.

Another possible factor is that it's easier to coach good defending than good attacking.

[DSYoungEsq]

I notice that the OP didn't start out doing anything but asking why it's hard to score in soccer, but it's already degenerated into the usual stupidity about how the game needs more scoring. Most popular sport on the planet as it is, but it needs more scoring, so us Americans can actually find it interesting. :rolleyes:

A couple points:

Widening the goal by 4 feet would do almost nothing. Players don't aim for the middle of the goal, the aim for the edges. Widen the goal by a small amount like that and all that would happen is they would miss at the edges still. You might see an increase in penalty kick success, which isn't really desirable, truth be told. And I believe some minor leagues have experimented with wider goals and haven't see appreciably higher scoring rates.

Reducing the number of players on the field can help, but if you played 9 on 9 instead of 11 on 11, for 90 min., you'd have to increase substitutions, or face some definite conditioning issues. As it is, a pro midfielder runs in excess of 6 miles during a game, and is usually pretty wrung out by the end. And, of course, extrapolating success outdoors with increased scoring using smaller sides from the indoor experience is not valid, since the indoor game has numerous other aspects that make it more of a scoring fest. So, if there were 8 field players, you could still play 8 behind the ball on defense, and there would be relatively fewer attacking players, thus scoring going up not such a guarantee.

[Chez Guevara]

You should really look at where the defensive football style is ccomming from. In the fifties teams used to play with 5 atackers (striker, left wide, left inside, right wide, right inside) and the scores were a lot higher.You can say that again.

A bit before my time, but take a look at these scores from the 1954 World Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_FIFA_World_Cup), especially in the first round Group 2. Also of interest is the quarter final between Austria and Switzerland. The Swiss side was 3 goals up inside 19 minutes, yet by the 27th minute the Austrians had levelled the score, and by the 34th minute they led 5-3. The final result was Austria 7 Switzerland 5.

[tagos]

Speaking for the Rest of The World here (we had an election and everything). We really don't care if Americans don't like football. Just to hear you talk about ' defensive zones' make us smile.

You just don't get it and probably never will. and that's okay.

We see nothing remotely interesting in your glorified rounders, hooligans on ice, or rugby for sissies either. ;)

[Wakinyan]

Here's another one who don't understand the argument that soccer is boring because of the low scoring. As someone else said, since the scoring is low, chances, even half chances, can be extremely exciting, and if one goal makes all the difference, you're afraid to leave the TV if only to get another beer.

Turn it around: If you want us European to get excited by NFL, you should widen the football field and make the goals larger. That'd make one hell of difference, right?

If you don't "get" the game, what difference does it make to you if there's two or six goals during those 90+ minutes? Would football be more exciting if teams usually did twenty TDs per game, instead of a mere few?

(I watch more football than soccer, by the way, I enjoy both sports very much.)

[fjs1fs]

I think the point that many are missing about soccer is not necessarily that it is "BORING." I find that it can be very exciting, even though I am an American, American football loving, non-soccer fan. The problem with soccer is that the winning team quite often didn't really outplay the losing team. There is such great difficulty in scoring, even when you completely dominate the opposition. So teams wind up winning the World Cup on PENALTY KICKS. What a phenominal waste of FOUR YEARS! Sure, flukes can happen in American football, and even more so in baseball, which result in the "better" team not actually winning the game, but in soccer that percentage is so high because of the fact that goals are so hard to come by.

[fjs1fs]

And one more point, I would love to see one of these posters who calls NFL players "pussies" do so to an NFLers face.

[kenobi 65]

Turn it around: If you want us European to get excited by NFL, you should widen the football field and make the goals larger. That'd make one hell of difference, right?

Actually, it might. :)

You just described, at least in part, the difference between American football and Canadian football. (Canadian football also has an extra player per side, only three downs to make 10 yards, and more liberal rules on offensive motion before the play.) It's clearly a different kind of game, with generally higher scoring, and not as many 300+ pound players.

[Snarky_Kong]

Widening the goal by 4 feet would do almost nothing. Players don't aim for the middle of the goal, the aim for the edges. Widen the goal by a small amount like that and all that would happen is they would miss at the edges still. You might see an increase in penalty kick success, which isn't really desirable, truth be told. And I believe some minor leagues have experimented with wider goals and haven't see appreciably higher scoring rates.

