Ideas for replacing shoot outs

[BWMcTell]

Originally posted by Elninho


You're missing the point entirely. The reason the MLS shootout was (rightly) considered a joke was that it was used to break ties in regular-season matches. However, I consider it superior to penalty kicks as a knockout-competition tiebreaker. As long as it's not being used to settle every single drawn league match, I don't see a problem with it.

I know that you werent advocating the shootout in that way. I didn't intend my response to sound like a rebuttle. Just my thoughts on subject. I think that it is difficult to speak against or for the dribble shootout since it is such a new concept. If the roles were reversed and it was the traditional standard instead of the spot-kick penalty, then I could imagine it being a well-embraced tiebreaker situation. However, I still believe that we should play by the same rules as the rest of the world. But come on, we're the US. We never play by the same rules as everyone else.

[tcmahoney]

Originally posted by Elninho


You're missing the point entirely. The reason the MLS shootout was (rightly) considered a joke was that it was used to break ties in regular-season matches. However, I consider it superior to penalty kicks as a knockout-competition tiebreaker. As long as it's not being used to settle every single drawn league match, I don't see a problem with it.

Nailed it.

I like alternating free kicks myself, though, with the caveat that play continues until the defending team gets the ball into the other half of the field. This is analogous to the system that American college football uses -- each team gets its shot at scoring.

Perhaps those who don't like the idea of free-kick specialists could answer a few questions for me:

What's the difference between bringing in someone late in extra time who's a free-kick specialist and bringing in someone who's good at PKs? Or bringing in a goalkeeper who's good at stopping PKs? Or bringing striker late in the match when you need a goal or bringing in a defender late in the match when you need to prevent a goal? What's the difference?

I saw something once on another message board that had a funny article written by someone on the NAS mailing list about how to settle tie matches. Perhaps someone could post it here?

[tcmahoney]

Originally posted by BWMcTell


I wrote multiple e-mails to the MLS commish those initial years asking them to please ban the horrible shootouts. I think it is again a case of the MLS never gaining international respect until they start to play by international rules. And more importantly, MLS realized that until we get rid of clocks that countdown and the ridiculous shootout circus the real fans of soccer in the US will never materialize into MLS fans.

Which, of course, completely ignores the reality that attendance went down the season after the shootout was scrapped.

[BWMcTell]

Originally posted by tcmahoney


Which, of course, completely ignores the reality that attendance went down the season after the shootout was scrapped.

I think the correlation between the decreased attendance and the removal of the shootout is weak. The exact opposite arguement could me made, saying that the rule chance came to late and the damage was aleady done.

[Elninho]

Originally posted by BWMcTell


I know that you werent advocating the shootout in that way. I didn't intend my response to sound like a rebuttle. Just my thoughts on subject. I think that it is difficult to speak against or for the dribble shootout since it is such a new concept. If the roles were reversed and it was the traditional standard instead of the spot-kick penalty, then I could imagine it being a well-embraced tiebreaker situation. However, I still believe that we should play by the same rules as the rest of the world. But come on, we're the US. We never play by the same rules as everyone else.

But this thread isn't about the US. It's about the world. It's no secret that the penalty shootout is not well-liked worldwide. Some of the proponents of the MLS-style shootout in this thread are European. Let's consider it this way: the PK shootout is currently an appendix to the Laws of the Game. The text does not mandate golden-goal overtime or PK shootouts, it only names them as a suggested method of breaking ties. Given that rules have changed over the years, the most recent being the 6-second rule for goalkeepers replacing the 4-step rule, I see no reason why FIFA couldn't change their suggested tiebreaking method (it's not even a Law of the Game).

[Boro_lad]

There are newer new rules. (not trying to put you down just mentioning)

If you obstruck in the box it is now a penalty and a direct free kick in stread of indirect...

Also there has to be daylight between the striker and defender for it to be offside. This is to advantage attackers...

