If I remember correctly the Rugby world cup does 15 minutes each way of OT, then 5 mintues each way of sudden death, then penalty shoot-out.
Such a system seems equally good for soccer.
Don’t understand what is wrong with a shoot-out after so long of game play doesn’t produce a result.
I remember games that have gone into sudden death shootouts - which is as good a way as any after so long scoreless.
Scoring in football is way harder than in rugby… ten minutes of sudden death, both sides not wanting to concede… that’s ten minutes wasted every time. Just like ET already is usually a wasted, overly defensive half an hour.
Shootouts are quite exciting, true, so I guess the worry here is that it’s a bit of a different sort of sport: the whole penalty kicking rounds require a different set of skills from those needed to score on regular time. There’s always a feeling of unfairness from the loser, and a sense that the winner got the victory from the flip of a coin instead of really deserving it.
Soccer is quite willing to make changes to its rules. The International Football Association Board (IFAB) meets every year to discuss and implement changes to the Laws of the Game.
Indeed, as the FA points out, soccer’s rules are changed…
That quote goes on to touch on a philosophy underlying the game that I suspect some folks (mostly American) are not entirely comfortable with:
It is this objective to keep soccer’s rules simple and identical across all levels of the game–from seven year-olds to the top pro teams–that makes broad-brushed, reactionary rule changes unwelcome.
The above
[quotes]
(The website for the English football association, the Emirates FA Cup and the England football team) are from a FA (Football Association) web page addressing rules changes. The FA is the governing of body of soccer in England. It operates under the Laws set by the IFAB. The relationship between the FA, along with the governing bodies of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and FIFA on one hand, and the IFAB on the other, is interesting. But it’s a little complicated so I won’t go into it here.
This FIFA web page list about a zillion rule changes made over just 5 years (2001-2006). Too many to list here!
But here’s some info about a few of the changes made in the past few decades:
(Bolding by me to direct attention to FIFA’s intention of keeping the rules relevant to the modern attacking game).
Read over those examples again. Notice something? That’s right. All of those rule changes were made to do exactly what many people constantly clamor for: to increase offense and scoring in soccer.
Sorry about all the consecutive posts, My ADHD ravaged brain can only handle responding this way–one post at a time.
Actually, that’s not the case. It’s important to remember that when one team advances as the result of making more penalties in a shootout they are NOT the winner of the game.
There is no winner; the game is a draw. It has to be since–as you pointed out–both teams scored the exact same number of goals.
I’d never heard that idea floated before. I really like it!
A lot of people make the assertion that scoring now if harder than it used to be, but i’ve never really seen any evidence on this issue either way, so i decided to find out.
Obviously, i don’t have the time of the resources to do every soccer game in every league, so i chose the league that i’m most familiar with: top-level English soccer (currently the Premier League, previously the First Division).
