[World Football] Penalty shoot-out BEFORE extra time

The Game Room
1

A radio talk-back caller today - university lecturer… of accounting, for what it’s worth (AU, Melbourne) - threw up a suggestion: To mitigate the ‘unfair’ nature of deciding applicable world football games via the penalty shoot-out “lottery” system, said shoot-out could be played before the two 15-minute extra time halves. Here’s a break-down of the guy’s suggestion –

► in the case of a drawn [knock-out] tie, the penalty shoot-out is taken before extra time is played (not after)
► the winner (of the shoot-out) would have a notional, ‘aggregate’ winning lead
(► the losing team would then be forced to chase the game in the extra time period)
► the winner in extra time would supersede the penalty shoot-out result and thus become the victor
► in the event where extra time fails to yield a clear winner, the penalty shoot-out winner becomes the overall victor

This simplistic rejigging of the order seemingly has some merit. For starters - and arguably most importantly, from a purist’s standpoint - it goes some way to mitigating the luck element inherent in taking pot-shots from 10 metres; as the process does not decide the game there and then. Secondly, it, at very least guarantees a more pro-active extra time period; given no team can “park the bus”, much less “play for penalties”. Thirdly, it has the net effect of concluding games from open play; not game-stultifying penalty kicks. Moreover, it will invariably make the game more exciting for the non-initiated football onlooker. For we all know how the shoot-out system is forever used to denigrate the game–fuelling the “boring” and “unfair” slurs (not without some substance, it should be said) it’s often tarred with.

My 2¢:
With this new approach in mind, I would also strongly consider increasing the duration of the extra time period/s. The rationale being that, since the players will receive an effective ‘rest break’ after the 90-some-minute game proper (in order to take the penalties [first]), it should (in theory) give them a ‘second wind’ to play a little longer–perhaps… 5~10 minutes longer per extra time half. This would serve to give ample time for teams to play each other out, to use all their substitutions¹ and for more concrete strategies to be implemented (and more effectively).

¹In addition, this extra extra time could also warrant extra substitutions–say… two(2) additional substitutions; but which could only be used in the extra time period itself. That is, the initial three subs are for the first 90 minutes only and must be used before first 90 minutes expire; after which time, they are forfeit and both sides start over with two available substitutions. In effect, this should (i) allow for more strategy in the way the first three subs are used (e.g., instead of just being ab/used for end-game gamesmanship through time-wasting); it (ii) imbues the extra time period/s with a substitution strategy of their own, separate from the first 90 minutes; while (iii) making it less likely that teams are left ‘short’ in the subs department (due to late equalising goals, injuries et al.).

Now, I know penalties can be exciting for initiated viewers and it’s hard to teach old dogs news tricks (see: the global political climate as irrefutable evidence of this fact). However, I think most rational analysts will agree that the fleeting, nail-biting conclusion the penalty shoot-out system guarantees, does not even come close to offsetting the skewed ‘luck-merit equation’ the penalty-taking system entails. Moreover, to decided actual championships on this system is, frankly, undermining to the entire sport.

Football has tried ‘Golden Goals’… but they, too, suffered heavily from the “luck” element (e.g., S.Korea @ Korea-Japan 2002). So, it’s not like there isn’t room for experimentation in this area… and relative to the ideas I’ve heard mooted over the years, this facile change may in fact have potential beyond the mere brain fart it seems to be on face value.

What say you, footballing pundits – do the pros outweigh the cons in this model of deciding the infamous drawn games of “sarker”…?

2

Ok, point by point:

  1. It’s exactly as lucky as before. There’s not difference from a luck perspective.
  2. The team that wins the shootout can park the bus. I don’t get that argument.
  3. Perhaps
  4. I’ve never heard of anyone that enjoys soccer but won’t watch it because it could possibly go to penalties. I don’t think it’d ad any viewership at all.
3

EDIT:
One salient point I slurred over, is how thus system would also temper of the anxiety associated with taking penalty kicks.

With the shoot-out being conducted ‘mid-game’, rather than at the culmination thereof, players would surely be less susceptible to their nerves–cognisant of the fact that, even if they do miss their penalty attempt, it does not necessarily equate to a loss. Nerves which are often attributed to the poor and uncharacteristic penalty execution that can plague these periods in a the game–see: Roberto Baggio, Italy vs. Brasil, 1998 World Cup Final, U.S.A. (1994 (July 17) Brazil 0-Italy 0 (World Cup)-penalty kick shootout.mpg - YouTube)

After all, everyone (aside from certain betting conglomerates) wants the better team to win; not a combination of luck and anxiety being the deciding factor.

4

1) It’s not – because (i) the players know that extra time is still to come, thus their kick isn’t [as much] the be-all and end-all of the game; and (ii) players are less taxed (i.e., have yet to play another 30+ minutes), so are invariably less physically, issuing from that, mentally taxed.
2) As they can currently; as indeed with the current level of associated risk; only, with this new system, it would have to be for an entire 30(+)-minutes, consisting of two separate halves, which imbues an entirely different level of risk than when simply ‘switching’ to such a tact at the tail-end of a game.
3) No “perhaps”. Unless the team who loses the penalty shoot-out has gambled on themselves to lose, they have no choice but to chase the game.
4) It’s not about existing adherents anywhere near as much as it is about the sport’s critics and attracting potential newbies. Of import: It’s for the integrity of the game in its adjudication of the ‘better team’ / victor.