It would be interesting and exciting for spectators. Could help with TV Ratings and Tickets Sales. MLS probably won't adopt this, even though it is allowed by IFAB/FIFA and be benefial to the league. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_shoot-out_(association_football) The penalty shoot-out is one of the three methods of breaking a draw that are currently approved by the Laws of the Game; the others are extra time and, for two-legged ties, the away goals rule. https://www.mlssoccer.com/standings/ Game Play WIN LOSS TIE would instead be Game Play WIN LOSS TIE, PK WIN TIE, PK LOSS The points for each: WIN = 3 pts LOSS = 0 pt TIE, PK WIN = 1.25 pts TIE, PK LOSS = 1 pt This is for regular season only. After 90 minutes regulation, if tie, then PK for an extra 0.25 point. During the Playoffs, the tiebreaker will be 30 minutes extra time before PK. p.s. I thought about using 0.5 point for PK WIN but I believe 0.25 PK WIN is better. It gives teams extra incentive to go for a win in regulation and get the whole 3 points. Because in a tie, the most that the team could get is only 1.25 point.
MLS used the 35 yards shoot-out as a tie-breaker from 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999. PK would be better IMO since the rest of the world use PK. The point system given was not good either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_shoot-out_(association_football) Instead of a straight penalty kick, the shoot-out started 35 yards or 32 m from the goal and having five seconds to attempt a shot. The player could make as many moves as he could in a breakaway situation in the five seconds, then attempt a shot. From its inception in 1996, MLS used the shootout system that had been used by the NASL to determine winners of matches. No regular-season or postseason playoff games ended in a tie. In general, no extra time was played; the shootout commenced immediately after 90 minutes had been played. The only exception was in the MLS Cup Final in which a match tied after 90 minutes would be followed by a maximum of two 15-minute extra time sessions on a golden goal basis. In the regular-season standings, a team that won a match in regulation was awarded three points. A team that won a match in a shootout was awarded one point. There were no bonus points or points awarded to teams that lost whether in regulation time or a shootout. The point system that MLS used from 1996 to 1999 was not good either. 3 points for WIN 0 point for LOSS 1 point for 35 yards shoot-out WIN 0 point for 35 yards shoot-out LOSS So if a team down that tied the match but lose the 35 yards shoot-out would get 0 points. Not ideal.
You can also voice your opinion here. This option does not need Bigsoccer account to vote so more people can participate. POLL: After a tie in MLS, PK for extra 0.25 point (this is allowed by the Laws of the Game) https://www.strawpoll.me/45589805
https://www.windrawwin.com/statistics/how-often-do-games-end-0-0/#:~:text=Eight percent of all games,12 to 13 games played. Eight percent of all games end 0-0 - That's approximately one 0-0 result for every 12 to 13 games played. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/in-126-years-english-football-has-seen-13475-nil-nil-draws/ In 126 Years, English Football Has Seen 13,475 Nil-Nil Draws How often have his two favorite teams played each other over the last century? And is soccer really as dull as some people say? The answers to those questions were surprisingly difficult to find. But Curley used the same approach he uses in his academic career: data, lots and lots of data. By cobbling together game results from several different sources, he has compiled what is almost certainly the world’s biggest compendium of English football scores. Sitting on his GitHub page, devoid of any fanfare whatsoever, are the scores of nearly 200,000 English soccer games played in the top four leagues since 1888, the days of Jack the Ripper and Queen Victoria.1 These 14 megabytes can tell remarkable stories, dating back more than 125 years to the founding of the English football league. Take the most common final score, for example. In 188,060 league games,2 the final tally was most often 1-0, proof, for Curley, that soccer was as low-scoring as he suspected. This result has occurred in more than 30,000 games — 16 percent of the total. Other common scores: 2-1 (about 27,000 games), 2-0 (about 22,000) and 1-1 (about 22,000). In 85,694 games — dangerously close to half the total — at least one of the teams forgot to score at all. That led Curley to an answer for one of his questions: “Soccer is a bit dull,” he told me. Here is the distribution of home and away teams’ goal-scoring throughout history: Scores are likely to be low. In more than 85 percent of all games, neither team scored more than three goals. Those low scores help lead to thousands of draws — 47,412 since the foundation of the league system, to be exact. That’s more than a quarter of all games. And 7 percent of games overall have ended with no one scoring, and no one winning — there have been 13,475 nil-nil draws. In another testament to the sport’s “dullness,” draws have become more common over football’s long history. (Last season, 27 percent of games ended without a winner. ) This chart shows the prevalence of drawn games3
This game finished 0-0. From the comment, it was a very dull game. What interesting is that MLS highlights did not show the most interesting moment of the game. Was FC Cincinnati's Goal Offside? some youtube comments So why isn't the FCC goal by Brenner that was called back due to an incorrect offisdes call shown? Good job MLS, not showing where one of the refs screwed the game with a wrong offside call Almost 8 minutes of highlights and there was no room to show Cincinnati's goal wrongly canceled by the referee? This is not helping soccer, this is pathetic. Showing only what you want to show. [ Anyway, if there is a PK shootout after this game finish 0-0, maybe the fans who watch would be better off. PK shootout is one of the most exciting thing about soccer. Even if the home team lost the PK shootout, it would still be exciting and worth the money spent. Instead, dull game and their team scored a valid goal that was disallowed. And VAR didn't even check. Some ticket buyers are less likely to buy tickets after this match. Same with TV viewers who unfortunately tune in. Dull match!!!