Here’s the goal-per-game stats for top-flight English League Football going back over 100 years:
Year Goals/Game
1892-93 3.90
1893-94 3.91
1894-95 3.82
1895-96 3.36
1896-97 3.13
1897-98 3.02
1898-99 2.84
1899-1900 2.80
1900-01 2.79
1901-02 2.75
1902-03 2.89
1903-04 3.07
1904-05 2.95
1905-06 3.27
1906-07 3.02
1907-08 3.09
1908-09 3.12
1909-10 3.14
1910-11 2.71
1911-12 2.78
1912-13 3.03
1913-14 2.90
1914-15 3.16
1919-20 2.88
1920-21 2.76
1921-22 2.69
1922-23 2.63
1923-24 2.47
1924-25 2.58
1925-26 3.69
1926-27 3.61
1927-28 3.82
1928-29 3.65
1929-30 3.81
1930-31 3.95
1931-32 3.74
1932-33 3.56
1933-34 3.30
1934-35 3.63
1935-36 3.37
1936-37 3.37
1937-38 3.10
1938-39 3.07
1939-40 2.52
1946-47 3.27
1947-48 2.91
1948-49 2.82
1949-50 2.70
1950-51 3.06
1951-52 3.23
1952-53 3.26
1953-54 3.52
1954-55 3.40
1955-56 3.31
1956-57 3.49
1957-58 3.73
1958-59 3.66
1959-60 3.50
1960-61 3.73
1961-62 3.42
1962-63 3.32
1963-64 3.40
1964-65 3.34
1965-66 3.15
1966-67 3.00
1967-68 2.99
1968-69 2.63
1969-70 2.62
1970-71 2.36
1971-72 2.51
1972-73 2.51
1973-74 2.40
1974-75 2.63
1975-76 2.66
1976-77 2.56
1977-78 2.66
1978-79 2.63
1979-80 2.51
1980-81 2.66
1981-82 2.54
1982-83 2.74
1983-84 2.71
1984-85 2.79
1985-86 2.79
1986-87 2.63
1987-88 2.50
1988-89 2.53
1989-90 2.60
1990-91 2.76
1991-92 2.52
1992-93 2.65
1993-94 2.59
1994-95 2.59
1995-96 2.60
1996-97 2.55
1997-98 2.68
1998-99 2.52
1999-2000 2.79
2000-01 2.61
2001-02 2.63
2002-03 2.63
2003-04 2.66
2004-05 2.57
2005-06 2.48
2006-07 2.46
2007-08 2.64
2008-09 2.48
2009-10 2.77
2010-11 2.80
2011-12 2.81
I think you can get a better sense of the trends with this graph.
It seems to me, looking at the numbers and the graph, that if a lack of scoring in English soccer is a problem, then it’s been a problem for about 40 years. In fact, the average number of goals per game is about a half a goal higher in 2011-2012 than it was in 1970-71, and scoring has remained remarkably stable over that 40-year period.
There was far more fluctuation in the period before 1970, including a few steep ups and downs, a couple of which coincide with hiatuses resulting from World War I and II.
It’s certainly true that average scoring is lower over the period 1970-2012 than it was over the period 1890-1970, but i think it’s hard to argue that there has been any sort of recent downward trend that somehow requires corrective measures in the rules.
This was going to be one my my first observations.
And, in fact, the increased fitness and skill of the players, and the increased professionalism of the sport, could go some way towards explaining why the stats have been so stable over the past 40 years. The reduction in wild, year-to-year fluctuations could be explained by an increasingly stable, higher-quality level of play.
The scientist Stephen Jay Gould made a similar sort of observation about baseball. He noted that one of the reasons that no-one hits .400 in baseball anymore is precisely that the overall level of play (pitchers and hitters and fielders) has improved, such that there are fewer dramatic outliers or aberrations in the system. Gould says that “Systems equilibrate as they improve,” and it seems to me that we might be seeing an example of this in the level of scoring in English soccer. I emphasize “might” because i obviously haven’t done enough analysis here to reach any definitive conclusions, and i’m no statistician.
Baseball is just as hidebound; I can’t think of a basic rules change made to the game since the DH in 1973.
You are right that some efforts have been made; the point is *it hasn’t worked.
*
Says who? I for one am quite happy regarding the balance in soccer between how hard it is to score and the resulting importance of any goals actually scored. High scoring games are not by definition better games.
Depends on which numbers you use.
I think when people speak of more scoring in the past, they have in mind the 60s era of Pele and Beckenbauer.
None of what you posted refutes anything i said in my post.
I specifically noted that scoring was higher in the period before 1970. Go on and have a look at my post; you’ll see it right there. Did you manage to find it, along with the graph that i posted showing that scoring was higher before the 1970s?
My main argument is that this whining about soccer’s low scores is relatively recent, and yet scoring hasn’t really changed that much over the past four decades, and is currently actually on an upswing. Here’s a paragraph you managed to neglect from your own cited story:
EPL goals have remained relatively high over the past few seasons, and as someone who watches the league on a regular basis, i believe that there has been no lack of incredibly exciting games.