You're assuming they'd still aim at the edges. Widen the goals by 30 feet and will they still be missing the edges? No, they'll be comfortably placing the ball in the gaping hole to either side of the keeper. And aiming at the edges isn't really accurate since you don't aim at a post, you aim at side netting or the back corner. Widening the goal would give a greater margin of error. All that being said I think it's a bad idea. Scoring rates are fine and all that.

I hadn't heard about leagues using larger goals. Link?

[SanVito]

Others have got there before me, but I'll say it again: defensive tactics. Teams that defend strongly with a highly organised defensive back line prevent scoring against them. This also has an effect at the other end of the pitch – if you've thrown all your attention and manpower on defense, then you've often taken some of your firepower away up front. Hence, low scoring games.

Back in the 80s/90s (bit hazy on timings) the English Premier League side Arsenal earned the nickname 'Boring Boring Arsenal' as they defended so fiercely that they became notorious for smothering games and winning 1-0. Conversely Newcastle United under the coaching of (former striker) Kevin Keagan, threw everything into attack and scored highly... but leaked goals at the back as a result. Keagan's view was that if his opponents score 4, Newcastle would score 5. Exciting, but dangerous, tactics.

You generally get higher scoring games in lower rent leagues - watch a game with a bunch of kids, who defend badly and all chase the same ball rather than marking their man, and you see much higher scores.

[villa]

I think the point that many are missing about soccer is not necessarily that it is "BORING." I find that it can be very exciting, even though I am an American, American football loving, non-soccer fan. The problem with soccer is that the winning team quite often didn't really outplay the losing team. There is such great difficulty in scoring, even when you completely dominate the opposition. So teams wind up winning the World Cup on PENALTY KICKS. What a phenominal waste of FOUR YEARS! Sure, flukes can happen in American football, and even more so in baseball, which result in the "better" team not actually winning the game, but in soccer that percentage is so high because of the fact that goals are so hard to come by.

18 World Cups. 2 decided on penalties. And in neither case would I say the clearly better team lost. Penalty shootouts are a lousy way to determine the winner I would agree, but to attack it in the same breath as defending (pro) football, with the single worst method of breaking ties in existance, smacks a little of pot-kettle coloring competition.

I hate these kinds of threads. If people don't like soccer, fine. I hate Nascar, but have no interest in changing the rules of that sport to try to make it what I think it should be. Don't like it, don't watch it. Soccer is a massively popular sport, and the fans don't seem to think it needs more scoring.

Then of course we get the other side chiming in, attacking US sports, including the utter ridiculous comments abotu football being a sport for wimps. Jesus - the same thing applies. Don't like it? Don't watch. There are enough sporting hours on TV for everyone. As for the idea that rugby players are in some way 'tougher'? Well, I've known a couple of people to play both sports at a serious level, and they'd disagree. But the sort of childish pissing match of my country's sports are better than yours is ridiculous.

[Phatlewt]

The off-sides rules seem like they're designed to stop offense.
Whether or not you are off sides depends on the position of the defensemen, rather than where you are on the field. I think that makes it easy for the defense to force an attacking player into being off sides, ruining a possible break away.

[villa]

It depends on both where you are on the pitch and the position of the defender. And the position of the ball. And whether you are interfering with play.

[The Bith Shuffle]

18 World Cups. 2 decided on penalties. And in neither case would I say the clearly better team lost. Penalty shootouts are a lousy way to determine the winner I would agree, but to attack it in the same breath as defending (pro) football, with the single worst method of breaking ties in existance, smacks a little of pot-kettle coloring competition.

I hate these kinds of threads. If people don't like soccer, fine. I hate Nascar, but have no interest in changing the rules of that sport to try to make it what I think it should be. Don't like it, don't watch it. Soccer is a massively popular sport, and the fans don't seem to think it needs more scoring.


Believing that soccer's method of resolving ties should be changed is a separate position from the position of believing that some way should be found to increase scoring.

Only two World Cup finals have been resolved on penalties, but they were both in recent years (1994 and 2006). I agree that in neither case was the losing team obviously superior, but the losing team was not obviously inferior either.

Penalties have also decided important World Cup matches outside of the final. In the 1990 World Cup, Argentina got past Yugoslavia and Italy through penalties. While an argument could be made that they were better than Yugoslavia, they may not have been better - after all, Argentina lost to Cameroon and only tied Romania in the starting rounds. And it's really hard to see how Argentina was even on the same level as Italy that World Cup, which had won every game outright up until their semifinal with Argentina and had let in exactly zero goals up until then. Other significant non-final games have been settled on penalties in in the World Cup, such as the shootout between West Germany and France in 1982.

