Maybe that's part of the fun. The referees get mentally fatigued and start making poorer and poorer decisions. Adds to the intrigue.
It's not a fair way to end a game, whether it's a World Cup or U16's Championship, but there is no other realistic option currently. Soccer players and referees may be some of the best athletes in the world, but with limited substitutions even they have a limitation of how long they can keep going at near 100%. Unless of course, we allow the teams extra subs, and the fourth official can come on and sub the referee.
Mr. Blatter: I have a proposal for changing the rules on Goalkeepers during Extra Time. It's based on the Six Seconds rule, and it would be something for the 4th official to keep track of. The rule goes like this: during Extra Time, every time the goal keeper controls the ball with his hands (that means holds it, and does not apply to parries or punches), his allotment is reduced by one second. Thus on his second catch of an overtime period, he must release the ball within five seconds, then four, etc. Once he is down to 0 seconds, he may no longer catch the ball, though he can parry it or punch it. Of course, it would be possible to start the allotment at 5 seconds in Extra Time, or even 4. Violations of this rule would result in an IFK, as in normal play. The expectation is that forcing keepers to get the ball into play faster would result in more dynamic play, and thus increase the likelihood of a winner coming in extra time. If after 30 minutes, the teams are still deadlocked, KFTM ensues.
My problem with just added more subs (I'm talking beyond the proposed fourth) is that now the game is getting decided by players 15, 16, 17, ect on the roster. Its just another way that rewards the big nations with the deep rosters. Some might say thats good, but I'm not a fan. Deep squads win the leagues (which is what is always the same teams in most of the big leagues) but a team with a good first 11 should not be punished in a tournament.
The suggestion to go unlimited extra time periods is nut. Players can not perform at their best when they have to go 90 + 30 mins. How are they supposed to go +15 minutes several times more over? If you allow more subs, you will have lesser players deciding games, not to mention the fact that unless you allow 10+ subs, someone still has to play a whole lot of minutes. They won't be walking, they'll be crawling.
Easy fix to this...have the local army or militia line the field with their members fully armed. If they even think about walking shoot them...at least that's just about as sane as the suggestion that they play FOREVER.
I still like USSF Referee's idea when it comes to this. It is to have the KFTM before the extra time. Then play the extra time. If you are tied at the end of extra time, then it is clear who wins the match....
Not sure if it has been mentioned already but I would like to see the number of players reduced for extra time. This would open things up and create a lot more scoring opportunity.
I once ran a BU-1o tournament game with a reduce every 5 minutes OT. It was awful. It went all the way to 3 players, no keepers. Although free substitution was allowed at each interval, the coaches just kept removing who they felt were the weaker players. So the thing took an hour to decide with most of the team on the sidelines bored watching their "stars" run around. HERE'S an idea! Run KFTM at the beginning of the game. Then everyone knows who will win in the event of a tie and they get real motivated!
That normally fine, a team forced to attack vs a bunkering team produces intense football, which is very unlike two teams settling for a draw...
The concern about incentives provides the perfect solution: the post-draw-draw. For every drawn game, the competition authority will randomly draw a name from the starters on each team who will be suspended for the following game. For 0-0 draws, two names will be pulled for each team. If it is the second draw in a row for the team, an additional name will be drawn for that team. Pool play is going to be a lot more exciting . . .
Another typical article from a moronic member of the media, who had probably never watched a game of soccer in his life before Euro 2012:
Well, I understand you're pissed that the guy dissed soccer. But we gave him the ammunition. Becasue this part is essentially true: "It’s like settling a basketball game with a game of H.O.R.S.E." [or maybe a series of foul shots, to be more precise]. But, if anyone has a right to be upset, it's track fans. They get noticed by New Yorker columnists once every 4 years, and then the guy uses half his ink to spew about soccer?
That's definitely a spot-on remark, but he's comparing it to a tie in a running race, and that soccer should either "re-race" or flip a coin like those two athletes have to do. It's all good and well for people to say they don't like penalties, but if they aren't giving us a better solution as well, then they deserved to be hit in the throat with a snow shovel.
I am not so sure. The proposed solution is geared toward setting draws between 2 teams who are even. If A can not score on B normally, how do you expect them to score when they are behind and B goes into bunker mode? More often than not, you will probably see desperate attempts, long balls from the back, shots from 30 yds out that have no chance ..., that doesn't display fine football. I would also venture to estimate that when 2 equal teams play and one team is ahead, the chance of that team winning is very very good. The end result is, again, you gives a win to a team winning the KFTM and this is before play has started.
Having KFTM before a game sounds intriguing, but I bet you get super boring matches. If you are Greece and are playing Germany and you win the KFTM pre-game, you won't leave your box. I doubt a single player would advance past the 35 yard box. No need to counter attack. Not even once. Just hold and pack it in and clear it out. It would be a complete snoozer while Germany takes a bunch of low-probability long range shots. Unintended consequences - they happen in every scenario. This one would be worse than the golden goal scenario, only because it would be 90 minutes instead of 30. The game should be decided on the pitch by a variant of the game being played. Reduce field size, reduce number of players, take out keepers, alternating corners, or a combination of any of those, but there should be a reasonable way for the "authorities" to decide how ties after regulation are settled.
I've thought of this one . . .but at the highest levels it almost guarantees the game is going to be decided on a PK following a red card for DOGSO-H . . .
Only partly. The two options to resolve tied matches were: replay (FA Cup style) or coin toss, with the latter being used when there was insufficient time to schedule a replay. There were replays actually played in WC finals matches in '34 and '38. There were no knockout matches at all in '50, and after that there was the possibility of replays at least for the final up to at least 1982 (as apparently Abraham Klein was appointed to the '82 replay that never had to be played.) The 1968 Euro had both a coin toss (after one of the semi-finals between Italy and the USSR - Italy won the coin toss, apocryphally on the second toss after the first got wedged in a crack in the floor of the referees' room, although it is doubtful this really happened) and a replayed final. The 1954 WC qualifying tournament had Spain against Turkey in a home and home that ended with one win each (no goal difference or away goal rule in play) so they had a replay - that ended in a draw, leading to a coin toss! I think for major international tournaments the final should be replayed - once - with extra time for both games, only then followed by penalties. I've never heard of a better solution than KFTPM as a general solution that isn't even more embarrassing.