As a dutchman I hate penalty shoot outs, but here here! there just isn’t any viable alternative. Note laso that there are very few instances in whicha draw is a problem - most competitions are either mostly about a (small) league or have home and away matches (where the only chance of penalties is when both games end in the exact same score). These do happen to be the most important matches though, I’ll give you that.
The first one is a horrible idea, or at least it’s no more sensible than the current setup. I kind of like the second, though.
Personally, I think they should just play another 30 minutes of extra time with the goalies pulled (or not allowed to use hands, maybe). That would be fun to watch.
Yep.
No, they’re designed to stop goal-hanging. Without them, an attacker would just stand next to the away goal while his team mates lobbed long balls at him. It would completely kill the game.
With off-side, it encourages more creative play (passing and dribbling).
I would go back to the silver goal/golden goal thing, and add up to another two extra time periods. Both golden goal, obviously. I doubt there would be many penalty shootouts required then.
I’d disagree with that, quite honestly. Most football commentators I’ve listened to in England feel that there is an ideal solution to drawn games in a tournament: replay the game next week at the away team’s ground. That’s how the FA Cup was set up for over a century, and that’s how everyone liked it until the Big Money took over. Failing that, there’s the two-leg tournament system, which cuts down on penalty shootouts by introducing the concept of the away goal.
The penalty shootout is a false-drama solution designed to appease television. Dismissing other solutions as “no good alternative” is to rather ignore that fact. The Football Association got along swimmingly without penalty shootouts for over a century, and outside of the Premier League and the TV barons they’d still rather go without them.
Players are generally cramping by the end of the first extra time period. I think by the end of the second one it’d basically just be a case of everyone whacking the ball up the pitch and hoping.
ETA: Premiership matches go to penalties now? Why? 
I was a little confusing there–what I meant was that it was the Premier League clubs which pushed the FA to introduce penalty shootouts in the FA Cup. The FA officially blamed “fixture backlog”, but one might note that none of the smaller clubs had any problems with that.
Replays are not a viable solution in tournament finals, like the World Cup. And whether we like it or not, fixture congestion is a significant issue for larger clubs. Replays pose a substantial challenge. Note that replays are used throughout the FA Cup prior to the Final (can’t remember if semi-finals use replays or not). But even replays aren’t a panacea: you might draw the replay, and even the somewhat arbitrary rule about “away goals” won’t always save you from a shootout.
Okay, now that I think about things more seriously, I realize that there isn’t any obviously better solution right now to the whole resolving-ties thing. And my suggestion that defenders of penalties always say “if you don’t like soccer, don’t watch it” is an exaggeration.
But I really would be surprised if DSYoungEsq denied that many fans have a sort of stubborn traditionalism over the matter. I think it’s reasonable to believe that, through creative, careful thought and experimentation, a better solution could be found. But I perceive that the attitude among many soccer fans is a Bruce Hornsby-ish “that’s just the way it is”. Maybe so, but I don’t think we can be justified in saying that it could never change - for the better.
FIFA didn’t use penalty shootouts at all until 1970, and as late as 1974 the European Cup final went to a replay. The only reason the World Cup final didn’t go to a replay was just sheer luck; other major tournaments had done so. Again, nobody had a problem with replays until money got involved.
Frankly, I just can’t argue that a solution that was well and good until the advent of big TV dollars/pounds/euros/etc. and billionaire chairmen wanting to protect millionaire players as “not a good solution”. If the NFL decided “so that television schedules can be better decided in advance, and to protect our players from fatigue or potential injury” that tied games wouldn’t result in overtime but instead would lead to a field-goal kicking contest, nobody would say that was a good solution , even those are exactly the same reasons behind the idea of the penalty shootout.
And, yes, if a replay ended in a draw, you had another replay, and that was the case in the FA Cup even until the late 1990’s.
If that’s what it is, it’s a bizarre traditionalism. Penalty shootouts in soccer are an absolute novelty–consider that the FA was founded in 1864, and the first penalty shootout in an English professional game didn’t take place until 1970. The penalty shootout, strictly speaking, is as “traditional” as the designated hitter in baseball.
