As many of you, the FIFA World Cup is my favourite sport event. However, there's something I've always hated in it which is using penalty shootouts as a tie-breaker during the knock-out stage. There are three major problems with penalty shootouts since their introduction in 1982: firstly, they distort the game rules; secondly, they have nothing to do with what happened on the field during the game; and in the end, they are against the spirit of the game. The penalty shootouts distort the game rules because they give an opportunity for a team which have absolutely no will or capacity to score a goal to still go through next round. As a result, it favors defensive play in making "not conceding goals" more important than "scoring goals". Historically speaking, we can see that the introduction of shootouts ended the rule of "total football" to get in an era dominated by defensive play. Even worse than that, shootouts make irrelevant what happened during the actual game. No matter if a team shot 20 times on goal when the opponents played at 10 behind, once we get in a penalty shootouts, everything is erased and both teams are back to their initial situation of absolute equality. What is the point to struggle during 90 or 120 minutes if in the end all this was meaningless to determine the winner? The consequence is that it locks the game, as long as both teams have equal goals, they hesitate to expose themselves. Especially during world cup finals, it is obvious that both teams really start to play only after the first goal is scored. Before then, they just watch each others. Finally, penalty shootouts are unfair because they give a psychological advantage on the team which succeeded to not concede a goal on the team which failed to score a goal. This goes against the spirit of the game which is supposed to favor those who tries against those who don't. And very often, we see the most defensive-minded team winning in penalty shootouts, something I'm not affraid to consider as immoral. I don't blame teams for playing this way, only the rules that makes it possible. The solution used in Champions league : the away goal advantage Generally speaking, establishing a second criteria to determine the winner has always been discarded by both FIFA and the International Board because teams will necessarily try to win on that second criteria, forgetting the first criteria being to score more goals than the opponent. However, a second criteria rule is already used during home and away knock-out stages as during the champions league: the away goal advantage. This away goal rule is great because, first it is fair, and second, teams are very rarely in a situation of absolute equality tempting them to lock the game instead of trying to score. Even at 0-0 at the first whistle of the first game, both teams are incited to score: the domestic team because it knows it will be harder to score away, and the away team because it knows away goals are more valuable than domestic goals. A solution which would fit during World Cup knock-out stage Of course that system of home and away is impossible during a world cup. However, this is exactly a system like this inciting teams to play which is needed for world cup knock-outs. I have an idea to do so, and I would really love to get your opinion about it. The principle is rather simple: during knock-out games, if teams are still tied after 120 minutes, then the winner will be the team which got the most corners conceded from the penalty area. Here's the explanation: the number of corners is a good objective indicator of offensive play. Indeed, defenders already have no interest in conceding a corner as it gives an opportunity for the attacking team to score. So conceding a corner is already a last resort in order to avoid a goal. As such, favoring the team who got the most corners is a good way to favor the team which attacked the most. Now, the obvious issue in this rule would be that both teams will try to get corners instead of trying to score. Indeed, counting every corner could make forwards trying to go on the wings instead of trying to go to the goal. That's why I propose that only corners conceded from the penalty area would be counted. The defender putting the ball out of the game has to touch the ball in the penalty area so that this corner would matter. This rule avoids the wing issue as forwards would still need to get in the penalty area, and it could only pressure defenders to play out of their penalty area which is always good for offensive football. This would definitely put an end to defensive football during knock-out stage as it's nearly impossible for a defensive team to not concede more corners than an attacking team. Furthermore, it doesn't change the nature of the game as already today, a forward in the penalty area who's not in position to score will already try to get a corner. Last thing, teams would be almost never in position of pure equality. A team which would have conceded more corners than the other will be pressured to score instead of sitting back behind as it's the case today. Now of course, this rule would apply only during a single game knock-out, and obviously only after 120 minutes. The only way to win during the first 90 minutes consisting of course in scoring more goals than the opponent. I'm convinced that applying a system like this would make deadlock situations a lot less common, and that the direct effect would be more goals being scored. What do you think ?
What would you use if corners are a draw? I don't really like it, because I think there should be room for more than one style of winning. While I dislike PKs, I'm not sure what else you can do.
