Not just that but a lot of club teams would try to find ways to prevent their players from playing in tournaments with games that may go on forever. More than a few players would listen to their club team which pays them millions telling them they are “injured” and can’t participate in the tournament if you have a system that increases injury.
I only support the playing to exhaustion for the final game of a tournament. The Copa America final shouldn’t be decided by a coin flip (which, let’s not kid ourselves, that’s what PKs are a stand in for. They are a coinflip that is moderately entertaining to watch) neither should the world cup or Champions League.
Someone else mentioned that PKs are just to decide who wins a knockout round when no winner was available. If that’s the way we want to look at it I am totally ok with, at the end of regular time, after 30 minutes of added time, we actually just have a coin flip for anything other than the final game. That’s actually more fair and less terrible than PKs. I still prefer having a rematch for this situation, but I get scheduling may not permit this.
Well, I was suggesting no-overtime games. Just the sudden-death, straight away. Some games would actually be ended sooner this way than in the present system.
Also, group stages are equivalent to regular seasons here. Ties can be acceptable.
The idea of the world cup final being decided by a super quick goal in the first 30 seconds of play just made me laugh.
As far as ties being allowed in group stages, they already are. It’s only in the knockout stages that PKs come into play.
Agreed. The major benefit to PK’s is that they are clean. No fouls involved, no dodgy refereeing decisions, no controversy.
An actual football goal, after 90 minutes played to a (presumably) hard draw? That seems like it would be a great dramatic turn, to me.
It sure beats seeing any tournament game cheapened with a shootout ending.
I know. I was answering the suggestion that teams could be induced to agree to lose, to avoid playing long.
The idea that PKs do not involve dodgy refereeing decisions or controversy is a naive untruth. Goalkeepers are consistently allowed to (egregiously, I might add) piss on the letter of the law with regards to their behaviour before the actual PK is taken, and with regards to coming off the goalline before the ball is struck. Just going by what I’ve seen during the current EURO 2016 tournament, upwards of 75% of PKs should be re-taken in the event of a miss because the goalkeeper is blatantly taking illegal actions, and a fair number of scored PKs should be retaken because the kicker is performing an illegal run-up.
However, I will echo what others have said in this thread already: first of all, the low-scoring nature of association football is a feature, not a bug, and if you don’t like that, you don’t have to watch it. I’d rather watch Italy win 1-0 whilst marveling at their entire team moving synchronously like a school of fish than just about anything else. Second of all, “unlimited overtime” is an absurd notion unless you intend to allow unlimited substitutions in overtime, and even then you’d have to allow an expanded bench, given that most competitions currently limit the bench to 7 substitutes. I question whether anyone suggesting unlimited overtime as a sane idea has ever watched a game of association football go to 120 minutes - without exception, even the most fit professional footballers in the world slow down to a crawl, miss routine passes and, lose all semblance of ball control. It is agonizing to watch, and only ever sufferable because it (and the oft-ensuing PK competition) are an emotional crescendo to an otherwise great match - by virtue of quality of play alone, association football past the 100th minute is simply not worth watching.
It should also be added that PK competitions are in fact not even remotely resemblant of a coin toss in terms of probabilities - the team which scores first in a PK competition wins roughly 70% of the time (if memory serves), as opposed to the 50/50 of a perfectly random coin.
Rather than using set plays, which I can see would lead to injuries, how about something like this:
- 3 players start from the midline and attempt to score against 2 defenders and the goalie
- A round is over when the team scores, the goalie gets it, it goes out, crosses the midline, offsides, penalty, or a time limit has passed (15sec?)
- After both teams have had their turn, an additional offensive player is added (4v3, 5v3, 6v3, etc.)
Something like this would have exciting play which is representative of the team’s abilities. Adding offensive players each round will keep increasing the chance to score. And there would likely be some very exciting saves where the 2 defenders hold off an seemingly unstoppable amount of players.
One fault I have with penalty kicks is that it puts a lot of burden of the loss on the goalie. Soccer is very much a team sport. Something like this method would allow the team to feel responsible for the win or share the burden for the loss.
Yes, the 11th commandment: Thou shalt not question the low scores of football. But your response misses the mark entirely. I’m not arguing that football is boring because it’s low scoring. I’m not trying to jazz it up or cheapen it.
But it is a hard mathematical fact that the harder it is to score a goal, the more likely you are to end up with a tie game. And if the resolution of those ties is unsatisfying, then it’s reasonable to consider whether it’s worth the tradeoff.
Baseball and basketball don’t regularly end in ties, so there’s no need to try to increase the scores in those sports. Football does.
Well, it’s both, obviously. It has pros and cons. One of the cons (the one this thread is about) is that many games are decided by a process other than playing a game of football.
In elimination games in tournaments which are a very, very small amount of games played during a year. And most of those games aren’t decided by PKs.
Why? To me, it seems perfectly suited to a game like soccer. When regulation is over, first team to score a goal seems like a perfectly sensible way of ending a game in which points are relatively few and far between and each team has a pretty much equal chance at offense and defense. I like it just fine in ice hockey.I’ve never quite understood the reticence towards golden goals in soccer, other than it may make the teams play more defensively rather than offensively. At least it’s deciding the game with the same gameplay mechanic as the rest of the game.
Yes, that’s exactly why Golden Goal was eliminated in favor of Silver Goal. Teams decided to park the bus.
That wasn’t the suggestion. The suggestion was to make the game golden goal from the start of regular time for cup finals. Or at least that’s how it read. I suspect that the intent was what you said. That’s both awesome and silly at the same time. Hence the laughter.
At the end of the 90+, You switch to a simple sudden-death decider: play until one player gets a foot on the ball inside the other team’s 18 yard box.
This is total apples to oranges. A regulation hockey game is only two-thirds as long as a regulation soccer match. And then they also have TWO intermissions of 18 minutes EACH, while soccer has one 15-minute break. To say nothing of the biggest difference, unlimited substitutions and line changes. So yeah, I’m sure if soccer cut out 30 minutes of playing time from the get-go, added 21 minutes of break, and allowed substituting willy-nilly, they could go a lot longer, but that’s not the game, so what the NHL manages is irrelevant.
And soccer matches are often every 3 days, not a week, but whatever.
I’m not sure total number of games decided by PKs is the right metric, since apparently the most important games are the ones most at risk of being decided not by playing the game.
Analogizing to another sport: it would probably be fine to let most baseball games go to a tie (there are plenty of games in a season), but fairly awkward for the World Series to end that way. But if you design a game such that it’s easy to end in a tie, that means that actual championship games, which need a real winner, have to fall back on some inadequate and emotionally unsatisfying tiebreaker system. The fact that the tiebreaker system is invoked rarely because there are few championship games is small comfort.
Or maybe we should be satisfied with more football tournaments ending in a four-way tie for first. Think of it this way: by keeping championships hard to win, it’s that much more exciting when a team manages to buck the odds and actually play all their tournament games to a victory.
Hockey games are shorter and they have many subs, but they also have to wear a lot of equipment which makes it more tiring. And of course the goalie never leaves the ice except for delayed penalties. Also hockey can play up to 3 games a week and sometimes they play 2 games in 2 nights , even in the playoffs. You have to be in top shape to play pro hockey.
Read better.
If ties are OK, then just say that neither team can advance in the tourney if the game is tied.
So if the semifinal game is tied, the winner of the other semifinal wins the title. If both semi games are tied, then there is no champion.
But then the better your tournament matchups are, the less chance you have of a great, classic championship resolution. Kind of perverse.