Ideas for replacing shoot outs

[benine]

Originally posted by 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.


vs a country who's only identity is open prositution, public drug use, tall people and windmills, i think we're doing okay.


Generalizations are fun, eh?

A fact that euros seem to always miss and a way to try and make it apparent:

Are the people in Lithuiania 100% like the people in Poland? Portugal? Denmark? no, not at all. America is bigger than the whole of Europe and just as different on both regional and cultural norms. The overriding image and politics of america is dominated exclusivley by big money, which make up a whopping .9% of the population of the states. So to base all the critiques of the US and "it's people" on just the wealthiest smiggion of people and the global and national problems that their greed creates is totally ************************************************ed up. You want to base images of the underprivalged as being Jerry Springer type people? sorry, thats Southwest Arkansas. We're all dramatic religious types who cry at our flag? Care to come to SoCal where kids openly use the flag as a snot rag? It would be akin to Americans calling ALL EUROPEANS racist sepratists due to mid 90s Austrian politics. There are just as many people within the US who dont want to touch Saddam, who arent 100% on who cracked the buildings, who REALLY understand why that happened and who HATE OUR PRESIDENT as there are people who carry these feelings in Europe. Now, because the news agencies with international pull are all the big money boys, you dont get that, you only hear of "americans crying in the street". We're one of the most populs countries in the world and to think that such a massive collection of people are ALL EXACTLY ALIKE is so damned inane and really lends to what Counterattack is saying, that maybe you all just love to hate as a whole rather than educate on what key parts of our country are so screwed up.

And if you dont understand the argument for seperation of church and state, maybe your friends across the channel can tell you about what happens when the priests are in bed with the kings.

[benine]

Originally posted by 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.


The way it is now, using simple calc, the angle the percentage for goal area to convert a penalty is dramatically cut when he steps a foot or two off the line. When you move the spot back, the player and keeper both lose a certain bit of comfort by forcing a better placed, harder shot and the keeper wouldn't really be gaining anything by taking a step in. You'd see more fantastic saves, more skilled shots and over all probably lower tallys to win PKs, like 2-1 instead of 5-4. How can that be wrong to require more skill?

Penalties, as they are now, are not too hard (at least speaking on my non-professional level) and are only made hard by people who try and either do too much with them or fold under pressure. If you calmly put a ball, on the ground, within a foot or so of either post, there really isnt much besides outstanding keeping/cheating that can prevent that goal. Now if a player goes top 90 and misses and complains about how hard it is, then it's their own lack of skill and piss poor judgment to blame. See here Baggio.

[Boro_lad]

yes but with 30000+ people watching you take the penalty not everyone can handle the pressure. as we have seen down the years. Even the best strikers have all missed penalties

[Doctor Stamen]

Originally posted by 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.

You really are a prat (or a sock puppet) aren't you ?. Did Mary Poppins and the Oliver Twist films make a deep impression on you ?. Yeah, all us British people are rigid, wear bowler hats and pinstripes, live in London and worship the monarchy :rolleyes:. Please get an education before you post here again in order not to look like such a mindless xenophobic tit.

[counterattack]

Originally posted by Doctor Stamen


You really are a prat (or a sock puppet) aren't you ?. Did Mary Poppins and the Oliver Twist films make a deep impression on you ?. Yeah, all us British people are rigid, wear bowler hats and pinstripes, live in London and worship the monarchy :rolleyes:. Please get an education before you post here again in order not to look like such a mindless xenophobic tit.

Hey dude,
'Prat?', 'Sock Puppet'?, 'Xenophobic Tit?'
I laughed so hard beer shot out my nose.
Why do I have the image of Laurel and Hardy in my mind, now? Mmmmm?

By the way, the USMT broke into the bogus FIFA top ten. Well, it was bogus. Meantime,
watch that language you British Rump Ranger, or your going to get a good flogging and a good buggering.

See ya.

[usscouse]

After nine (9) pages of BS (not big soccer) it's down to:-
Move the spot back to the 15 or 18 yds (I like this)

Or paint guns at 10 yards.
(I like this better,) you have to shoot with your team colours and the first team to make Light blue and white stripes look all red wins........!!!

Let it go girls, let this thread DIE.

[davidjd]

Originally posted by Slash/ED
It'd mean basically Ireland would go into one and two minutes before they end they'd throw on Ian Harte to win the match for us every time we played one despite him not being part of the first team, just doesn't seem right to me.

Assuming they played on tired legs by saving a sub just for this. Maybe they deserve it then. They were able to hold off a team who most likely used all their subs.

- Davidjd

[davidjd]

Let's try this out:

Take one PK
Take one corner (6 v 6 or such)
Take one Direct Free Kick from 18 to 25 yards (6v6 or such)
Take one 1 v keeper Shootout (NASL style)
Take one 3v2 (plus keep) attack from the half line (modified NASL).

I'd go further and say the team winning the coin toss at end of regulation gets to pick which one will be attempted first by both teams. The other team then gets to pick the next 2 events.

