Ideas for replacing shoot outs

[benine]

Originally posted by Matt Clark
What - no more Scouse jokes?

You disappoint.

Like I said - get over it.
Sorry, i was looking for that website with that wonderful list of jokes that you swiped your bit of dialogue from. You know you are a massive no-lifer scouse when you FAKE stealing something...
What, no more poor attempts at i-mockery or poo jokes? Get your penalties-middaytug in?

[usscouse]

Originally posted by benine


I dont know really what the point of all that was. US-scouse...
That much is obvious...and that was my point..!!!:)
As was this
the 5-aside idea took me all of 3 minutes,

You've tried to make this into a US/UK debate.
"I'm American therefore a free thinker and always right. While you are up tight rigid Brits"

All of us, US and the rest of the world would like to be rid of the PK ending BUT, as of now there is no better idea on the table.
And that is including YOUR asinine attempt.
Forget it...Get over it...!!!
Sometimes you make excellent posts but you've made a fool of yourself on this one.

[benine]

Originally posted by usscouse

That much is obvious...and that was my point..!!!:)
As was this
the 5-aside idea took me all of 3 minutes,

You've tried to make this into a US/UK debate.
"I'm American therefore a free thinker and always right. While you are up tight rigid Brits"

All of us, US and the rest of the world would like to be rid of the PK ending BUT, as of now there is no better idea on the table.
And that is including YOUR asinine attempt.
Forget it...Get over it...!!!
Sometimes you make excellent posts but you've made a fool of yourself on this one.

For the 12th time, I'm not saying that my idea is either the best, the most doable or even the most logical, but at least it's an idea which all the nay-sayers on the this post dont have the marbles to come up with. The title isnt "why benine's idea is king", it's IDEAS for replacing shootouts, so rather than taking the easy way out of being "oh, that idea is so stupid, penalties to determine a game is bad, but ohwell, stop that thinking thing". Jesus, its not that hard to just come up with an idea and its not as if I, or anyone else for that matter, has such an ego that what they post is absolute " I AM GOD, LISTEN TO ME!" opinion; just an idea.

and to clarify for you, the connection between couch potato/am.football and pks is, your right, well beyond me, i hope it made sense to you.

[Matt Clark]

Originally posted by benine

Sorry, i was looking for that website with that wonderful list of jokes that you swiped your bit of dialogue from. You know you are a massive no-lifer scouse when you FAKE stealing something...
What, no more poor attempts at i-mockery or poo jokes? Get your penalties-middaytug in?

HAHA!!! Nice edit. Took you significantly longer than three minutes to come up with that lot though, eh?

LOL! Plank ...

[Boro_lad]

IF at the moment there was no way to decide a winner from a match after extra time was played. I for one WOULD suggest thgis idea on this very board. Prehaps i wouldnt hae thought of it, but if i read it somewhere , like local game or something i would have thought it was a good idea and i still do!

[Elninho]

Originally posted by usscouse

All of us, US and the rest of the world would like to be rid of the PK ending BUT, as of now there is no better idea on the table.
[/B]

I still think the 35-yard charge-the-keeper shootout is superior to PKs.

[AFCA]

No it's not. It would favor certain players and certain teams who have built their team around technical superiority.

And "they should have bought more technically gifted players" is not an argument. Some clubs don't have the money to get these players. I think it is their right to defend a whole match, let it come to penalties and win.

[oakydoaks]

How about we let the players run from one end to the other end and the side that gets first six players to the other end wins.
Players who didn't play entire extra time cannot participate. This way they will not randomly let a track player to play in the game.
Of course in this way, the teams who used subs during extra time will be penalised, but hey, that's part of strategy.

[counterattack]

You've tried to make this into a US/UK debate.
"I'm American therefore a free thinker and always right. While you are up tight rigid Brits"

BUT ITS TRUE!!

Instead of an enertaining back and forth on a subject that everyone should have a imaginative idea or two on, the Brits, and even and Irishman! just stand pat and mouth the utter stupidity that "That is the way its always been, and it don't need changin'"

Well, first, for a game that is in its third century, an abomination called the Penalty Shoot out which came along in the 1980s, for crying out loud, HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN A PART OF FOOTBALL, YOU BRAIN DEAD JACKASSES!

Next, just suggesting a different way of doing things has exposed the British fear of change, creativity, and imagination. At least with the Brits who post on this thread. So, why not point that out? What is the harm in saying you folks have no imaginations, no creativity, and are deathly afraid of change. BECAUSE ITS TRUE!!

Look, I have been reading about how so many Brits hate Americans. I certainly don't mind if anyone, anywhere wants to argue with what our National government does wrong. That is a good thing. But, what I now understand is the growing hatred of America is actually a hatred of the free form, high risk, every one for themselves culture we have. Sure, our American culture has a lot of big problems, but when I hear foreigners belly ache that we take everything over, especially consumer goods, I just got to laugh. Come over here, jackasses, you have to look long and hard to find something made in the USA to buy as a consumer. Maybe, it is high time we turn off the spigot to the biggest damn party of all time, and ask you and your mates to spend your money and time on your cute little island. Remember, in this country, until WWduce, it was a regular part of every 4th of July civic event to have a speach that lambasted the British and their King. Maybe, we need to go back to that fine, old tradition.

[Matt Clark]

So, what you're basically saying is that this whole thread is just a vehicle for you to indulge your lame preconceptions about the UK?

Well duuh ...

[AFCA]

counterattack you're so full of ************. USA (and UK btw, but especially USA) folk are the most prudent, confused, unrealistic people in the world. So what are you talking about?

