Just a nitpick here but an important one--pretty much universally, advertising contracts do not allow for refunds. If your ad gets preempted or isn't aired for whatever reason, you basically have an ad in your pocket that you can place at another time, subject to the value of the spot being approximately the same and all of that. Knowing this, I think that changes things. This would also apply to advertisers who speculatively bought overtime advertisements--if they don't happen, they can advertise at another time for free.
The idea that fewer players is going to result in goals is folly. The more tired you are and the high incentive to not take chances that leave you exposed will simply make the game increasingly conservative. I think you would actually have better results with more or fresher players. All comparisons to hockey are non-starters for me - that is a sport where teams average over 30 shots per 60 minutes of game time. Of the possible alternatives, replay is the best but sadly impossible (I loved the Australian Rules Football championship that was replayed last year, but everyone was really mad about it). NCAA soccer had nearly endless overtimes - 8 of them in two different finals in the 80's (166 total minutes in 1985), which I guess shows if you play long enough, eventually someone will score. The shootout style that we saw in early MLS may involve more skill, but was doomed when Eric Wynalda had has knee ripped up - it's humorous now to see Brits suggesting this. No way European clubs allow their $50 million strikers to take that risk. If the goal is a) to be fair and b) to reward the better team (and therefore reduce incentives to play for the shootout), the best solutions are probably statistical tiebreakers - the team with more shots or more possessions in the other teams penalty box wins after overtime, for example. This would create a new series of weird gamey encouragements, but it would still be more fair than the shootout and at least discourage parking the bus.
Two suggestions. 1.) Instead of penalties, have 3v2s (three attackers, two defenders, one GK). Attackers start with the ball at the halfway line. 20 Seconds to score. Alternate and repeat 5 times for each team. After that, sudden death. 2.) After two overtimes, add a third overtime period where the GK can't use his hands. This would probably be mayhem, so it might be a terrible idea.
I don't have a problem with KFTM. That's what makes soccer such a great sport. There are different ways of winning the game. I was disgusted with Chelsea winning the Champions League Final as much as anyone. The sport is not broken. This outrage from people every time a major Championship is decided on penalties is tiresome. Same thing in the NFL when a team doesn't get the ball back in OT. Play defense. You don't want to lose in a shootout? Score a goal. I, personally, don't think a pro soccer player should ever miss a penalty. In a World Cup or European Championship you have at most about three games go to kicks. The thing is, most of the time those games deserved to go to penalties because that was the most exciting that ever happened. See the Japan Paraguay match in the 2010 World Cup. A Champions League Final is decided about every 10 years on penalties. It happens. I don't think there is a fairer solution apart from a replay, but that's not feasible.
Right. But doesn't that create the big problem? When would advertisers be able to cash-in on unaired buys for extra time of the WC Final? What would be "of equal approximate value?"
My suggestion is, if extra time ends in a draw, there is no winner. Both teams lose. If it's still in the knockout phase, the next opponent gets a bye. If it's a final, there's no champion. That way, the motivation is on to score. Yes, building a defensive team is a legitimate strategy, but in the end you need to score goals to win.
But if it's not broken with KFTM, does that mean it was broken without them in the first 100 years of the sport? I don't think it's a tiresome argument for some. I've always been against them and have always thought they were an invented spectacle that has very little to do with the actual sport. Ten European Cup/UCL finals have gone to penalties since 1984. Ten. That's one every three years, not one every ten. And it's become more frequent over time as five of the last twelve have ended that way. That's not good for the sport or the competition.
You're genuinely suggesting that the World Cup could be won on a bye? Or not won at all, if both semis ended this way.
I was gonna post this idea! Also I was going to give up to a minute for each separate round. It's a good round number that gives the offense time to build up and attack differently rather than given most of the advantage to the defense. I honestly think this is the best way, you distill the game down to it's elements of 1v1 and use exercises you would use in a practice. That way if you're training for these "Kicks from the Mark" it isn't considered a waste of time for other aspects of the game, it's the fundamentals.
This, but with 5 minute periods. It would make for the most exciting overtime in sports. If they played 30 additional minutes like today they would be down to 5v5! I wouldn't ever force the keeper off though - how silly would it be to win a title by shooting a PK into an open net. Think about how hard players would try not to get sent off! You can go all the way down to 2v2. A corner kick at 1v1 would be quite amusing.
I think KFTPM are not that bad a solution to the ultimate problem of choosing a winner, all things considered. All the ideas relating to removing players, corner kicks, style points, all make me throw up in my mouth a little. At some point they are as artificial as penalties anyway, just more embarrassing. I would support a move back in time. Replays. A single elimination match would still go to extra time, if required. If still drawn, replay the match with extra time as required. At some point (say, after one replay) KFTPM could be used as a last resort. While not a perfect solution (there is no such thing) it reduces some of the problems with the current and proposed situations. Unlimited extra time is physically ridiculous, and is usually a solution proposed by people currently sitting at a computer and who are likely to be sitting at a computer for the foreseeable future and thereby available to defend the indefensible with questionable analogies to other sports. I think all proponents for unlimited extra time should, as a matter of basic credibility, be required to run for two consecutive hours between internet posts in favor of their positions. A replay has some of the benefit of more extra time, but since it is a new game, you can start with different players. It is essentially two (to four) extra periods of extra time with a mass substitution (and sleep) in the middle. Another problem with KFTPM is that they can lead to teams playing for them, which I would argue would be far harder to do over two full matches. I don't buy the argument that a replay is too hard for TV, stadia. If the match is important enough, TV will still slobber over the opportunity and you just book the stadium for the two dates you might need.I have far more sympathy for the logistical issues relating to ticketing and policing. At the very least I think a replay would work fine for finals of major tournaments, working backwards from there.