Defenders of the penalty shootout often respond with the dumbest defense ever: "if you don't like soccer as it is, you don't have to watch it. Don't try to change it." Employers of this argument act as though those who oppose the penalty shootout are trying to change some fundamental element of the game.

We're not. We like soccer, except for the fact that it has a ridiculous way of resolving ties. Resolving ties through a less crap-shoot-ish method would not destroy the fabric of the game. Soccer would still be soccer if important games were not won on the basis of which goalkeeper is better at guessing left or right.

[ivan astikov]

And one more point, I would love to see one of these posters who calls NFL players "pussies" do so to an NFLers face.

Have they all had humor by-passes, then? Big guys like that having to prove themself everytime someone calls them a pussy, seems a bit sad.

[ivan astikov]

We're not. We like soccer, except for the fact that it has a ridiculous way of resolving ties. Resolving ties through a less crap-shoot-ish method would not destroy the fabric of the game. Soccer would still be soccer if important games were not won on the basis of which goalkeeper is better at guessing left or right.

The way to solve ties without using the cruel penalty shoot-out, is to remove a player after every 5 minutes of extra time(or 2 every 10). That could turn out mildly hilarious on occasion, which would be a bonus, as it would remind us all it is only a game.

[villa]

Believing that soccer's method of resolving ties should be changed is a separate position from the position of believing that some way should be found to increase scoring.

Only two World Cup finals have been resolved on penalties, but they were both in recent years (1994 and 2006). I agree that in neither case was the losing team obviously superior, but the losing team was not obviously inferior either.

Penalties have also decided important World Cup matches outside of the final. In the 1990 World Cup, Argentina got past Yugoslavia and Italy through penalties. While an argument could be made that they were better than Yugoslavia, they may not have been better - after all, Argentina lost to Cameroon and only tied Romania in the starting rounds. And it's really hard to see how Argentina was even on the same level as Italy that World Cup, which had won every game outright up until their semifinal with Argentina and had let in exactly zero goals up until then. Other significant non-final games have been settled on penalties in in the World Cup, such as the shootout between West Germany and France in 1982.

Defenders of the penalty shootout often respond with the dumbest defense ever: "if you don't like soccer as it is, you don't have to watch it. Don't try to change it." Employers of this argument act as though those who oppose the penalty shootout are trying to change some fundamental element of the game.

We're not. We like soccer, except for the fact that it has a ridiculous way of resolving ties. Resolving ties through a less crap-shoot-ish method would not destroy the fabric of the game. Soccer would still be soccer if important games were not won on the basis of which goalkeeper is better at guessing left or right.

Well I was responsing specifically to...

So teams wind up winning the World Cup on PENALTY KICKS. What a phenominal waste of FOUR YEARS!

And I also did say that:

Penalty shootouts are a lousy way to determine the winner I would agree

So yes, they suck. They should be changed. Fabric of the game won't change. But the reason it sucks has nothing to do with the ease of scoring.

[The Bith Shuffle]

So yes, they suck. They should be changed. Fabric of the game won't change. But the reason it sucks has nothing to do with the ease of scoring.

villa, I was just ranting against you specifically as a substitute for all the annoying people in the world who are less reasonable on this issue. I'm glad that the actual villa gets it. ;-)

[The Bith Shuffle]

The way to solve ties without using the cruel penalty shoot-out, is to remove a player after every 5 minutes of extra time(or 2 every 10). That could turn out mildly hilarious on occasion, which would be a bonus, as it would remind us all it is only a game.

That's one method, but in my opinion there are many methods which remain less ridiculous than penalties. I don't think either of the following make as little sense as penalty shootouts:

- Offense vs. Defense set-ups with, say, 2 attackers versus 2 defenders and the goalkeeper. Add or subtract defenders or attackers to balance it out so the odds of scoring are not super-high or super-low.
- Longer range shots or free kicks, which require more accuracy and give the goalkeeper more time to really save the shot instead of just guess randomly

Empirical testing could be used to determine the best range for the free kicks or the right ratio of defenders to attackers for the set-ups. Once some reasonable distance or system had been found, it could be implemented.

[villa]

villa, I was just ranting against you specifically as a substitute for all the annoying people in the world who are less reasonable on this issue. I'm glad that the actual villa gets it. ;-)

Fair enough. Rant on.