A country that makes a ************ing drama about singing the national anthem and swearing allegiance to flag... the conservatives running out of the capitol (or whatever) and quickly put the hand to the heart to sing the USA anthem, crying at the mere sight of their flag. No wonder you make so much movies... you have lost all grip on reality... Need I continue? I better not since there's only 17 years to go till 2019.
In other words... stop slagging of the Brits, or anyone else for that matter. USA means ************ to me.

[Elninho]

Originally posted by AFCA
No it's not. It would favor certain players and certain teams who have built their team around technical superiority.

And "they should have bought more technically gifted players" is not an argument. Some clubs don't have the money to get these players. I think it is their right to defend a whole match, let it come to penalties and win.

Isn't technical superiority supposed to be a good thing to have?

[Prenn]

Originally posted by Elninho


Isn't technical superiority supposed to be a good thing to have?

Yes but if a technically superior team can't beat a 'lesser' team in 120 minutes of play then the tie breaker should be made as even as possible within the confines of the game.

As it stands that's penalties.

[Joe Hadar]

First, no one really came up with any complaints that make any sense about having penalties before the game.

Added pressure? It's not every game, it's only in major finals. And, as I said, if a player misses, he has the whole game to redeem himself.

Plus, you have the added benefit of forcing one team to play attacking soccer from the get go.

Also, given that TV just cost English soccer a few million dollars, saying 'It makes bad TV.' isn't an argument I really care about. Maybe soccer needs to worry more about soccer and less about TV.

If you do care about TV then have the "Super Bambazo Pre World Cup Final Penalty Shoot Out" the day before the actual game. That gives the pundits a day to talk about, how starting the game a goal down/up will affect Brazil/Germany.

Okay, you don't like that idea. Then settle the match by awarding a point to the team with the fewest fouls. It's been done in one of those Brazilian cups or championships or something.

[Boro_lad]

Originally posted by Joe Hadar
First, no one really came up with any complaints that make any sense about having penalties before the game.

Added pressure? It's not every game, it's only in major finals. And, as I said, if a player misses, he has the whole game to redeem himself.

Plus, you have the added benefit of forcing one team to play attacking soccer from the get go.

Also, given that TV just cost English soccer a few million dollars, saying 'It makes bad TV.' isn't an argument I really care about. Maybe soccer needs to worry more about soccer and less about TV.

If you do care about TV then have the "Super Bambazo Pre World Cup Final Penalty Shoot Out" the day before the actual game. That gives the pundits a day to talk about, how starting the game a goal down/up will affect Brazil/Germany.

Okay, you don't like that idea. Then settle the match by awarding a point to the team with the fewest fouls. It's been done in one of those Brazilian cups or championships or something.

You say the payer has the whole game to redeem himself. This may be true for some players. But other tplayer will be under pressure to try and make up for the error. This will effect his game for the worse.

And it adds more penalties to a game which doesnt need anymore.

Having pre gAME PENALTIES IS NOT A SENSABLE OR PRACTICLE SOLUTION TO DECIDING AN OUTOCME OF A GAME. aS IF A TEAM WINS THE SHOOTOUT THEY CAN JUST PLAY OUT A DRAW, SHOT ON ABOUT (sorry for caps) 8 defenders and defend the whole game. It could pretty much kill cup games, and the urgancy to score before gooing to penalties from BOTH teams. Therefore spoiling the "cup" game. As you will probebly know cup games are alot different to league games in that they are faster and more end to end (in general).

This is the reason why it wont work. You can say what you like below...but in the end you know im right...

[Boro_lad]

and the idea about fouls i dont personally like. i feel it would put too much pressure on the ref, as every little foul he may give could end up deciding the match, its not fair on the ref to put this added pressure on him, they have a hard enough itme as it is.

[skipshady]

Originally posted by Joe Hadar
First, no one really came up with any complaints that make any sense about having penalties before the game. I already did. Peanalty kick shootout is a tiebreaker, as in last resort. It's not desirable but it's the only sensible (or the least arbitrary) option when there are none else. You don't use it unless absolutely necessary, and the only time it's necessary is at the end of 200 minutes of play and you need a winner that day.

Plus, having the shootout at the beginning of the match affects the match too greatly. At least by having the shootout at the end of the match, the first 90 minutes, then 30 minutes are played without the outcome of the shootout affecting the gameplay and the result.

Not sure why I'm responding to this most inane of ideas but oh well.

[jeeeesus]

6 pages in and one good idea so far - move the penalty spot back 3 yards. or far enough to make a penalty a 50-50 chance to score... takes the sting out of the heroic goalie/scapegoat shooter thing.

and yes, creativity and imagination are good things, but you get no prizes for inventing a square wheel.

[benine]

Originally posted by jeeeesus
6 pages in and one good idea so far - move the penalty spot back 3 yards. or far enough to make a penalty a 50-50 chance to score... takes the sting out of the heroic goalie/scapegoat shooter thing.

and yes, creativity and imagination are good things, but you get no prizes for inventing a square wheel.


THAT is a GREAT idea, why not move it all the way to the 18? I mean, i for one dont practice shots from anywhere inside the 18 on training, and the players who do set up dead ball tries from inside the 18 are ripped on with Nelson-esq laughter. Putting it at the 18, or 15, would really demand more skill from both the shooter and the keeper. also, it would make the keepers jumping off the line not nearly as unfair as it does now.

GREAT IDEA!

Now it's time for Matt Clark to say "bah! we only have three players who can get the ball on frame from outside 12 yards!"

[Boro_lad]

i dont see the point you are getting at when you say move the pnalties back.

1) Penalties are hard enough
2)i dont see how moving it back will change it greatly except more will miss.