You might be right, but i’m still not convinced that most of the people who complain about low scoring in modern soccer are actually fans of the game, in any real sense.
Some say things like, “I’d watch soccer if there was more scoring.” But not many people say, “I love soccer, and i watch it a lot, but they need to change the rules to increase scoring.” I lived in the UK in the early '90s, in years when the goal-per-game average was down around 2.6, and i don’t recall a single person complaining that the sports needed drastic changes to encourage more goals. And yet, here in the United States, i hear these sorts of complaints quite frequently, usually from Americans who watch soccer for one month every four years.
I’m willing to be proved wrong about this. I concede that it’s possible that there are, in fact, millions of real soccer fans worldwide who would like to see the sorts of changes that some people have suggested here. But right now, the sport seems to be struggling along just fine, played in dozens of countries, and with a global audience in the billions.
That’s fine, and your opinion is noted; I wasn’t really offering one. If you think I’m incorrect in saying scoring hasn’t increased, feel free to provide evidence.
I severely dislike PK’s, but am not sure any of the alternatives really amount to anything. As has been said, the golden and silver goal experiments didn’t really turn out like expected and making scoring easier happens every major tournament by introducing a wobbly new beach ball to play with.
A possible alternative that hasn’t been mentioned yet, is to reduce each squad to 10 players after normal time; and to 9 after the first half of extra time, etc… You can argue about the specifics, but fewer players would mean more space and more chances of scoring.
If you were to believe that the players would be evenly distributed, that would work… but that wouldn’t be the case. Look at this year’s CL final. DiMatteo already had 9 field players in front of the goal with Drogba occasionally moving upwards. With 7 players he would have 6 defending the couple Bayern players Heynckes sent.
Since football is seriously not a sport to be played with fewer than 10 players, and you need to pass the ball several times to make it through such a big pitch, the lack of offensive players would just make the attack even more useless. And since it would be harder on the fewer players left, that would multiply the effort required, and they would get more and more tired. That wouldn’t work at all.
Teams losing organisation as players get tired is one of the main ways goals come about in extra time. Better to ban substitutes altogether, after the 90 minutes.
As said, they tried that. And the silly silver goal. Both very unpopular. The fact is that people like penalties. It’s dramatic. It’s entertaining. It’s as fair as any of the alternatives.
Other things tried: the FA Cup used to have unlimited replays, so any drawn match would be replayed however many times it took to find a winner, first on one team’s ground, then the other, then on neutral venues in the event of a second replay (third, fourth, &c.). Even the final was replayed. But now they’ve adopted penalties, or a maximum of one replay in the earlier rounds. World Cup matches used to be decided by tossing a coin. I’m only aware of unlimited time being used in cricket, where a few games have been played with draws ruled out so they simply play until someone wins, and they tend to go for over a week. Obviously in Europe there’s the away goals rule, which like a single replay only reduces the chances of penalties, doesn’t eliminate them.
So, when it comes down to it, penalties are the way to go.
Offside would be totally useless if it wasn’t enforced “beyond” a certain line. Strikers would just goal-hang all the time. They actually tried it once in a FIFA youth tournament, unmitigated disaster. The rules of football have been refined over time to the most perfect of sports. It doesn’t need a fresh gimmick every couple of years to keep people interested.
Baseball just had a major rule change - they added instant replay. And they also just added another playoff team.
There is no goal hanging in the NHL .
To (wildly) paraphrase Churchill, “Penalty Kicks are the worst way to decide a football match… except for all of the other methods.”
Basically, I agree that part of the beauty of the game is exactly just how difficult it is to score, and how much each and every goal means in the context of the game. Even basketball fans know the feeling… “this basket was a game changer”. Well, in football, every goal is a game changing goal. And that’s a big part of what makes it the game that it is.
And to those saying that PKs are scarcely better than a coin toss… bite your tongues. Until (IIRC) 1970 (including the World Cup that year), after 120 minutes of a draw, the decision was made by coin toss (or similar):
(bolding mine)
After 5 years, a gimmick becomes the latest refinement to perfect the rules.