[Boro_lad]

Originally posted by Elninho


But this thread isn't about the US. It's about the world. It's no secret that the penalty shootout is not well-liked worldwide. Some of the proponents of the MLS-style shootout in this thread are European. Let's consider it this way: the PK shootout is currently an appendix to the Laws of the Game. The text does not mandate golden-goal overtime or PK shootouts, it only names them as a suggested method of breaking ties. Given that rules have changed over the years, the most recent being the 6-second rule for goalkeepers replacing the 4-step rule, I see no reason why FIFA couldn't change their suggested tiebreaking method (it's not even a Law of the Game).

but we are still left with the same problem. What to replace penalties with?

Without a good new method of deciding matches penalties will live on. I am one for keeping penalties. Along with full length extra time..

[norfcath]

Originally posted by counterattack


I wish I could two by four every so-called football fan who somehow thinks that penalty shots are okay, and that Penalty Kick Shoot Outs do not need to be eliminated. You jackasses are insane. period.

Here it is, so even the braindead can understand...

THE PENALTY SHOT SHOOT OUT IS AN ABOMINATION. IT IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. IT SHOULD BE A DEATH PENALTY CRIME. IT BELITTLES FOOTBALL. IT SHAMES THE GAME. IT MAKE MONKEYS OUT OF THOSE WHO ARE FORCED TO WATCH IT. . .

is this getting through to you yet? No?

THE PENALTY KICK SHOOT OUT TAKES THE BEAUTIFUL GAME AND TURNS IT INTO A BAD CIRCUS SIDE SHOW.
IT IS A FOUL AND UGLY THING, AND ANYTHING, ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN THE PENALTY KICK SHOOTOUT.

I applaud this thread for trying to solve a cancer in the body of real football. You idiots, you morrons, you half-wits, you mental turds who think the Penalty Kick shoot out is just alright, need to get to an institution where you can be watched 24 hours a day so that you do not hurt yourselves or others.

Please, tell us how you REALLY feel.

[benine]

Ha!
I love it, not having i-net at home anymore and coming back to a thread that a threw up just in haste. Ha, so much UK vs US hate, but isnt that normal?
My main thrust of the thread was that penalties are the most unfair way to decide a game, more so than golden goal, just as unfair as a coin toss. Even after FIFA changed and rechanged the keeper rules for movement off the line, keepers still cheat their asses off in them with no consequences becuase every FIFA ref in the world is too ball-less to pull a card in a shootout. its unfair that a keeper can be up to three steps off the line before the ball is even struck, and there has to be a system to replace it.
The dribble up sucks and would just favor the more athletic/fatass keeper who can run screaming at the player fast enough.
Funny that UK players hate the idea of taking players off the field to open it up more (just like five aside, guys), but i guess they like the perfect scapegoat that penalties always provide.

Maybe americans have too much love for resolve over "saving face".

[Slash/ED]

Originally posted by benine
Ha!
My main thrust of the thread was that penalties are the most unfair way to decide a game, more so than golden goal, just as unfair as a coin toss.

How? Penaltys take skill, bottle and an iron nervem they aren't random. Why do yolu think Germany are so good at them?

[Matt Clark]

Originally posted by benine
Ha!
I love it, not having i-net at home anymore and coming back to a thread that a threw up just in haste. Ha, so much UK vs US hate, but isnt that normal?
My main thrust of the thread was that penalties are the most unfair way to decide a game, more so than golden goal, just as unfair as a coin toss. Even after FIFA changed and rechanged the keeper rules for movement off the line, keepers still cheat their asses off in them with no consequences becuase every FIFA ref in the world is too ball-less to pull a card in a shootout. its unfair that a keeper can be up to three steps off the line before the ball is even struck, and there has to be a system to replace it.
The dribble up sucks and would just favor the more athletic/fatass keeper who can run screaming at the player fast enough.
Funny that UK players hate the idea of taking players off the field to open it up more (just like five aside, guys), but i guess they like the perfect scapegoat that penalties always provide.

Maybe americans have too much love for resolve over "saving face".

Well, the only US/UK hate that's been sloshing around this thread is from our demented little friend counterattack. And whatever hang-up he is nursing there is most definitely his own. Poor sap.

With regard to the rest of it all, the point being made is that no one has yet produced a better alternative to the penalty shoot-out, save a full replay (which I for one would always favour but which is not practicable in the modern game). To say it is "as unfair" as a coin toss, for example, is nonsense. A professional footballer being asked to kick a ball 12 yards into a net the size of a large garage door is manifestly not as unfair as getting the ref to eddy up.

