I think football fans would prefer penalties than making extra time unlimited substitutions and unlimited periods (the later sounds pretty terrible to me, tbh).
“Offsides” is perfectly acceptable as long as you’re speaking American English. I’ve heard many professional soccer announcers use it.
The word is “offside” in the US too. Any professional; announcers using offsides are doing it wrong.
1)PKs are not luck. They are broken down statistically by GK coaches. They are susceptible to choking by the taker and the keeper.
2)Playing more than 120 minutes in summer weather is asking to kill players
3)Reintroducing players into the game is asking for tons of musculature injuries.
4)PKs are very exciting.
You cant do that. There is only that small window for the tourney. Preseason matches start next week. Players playing in the later rounds of the Euros/WC will miss a few weeks of camp to recover. Also travel, security and stadium plans take time to work out.
- Doesn’t matter. FIFA told you to get rid of them.
- Then skip the regular overtime and go to the tiebreaker of your choice that’s not PKs.
- This seems ridiculous – American football, hockey players, and lacrosse players sub in and out all the time.
- Doesn’t matter. UEFA told you to figure out another way to break ties.
Soccer players play the game without breaks or timeouts (save HT which includes a warmup). They extend their bodies further than the athletes you mention. When they come out of the game their muscles are exhausted. Also, just because players play the same position doesnt mean they play the same role on the pitch. They are not interchangeable.
With all the new technology available I suggest ties should be determined based on total length of successful passes on the opponents half.
Another recipe for extremely boring football.
As mentioned by previous posters, the hockey approach of reducing players to create room and scoring chances is a very good solution.
I remember when the NHL implemented this that there was a great outcry from the purists about how the game had been “gimmicked up”. Today, no one would want to go back. The three-on-three is very exciting and decisive - less than 50% of overtime games go to the shoot-out phase. And this is with only a 5 minute three-on-three overtime period.
It would discourage passive play on your own half. If a team deliberately tried to game the system they’d be opening themselves up to conversion from a less passive opponent. If one team plays 11 man defense it most likely awards the win to their opponent.
Ball position. The amount of time the ball is in your opponent’s half of the field vs. your own half of the field. It’s easy to understand and track in real time. Whichever team has more time in the opponent’s half at the end of the game wins the tiebreaker. No OT, no PKs.
You can have a running clock so everyone in the stadium and on TV knows who is in the lead under this measure.
It awards aggressiveness, both offensively and defensively, it awards being ‘in control of the action’, it punishes holding the ball in a safe position for long periods.
First, I’m fine with PKs, but if I have to replace them I’ll go with the attacker defender approach.
There is an alternative, however. Drop 20 balls onto the center of the pitch and blow a whistle, and whoever can get the most into the opponent’s goal in five minutes wins. Now that’s some excitement!
I like both of these ideas!
What about making the number of PKs a team gets dependent on certain stats from the game? So instead of each team automatically getting 5, each team automatically gets 4 kicks and the other one is goes to the team which did better in some aspect of the game. So PKs would be 4 kicks for one team and 5 to the other. The ball position stat would be one way to grant the 5th kick. Whichever team was able to keep the ball on the other team’s side the longest would get a 5th PK. PKs would still be a bit of a coin toss, but this would weight the toss in the favor of the team which played more aggressively.
No good, as it still involves PKs.
I would say anything involving possession, ball position or any other stat that isn’t part of the official record of the game should not be used. Using corners or cards might be possible, but would be worse than status quo.
I have an idea – in the case of a draw after 90 minutes (or 120, whichever), whichever team has less possession advances. Similar to how away goals count more than home goals for certain standings, tying the game with less possession is more impressive than with more possession.
Add a new ball to the field every ten minutes. First team to score wins.
And, maybe some giant pinball flippers, just to mix things up?