This has always been my idea. I don’t think it would be feasible to go all the way down to GK vs GK (I don’t think that’s what you were proposing), but Sudden Death 2-on-2 would probably resolve things pretty quickly if it came down to that.
It’s probably so unlikely to get down to GK vs GK that it doesn’t matter if it’s part of the rules or not. Eventually there will be a breakaway and score.
Agreed. Though I’d alter the PK a slight bit to what the MLS used to do in dealing with ties (though it’s silly to do it in the regular season as they did), make it a one-on-one shootout, with the player starting at the 35 yard line against the Keeper (with like 30 seconds to make a shot). So like hockey’s shootout.
I’m not a huge soccer fan, but I’ve always found the shootout silly. As the enthusiastic soccer fans I know are always fond of telling me, one of the greatest things about soccer is the emphasis on team play. My daughter’s coach used to say, “You know, if the goalie screws up, it’s not just her fault; three or four other players at least had to screw up in front of her for the goalie to have a chance to screw up.” I’m sure that was not a new observation. The shootout eliminates that team-ness and reduces soccer to something that it most definitely is not supposed to be.
I’d preserve some of that through a tweak like this:
–Team A uses three players and starts with the ball at midfield. Team B has two defenders and a goalie. The clock is set for two minutes, a minute and a half, it doesn’t matter. Team A tries to score, Team B tries to clear the ball past midfield or run down the clock. Once one of those things has happened, the teams switch places. Eventually somebody scores on their turn and somebody doesn’t. If you want to reduce the odds of scoring, go four-on-three plus goalie; if you want to increase, go two-on-one. This preserves passing, playmaking, defense, and all the other things that make soccer great.
No one I know seems to much like the idea, though. Oh well.
I think that makes it less true to the game to be honest. Yes, the game is about team play, but a lot of team play involves formations and discipline and organization within a particular strategy and not how well the players can pass or defend on a 3v2 breakaway.
Sure, but less true than penalty kicks??
Honestly, from my perspective, anything that preserves even a little bit of team play is preferable to a shootout.
As a soccer fan, I’d much rather watch PKs than some strange 3v2 back and forth thing.
Same here. I hate this idea of pulling players every five minutes or some nutty scheme like that.
Unfortunately if they don’t just play until someone scores then pks may be the only way to go. Or maybe the team with most attempts on goal wins?
I don’t get that at all, but fair enough. As I said, I’m not a big soccer fan, though I do enjoy watching an occasional game. It certainly wouldn’t be fair to say that shootouts are what keeps me from being a bigger fan, but PKs to settle a game certainly don’t draw me in and want to see more. On the contrary, shootouts strike me as a very strange and unsatisfying way to determine a winner in a sport that relies as much on teamwork as this one does. A hundred and twenty minutes of soccer, and then…this. Obviously, YM varies.
Sudden death with expandable goal posts. The vertical uprights are on a conveyer that increases the goal width by 1 foot/minute. Entertainment and tactics increase exponentially as the goal grows 
Why not just go to sudden death upon the expiration of regular time? No gimmicky reduced teams or special rules. Just… if no team can win in regulation, the team that scores thereafter takes it.
Exhausted soccer is not fun to watch soccer.
And Penalty Kicks are better?
I think soccer is plenty interesting when the players are tired - that’s when they make mistakes.
What if the kick was taken from farther out, like the top of the box? That would be a more realistic situation where the goalie could react to the kick rather than having to guess correctly which side to go towards.
That’s called a golden goal and it was tried for awhile but was fairly unpopular.
I think the problem with any plan that doesn’t involve just continuing to play until there is a winner is that you are using a different game to decide the outcome of the first game. PKs make about ad much sense a group playing keepy uppies. Or who can bounce the ball on their head the most times in a row. No matter how hard or easy it is, it’s silly.
Since there are so many comparisons to hockey, how about moving each goal 10m closer to the center, and allowing play behind the goal? Hell, why not make that standard?
Exactly.
It uses a soccer ball, and kicking, and a goal, but it fundamentally isn’t soccer.
That’s true, but taking the kick from outside of the box would be a more typical situation faced by the goalie. Penalty kicks seem like random chance plays a much bigger part than it should. However, penalty kicks are technically part of the game.
Maybe corner kicks would be a better thing to use. They’re an integral part of the game already and should better represent a team’s ability. A team takes a corner kick and the ball stays in play until the team scores, the goalie grabs it, it goes out of bounds, or crosses midfield.
I know the term; it was used in FIFA for several years through 2002. But IIRC there wasn’t a simple rule, but variable, sometimes optional conditions that confused the issue.
In any case, I have trouble believing that people really prefer to see games end in shootouts. I feel ripped off, like the time spent watching the actual game was wasted, now that the match is going to be decided by this other, less-interesting game.