Oh. Carry on, then. I do think the idea of unending replays is a bad one- FA Cup matches are played in midweek and could conflict with European commitments for Premiership clubs, or even with League Cup fixtures.
ETA: I would on the other hand be all for a next-day replay of the World Cup final.
I can see what you’re saying, but people can be traditionalistic over anything that has been around for most or all of their lives. Imagine if I started up a discussion over the relative merits of the three-point shot. I am not a fan of it, personally, since it gives people disincentive to try to get the best shot they can.
Shhh. The Magic would suck if you took away the three-pointer.
That’s true, but I strongly doubt you’d have people arguing that “there is no good alternative” to having the three-pointer as is.
I’m still confused by DSYoungEsq’s claim that the penalty shootout is the best of all available solutions to a drawn game. Even Sepp Blatter and Pele have endorsed the “more substitutes and a golden goal” solution. What could they be thinking?
I’d allow an extra sub when you got to extra time. But that is a tactical risk you take - do you keep a little in the tank for extra time or not…
I much prefer the golden goal rule than the current system, and I really think they should allow at least 3 extra substitutions in extra time.
I wonder if perhaps eliminating offside in extra time, except in the opposing box, would not help to beef up scoring. It seems gimmicky, and somewhat artificial, but I’d much rather see a team score a goal than a single player one-on-one with a keeper.
As for why it’s so hard to score in soccer compared to other games, it’s really simple. It’s f#*$ing hard to control a ball with your feet and get it through 11 people and into a guarded net. Like, really hard. It may sound simple, but just try it. It’s so much easier to hold people off, knock the ball away, and otherwise disrupt attempts to shoot than it is to actually control the ball and put it in the net. That’s all there is to it. And I don’t want to see anything change.
I thought using Blatter as a cite for anything football-related was an automatic fail. 
I read someplace (here?) that corner kicks have been floated as an alternative to penalty kicks. Since extra time isn’t really a viable option (did anyone watch the Chelsea/ManU final in Moscow? Bodies were sprawled across the pitch for half an hour; not pretty - and shit football.) and everyone hates penalties I’d like to see someone experiment with it.
First of all, as to the Golden Goal rule, please recall that football experimented with it and decisively rejected it after having used it to determine the winner of the two European Championships (Euro '96 and Euro '00), and at least one quarter-final match in WC 2002. The rest of the world generally rejects the idea that one lucky moment early on during extra time should doom someone to defeat; you get the whole 30 min. to decide the matter. I tend to agree.
As to the penalty kick shootout itself, the issue is not traditionalism, as has been pointed out. It’s relatively novel as these things go, and it’s not yet the sole method for deciding drawn ties (that’s not a redundant phrase outside the US, btw). Replays remain in use in many cases. An even better method of dealing with the possibility of drawn games is to use the home-and-home method for deciding a tie, which reduces the chance of a drawn result between the teams. But it isn’t feasible to do home-and-home in all situations, and there are many cases where resolving a drawn game through replay, especially in today’s modern tournament structure, simply isn’t a feasible solution. The Olympic tournament leaps to mind. And, truth be told, suggesting that the World Cup Finals final match could be replayed is simply silly; in today’s modern sporting world, asking everyone to show back up in three days, midweek, at the same venue, which may well have other things scheduled, etc., just won’t work easily. It could be done, of course, just as the U.S.G.A. still insists upon an 18-hole playoff following a tied result through 4 rounds at their open championships. But that concept is the dinosaur of methods, and has been rejected by almost all sports that could use some form of replay on a later date to solve tied games.
Extra subs simply isn’t a viable answer, either. Yes, the idea of an extra sub or two during the extra time would help, but it doesn’t truly solve the main issue: most of the 22 players on the field will be relatively spent, and in today’s fast-paced modern game, by the end of the extra 30 min., the players simply are out of gas. Unlike hockey, with its unlimited substitutions and stop-and-go nature, soccer simply isn’t set up to keep going and going.
There may be a better method, but given that it will have to be something that doesn’t involve awful play from tired players, occurs on the same day at the same time, and doesn’t fundamentally change the structure of what is going on, I’m not sure that there is another easily used alternative to penalties. And, while I’m not a big fan of them, they ARE exciting to watch…