I do get prickly about it when people who know nothing about the game use it as their reason to attack soccer. Kind of luck your drunk uncle - you can talk about what a lush he is, but if anyone outside the family comments on it, you get riled.

[chowder]

Speaking for the Rest of The World here (we had an election and everything). We really don't care if Americans don't like football. Just to hear you talk about ' defensive zones' make us smile.

You just don't get it and probably never will. and that's okay.

We see nothing remotely interesting in your glorified rounders, hooligans on ice, or rugby for sissies either. ;)

You forgot to mention the netball ;)

[Little Nemo]

On a physical level, compare soccer and basketball. In basketball, the players are trying to put a nine and a half inch inch ball into a seventeen and a half inch net. In soccer, the players are trying to put a nine inch ball into a twenty four foot wide net. But a basketball game would be considered low scoring if the ball only went in a net a hundred times while a soccer game would be considered high scoring if the ball went into a net ten times.

[DSYoungEsq]

Defenders of the penalty shootout often respond with the dumbest defense ever: "if you don't like soccer as it is, you don't have to watch it. Don't try to change it." Employers of this argument act as though those who oppose the penalty shootout are trying to change some fundamental element of the game.
.

Except that no one says that. You are, again, making something up in order to knock it down. Stop doing that, please.

The response to the criticism of the penalty shootout is to note quite cogently that there is no good alternative solution. Unlike other sports, the idea of playing on until you resolve the game through a naturally scored goal runs a serious risk of making a mockery of the sport. Because soccer doesn't allow for unlimited substitutions, players on the field end up doing a considerable amount of running during a game. After an added 30 min., the amount of movement on the field begins to approximate what would happen if you put everyone's feet in molasses to begin with. Part of the drama of a penalty kick shootout is that the takers aren't just facing the pressure of scoring one-on-one; they are doing so while mosly totally physically wiped out.

The usual suggestion is to allow more substitutions during extra time. But there are a limited number of players available at any given time for substitution, and thus, even if you added a certain number of available subs during the play of extra time, you could not rest the whole team. That then reduces the result during extra time to who manages to get lucky through some absurd defensive lapse on the part of the opponents, or who managed to substitute in the lucky person at some point in the game. So far, soccer authorities have not wanted to experiment with this sort of situation.

In addition, the one nice thing about soccer is that you can plan how long a game will take at the outside limit. 120 min. of play (with 15 min. halftime and a brief interval between game and extra time), plus shootout. Makes the TV johnnies happy. :)


ETA: And looking at your suggested substitutes, they are not inherently better than penalty kicks, which are, at least, part of the game itself.

[Chez Guevara]

The response to the criticism of the penalty shootout is to note quite cogently that there is no good alternative solution.It's also an improvement on the previous method of separating the two teams when replays were deemed to be impractical, i.e. tossing a coin to decide the winner.

[footballisplayedwithyourfeet]

Except that no one says that. You are, again, making something up in order to knock it down. Stop doing that, please.

The response to the criticism of the penalty shootout is to note quite cogently that there is no good alternative solution. Unlike other sports, the idea of playing on until you resolve the game through a naturally scored goal runs a serious risk of making a mockery of the sport. Because soccer doesn't allow for unlimited substitutions, players on the field end up doing a considerable amount of running during a game. After an added 30 min., the amount of movement on the field begins to approximate what would happen if you put everyone's feet in molasses to begin with. Part of the drama of a penalty kick shootout is that the takers aren't just facing the pressure of scoring one-on-one; they are doing so while mosly totally physically wiped out.

The usual suggestion is to allow more substitutions during extra time. But there are a limited number of players available at any given time for substitution, and thus, even if you added a certain number of available subs during the play of extra time, you could not rest the whole team. That then reduces the result during extra time to who manages to get lucky through some absurd defensive lapse on the part of the opponents, or who managed to substitute in the lucky person at some point in the game. So far, soccer authorities have not wanted to experiment with this sort of situation.

In addition, the one nice thing about soccer is that you can plan how long a game will take at the outside limit. 120 min. of play (with 15 min. halftime and a brief interval between game and extra time), plus shootout. Makes the TV johnnies happy. :)


ETA: And looking at your suggested substitutes, they are not inherently better than penalty kicks, which are, at least, part of the game itself.



As a dutchman I hate penalty shoot outs, but here here! there just isn't any viable alternative. Note laso that there are very few instances in whicha draw is a problem - most competitions are either mostly about a (small) league or have home and away matches (where the only chance of penalties is when both games end in the exact same score). These do happen to be the most important matches though, I'll give you that.