I agree that refs should be forced to make the current rules stick (we all remember the Korean goalkeeper for Spain's last penalty at the World Cup, after all) because, in so doing, you ensure a more or less even contest - the pressure on the striker to score roughly balancing out the unlikelihood of a keeper saving a well-struck penno.

The extent to which people get their knickers in a twist about a perfectly workable solution to an inevitable quandary is really quite funny. I mean, counterattack may be short on marbles and, as such, not the fairest benchmark against which to view the anti-PK crowd, but come on guys. There are more important things in life than whacky solutions to the question of how to end a game of football in which neither side has managed to get the ball in to the net after two whole hours of trying.

[skipshady]

Originally posted by Boro_lad
Without a good new method of deciding matches penalties will live on. I am one for keeping penalties. Along with full length extra time.. I haven't read the entire thread but I'm going to assume this is the most sensible post here.

Most other solutions will be just as, if not more, arbitrary as the penalty kicks. Like it or not, it's here to stay.

PS - Matt, re: Korean keeper vs Spanish PK taker. I understand your point about enforcing the rules, but if you watch that kick again, you'll see that the kick taker start his run up, stop, then restarts, so the Spaniard is hardly innocent. The two violations cancelled each other out, imho.

[Matt Clark]

well, that just goes under the same heading then, doesn't it? Enforce the rules.

[desertfox2]

Let me just say for all of those people who think that pk's are just random and goalies guessing the right way, they do take skill. I mean, if you can drill a shot into one of the four corners of the net (especially the top corners) you WILL SCORE I don't care what goalie is opposing you. Pk's are a quick, fair way to end a game. Isn't that what we all want? (except for that coin toss cause that's just wrong)

Now yes, I would rather lose a match in the run of play than to lose in pk's, but if the match is still deadlocked after 2 hours, you need a quick, fair way to end it. I also think that replaying the matches like they used to do is also wrong. I mean think about it, you are playing in a huge tournament single elimination match and you fight all day and are tied after ET. Do u really want to come back another day and play the match all over again? At least I wouldn't want to. I would just want pk's, and end it already.

And I don't understand why being able to guess the right way as a goalie is more lucky than anything else that happens in a match. People, it takes luck to win sometimes, whether in the run of play or in pk's. Luck is always a factor in a match.

Personally, I think that many of the people that are against pk's has themselves lost in pk's or the team(s) that they root for have lost in pk's so they're bitter about them. I mean, I'm an Italy fan and look how many huge matches they have lost in pk's in the past 10-15 years and I still think that pk's are the way to go.

I really can't believe this thread is this long. It's simple people: pk's are the quickest, fairest, and overall the best way to end a match that's been deadlocked for 2 hours. End of discussion.

[Slash/ED]

Exactly and Golden Goal has to go.

[usscouse]

Originally posted by benine

Funny that UK players hate the idea of taking players off the field to open it up more (just like five aside, guys), but i guess they like the perfect scapegoat that penalties always provide.

Maybe americans have too much love for resolve over "saving face".
Most of your points fit with the majority of thinkers here but it took a while to understand your “taking players off..!”
I think that after 2 hours of a hard fought game that all the players would like to come off, hence the PKs. Maybe you’ve never played the game or know the agony of cramping. Or did you give any thought that these guys in the WC have to play again, usually within 3 days.
End the game, NOT drag it out.
Why you turned it into a UK/US thing beyond me. Or do you think that you’re speaking for ALL US fans when you want to drag out the game until you play one-on-one, or are you falling for what your buddy brainattack wanted.

[benine]

Originally posted by usscouse

Most of your points fit with the majority of thinkers here but it took a while to understand your “taking players off..!”
I think that after 2 hours of a hard fought game that all the players would like to come off, hence the PKs. Maybe you’ve never played the game or know the agony of cramping. Or did you give any thought that these guys in the WC have to play again, usually within 3 days.
End the game, NOT drag it out.
Why you turned it into a UK/US thing beyond me. Or do you think that you’re speaking for ALL US fans when you want to drag out the game until you play one-on-one, or are you falling for what your buddy brainattack wanted.