Something creative like this seems MUCH better and more representative of the different aspects of a real game than Kicks from the Penalty Spot.

I encourage you not to tear apart the specific events (as I've only spent a few minutes thinking about them), but to criticize the concept of having this type of tie-breaker.

- Davidjd

[burning247]

I think it can be real simple....

You play 90+ mins of soccer (football), if the 2 teams are tied, then you just got a 30 min over time (non golden goal). If the teams are still tied after that, you add one sub for each half and make the halves 15 mins each, golden goal. All those who whine about not being able to come back, too bad should have done that in the first 120 mins of football. Now you have to score or die of exhausion. This leaves petty teams like 1990 Argentina WC team to not just "bunker out" the whole game and take their penalties and BS their way through a tournament (see 1990 WC). This makes you play real soccer, real outcome. Hey you still get relief, a sub a half, I think thats fair. Thoughts?

[Auriaprottu]

Originally posted by burning247
I think it can be real simple....

This leaves petty teams like 1990 Argentina WC team to not just "bunker out" the whole game and take their penalties and BS their way through a tournament (see 1990 WC).

Nothing petty about Argentina! They've won multiple Cups. Please reserve the word "petty" for nations who have one or less.

Argentina's 1990 PK opponent was the host team, Italy, and if Zenga hadn't come out for a ball without collecting it, Italy would likely have advanced. "Bunkering" is acceptable when playing a host in the World Cup.

[burning247]

Originally posted by Auriaprottu


Nothing petty about Argentina! They've won multiple Cups. Please reserve the word "petty" for nations who have one or less.

Argentina's 1990 PK opponent was the host team, Italy, and if Zenga hadn't come out for a ball without collecting it, Italy would likely have advanced. "Bunkering" is acceptable when playing a host in the World Cup.

Hmmm...maybe not now, but their team in 1990 was amazingly crappy.They barely got out of the first round (as a 3rd place team if I'm not mistaken) They barely got by Brazil in the second Round with a lucky 1-0 win after Brazil hit the post countless times. Then it was on to Yugolslavia and they won that in Penalties. Then against Italy, more penalties. Then they get to the final and loose (ironically by a penalty) and they cry and Maradonna was all surprised, what's a matter Diego? Thought you could just foul and bunker in all game to win in penalties? Don't believe me, then look they even got a red card, the first team to ever get one in a final.

I'm just saying it's not fair for a team to be only good at defense and penalties and make it all the way to the final, like Argentina in 1990.

[skipshady]

Heh, 1990 was crappy all around. It's best if we just put the whole tournament out of our memory and never use it as a reference for anything.

The problem in that World Cup was not the penalty kicks, but the culture of negative football that had reached its peak. Coaches encouraged negative play, the rules allowed it and the referees let things get out of hand. Things have changed since then.

But back on topic. For the reasons I've stated before, there should be no play after 120 minutes. It's simply too dangerous and the quality of play will be astrocious, even with extra substitutions.
Instead, you need a tiebreaker that is quick, for all the reasons mentioned before in this thread. You also need a format that is as simple as possible, so as to minimize controversy. Penalty kicks fit the bill. We don't like it, but that's the best we have.

To those who disagree, it might surprise you that this isn't exactly a new topic. Most of us have put much thought about replacing the shootout with a better tiebreaker format. But once all the possibilities are considered, the more thoughtful among us end up realizing that the PK shootout is the format that makes the most sense, sadly.

[AFCA]

Benine has a good point. Ofcourse not all in a country are alike. But like you said... generalizations can be fun.

PS you forgot the tulips and cheese you ignorant yank!

PS2. Public drug use and open prostitution is part of that famous, intranslatable Dutch word 'gezelligheid'. Feel free to look it up.

[Bauser]

There aren't many good replacements for the penalty shoot-out, but one idea could be to take them like in hockey by running from the centre circle and have a given number of seconds on you to score. At least it requires more skill than the sole kick from the spot.

[Auriaprottu]

Originally posted by burning247


Hmmm...maybe not now, but their team in 1990 was amazingly crappy.They barely got out of the first round (as a 3rd place team if I'm not mistaken) They barely got by Brazil in the second Round with a lucky 1-0 win after Brazil hit the post countless times. Then it was on to Yugolslavia and they won that in Penalties. Then against Italy, more penalties. Then they get to the final and loose (ironically by a penalty) and they cry and Maradonna was all surprised, what's a matter Diego? Thought you could just foul and bunker in all game to win in penalties? Don't believe me, then look they even got a red card, the first team to ever get one in a final.

I'm just saying it's not fair for a team to be only good at defense and penalties and make it all the way to the final, like Argentina in 1990.

I don't disagree with anything in your first paragraph, but just how is it "not fair" to win the games by the rules in place at kickoff? I was as hurt as anyone by that '90 game against Brasil, but I didn't hate on Argentina- I blamed Brasil's inability to find the back of the net.

[burning247]

Originally posted by Auriaprottu


I don't disagree with anything in your first paragraph, but just how is it "not fair" to win the games by the rules in place at kickoff? I was as hurt as anyone by that '90 game against Brasil, but I didn't hate on Argentina- I blamed Brasil's inability to find the back of the net.

