I don’t see a perfect way to resolve this but, with the Euros coming up and this thread sparking some thought I reckon I’d come down on the side of a pre-OT shoot-out.
Simple to implement and more likely to provide for an exciting climax. When you think about it, it is not substantially different from the away-goal rules in the Champions League. You end up going into a match (or an OT period) with a known advantage that the opposition has to overcome. Any long-time watcher of CL second-legs know that they tend to generate some fantastically exciting matches for just that reason.
You can’t preserve the mythical “purity” of the game in a limited duration tournament. Can’t be done. Some method of generating a result needs to be used and I’d far rather that, up to the last minute on the pitch, both teams have the ability to win the match by actually playing the game in the standard manner and scoring a meaningful goal from open play.
Hmmm… can’t say I really like the idea of mid-game PKs. I agree that it would break the flow of the match.
How much effect would it have if the PKs were shot right at the beginning of the match, but only applied if required after 120 minutes? Granted, you’d have a lot of PK shootouts that would never matter, but hey, they’re kind of fun in their own way and could really get the crowd into the game even before the action starts… And it’s not like it would take a physical toll on any of the players.
Yes, but it’s (supposed to be…) 5 minutes. If the intention were to give the players a breather, then the break could be extended to a full additional “half time” (15 minutes) break.
Not that I’m saying it can’t be done; but now I’ve given it an iota of thought, I kind of like the idea of starting off with the “PK show” and then playing normal regulation + OT if necessary. As I said, it could well help get the crowd into the game if there’s some drama during the PKs!
What I’m probably missing is how a team going into the game knowing it can win with a given score will affect the game. But I don’t see it as so different from the existing situation in two-leg matches – instead of many scores that let you win, many that make you lose, and one that goes to PK, there is just a disambiguation of what happens if the score on the first leg is identically repeated but reversed.
If you have the penalties at the start then I think you fundamentally change the dynamics of the whole (potential) 120 minutes every time. Waiting and doing it after the 90 only affects the remaining 30 (should it be needed)
True enough. Looking again at the Chelsea - Bayern match, Di Matteo had gotten a lot of flac for being too defensive… and yet Bayern were partially responsible for that, as Heynckes was too conservative tactically, not allowing the midfielders to drift from their spots too much. A PK from the start would have changed all that dynamic from minute 1.
One point against having the penalty shootout after the 90 minutes.
I have played a lot of full length games, (70 minutes for GAA, 90 for soccer), and what many Americans may be unaware of is that physically it places very different demands as compared to American sports. NFL is very stop start, while NHL and basketball have frequent rests as players switch in and out of the game from the bench.
In soccer, you are on the go for the full 90 minutes, with one break in the middle. What you find is that after the game, especially a high paced top-level match, is that when you stop there is a reaction from your body. Cooldowns are vitally important as once you stop your muscles start to fatigue and stiffness sets in. You could be fine at the 90 minute mark, but after 20 minutes in the dressing room find yourself aching and sore.
Penalties after 90 mins will take at least 15 minutes, more likely closer to 25/30 once the pantomine is done. All the while players are getting stiff. To stand there for 20 minutes, and then be expected to perform at the highest level once again, well thats just asking for player muscle injuries.
This is something I’ve never understood. Why would the sport “no longer be soccer” if there was less limitation in substitution. I have to say that there is certain appeal to the substitution rules. I don’t think I’d like it as much if there were shift changes every six minutes but maybe that’s because I’m not used to seeing such a thing. But I’m not saying there should be unlimited substitution, just a little bit of an increase in what is now allowed. Maybe allow 7 subs for the first ninety minutes and an additional five for overtime periods. And perhaps players subbed out can be allowed back in.
If substituions wasn’t so draconion in soccer, we’d solve this penalty kick nonsense right away because, like other sports, the teams would not be allowed to go home until a winner was decided and the men (or women) on the field wouldn’t be exhausted messes by the end. I don’t know why soccer is so stubborn to realize this. yes, it’s an endurance sport but why aren’t other sports so punishing to their players. I remember seeing an old video of the classic game between Italy and Germany in the 70 World Cup. After ninety minutes, the exhausted players were trying to get water but the referee refused such a luxury, probably because it wouldn’t be fair to all the players who didn’t get a chance to hydrate.
Absolutely. I know that in the official records, the game is considered a draw. The pk contest is just an alternative to a coin flip to determine a winner when one is needed (in a world where replays are no longer feasible) when a winner must be found, such as in an elimination game or the final of a tournament.
This, I think, makes me appreciate pk tiebreakers all the less. There’s got to be a legitimate way to find a difference between teams, even in a sport where scoring is so infrequent. I think the problem lies in the stubborness to amend the rules and to accept ties, even when a tie cannot take place. I couldn’t help but shake my head when I read above that there was resistance to the backpass rule being implented. You mean there were actually people fuming about a rule change that would eliminate the tendency for teams up a goal having the goalkeeper bounce the ball eighteen times for six minutes just to kill time?