This rule would only be a tie-breaker, and only after extra-time. It is just a way to make the game more open exactly like the away goal advantage makes it more open during the champions league. It's true that it would give an advantage to offensive minded teams but certainly not more than the penalty shootouts rule currently gives an advantage to defensive minded teams ! As a matter of fact, I'm convinced that a corner rule would distort less the nature of the game than the shootouts currently do. In the past, games were replayed in case of draw, and as teams certainly didn't want to play the game again (this would kill their chance for next game), they were pressured to score as many goal as possible to make sure this would not happen. The penalty shootouts were only introduced in 1982, and immediately after, the draws after extra-time became much more generalised. This proves how obvious it is that penalty shootouts influenced the game, and that they are clearly not the neutral solution some advocate it is. Out of the 4 last World Cup finals, 50% were decided on penalty shootouts. How does it make sense to determine the World Champion this way only out of random? Penalty shootouts are certainly not the only possible solution and even less a good solution.
I don't disagree with you on the fact that PKs aren't soccer, and have a distorting effect. I would honestly rather see something like in the case of a 120 minute draw, the team that scored to draw the game goes through over the corner idea. The point of the game is to score goals, I think it should be based only on that.
Ever seen this rule in junior football tournaments? You get close to the end of the match, and everyone starts playing for corners. Even if you limit it to the PA then its still a lot easier than scoring. Fifteen minutes of everyone trying to kick the ball over the goal line with a deflection off the opposition gets old pretty fast, I'll give you the whisper.
Another concern I would have is the awarding of a corner is considerably less accurate than the awarding of a goal is. You make the result more subjective if you do that. It would be like baseball using hits for a tiebreaker if runs were tied after 12 innings. You'd have to deal with arguments over whether that should have been a hit or an error.
I simply fail to see a problem here. A team can completely dominate in 90 minutes and still lose to a last minute breakaway. The previous 89 minutes of dominance are now an irrelevance so do you disallow the goal because the team didn't deserve to win? The object of the game is to score goals, so using corners makes no sense whatsoever. If two teams need more chances to score then why not give them the best chance through a series of penalties?
I think if you were going to use some kind of count, I'd prefer to use the number of times the ball hit the post/crossbar. That or perhaps the number of saves forced. That would need some kind of clarification about what constitutes a shot though, as you wouldn't want players just whacking the thing from 40 yards just to get +1 on a shots tally. Maybe just shots the keeper couldn't hold. They key would be finding something that wouldn't encourage players to play any differently, just to get a lead on tie-breaker points. Not easy.
Why not just play round-robin tournaments.. it would encourage offensive play and no need for extra time or pso.
I see a problem with the corner solution in that if favors certain styles of play. Teams like Germany and England, who pump in many crosses and make their living off half chances are naturally going to have more corners than a Brazil or Argentina who work the ball more on the ground and through the middle taking more time to set a higher percentage chance. Also a shot on goal from the top of the box which is blocked back by a defender will "count" less that a cross that is blocked out for a corner. Your idea gives an unfair advantage to the wide angle of attack.
keep penalties - after 2 hours of football there is no better way to settle it. after 2 hours of running, they test strength, and most importantly, mental strength. yes its horrible when your side ends up in a shootout, but i say keep them.
It should work the same as overtime hockey in playoffs. Keep going until someone scores a goal. Playoff overtime hockey is one of the most exciting things to watch in all of sports. After 120 minutes though allow for an extra 3 substitutions.
This idea sounds pretty stupid. I don't like the road goal rule in UEFA either. The game should be settled on the field and not just because some team scored on the road where the goal is the same size as at home. At some point the game has to end.
how bout this idea: after regulation, each team is forced to take off a man every 10 minutes of extra time played for example after 10 minutes of extra time, each team must take one man off after 20 minutes, they must take another off after 30 minutes, they must take another off and so on until the match is settled
Again, seen it happen in junior competitions. The teams just get more and more defensive until someone scores an arsey goal. Look at what happens when a team goes a man down (or both sides get reduced to ten men) during a normal match. Far from opening things up, it makes the team concerned more defensive-minded.
