Sorry RNATB, that was the rather heavy-handed sarcastic point I was making. Of all the games played you rarely need penalties. What would be the point of changing the rules fundamentally in order to address those cases?
Far better to come up with a more satisfactory method for those special cases in knock-out games. (personally I’d let the teams with the most corners then/or best disciplinary record through)
Agreed. Personally, I’m in favor of some sort of “extra time with fewer men on the field”.
YES.
A few links on alternatives to the penalty shootout, some repeated from a year ago:
Personally I would favor settling tied tournament matches with a game of badminton or maybe scrabble. Dumb? Certainly. But superior to the penalty shootout.
Purely from a purist point of view (and I’m speaking not a soccer fan, but a sports nerd) - a penalty shootout is probably the best option.
You can’t use rules like ‘Most Corners’ or ‘Best Disciplinary Record’ because suddenly you are taking a part of the game NOT directly related to the final outcome, and using it. Most games are pretty simple - there are basic ways to score - best score wins. You shouldn’t take something that is not a direct scoring action and use that to ‘add’ to the score in the event of a tie. Soccer is about scoring goals - score more than the opponent and you win. HOW you do that - whether by forcing corners or whatever, is the method you use, and one should not be favoured over the other. What if one side has more corners, but the other side has more throw-ins? Why should we count corners or throw-ins or yellow cards in the event of a tie - none directly score goals.
Second, the skill being used in the shootout to decide the game (penalties) is one that is used in the game regularly, and it IS a standard scoring play, performed exactly as it is in the game. You could also use corners - ie take a corner kick and try and score a goal. The defense stops the attack when the ball leaves the 18-yard box, or the attacking team kick it over the endline. You could also take free kicks from 30-yards out, etc. Penalties are probably a quicker method and less luck is involved. The point is - use a standard soccer play that would occur normally under the rules of the game.
Thirdly - the most popular alternative seems to be the ‘reduced number of players’ option. Fine, this would be fun to watch, it would be exciting etc - but it isn’t soccer. Soccer is 11-vs-11. Play with different numbers than that, and it’s not soccer. May as well play tiddlywinks, or snakes-and-ladders.
I’m not a big fan of the penalty shootout - in my opinion, just keep playing until the winning goal is scored - whether that is extra time or replays. IE - keep playing soccer.
I know we have the shootout because of the demands of the professional game - match scheduling, TV coverage etc. So if we have to have a set finish time for a game, I think a penalty shoot-out is the best option. It’s the best quick way to determine which team is better at soccer - by determining which team is better at scoring more goals than the opposition.
Why? the grand majority of the human race loves soccer the way it is. What makes you think the scores should be any other way?
Or Sweden pulling back from 4-0 down to 4-4 in the qualifying for the last World Cup. You know, the one that Germany won.
So if someone gets sent off the game ceases to be soccer? Come off it, you’re looking a bit silly now.
I’ve always liked the “North American experiment” in penalty shootouts.
As wiki indicates:
It’d still be soccer related skill, but instead of shooting from a set position, it would be akin to a breakaway.
Reducing the number of players could conceivably result in two goalkeepers playing each other.
Penalties at the end of ninety minutes sounds like a good idea but raises the possibility of players spending twenty minutes standing around before playing the extra half hour.
The Golden Goal seemed like a good idea but generally led to negative play in extra time, the exception being the 1996 European Championship semi-final, when the Germans had the ball in the net (disallowed) and then if Gazza hadn’t trimmed his toenails that morning England would have been in the final…
Penalties aren’t the ideal solution, but I can’t think of a better one.
Well…
Maybe Stella Roulette…
After extra time if the scores are still level the players sit crossed legged around the centre circle. A case (24 cans) of Stella Artois is wheeled onto the pitch and placed on a table on the centre spot. One of the cans has been vigorously shaken before being brought out. The player that opens the can that sends a spurt of the reassuringly expensive Belgian lager is deemed to have missed and the opposing side go through.
I hope Blatter doesn’t read this, he might take it seriously.
If the money’s right.
Or the Monet, he’s probably got enough Picassos.
Not that much. Though I bet Bruce Grobbelaar wouldn’t have minded.
Re: reducing the number of players
Nor Schmeichal… those two would be entertaining.
It might be worth trying it out in the FA Trophy or Vase to see how it goes.
A few years back a no offside from free kicks rule was trialled in what was then the Vauxhall conference and didn’t really work.
It would be interesting to see if it worked.
Pull one more guy off each side every X minutes, say.
Except, if your team were down to two, and time came to pull again, wouldn’t you want your fastest guy left on the field?
I’m not even sure your keeper should be one of the last two.
Going into territory that even Blatter fears to tread…
The ball goes out for a throw in… the opposition payer ignores the throw in, doesn’t touch the ball.
You are the ref, What happens next?
As Rodney Marsh famously said to Alf Ramsey; “Pull me off at half time? All we get at QPR is a cup of tea.”
He never played for England again. Gypsies have got long memories
Using penalty kicks to decide a soccer game is like using the best of five free throws to decide a tied NBA game, the best of five 35 yard field goals in deciding a tied NFL game or a home run derby to decide a tied baseball game.
What’s the matter, too tired after 90 minutes of soccer? Too bad, get out there and score a goal! Sudden death style. First goal wins.
Other teams are waiting to use the field? Too bad, play tomorrow. Television wants to go to another program? Too bad, the game’s not over.
Get rid of the goalie.
Book him for timewasting. Send him off if he does it again. Then a direct free kick.
And if the one player now left on the pitch fails to score with his one touch… erm…
make the goalies smaller, like they do for jockeys, hobbits and actors.
The conversation has quite rightly morphed into a discussion on how to decide who progresses in a tied knock-out situation. That is a perfectly decent subject for debate as we have so many choices open to us and all of them are arbitrary. There is no best case, only a “least worse”. We need to the method to be rewarding some desirable trait and to minimise the lottery effect if at all possible.
Penalties - they have the benefit of being a test of (a rather limited) footballing skill and nerve and there is no denying they can be exciting.
Extended penalties - as in the experiment mentioned above, or even make it a 30 second 3v3+1 attack vs defence. Played in a single half of the pitch you have 30 seconds to score and the defending team needs to put it out of play or beyond the half-way line. 3 attempts each side then sudden death. Has the benefit of being even more of a test of footballing skill (for both attack and defence)
Disciplinary record - has the benefit of driving teams to watch their step (and if the refs were willing to flash the cards for abuse towards them then it could calm that down as well)
Numbers of corners - would act as an incentive to attack when previously the temptation would be to sit on a draw, risk nothing and wait for penalties.
I like the 3 on 3 + 1 thing.
What rule has he broken?