[Really Not All That Bright]

That's one method, but in my opinion there are many methods which remain less ridiculous than penalties. I don't think either of the following make as little sense as penalty shootouts:

- Offense vs. Defense set-ups with, say, 2 attackers versus 2 defenders and the goalkeeper. Add or subtract defenders or attackers to balance it out so the odds of scoring are not super-high or super-low.
- Longer range shots or free kicks, which require more accuracy and give the goalkeeper more time to really save the shot instead of just guess randomly

The first one is a horrible idea, or at least it's no more sensible than the current setup. I kind of like the second, though.

Personally, I think they should just play another 30 minutes of extra time with the goalies pulled (or not allowed to use hands, maybe). That would be fun to watch.

[The Bith Shuffle]

Except that no one says that. You are, again, making something up in order to knock it down.


Yep.

[SanVito]

The off-sides rules seem like they're designed to stop offense.

No, they're designed to stop goal-hanging. Without them, an attacker would just stand next to the away goal while his team mates lobbed long balls at him. It would completely kill the game.

With off-side, it encourages more creative play (passing and dribbling).

[villa]

The first one is a horrible idea, or at least it's no more sensible than the current setup. I kind of like the second, though.

Personally, I think they should just play another 30 minutes of extra time with the goalies pulled (or not allowed to use hands, maybe). That would be fun to watch.

I would go back to the silver goal/golden goal thing, and add up to another two extra time periods. Both golden goal, obviously. I doubt there would be many penalty shootouts required then.

[Duke]

The response to the criticism of the penalty shootout is to note quite cogently that there is no good alternative solution.

I'd disagree with that, quite honestly. Most football commentators I've listened to in England feel that there is an ideal solution to drawn games in a tournament: replay the game next week at the away team's ground. That's how the FA Cup was set up for over a century, and that's how everyone liked it until the Big Money took over. Failing that, there's the two-leg tournament system, which cuts down on penalty shootouts by introducing the concept of the away goal.

The penalty shootout is a false-drama solution designed to appease television. Dismissing other solutions as "no good alternative" is to rather ignore that fact. The Football Association got along swimmingly without penalty shootouts for over a century, and outside of the Premier League and the TV barons they'd still rather go without them.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I would go back to the silver goal/golden goal thing, and add up to another two extra time periods. Both golden goal, obviously. I doubt there would be many penalty shootouts required then.
Players are generally cramping by the end of the first extra time period. I think by the end of the second one it'd basically just be a case of everyone whacking the ball up the pitch and hoping.

ETA: Premiership matches go to penalties now? Why? :confused:

[Duke]

ETA: Premiership matches go to penalties now? Why? :confused:

I was a little confusing there--what I meant was that it was the Premier League clubs which pushed the FA to introduce penalty shootouts in the FA Cup. The FA officially blamed "fixture backlog", but one might note that none of the smaller clubs had any problems with that.

[DSYoungEsq]

I'd disagree with that, quite honestly. Most football commentators I've listened to in England feel that there is an ideal solution to drawn games in a tournament: replay the game next week at the away team's ground. That's how the FA Cup was set up for over a century, and that's how everyone liked it until the Big Money took over. Failing that, there's the two-leg tournament system, which cuts down on penalty shootouts by introducing the concept of the away goal.

The penalty shootout is a false-drama solution designed to appease television. Dismissing other solutions as "no good alternative" is to rather ignore that fact. The Football Association got along swimmingly without penalty shootouts for over a century, and outside of the Premier League and the TV barons they'd still rather go without them.

Replays are not a viable solution in tournament finals, like the World Cup. And whether we like it or not, fixture congestion is a significant issue for larger clubs. Replays pose a substantial challenge. Note that replays are used throughout the FA Cup prior to the Final (can't remember if semi-finals use replays or not). But even replays aren't a panacea: you might draw the replay, and even the somewhat arbitrary rule about "away goals" won't always save you from a shootout.

[The Bith Shuffle]

Okay, now that I think about things more seriously, I realize that there isn't any obviously better solution right now to the whole resolving-ties thing. And my suggestion that defenders of penalties always say "if you don't like soccer, don't watch it" is an exaggeration.