Yeah, I can't see that working. You are stuck with (1) PKs (2) infinite golden-goal OT (like in hockey) after 120 minutes (3) something gimmacky that can turn the actual game into a farce Like I suggested above, you could advance the team that scored last in a 120 minutes draw, but that will discourage a team that ties at game 1-1 from attacking at all. Why go up 2-1 when you can 'win' 1-1, and going up 2-1 means you might 'lose' 2-2.
Thinking about it once again, the corner idea I've mentionned in my initial post is indeed stupid. Having a secondary "score" would alter the game too much. Sorry about bothering you. The original statement remains valid though. The shoutouts system incites teams to lock themselves. Now of course, fortunately it's not always the case, and the euro 2008 knock-out stage was very offensive, but still. I'm convinced that if you take the two same teams and make them play two games in a home-and-away knock out, they will play more openly than they would in a single game knock out.
this may sound absurd...but what if the team that spent most time in the opponents half, gets some form of advantage? even possibly winning? or maybe the team with the least fouls? Knowing you cant foul too much, may open for more attacking play hence more winning goals...same applies for spending your time in opponents half...opens counter attack moves... could be kinda exiting...
First of all, I'm not too sure that the away goals rule encourages offensive and goal minded football. What you very often see is that home teams are very nervous because they know that a goal for the away team could be crucial to their chances of progressing. And I don't really see what makes the away goals rule fair either. The away goals rule also means that the team, which score the fewest goals at home is progressing meaning that a team that has lost 2-1 away will try to keep the return leg low scoring as a 1-0 win is so much better than a 2-1 win and immeasurably better than a 3-2 win. So they're basically trying to make the game as boring as possible in front of their home crowd; how is that fair? And while we're on goofy suggestions: why don't they adapt the indoor rule of players over the center line? So after 90 minutes, you have to have one player over the center line at all times. This could then be extended to be an extra player every ten minutes or so. That way you can always outnumber the defense if you move enough players forward. In order for this to work, you would probably also have to abolish the offside rule in overtime, but if you're keen enough to avoid penalties, you can twist all other rules as much as you want.
The penalty shootouts were NOT introduced in 1982. You thought it was 1982 only because the FranceXGermany game ended in a shootout. You have to be old enough to see a fixture list of the World Cup in that era to know when the penalty shootouts were introduced. After the fact, you'll only see the scoreboards, not the fixtures. In that era, when the knock-out fixtures before the final is drawn, it's decided by a coin toss. If it's the final itself, it will be REPLAYED. And you'll see the replay being scheduled two days after the final, but you'll know it only if you see the fixtures, because a replay has never been used. BTW, if you hate penalties, how do you like a game being decided by a coin toss? The 1968 European Championship semi-final was decided by a coin toss.
If group stages work so well in the first round, why can't they be carried over the other rounds? Then you could count ties as ties, and not worry about breaking them. Or you could, as my friend suggested, just eliminate BOTH teams if it's a draw. That would REALLY force them to play aggresively!
Because the knock-out stage gives fans the ultimate climax: do-or-die. A 2nd group stage, as in 1974 and 1978, is a perfect setting for abuse: play Brasil to a 0-0 draw, and we'll beat the hsit out of Peru in the next game... Not to mention the meaningless group fixture like E Germany X Argentina and Yugoslavia X Sweden in 1974. Yes, and if they play to a draw in the final, then we'll have NO World Cup champions this time around. What a concept...
I'd rather have no champion, then have a champion decided on the coin flipping that is penalty kicks. I guess I'm alone on that. Would you want an NBA final decided with a free throw shooting contest? [Or maybe a slam dunk contest! Ha!] The world series decided on a home run derby? (Different sports I know, but same idea) And to your other point, if the knock outs are so bloody climactic and exciting, why not get rid of the group stage all together, and make the whole thing a playoff? I do appreciate the "Oh I'll just play the top team to a draw and then go beat the weak" team argument. I think it could be fixed if you advanced only the group winner, and not the top 2. Then you couldn't "play for 2nd"