The other suggestions, such as reducing players, corners etc., all either create an element that does not exist in the normal game at all, or emphasise one element above all others. No more satisfying.
Surely taking golf matches to sudden-death extra holes is little different to penalties, in terms of being pretty much a lottery?
I don’t deny that it is unsatisfying. I just consider all the alternatives vastly more unsatisfying. And it’s still clearly football - like I said, the best footballers score statistically more penalties and the best football goalkeepers statistically save more of them.
There was no actual final. There was a second group stage of four teams, the winner of which would become champions. But it turned out that the last game, between Brazil and Uruguay, decided who won the tournament and has been remembered as the final. Brazil needed only a draw, but Uruguay beat them to become champions.
It was on TV only last night, is how I know 
I might be biased as I watched the match with a room full of screaming Liverpool supporters but I tell ya, that was one exciting game. The Gerrard goal was incredible, I liked the shootout (but I’m an American so who cares what I think:))
Remember the US is ranked 4th in the …no, I couldn’t even get that out with a straight face! I want what that computer was smoking, I’d put us at 8-10th. We’re good but not consistent.
Still too many. Soccer would be improved my more goal scoring. And I say this as one who has played and followed the game all my life. I know, we’ve all seen those exciting 0-0 games, but those aren’t really the norm.
Maybe if you’re English, you’re trying to erase that Cup from memory. 
Hey, we have rueful memories of most World Cups (including that infamous 1-0 thrashing by the USA to which I think you allude). The other one, if we mention it at all the Scots accuse us of going on about it all the time.
Actually, depending on what time period you’re talking about, there isn’t much more scoring in Padded Figure Skating than there is in Association Football. It may be of interest to point out that in the Stanley Cup Playoffs, ties are resolved by sudden death overtime, and on certain rare occasions the overtime has stretched out longer than the regulation time. It is true that some of those games end with goals that are either unsatisfying crap obviously due to overtiredness of players. IIRC, the Edmonton Oilers once won one of these extremely long games because one of their forwards had gotten himself benched by the coach for doing something stupid in the first period of the game. Come the third overtime period, he got put back in, was the only one on the ice with any energy left, and scored. Such games, however, are the exception. Most overtime games are resolved within the first 20 minute period.
In most international Padded Figure Skating competitions, ties are resolved by shootouts. All right-thinking fans of Padded Figure Skating view this as an abomination.
The average Premier League game has about 2.5 goals per game; the NHL average is about six and a half goals scored, which is up a bit from the last few years but average by historical standards. (It hit 8.03 goals per game in 1981-1982, probably not coincidentally the year The Great One scored 92 goals.) The LOWEST rate of scoring the NHL has ever seen is 4.79 goals per game, set in 1952. I’d say hockey does in fact have a lot more scoring.
1952? I’m almost certain that there were some years earlier than that when forward passes in the offensive zone were against the rules, and scoring was much lower than 4.79/game. Now, I’m not an NHL history buff, but I’m remembering the famous Islanders/Capitals overtime game in 87, and at that time it was the longest since some games in the 30s (?) which lasted ridiculously long and (and this is the relevant bit) were scoreless ties up until the winning goals. The whole forward passing thing was cited as the reason for these, and it was suggested that such extremely low scores were typical of the period. I shall have to do a bit of research I guess.
And yes, ordinarily there’s double to triple the scoring in hockey compared to soccer, but hockey is still comparable to soccer in terms of scoring, where basketball and rugby and American football are not.
You have to be very careful about making changes like these; you can easily end up making things worse. If goals are easier to score, it may be correct strategy to play more defensively.
Also, it’s important to distinguish between having more goals and having more offense. For example, if the goals were made much larger, players would be able to score on shots from 40 yards away. You might end up with each team just bombing long shots; you end up with more goals but less skillful offense.
With regards to shootouts, the NHL has them now for regular season games but not for the playoffs, which seems ok to me. The shootouts are replacing ending games as a tie, so I can accept that. It seems mostly to be a little fun add-on for the spectators. However, I am definitely against using shootouts in playoff games, for a few reasons, the simplest being that overtime playoff hockey is about the most exciting thing there is in spectator sports.
As a slight hijack seeing as so many people want to tinker with the rules of football, why not exercise your minds on sorting out the off-side rule. The present guidlines make it a chaotic mess which has the potential to cause havoc in the World Cup.
It’s become a lottery with neither the players or the “pundits” happy with it.
How do you figure? It is exactly like playing sudden death overtime in football. The game is the same, the same rules are followed, the only difference is that the number of holes played is not pre-determined.
Where I play, if two golfers end a match tied, we have a “pitch-off”. We go to the practice green and the pro chooses a spot to hit from and closest to the pin wins. That is much more like the penalty situation.
I like the way it is done in tennis. Tie-breakers up until the fifth set, then regular rules apply. I love those Wimbledon line scores that look like this - 6-4, 6-7. 7-6. 4-6, 15-13.
I hate it when it goes down to penalties. It feel smore like a game of chance than a sport of skill. The worse part is that most of the world cup’s best games devolve into penalty shoot-outs. I think the previous one’s final came down to it.
I hate it when it goes down to penalties. It feel smore like a game of chance than a sport of skill. The worse part is that most of the world cup’s best games devolve into penalty shoot-outs. I think the previous one’s final came down to it.
Some ideas on how to break ties:
I really don’t see why we couldn’t use a NASL-style shootout. It’s almost like people here are saying that all tie-breakers are unsatisfactory (true), therefore it doesn’t really matter what form the tie-breaker takes (false).
A good tie-breaker, in any sport, should be a miniature version of the main event. Something like a one-on-one or two-on-two NASL tie-breaker would test more than just short-range shooting ability, and would be a little closer to actual football than a penalty shootout.
Right. For those complaining that there aren’t enough goals…how many FA cup finals have ended 0-0 after normal time, going back to the first final in 1872?
Ten. Hardly a common occurrence. And since 1990 there’s been an average of 2.4 normal-time goals per match.
No. Just no.
No offsides? Are you mad? The game would devolve into teams smashing the ball upfield to their babbyhangin’ strikers!
Is this a joke? sounds like daft American ludicrous, this is the beautiful English game we are talking about.
This wouldn’t work, Id just get a defended continually head the ball back to me, id toss it up and he would head it again. The opposition couldn’t challenge the keeper with the ball in his hands, after my 6 seconds are up, boot it to another defended.
This would bring the game to a stand still, teams wouldn’t go on the offensive becuase a counter attack would finish you off. So we have 10 players defending their back third and one guy taking pot shots hoping to beat the keeper from half way.
enough said !
And what happends if one of my mid fielders tracks back into the defending half to make it X +1 ? a free kick ? not mutch of an advantage to the opposition.
Maybe all the players should be taken of except the captains ! they play one on one until there is a goal
I think jawdirk meant that you would score a tie-breaking point every time the opposing keeper touched the ball (with his hands, I assume). It wouldn’t distort the game like the “number of corner kicks” idea, because how can you force the keeper to touch the ball except by shooting at the goal?