But the goalkeeper is just as part a team as any other player. If the rest of the team is playing poorly but the goalkeeper is playing well and stopping all of the shots, why should this be penalised?
All of the ‘solutions’ proposed in this thread either make the game unwatchable or increase the element of chance in the winning criterion. As for running from 35 yards, how different is that from a penalty, really?
If penalties are random, then darts is a random sport. Clearly, Phil “The Power” Taylor is not random, and neither are expert footballers or goalkeepers.
Penalties it is.
Play poorly, lose the tie-break. Works for me.
Well, quite different. Instead of just testing a player’s nerve and dead-ball ability, in the two-on-two shootout I’m imagining (not necessarily from as close as 35 yards) players could exploit the full range of attacking skills. Passing, dribbling, feinting, long-range shooting etc.
It’s not the element of chance I object to, and besides I agree that penalty shootouts are a real test of skill. It’s that they are nothing like actual football.
And yet penalties are given in normal play all the time, unlike getting 2 players to run at goal in a completely alien and artificial manner.
And the defenders exploit the full range of preventing scores, introducing an extra element for the referee to invigilate – after all, if a score means you’ll lose the final, why not just foul the attacker …
… and give away a penalty?
No! A penalty kick.
That’s just stupid. Of course I meant the opposing keeper. Thanks Usram.
This is exactly the kind of attitude that guarantees that football will always be an uneventful sport. You won’t even consider any other possibility, and won’t even provide an explanation of why you don’t like it.
Smashing the ball upfield to babbyhangin’ strikers is exactly what happens in basketball, and it forces defenders to stay back and disrupt, instead of crowding the center line. Is it any wonder that goals are infrequently scored when you pretty much must dribble the ball half the field without losing it to score a goal?
But that’s not even my favorite idea. I’d like to hear what’s wrong with the limit of X players on the defending side. That’s essentially what they do in hockey, and hockey is slightly higher scoring than soccer.
If you are talking about ice hockey…huh? Nothing even approaching such a rule. I conclude you must be talking about field hockey?
Actually, I have no idea where I got that idea. :smack:. Couldn’t find that rule in field hockey either. Parallel universes. That’s my excuse, and I’m sticking to it.
A timed 35-yard attack would be nothing like real football, because of the time limit. This eliminates a huge part of the ‘full range of attacking skills’, such as working switching from one wing to the other, or simply holding onto possession for as long as necessary.
Current winner of the “inane suggestion” award, from yesterday’s paper: Have the penalty shoot-out first, and then there won’t be any dull negative play in extra time. (No, wuckfit, there’ll just be 90 minutes of negative play from the team that won the shoot-out. :rolleyes: )
But football isn’t an uneventful sport - that’s why it’s the single most popular sport in the world.
That’s the game. The offside rule is there for a reason - so the game doesn’t degenerate into something approaching basketball. It forces the players to use at least some skill to score, forces use of the whole of the pitch and the whole of the team - sorry, but booting a ball up the park to a waiting attacker isn’t really in the same league as a well executed run through midfield cutting the defence in two, a player beating the offside trap etc. etc.
Defending side?
Making extra time sudden death would eliminate at least a couple of penalty kick messes. I mean, what exactly is the point of extra time that can still result in a tie score, even if there is scoring in the extra time?
It’s been tried - it was called the Golden Goal. Later abandoned (too hastily IMO) because it was thought that it made teams play more cautiously, not less, in extra time. A “silver goal” variant (match finishes if either team is ahead half way through extra time) was tried in Euro 2004, but both ideas have now been dropped.