Sigh. I wish we could get fans to understand that every call impacting a goal is checked through the attacking phase of play. The VAR process deemed that the evidence did not clearly and obviously show that the call on the field was incorrect. Now if you want to debate whether the video showed a clear and obvious error, that's fine. But it is factually incorrect to say "VAR didn't even check". Watching the video, while I also agree that it appears Brenner is onside, that video in no way shows a clear and obvious error. It's a very tight call, no doubt. But regardless of outcome, based solely on that video, I would say that the video is inconclusive and the call on the field - whatever that call is - would stand. Had Brenner been ruled onside on the field, I would say the onside call (and the goal) would stand. But in any case, the VAR team did review the play. They just didn't come to the conclusion you hoped they would. It is 100% wrong to say "VAR did not check the play."
Maybe I should word it differently. What I meant is that the referee should look at the video. What's wrong with the VAR official telling the referee: It looks onside to me but it not 100% clear and obvious. You should take a look and decide. Main referee would then run to the sideline and look at the monitor. Main referee then would decide if it's a clear and obvious onside or not. This did not happened so FC Cincinnati fans are pissed and they posted those comments on youtube. Anyway, my point is not about VAR. It's about a 0-0 dull game. If there is a PK shoot-out for extra 0.25 points, it would make fans more entertained. Entertained fans = more willing to buy tickets, merchandise, more willing to watch the match on TV that help with TV rating.
As soon as you say, "it's not 100% clear and obvious", that's it. The VAR check is over. VAR is supposed to advise the referee when a clear and obvious error has been made. What you are talking about is re-refereeing the game. That's not what VAR is supposed to be. If VAR tells the referee, "I have video evidence that shows a clear and obvious error (or a serious missed incident) occurred", THEN the referee would come over to the monitor to review. VAR was not ever supposed to be used to overturn a situation like this. The only reason those not familiar with the process think it does is because the Premier League showed the line-drawing on those millimeter-thin offside decisions.
Precisely. If a guy who's already looking at the video isn't sure if there's an error, then it's close enough to not delay the game to have a second guy look at the video. If every "yeah, not sure, but maybe" call wound up with an on-field review, it would be a nightmare.
No. A shootout after a regular season game for a quarter of a point is barely worth the effort. Nor is it exciting. We tried shootouts after regular season matches before, remember? It's bastardizing the game, it extends the game beyond TV windows, it cheapens the value of ACTUAL shootouts, and there isn't much value. PK shootouts don't exactly inspire people to buy tickets, either.
after a dull 0-0 match, i'm pretty sure many fans would want to see a PK shoot-out. TV windows? TV is becoming less important. MLS is moving toward streaming. If MLS wants to fit everything into 2 hours TV window with PK shoot-out, it can be done. 1 minute to introduce the line-up on TV (game start at exactly 7:01PM for example) 90 minutes game 8 minutes added time 15 minutes half time 5 minutes for PK shoot-out (PK shoot-out start right away, PK takers stand near the penalty box not at half-line to speed it up) 1 minute to close the show = 2 hours TV window bastardizing the game? PK shoot-out is allowed by FIFA to break a tie. Copa America for example. After tie in 90 minutes, they don't use 30 minutes extra time. Straight to PK with the final as the only exception. Did Copa America also bastardizing the game? If FIFA set up this scheme 30-40 years ago, I don't think there will be many fans calling FIFA to get rid of it. WIN = 3 pts LOSS = 0 pt TIE, PK WIN = 1.25 pts TIE, PK LOSS = 1 pt
Yeah, your poll does not work. It does not count votes "opposed" at all. You set up a voting scheme that does not work and fails to count the votes I do not like. You then claim you did it "so more people can participate." Did you work on the Texas "voting security" (aka, "voter suppression" aka "stop people of color voting") bill? This is right in their wheelhouse. Good job, there.
Who watches the game for PKs? People who don't like the game use a shootout to determine the winner model as evidence that it's a silly game. ("in the end, the actual game is unimportant, it's this thing at the end that really matters"). Those of us who enjoy the game can enjoy a good 0-0. The amazingly tense affairs, after all. It simply increases the odds that when tied after 75 minutes, folks will bunker and look to take their chances in PKs. I hate PKs at the end of matches, but accept them as 150 or 180 minute matches aren't practical in a crowded schedule. But I'm not sure any match, ever, has been made better by PKs. If it's a boring 0-0, then the end comes and it's a boring 0-0 with f'ing PKs tacked on.
So, extending that, if it's a 5-5 tie, should both sides get 5 pts? IMO, 0-0 games can be riveting, esp if you've got money on that outcome, or it's your team playing a much better team. the final 10 minutes can lead to an early grave.
You’d still get 0-0 ties, especially at the end of seasons when denying the other team points matters too. And no, 5-5 ties should get no more than the usual 1 point each.
Yet, a 1-0 game with the 10 seconds prior to the goal that is not "boring to watch" is so much better? Sorry, but that does not make much sense.
Except that game where team 1 scores and spends the entire rest of the game "protecting that lead." That is way more boring than 0-0.
Why even keep score at all? Why not just have judges on the sidelines who vote for the winner based on style points?