Everyone love cup finals but everyone hates the penalty shootout. I thought of a way to keep the excitement of the cups but make the shootout much less likely. At the end of regulation you have two 30 minutes periods. The first is set on the silver goal rule the second is sudden-death golden goal. If still tied, the dreaded penalty kicks. Each Team is allowed 7 new substitutions at the end of regulation do with as they wish. This is a way to keep overtime, but infuse with energy and strategy while also give it enough time to make it meaningful. The new subs will keep overtime from being a bunch of tired players playing defensively even though actual length of overtime is extended. Even if the manager decides make all 7 at once, 30 minutes is enough time for the "new" team to find a rhythm and the silver-goal period should keep them from playing timidly. By the golden goal period the team should be comfortable as unit but still fresh enough to go for goal. Plus no single player is has likely to have to play much more than 90 minutes in total thus reducing the likelihood of injuries. It also creates a lot strategic intrigue. How many changes will the manager make? How long can he stick with his tired first team players against the fresh reserves of his opponent? The bottom line is rewarding a team for having a quality bench is a much better reason to award them the title than crapshoot that is penalty kicks All this and the time is still only 2 1/2 hours; shorter than you average NBA playoff game and many
I don't like cupfinal penalties anymore than anyone else. But 'rewarding for a better bench' will always see the richest team win. 7 subs is a bit too much IMO. 3 extra subs are enough.
I unapologetically hate them and most soccer fans I talk to hate them too. They are an anticlimactic, arbitrary way to decide a title. Its like having 5 players shoot free throws to decide a tied basketball ball game. I know that soccer and basketball are different and it is easier to settle basketball games through overtime, but the point is that having 5 players line up to shoot penalty kicks is not "playing soccer" anymore than five players lining up to shoot free throws is "playing basketball". Call me crazy but I think the most important events in the game should be decided by "actually playing the game" and anything that makes that more likely should be considered. Compare Trezeguet's golden goal in Euro2000 to the God awful champions league final this year. Trezeguet's goal represents everything I love about soccer: a patient build up, a fine pass and great individual skill and a slow build up of crowd tension resulting in an explosion of energy when the goal is scored. Compare that to a penalty shootout where which shots go in usually depends on whether the keeper guesses right. How exciting. Any player can make one and player can miss it as Baggio proved in 94. It's dull, its arbitrary and it is not representative of what soccer is all about. I know that in any one-off game penalty kicks may be necessary. The game simply can't continue infinitely. But the whole purpose of my idea is to have more finishes like Trezeguet's and less like Baggio's.
How about taking a page out of hockey's book and reducing the number of players on the pitch during the overtime? You could, for example, say that each team can only put out 9 players for the first overtime period. Then maybe 8 or 7 for the second. Makes it more exciting than a shootout, and more likely to result in a goal being scored.
Not sure about that simply because my gut tells me that managers being what the are, would likely take off attacking players and pack it in on defense.