Well I hate Argentina (don't care for Brazil either, it was their fault they didn't beat Argentina), but thats not the point, I'm saying any team can win a friggin penalty shoot-out and make it far in a tournament, but that doesn't measure a teams skill. The whole point of a WC or any cup for that matter is to determine the best. If Argentina would have won in 1990 on a penalty shootout, would they be proper WC champions? I guess it doesn't matter, I just think it's a cheap way to decide a game. How many times has England fallen to Germany just because they can't burry a penalty kick, thats BS! Penalties are meant to decide a goal when there an infraction in the box, not to determine a game if two teams can't score. The best way to go is non-stop golden goal, it'll seperate the men from the boys. Sure there may be controversy over garbage goals winning a game, but it'll be better than teams winning in PK shootout.

[Boro_lad]

Originally posted by burning247


Well I hate Argentina (don't care for Brazil either, it was their fault they didn't beat Argentina), but thats not the point, I'm saying any team can win a friggin penalty shoot-out and make it far in a tournament, but that doesn't measure a teams skill. The whole point of a WC or any cup for that matter is to determine the best. If Argentina would have won in 1990 on a penalty shootout, would they be proper WC champions? I guess it doesn't matter, I just think it's a cheap way to decide a game. How many times has England fallen to Germany just because they can't burry a penalty kick, thats BS! Penalties are meant to decide a goal when there an infraction in the box, not to determine a game if two teams can't score. The best way to go is non-stop golden goal, it'll seperate the men from the boys. Sure there may be controversy over garbage goals winning a game, but it'll be better than teams winning in PK shootout.

If after 120 minutes no team can score then they deserve to go to penalties....if they had the skill they would win in 120 minutes of play.

All that talk about deciders which take skill etc..like running from kick off spot....Its not fair for a team with less technical skill. And before you say that it is fair as the most skillful team won. Who said football has to be played by skillful people. Like wimboldon when they won the FA cup, they werent great but they won because of team spirt and unity. Much like the koreans...

its not fair for a team that are great teams yet dont have the great players.

Also i am english and as you know we have lost many a shootout, yet i still back it as it is the best, fairest way....

[counterattack]

Originally posted by Boro_lad


Also i am english and as you know we have lost many a shootout, yet i still back it as it is the best, fairest way....

As usual the English stand up for dead tradition, even though the tradition is barely 2 decades old.

Look, Eurotrash, the idea of this thread, if you go back to page one and bother to read it, was not to defend the undefensable Penality Shoot Out, but to come up with an alternative. And, like all the other Limeys, you would rather wallow in pitty and pain than think of something new and worthy.

Well, in other posts I have been attacked for not coming up with a worthy alternative. Though I do not think it is my place in this thread to be imaginative, just to point out all you Eurotrash who are not, I will give it a try. . .

As you probably do not know, football was once played before the year 1980. Back in the day, before even your father was born, a typical line up for a match was, and I am not making this up you can look it up
1
2
3
5
I am not kidding, you can look it up. What you see is correct. 1 Goalie, 2 Defenders, 3 Midies, and 5, count 'em
5 forwards. No wonder an typical match score was 4-2, 3-5, or 6-2. That is what they mean when they say that football became more defensive. It was that they turned the line up on its head, and made the back way more important than the front.

Well, here is my solution. Play the first 90+ stoppage, any way you want. But in games where there must be a victor, require and strictly enforce the 2-3-5 formation.
No golden goal. No overtime over 30 minutes. Than, if there is still a tie, which would be a rather rare occurance, then play a second match 3 days hence.

My solution is pure football, has no gimicks, and is way more respectful of the history of the game than anything else you have ever seen.

[Slash/ED]

3 days hence is a master stroke in a world cup when you're in the semis and the final is in two days time, but if we had any sense we would have built a time machine by now.

[Daksims]

Originally posted by benine
My idea is to play "elemination golden goal" after the first two golden goal periods. Every 5 minutes, each team has to take one player off the pitch for up to a 25 minute period (5 players, duh). The more players leave, the more the game opens up and more chances will be had. The order of players to leave the field is pre-determined by the manager before the elemination periods start, much the way a manager hands in a lineup for penalties.

Oh, come on guys. We can do better than this.

In the above scenario, why not have the players on each team vote for the opposing player that has to leave the field - survivor style.

Here's another one. We take one player from each team (coach's pick) and have each of them juggle, each with his own ball. The player with the most touches before the ball hits the ground wins.

Or you could set up a MLS standard army style obstacle course on each sideline and have a relay race with all the players left on the field. If a team is down a man, we even up the players or make them run it with 2 subs. If you had to, you could incorporate dribbling through cones or something, but I think that would ruin the game. I can hear the fans now chanting for Damarcus to make it over the wall.

Another possibility. Have both goalkeepers line up side by side on the end line, each with a ball. The goalkeepers then boot their ball as far as they can. The team whose ball goes the farthest wins.

Let's think outside the box, men.