What if goalie who has to be first to save two penalties in a row get's more tired (I am joking)? How will this change improve "spirit of the game"?
Thinking about this more, I wonder what Uefa will use to measure if this is better or not. I mean, is the goal to have kftm on the whole have a 50/50 win rate? If so, they should just skip the kicks altogether and just flip a coin to decide a winner.
Thinking about it more means you are thinking about it too much.The goal of this change (if indeed it is made) is to avoid giving a team an advantage or disadvantage based solely on the order they take the kicks. That way the team with the better penalty kick takers (or better goalkeeper) should win a little more often. Now let's talk about using the artificial construct of KFTM to decide games...
I'm not a statistician, but my understanding is that since the coin flip is random, over time, the win/loss ratio should be about 50% based on where you start (because the "better" team is going to win the coin toss half the time). The fact that it's 60/40 means there is a significant advantage to going first under the A-B-A-B system. Unless you want to argue that the "better" team wins a 50/50 coin toss 60% of the time, which given the amount of data that's available since the 1970s seems very unlikely. So yes, under A-B-B-A, over time, the win ratio for the team going first should be nearer to 50%. The result UEFA wants is to be near that 50/50 win rate, but the goal, as mentioned above, is to eliminate any advantage that exists. My question is how long the experiment has to go to collect enough data to be statistically significant. Given the rarity of KFTPM actually occurring in competition, that's the hard part for me to understand. I do also side with something that was mentioned earlier in the thread, though. Given the amount of times I've seen lower-level referees screw up the current A-B-A-B system, I hold little faith in any transition to A-B-B-A being smooth.
With 10 coin flips, each team has a 37.7 percent chance at winning at least 6 times and a 62.3 percent at winning half or less than half the time. With 100 coin flips, each team has a 2.8 percent chance at winning at least 60 times, so if the team who kicks first wins 60 percent of the time with a large sample, kicking first was probably a factor. Including qualifying rounds, the 2016-2017 Champions League had 2 games have penalty kicks and the Europa League had 8 games have penalty kicks. I think it's really incompetent if a referee can't keep track of A-B-A-B. How would that referee play a card or board game with a friend that required taking turns?
The first test at the Women's European U17 happened yesterday. Shockingly, Germany won the kicks from the mark... against Norway (3-2 was the final result). http://www.uefa.com/womensunder17/s....html#germany+through+final+after+shoot+drama Details of Kicks: Germany - X Norway - X (#1: GER 0-0 NOR) --- Norway - Y Germany - X (#2: GER 0-1 NOR) --- Germany - X Norway - Y (#3: GER 0-2 NOR) --- Norway X Germany - Y (#4: GER 1-2 NOR) --- Germany - Y Norway - X (#5: GER 2-2 NOR) --- Norway - X Germany - Y (#6: GER 3-2 NOR)
Life is good if that happen, then fifa say 'see we tell you.' my friend who statistic expert tell me - baa baa. eet ees onlee one time this (yes, she make proper sound effect)
And this morning in the Portugal v Uruguay match, second team to kick won... 8 good kicks in a row, 5 misses in a row, 1 good kick. It was really interesting to watch (with all those misses) how the pressure swung back and forth.
The ABBA format was used after a scoreless draw in the U-20 World Cup Third Place game, and it produced something that was impossible using the normal format. Uruguay made their first penalty kick before Italy made four consecutive ones to win 4-1. When teams alternate, it's impossible for four consecutive makes to be made by the same team because that team would win before getting a chance at a fourth consecutive make.
Yea it's a quirk of the format, a tiny on though. The same result (i.e 4 goals for one team and 1 goal and 2 misses for the other team) can take place with alternating takers, it's just a change of order.
Let's say Team X kicks first: 1: X scores, Y fails 2: X fails, Y scores 3: X fails, Y scores 4: X fails, Y scores Y is up 3-1 with 1 kick left. Let's say Team Y kicks first: 1: Y fails, X scores 2: Y scores, X fails 3: Y scores, X fails 4: Y scores, X fails Y is up 3-1 with 1 kick left. I know that penalty kicks can end 4-1. My point if that if penalty kicks alternate and end 4-1, the score by the team that scored once cannot be the first or last score. If penalty kicks go ABBA, there can be six consecutive penalty kicks where one team attempted 4, and the score by the team that scored once could be the first or last score.
Not sure what the issue is tbh. Is there a difference between alternate taking and abba taking? Yes of course, they are different systems. The end result is the same though, to get to 4-1 both teams will have taken (and scored and missed) the same number of PKs regardless of which system was used.
I think the point is that in the ABBA system, Uruguay only got to take 3 kicks, one good but two missed. Italy got to take 4 kicks, all good. Therefore Uruguay could not catch up with their next two kicks. In the ABAB system Uruguay would get to take 4 kicks and would have to miss their 4th one in order to lose 3-1 and Italy would not need to kick again. But if they score the 4th kick, Italy would win by scoring their 4th, 4-2. I am not sure which system is better or fairer. PH
It should be as it is a technical aspect of the referee's responsibility. It should not happen as there is redundancy built in the officiating system, such as, verify prior to each kick, who the kicker is, where the opponent and kicking team goal-keepers are positioned, where the asst is, etc etc. all the while keeping the comm channel from the all-seeing fourth official open.
I get your point but it misses one thing, that if you use alternate taking you could get to the same situation (one team never getting their 4th kick) if the team that scored all 4 PK was the one going first. Any fairness issues would have to be raised against both systems.
Yes, but that is OK in that situation, as the 4th kick for team B would be futile. In the examples we are discussing, there is a slight difference. In ABAB the losing team still has a chance at their 4th kick and are still in it if they score so it is not futile. As I said, I am not sure which method is fairer, but it seemed that in this case the ABBA system was a little unfair to Uruguay. It will be interesting to see if there are any other quirks that crop up, and the feedback from the teams as to which system they prefer. PH
Pardonnez moi, I also find as referee, best method is ask team they prefer method. As referee, no worries, I take this, or that, what you accept if proper method, right? PH: I laugh very hard with stomach pain with your 'quirk' - coincident, my buddy tell me quark same sound my language as say quirk, which mean sour milk
Are people really this thrown by what they aren't used to??? Under alternate taking you can end up in a situation where the losing team doesn't get to take their 4th PK because they can't catch up to the winning teams 4 goals. The only way to get there is if the winning team goes first, i.e the losing team goes second in every round. Under the abba system you can also, as seen here, end up in a situation where the losing team doesn't get to take their 4th PK because they can't catch up to the winning teams 4 goals. The only way to get there is if the winning team goes second, i.e the losing team gets to go first in round 1 and 3 and second in round 2. If this situation is unfair on the losing team under the abba system then it would be a lot more unfair under a alternate taking system but somehow that is being ignored here. I just don't get it. But I agree that getting feedback from the teams that have gotten to try the abba system would be a good thing.