People advocating replays, just think what replays would do for the local club or tournament level? It would be a nightmare of rescheduling and driving...some people would eventually vote for just having co-champions like some high school associations do. No there must be a way to end the game period. Right now that's kick from the mark. Sepp is merely asking "Hey is there a better way?" If there isn't we'll keep kicks if there is will try that, not that big of a deal. Replays though, waste of time.
I'm offering the replay an option. I would imagine only a select few games would be considered as candidates for such an option. Home and away series is a current option - but how many tournaments actually avail themselves of that?
Agreed. I like my idea more and more. 3 v 2s actually test a number of skills (as opposed to only one skill in KFTPM). They're easy to do in all matches, they could be dramatic as hell, and they provide a better conclusion to 120 minutes of soccer.
I voted for unlimited extra time periods (and I think player reductions is a terrible idea) but I think this could be fantastic. I'd just wonder about the logistics of choosing players for each set of goal chances. Would only players on the field be allowed to participate? Would you have to use all eleven players before using a player twice? Would defense and offense be treated separately or together for the purpose of counting players for participation? How do teams who had a player sent off during the match function? All logistical issues to this that would need to be worked out, but it's a great idea nonetheless.
I like the MLS shootout as an alternative to PKs. Also, in general, less defensive refereeing means more goals means fewer ties after 90 minutes and fewer ties after 120 minutes. Just sayin'. It has to do with satellite time. The various broadcasters around the world rent enough satellite time to get through AET and PKs and a bit for awarding the trophy. They can't rent unlimited satellite time.
Until they decide to do this (at least in the men's matches): Rochambeau or this: Highlander - There can be only one these matches will take forever to decide a winner. Either of the above and you have a winner in as little as 10 seconds!
The July 1995 LOTG, Instructions regarding the taking of kicks from the Penalty Mark (in knock-out competitions to decide the winner), it states (p. 43): "In the event of light failing before the end of the taking of kicks from the penalty mark, the result shall be decided by the toss of a coin or drawing lots." I remember it clearly because I was the CR in an U16 boys match in middle December. The winner was to go on to some additional playoffs (the two teams had tied for first in the regular season.) The match was at 3:00 pm on a very overcast day. Before leaving for it I double-checked this clause because it seemed likely it might come into play. Which it did - we had two overtime periods and were still tied. At the end of the OT one could hardly see from on goal to the other - in fact, I had come close to ending the game before the OT was over. In any case, we had the coin toss. I had one very upset coach, of course. "You can't do this! It's not right!" etc. When I called the assignor after getting home (this was BCP - before cell phones) she had already heard from him. I told her the page number of the note and she said "Fine. OK. Got it."
Golden goal fails because teams usually sat back in fear of giving up the goal. They'd rather take their chance at KFTM than get caught out at the back. The solution is to search for goals in open play during extra time. The best way to do this, in my opinion is to grant an additional sub to each team at the 90' mark and at halftime of extra time. Teams who had an injured player go off after using their 3 subs can add until they get to 11. Or, lets just not fix it and agree that Sepp probably had money on FC Bayern. We didn't hear any calls for the elimination of KFTM after Germany 06
I was a ball boy in the first Vermont state high school championship game (57? or 58?). The final score was 0-0, and the winner was the team who had taken the most corner kicks, with no overtime. They used the same rule during the regular season and no one had thought to change them for the playoffs.
Some thoughts: First, TV networks, especially foreign networks, clearly would want a defined game length so they do not have to alter their broadcasr schedules. So, no open-ended OT structure is never going to be approved. Second, using the current 30 minutes OT is not satisfactory becasue the probability of breaking tie matches is not high enough. During the last five World Cups, 21 of 75 matches went into extra time (28%). Of the 21 matches that went into extra time, 14 of these matches ended in KFTM (67%!!) So, to try to promote a resolution within the desired 30 minute OT time frame, one must increase the probability of scoring a goal. The easiest method is do make eliminate any handling by the goalkeeper during the OT period. Also, allowing 1-2 additional subs during this time may allow for fresher legs and more attacks.
Heh heh. A LOT of other ads. Keep in mind, even Super Bowl commercials are this way--American football games vary pretty substantially time-wise. Or think about the World Series . . . baseball's even worse in that respect. So it's nothing new to the ad guys.
For those calling for unlimited overtimes....can you imagine refereeing one of these? 120 minutes is enough. Asking referees to do more is crazy if you want it called right.