I would venture that most rule change suggestions are beyond silly. I’ve seen the MLS referee spray a line on the ground to show where the ten yard limit is on free kicks. It’s an ugly sprawl on the ground that the defenders ignore anyway. Instead of having to give out unlimited yellow cards to infractors, why not do something like punish the offending player by banning him from the wall (and any substitution) for that kick. You have five players on the wall and three jump? Well, now you are allowed only two. You don’t like it, don’t jump. But this spray paint thing is silly. I can only imagine NFL referees spray painting the line of scrimmage on every play.
I think the problem with the PK is it is such a crapshoot. Now alternating turns with 3 on 3 starting at midfield. and you have 60 seconds to score or the defence has to clear the ball past the center line would probably work and is skill/team based.
I’ve tried my hand at wacky football suggestions before, and I’m quite happy to help out again:
Conclusive Extra-Time
Based on a coin flip, one team is the “attacker” and one the “defender”. The defending team must remove X players from the field. Extra-time is played, but if the score is tied at the end, the defenders win. It’s fine for the defenders to try to attack and score.
Of course the defenders will try to waste time, but that happens a lot now anyway (when one team is a goal up). And teams manage to get possession and create attacks in such situations, so in itself that doesn’t break the idea…
for those that don’t know, the NHL plays 4 v 4 (not counting goalie) in OT during the regular season before the shootout. (instead of 5 v 5) The OT only lasts 5 minutes.
That is a very fair point. Perhaps all the prelims could be done before the game, Coin tossed for the goal and starting team, The manager presenting a numbered list of penalty takers to the officials and then after 90 minutes you get straight into it.
That would reduce the time taken at least.
I’ve been defending the rules in this thread, but i think it’s a bit of an exaggeration to say that they’ve “been refined over time to the most perfect of sports.” It’s more accurate to say that the people who have watched soccer over the years are accustomed to the rules, and don’t want to change them without good reason. And that’s fine. I don’t think there’s any need to make major changes either, but i also don’t think that the rules are perfect in any objective or absolute sense of the word. They might seem perfect because they are what we’ve grown accustomed to, but that’s about it.
But neither of those are changes to the way that the game is played on the field.
Plenty of soccer fans have been arguing over the past few years for video technology to be used in determining whether the ball crosses the goal-line. Some even want video for offside decisions. But the aim of this sort of technology is to increase the number of correct decisions under the current rules, not to change the rules of play or the dimensions of the playing surface or the goals.
Very different things.
I think you’re right about this, and most soccer fans recognize the paradox.
Right, but it’s also important to remember that overtime is far, far more common in North American sports precisely because Americans have decided that they don’t like dealing with draws at any level of play.
The vast majority of soccer matches don’t require even considering overtime, because if the game ends 0-0- or 1-1 or 2-2, then that’s how it stays, and the result goes down as a draw. It’s only in cup or elimination style competitions that this whole thing is even an issue, and even then the need for overtime is reduced by replaying the fixture (e.g., early rounds of FA Cup), or using a two-leg, home-and-away system where away goals count for more than home goals (Champions League, Europa Cup) .
It’s also, in my opinion, why so many Americans believe that the system needs changing: because they turn on the soccer every four years during the World Cup, or occasionally during a Champions League final, and see a few penalty shootouts. I watched dozens of English Premier league matches this season, as well as a whole bunch of FA Cup matches, and a lot of highlight shows (BBC Match of the Day, etc.). You know how many penalty shootouts i saw? Not one.
While I think you are correct about this, I think it’s a natural thing to do to analyze a game and try to think of ways to optimize it. And when I say optimize it I mean that situations should have a nice balance between offense and defense and not rely too much on random factors, which it seems PK’s have more of a random feel because it’s so hard to defend.
When my son started playing LaCrosse, which I wasn’t too familiar with before, I naturally learned the rules and then thought about things that looked like they could be improved.
The only thing I thought should change is when they do a “braveheart” for OT. Currently it’s 2 on 2 - 1 goalie and 1 midfielder per side - I think 3 on 3 would make it less of a straight run to the goal when one person picks up the ball (but they probably want to keep it short, whoever gets the ball has about an 80% chance of scoring).
I’ve got one: in extra time every third (or fifth) corner you win means you get a penalty kick. I think they’ve had this idea before and it is definitely something that is used in ‘pick up’ games you play on the streets. It will push teams to attack (or at least stay away from your own goal) and benefit the team that does so best.
BTW nothing will change anytime soon,this will just be a futile exercise without any hope of ending in a proposal that has even a glimmer of a chance in FIFA (they make the catholic church look progressive).