But I really would be surprised if DSYoungEsq denied that many fans have a sort of stubborn traditionalism over the matter. I think it's reasonable to believe that, through creative, careful thought and experimentation, a better solution could be found. But I perceive that the attitude among many soccer fans is a Bruce Hornsby-ish "that's just the way it is". Maybe so, but I don't think we can be justified in saying that it could never change - for the better.

[Duke]

Replays are not a viable solution in tournament finals, like the World Cup. And whether we like it or not, fixture congestion is a significant issue for larger clubs. Replays pose a substantial challenge. Note that replays are used throughout the FA Cup prior to the Final (can't remember if semi-finals use replays or not). But even replays aren't a panacea: you might draw the replay, and even the somewhat arbitrary rule about "away goals" won't always save you from a shootout.

FIFA didn't use penalty shootouts at all until 1970, and as late as 1974 the European Cup final went to a replay. The only reason the World Cup final didn't go to a replay was just sheer luck; other major tournaments had done so. Again, nobody had a problem with replays until money got involved.

Frankly, I just can't argue that a solution that was well and good until the advent of big TV dollars/pounds/euros/etc. and billionaire chairmen wanting to protect millionaire players as "not a good solution". If the NFL decided "so that television schedules can be better decided in advance, and to protect our players from fatigue or potential injury" that tied games wouldn't result in overtime but instead would lead to a field-goal kicking contest, nobody would say that was a good solution , even those are exactly the same reasons behind the idea of the penalty shootout.

And, yes, if a replay ended in a draw, you had another replay, and that was the case in the FA Cup even until the late 1990's.

[Duke]

But I really would be surprised if DSYoungEsq denied that many fans have a sort of stubborn traditionalism over the matter. I think it's reasonable to believe that, through creative, careful thought and experimentation, a better solution could be found. But I perceive that the attitude among many soccer fans is a Bruce Hornsby-ish "that's just the way it is".

If that's what it is, it's a bizarre traditionalism. Penalty shootouts in soccer are an absolute novelty--consider that the FA was founded in 1864, and the first penalty shootout in an English professional game didn't take place until 1970. The penalty shootout, strictly speaking, is as "traditional" as the designated hitter in baseball.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I was a little confusing there--what I meant was that it was the Premier League clubs which pushed the FA to introduce penalty shootouts in the FA Cup. The FA officially blamed "fixture backlog", but one might note that none of the smaller clubs had any problems with that.
Oh. Carry on, then. I do think the idea of unending replays is a bad one- FA Cup matches are played in midweek and could conflict with European commitments for Premiership clubs, or even with League Cup fixtures.

ETA: I would on the other hand be all for a next-day replay of the World Cup final.

[The Bith Shuffle]

If that's what it is, it's a bizarre traditionalism. Penalty shootouts in soccer are an absolute novelty--consider that the FA was founded in 1864, and the first penalty shootout in an English professional game didn't take place until 1970. The penalty shootout, strictly speaking, is as "traditional" as the designated hitter in baseball.

I can see what you're saying, but people can be traditionalistic over anything that has been around for most or all of their lives. Imagine if I started up a discussion over the relative merits of the three-point shot. I am not a fan of it, personally, since it gives people disincentive to try to get the best shot they can.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Shhh. The Magic would suck if you took away the three-pointer.

[Duke]

I can see what you're saying, but people can be traditionalistic over anything that has been around for most or all of their lives. Imagine if I started up a discussion over the relative merits of the three-point shot.

That's true, but I strongly doubt you'd have people arguing that "there is no good alternative" to having the three-pointer as is.

I'm still confused by DSYoungEsq's claim that the penalty shootout is the best of all available solutions to a drawn game. Even Sepp Blatter and Pele have endorsed the "more substitutes and a golden goal" solution. What could they be thinking?

[villa]

Players are generally cramping by the end of the first extra time period. I think by the end of the second one it'd basically just be a case of everyone whacking the ball up the pitch and hoping.


I'd allow an extra sub when you got to extra time. But that is a tactical risk you take - do you keep a little in the tank for extra time or not...

[scule]

I much prefer the golden goal rule than the current system, and I really think they should allow at least 3 extra substitutions in extra time.

I wonder if perhaps eliminating offside in extra time, except in the opposing box, would not help to beef up scoring. It seems gimmicky, and somewhat artificial, but I'd much rather see a team score a goal than a single player one-on-one with a keeper.

As for why it's so hard to score in soccer compared to other games, it's really simple. It's f#*$ing hard to control a ball with your feet and get it through 11 people and into a guarded net. Like, really hard. It may sound simple, but just try it. It's so much easier to hold people off, knock the ball away, and otherwise disrupt attempts to shoot than it is to actually control the ball and put it in the net. That's all there is to it. And I don't want to see anything change.

