I became a fan of MLS after the shootout was eliminated, so I must admit that I don't think I ever witnessed one for myself. And I don't really think that it's a good idea to end a tie game with it to determine a "winner." However, if you're in a situation where you have to end a game somehow, it seems worthwhile to try to figure out something better than penalties.
Here's one: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzJKNW_QuX0"]Leo Cullen Shootout Goal vs Tampa Bay - YouTube[/ame] It looks mediocre, but I suspect a lot of that has to do with 1. video quality and 2. 1998 MLS quality.
Maybe you want to provide a little more depth? What made it so bad? Why did you hate it? Would you have hated it any less if MLS teams decided regular season games with penalty kicks?
How much "depth" do you need? I thought it was a crappy, gimmicky way to end a game. Along with a few other "American-style" gimmicks, it just seemed to make MLS games a little less like the soccer I was watching elsewhere. It seemed superfluous; I wanted to watch soccer, not an All-Star game-ish 1v1 skills demonstration. A little. I absolutely don't mind ties, so whatever--but at least with a PK it's more in line with the way the game is otherwise played.
The shootout did teach me one thing, that a breakaway isn't as much of a guaranteed goal as I had thought it was. But I agree that it was a dumb, gimmicky way to decide a game.
This. But to be fair, I think penalty kicks are also a gimmicky way to end a game. We are just much more used to it in the world of soccer.
I prefer the old NASL style shootout than regular PKs. Neither is truly satisfactory, but the 1v1 breakaway format requires more skill from both the shooter and the keeper, while a regular PK is very much based on random luck and guessing as much as it is about skill. Psychologically, the pressure on the shooter is the same in both formats. What I'd like to see is an experiment with alternating free kicks. Team A sets up a free kick anywhere along an imaginary 35 or 40 yd line. Team B defends. Team A's try is over once Team B has cleared the ball past that 35 or 40 yds, or the ball goes out of bounds. No throw-ins or corners. If Team A doesn't score from the initial free kick, you keep playing like a normal game until Team B is able to clear the ball or it goes out. Then it's Team B's turn. First one to score wins. Everything would play out the way it would in actual game play and requires team work on both sides of the ball.
Which is why I take the position I do. My beef with the shootout was mostly that it was used for regular season games. I wouldn't mind seeing it return as a tiebreaker in the playoffs, when there has to be a winner.
This is interesting. I think most people's ideal way of ending a match that needs a clear winner is to simply keep on adding more extra time segments until one team wins. That isn't physically possible, of course, so what you propose above seems like a fairly close alternative that wouldn't completely tire out the players.
Because there was nothing in the Laws of the Game at the time for or against any post-game tiebreakers.
interesting. i suppose there was nothing saying that no injury time had to be given at the end of every match as well? i remember seeing that the games ended exactly when the clock hit 0:00.
Since the scoreboard clock was technically in the control of the referee--he would signal to stop the clock rather than keep track on his wristwatch--it seemed to still fall within the letter of the law, though it was poorly executed.
I detested the shootout, and would routinely shut off games after regulation, rather than watch what, to me, was a contrived and unnecessary gimmick to try and engineer a "winner." I simply didn't care what the results of the shootout were. I think the greater point here isn't whether or not the shootout was a clever idea. It's that its sole reason for being was that the MLS braintrust was convinced that US soccer fans needed a winner to be determined each game, just as they concluded that - for some ungodly reason - we'd just not "get" stoppage time, and would prefer a clock running down to zero to signify and the end of a half. It was a stupid, patronizing approach that I (mostly because I can be a real dick) took personally. I just wanted to watch soccer, and didn't appreciate MLS's repeated attempts to ******** with the game. Too, I thought the shootout gutted the last 5-10 minutes of regulation. It seemed to remove the incentive to try and capture points in regulation (or so I recall).
I'm pretty sure that MLS asked FIFA for exceptions for some of their rule changes, which FIFA granted them. FIFA has been pretty willing to stretch the rules / try out new things with the United States.
This is sort of my point. Maybe I should have asked instead "How was the Shootout worse than penalty kicks." Basically, the only objections that I've heard here are 1. It's not like the rest of the world does it. 2. Using the shootout during regular season is bad. However, I don't think anyone has given a reason that the shootout is worse than PK's when a winner has to be decided.
Was there any difference between the NASL shootout and the MLS shootout? Your proposal sounds a lot like college football's overtime system, where teams take turns trying to score from the 25-yard line (I think?). I wonder what the effects would be of implementing the NHL's overtime method - that is, remove players from the game to open up the field.
a) Penalty kicks are a part of the game that occurs during the regular course of play, while the shootout created a contrived situation that never occurs (a 1-on-1 breakaway with a 5-second time limit). b) The shootout had screwy and ambiguous rules. For example, there was a rule that the shooter couldn't touch the ball after making his shot, but there was no clear definition of "shot". Also, a penalty kick was awarded if the goalkeeper committed a foul, regardless of whether it was in the penalty area. c) The shootout was susceptible to dangerous collisions, causing injuries such as Eric Wynalda's before the 1998 World Cup.
I'm pretty sure the NASL and MLS shootouts were identical. The NASL started the shootout at its 35-yard offside line (remember that gimmick?) and MLS, although it wisely chose to go with FIFA's offside rule, also started its shootout 35 yards from goal.
I say we bring back golden goal. what is so wrong with that? maybe make the extra time period 15 minutes and if ti's still tied end it as a tie. penalties in regular season games are unnescessary but in playoffs i love them. get my heart pumping even if i don't care who wins. i don't get why we can't settle draws. heck if we did my team might be playing tonight.
I prefer sudden-death overtime (or "golden goal") in the playoffs, and only in the playoffs. Both PKs and the shootout are sideshows.