See, bah to cramping I say, force the manager to take off the less fit players and force the players into taking better care of themselves (cramping isnt a sign of fatigue, it's a sign of dehydration which is totally avoidable if you treat your body right). I made it a UK/US thing because it seemed the standard UK response was "ah, you stupid yanks and your ideas about football". I dont think all players would like a game to be decided on something as trivial as penalties, which represents a total of none of what the rest of the game is about (really, how often does a player get a free shot from 12 yards direct at just the keeper? never unless a penalty is called). So why subject a games outcome to be decided by a part of the game meant to punish a team? That would be like deciding a baseball game by the number of walks allowed or a basketball game ending in freethrow shooting for the win. I really do think that people who say that penalties are a good way, better than golden goal even, to decide a game are people who love having a good excuse for why their side lost ("oh, we only lost on penalties"). F that. Yeah, ultimatley, i would rather see a replay than golden goal or penalties, but if the game has to end in one matchday, then why make it end on such a trivial note? Really, coin toss or corners won is just as satisfying of a result as 5-3 on penalties. and i never said it would get down to 1 on 1 (thats penalties), just 5 on 5 because it is a TEAM GAME.

[Matt Clark]

Originally posted by benine

I really do think that people who say that penalties are a good way, better than golden goal even, to decide a game are people who love having a good excuse for why their side lost ("oh, we only lost on penalties").

No, the people who say penalties are a perfectly acceptable way to end a game are just realistic about the fact that

a) no better alternative to this flawed option presents itself and
b) all attempts at a trying to provide a better alternative anyway rest on crap logic.

For instance:

penalties, which represents a total of none of what the rest of the game is about (really, how often does a player get a free shot from 12 yards direct at just the keeper? never unless a penalty is called)

"None" and "never", eh? Well, unless a penalty is awarded adds up to 18 times in this past World Cup.

Eighteen separate occasions in 64 games where a player was asked to do exactly what you describe.

Should I go an check on how many occasions players were asked to play with just four colleagues on a full-size football pitch in the heat of a Far Eastern summer? I have the stat here. It's quite round ...

And just one more thing - want to know how many shoot-out penalties were taken at this past World Cup?

Nineteen.

So, to recap - the penalty shoot-out is bad because it is not part of the game. This is because situations in which a player is asked perform the action commensurate with taking a penalty never occur ... except on all those times a penalty is called within a game. Or, to put it another way, in roughly a third of all the games at the recent World Cup. Ergo, the penalty is not part of the game. I think ...

Yep ... that whole penalty kick thing is a bitch, eh? I say we DO get rid of it, because hey - compared to other solutions involving five-a-side (or maybe a bit of Beach Soccer - or some Babi-foot perhaps?) - it's just so gosh-darn alien to the game!!!

[skipshady]

Originally posted by benine
See, bah to cramping I say, force the manager to take off the less fit players and force the players into taking better care of themselves (cramping isnt a sign of fatigue, it's a sign of dehydration which is totally avoidable if you treat your body right).If you believe that the only harmful effect of overexertion is cramping then you obviously did not follow this year's World Cup and the build up to it.

Most serious injuries occur after the 75 min mark, and the longer you play after that, the more likely and more severe the injury will become. Plus, you're talking about players who play 2, maybe even 3 matches within a 7 day span for almost the entire year. Combine insuffcient R & R with overexertion, you're talking about putting serious abuse on the body.

Well, that is the way of life in football right now. But you're asking players to go even further and expose themselves to an exponentially increased risk of injury.

I'm sure clubs who paid multi million dollar transfer fees will be happy to see their investments abused and fans will be happy to see their favorite players carried off in stretchers with fractures and torn ligaments, simply because for whatever reason, some people seem to think a shootout is a dishonorable way to finish a match.

Continued play after 2 hours is simply too dangerous and no one in their right mind would allow it.

[mikelley037]

they should select 3 players from each side to play paintball in the stadium. they can build like towers to shoot from until all 3 are hit by the paintball that would be pretty cool huh