[chique]

...Even Sepp Blatter...I thought using Blatter as a cite for anything football-related was an automatic fail. ;)

I read someplace (here?) that corner kicks have been floated as an alternative to penalty kicks. Since extra time isn't really a viable option (did anyone watch the Chelsea/ManU final in Moscow? Bodies were sprawled across the pitch for half an hour; not pretty - and shit football.) and everyone hates penalties I'd like to see someone experiment with it.

[DSYoungEsq]

First of all, as to the Golden Goal rule, please recall that football experimented with it and decisively rejected it after having used it to determine the winner of the two European Championships (Euro '96 and Euro '00), and at least one quarter-final match in WC 2002. The rest of the world generally rejects the idea that one lucky moment early on during extra time should doom someone to defeat; you get the whole 30 min. to decide the matter. I tend to agree.

As to the penalty kick shootout itself, the issue is not traditionalism, as has been pointed out. It's relatively novel as these things go, and it's not yet the sole method for deciding drawn ties (that's not a redundant phrase outside the US, btw). Replays remain in use in many cases. An even better method of dealing with the possibility of drawn games is to use the home-and-home method for deciding a tie, which reduces the chance of a drawn result between the teams. But it isn't feasible to do home-and-home in all situations, and there are many cases where resolving a drawn game through replay, especially in today's modern tournament structure, simply isn't a feasible solution. The Olympic tournament leaps to mind. And, truth be told, suggesting that the World Cup Finals final match could be replayed is simply silly; in today's modern sporting world, asking everyone to show back up in three days, midweek, at the same venue, which may well have other things scheduled, etc., just won't work easily. It could be done, of course, just as the U.S.G.A. still insists upon an 18-hole playoff following a tied result through 4 rounds at their open championships. But that concept is the dinosaur of methods, and has been rejected by almost all sports that could use some form of replay on a later date to solve tied games.

Extra subs simply isn't a viable answer, either. Yes, the idea of an extra sub or two during the extra time would help, but it doesn't truly solve the main issue: most of the 22 players on the field will be relatively spent, and in today's fast-paced modern game, by the end of the extra 30 min., the players simply are out of gas. Unlike hockey, with its unlimited substitutions and stop-and-go nature, soccer simply isn't set up to keep going and going.

There may be a better method, but given that it will have to be something that doesn't involve awful play from tired players, occurs on the same day at the same time, and doesn't fundamentally change the structure of what is going on, I'm not sure that there is another easily used alternative to penalties. And, while I'm not a big fan of them, they ARE exciting to watch...

[The Bith Shuffle]

There may be a better method, but given that it will have to be something that doesn't involve awful play from tired players, occurs on the same day at the same time, and doesn't fundamentally change the structure of what is going on, I'm not sure that there is another easily used alternative to penalties. And, while I'm not a big fan of them, they ARE exciting to watch...

And thus not all people are identical.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'd allow an extra sub when you got to extra time. But that is a tactical risk you take - do you keep a little in the tank for extra time or not...
I don't think one or even two extra subs is going to make a difference when everyone else is dragging one leg around.

[Ellis Dee]

I thought using Blatter as a cite for anything football-related was an automatic fail. ;)

I read someplace (here?) that corner kicks have been floated as an alternative to penalty kicks. Since extra time isn't really a viable option (did anyone watch the Chelsea/ManU final in Moscow? Bodies were sprawled across the pitch for half an hour; not pretty - and shit football.) and everyone hates penalties I'd like to see someone experiment with it.I proposed the idea here on the boards three years ago (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7541821#post7541821), though it was like pulling teeth in that thread to get any of the soccer fans to stop with the kneejerk handwaving and give a thoughtful response. The ones who responded to the corner kicks idea seemed to think it would either take too long or it would be too difficult to determine when each kick attempt ended. Personally I don't think either of those objections hold any merit, much like (earlier in that thread) I didn't think the arguments against refs noting the minute of each goal had any merit. (They didn't.)

[Really Not All That Bright]

How would you determine when each kick attempt ended? The problem with corners is that it's not any more representative of the actual game than penalties, and penalties at least create drama.