The primary problem with penalties is that it decides a complex, low scoring, intricately played game with the simplest, highest scoring, least strategic aspect of the sport. I assume that most football fans enjoy it for the passing, defense, and strategy, not the mere kicking of a ball into the goal.
In the major American sports, the game play that decides the outcome is the game play that everyone tuned in to see. They might change strategy a bit, or end the game suddenly when there is a score, but the interaction between the teams is essentially identical to the normal state of play.
Only in soccer do they change the game play this drastically. If the game was “Penalty Kick Football” nobody would watch it. Yet, that is the competition they use to decide outcome of the game.
I do like the concept of pre-overtime penalty kicks for a 1/2 goal. Heck, you can even do that with a Golden Goal concept, so the trailing team has a chance to win straight out, not just to go up 1/2 goal, and lose later in the overtime. At least then the penalties aren’t directly deciding the outcome, both teams have every chance to win on the field of normal play.
This this this this THIS.
When I start to hear ardent, voracious, every-day supporters of world football complain that there’s not enough scoring, then I’ll start to consider that some bastardization may be in order.
But as long as it’s mainly American “once-every-four-years” fans hoping (why?) to change soccer into some shock-and-awe spectacle–folks who think, “My 10 year-old son’s team score 8 goals every game! Now THAT’S what soccer SHOULD be!!!11”–as long as this complaint seems to only come from those who understand very little about the sport, I don’t really think there’s much to discuss.
It’s hard to score in the NHL but they still have most playoff games decided in 1 or 2 OTs.
I went to one of the longest playoff games ever , it was 3 OTs . And I have been to (or seen on TV) a lot of playoff games that went to OT and there is no lack of offense.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/may/12/the-question-important-possession
At the bottom of this article is one of the greatest stories I have ever heard about football. Copied and pasted here:
At Milan, Arrigo Sacchi got fed up of players moaning about his obsession with team shape, and so proved its worth with a simple drill. “I convinced [Ruud] Gullit and [Marco] Van Basten by telling them that five organised players would beat 10 disorganised ones,” he said. “And I proved it to them. I took five players: Giovanni Galli in goal, [Mauro] Tassotti, [Paolo] Maldini, [Alesandro] Costacurta and [Franco] Baresi. They had 10 players: Gullit, Van Basten, [Frank] Rijkaard, [Pietro Paolo] Virdis, [Alberigo] Evani, [Carlo] Ancelotti, [Angelo] Colombo, [Roberto] Donadoni, [Christian] Lantignotti and [Graziano] Mannari. They had 15 minutes to score against my five players, the only rule was that if we won possession or they lost the ball, they had to start over from 10 metres inside their own half. I did this all the time and they never scored. Not once.”
In short, messing around with the number of players on the field is quite possibly not going to address the issue of how difficult it is to score. You might point out that not every defending side has Maldini, Costacurta and Baresi in it - but then not every attacking side has Gullit, Van Basten, Rijkaard, Donadoni and Colombo in it either. A well drilled unit could easily last out for quite a while (admittedly the team of 5 above are never going to score - but the principle of it being very difficult to break them down still holds).
What is required is something which encourages the opening up of a game in extra time. However, games that go to extra time are ones in knock-out tournaments, with all the pressure that brings. As a result, the incentives for concerted attack, when you can get hit on the break and thus knocked out, are more limited than in the rest of the game - which is why the Golden/Silver Goal rules were not well thought out; it put the incentive even more on not getting caught out.
I don’t see an easy, elegant solution to this problem, because in Champions League, European Championships and World Cup knock-out rounds the incentives in extra time are not perceived by the teams to be worth it - they’d rather go to a pressurised lottery. The best idea I have seen thus far is that the shoot out happens prior to extra time - but even then you run the risk of the winning team going Sacchi (though at least one team will be attacking like hell and it will be interesting to see if they can break them down).