[Piker]

I proposed the idea here on the boards three years ago (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7541821#post7541821), though it was like pulling teeth in that thread to get any of the soccer fans to stop with the kneejerk handwaving and give a thoughtful response. The ones who responded to the corner kicks idea seemed to think it would either take too long or it would be too difficult to determine when each kick attempt ended. Personally I don't think either of those objections hold any merit, much like (earlier in that thread) I didn't think the arguments against refs noting the minute of each goal had any merit. (They didn't.)

Corner kicks is interesting. As one die-hard who's sick of this "penalty kick" tradition, and wants replays to come back (but realizes that they are not), I'm all for new ideas.

One downside I would imagine of having a CK tiebreaker is that it would privilege those teams that rely on set pieces for their offense. Free kick shootouts, old MLS style shootouts, etc., all privilege one type of offense over others. I guess that is the "beauty" of the PK shootouts ... penalties are something that all teams practice.

My idea always has been, after 120 minutes, was to have the penalty shootout, but then play one extra period of ten minutes afterwords. At the conclusion of that period, if the scores remain level, then the team who won the shootout advances. In other words, give the winner of the shootout a de facto "half-goal" advantage.

I got this idea after watching some of the Mexican League playoffs. In Mexico, they play a home-and-home, but the higher seed team has the tie-breaker "half-goal" advantage after 180 minutes. One side always has the impetus to push forward.

[The Bith Shuffle]

My idea always has been, after 120 minutes, was to have the penalty shootout, but then play one extra period of ten minutes afterwords. At the conclusion of that period, if the scores remain level, then the team who won the shootout advances. In other words, give the winner of the shootout a de facto "half-goal" advantage.

I got this idea after watching some of the Mexican League playoffs. In Mexico, they play a home-and-home, but the higher seed team has the tie-breaker "half-goal" advantage after 180 minutes. One side always has the impetus to push forward.

The side with the half-goal advantage has every incentive to waste time and maintain position.

[chique]

I proposed the idea here on the boards three years ago (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7541821#post7541821), though it was like pulling teeth in that thread to get any of the soccer fans to stop with the kneejerk handwaving and give a thoughtful response. The ones who responded to the corner kicks idea seemed to think it would either take too long or it would be too difficult to determine when each kick attempt ended. Personally I don't think either of those objections hold any merit, much like (earlier in that thread) I didn't think the arguments against refs noting the minute of each goal had any merit. (They didn't.)That's a rather crap reading of what I just read - one "hmm, maybe" response, then you were off on another tangent.

Anyhow, "too long" is definitely an argument with significant merit; watching football when players have spaghetti for tendons just isn't much fun.How would you determine when each kick attempt ended? The problem with corners is that it's not any more representative of the actual game than penalties, and penalties at least create drama.In this little penalty-free world I'm creating for myself there wouldn't be any extra time, corners would be sudden-death, they'd be taken as penalties are now (that is, everyone on the team gets a chance in order), and the attempt would stop when the ball left the penalty area. Simple as.

I completely agree that penalties add drama; I just don't like that a team sport suddenly goes to a one-on-one, who-fakes-out-whom-first crap shoot. At least with corners it remains a team sport.

I'm not having any more luck then Dead Badger in that old thread in finding conversion rates, though, and three hours of corners would end up looking like a training session.

[GargoyleWB]

As a lifelong player (and current goalie)...

With respect to cross-sectional area, it is trivially easy to hit the large goal area, but very rarely in a game does anyone get a shot with the whole goal area available. If the defense does their job, the offense will never have a full-area opportunity on goal during a game.

Everything defenders and goalies do with positioning is meant to reduce that cross-section. As a defender, if I can't block the shot directly, I can at least deny 50% of the shot angle with positioning to give my goalie less area to defend. At the higher skill levels of the game, offensive shots are threading-the-needle windows of opportunity.

[DSYoungEsq]

Yes, one of the troubles with the idea of corner kicks is that corner kicks do not routinely lead to goals. And when they do, it is the result of luck often enough I'm not sure you'd want that simple factor to INCREASE its participation in the result of a drawn match.

Most games have several corners, but it is rare for one of them to result in a score. I'd expect that the conversion rate is less than 10% for most teams. That means the first corner kick scored on would result in an end to the game in most cases.

[Piker]

The side with the half-goal advantage has every incentive to waste time and maintain position.

Right. This is a feature, not a bug.

The whole point of that system is to force one team to push forward, and therefore avoid situations where both sides are too risk-adverse to commit itself to go forward.

It's also a way to keep result-forcing shootouts without having them be wholly determinative.