Not really, I just wanted people to click here and give me an opinion. I always thought the shootout was an exciting way to settle a game, but don't know much about its short lived history in MLS. Questions are: a)Why did the people who hated it, hate it so? b)Did anyone like it besides me? c)Was it also used for run - of - play penalties? I think I know the answer to a), and that it was because people didn't want penalty shoot outs for all ties during the regular season (though the reason for level of vitriol has never really been understood.) One thing I've always thought is idiotic about soccer is settling a 120 minute tie by having 10 guys play the guessing game with 2 keepers and that having a running shootout style added a bit of skill to this format. Would the people who hated the shootout agree with that? thanks
Over the course of 30 matches, do you really need tie breakers to settle a handful of matches. Would it have made any difference? Heck, even college football which plays less than half the number of games only recently added a tiebreaker. I didn't hate it, I just don't see the need for it. As for a match still level after 120 minutes? penalties are fine.
a) ties are fine. the idea that nothing is settled in a tie is bogus. it's settled that both teams, playing on the same field for the same length of time, scored the same number of goals. therefore they each get one point and fans can argue about whether it was a good draw or a bad one. b) probably. c) no.
Funny thing, those bloody ties! I find it interesting that one level of soccer doesn't use it. Westmont College in Santa Barbara won the NAIA women's championship last week in the 158th minute!!!! Geez..if small-college women can handle it.........
just to clarify, I don't necessarily like the idea of shootouts for every tie - I don't. But for the penalty shootouts at the end of 120 minutes, I thought it added a bit more excitement and gave the goalie a little better chance. Let's take two examples: WC'94 and Champs League Final '03 Do you really think the way of settling those two games were "fine"? We'll just have to agree to vehemently disagree if so.
That's what I don't understand. What made it comedy? Because it was new? I know the euro-based trash hated it, but it always seemed they hated it for no other reason that it wasn't traditonal. The "it's not done, so don't do it" argument.
Because the rules for it were poorly defined and it too frequently descended into controversy and/or farce. I distinctly remember one shootout at San Jose that was one of the funniest things I've seen. Great if you want comedy; personally I would rather see soccer rather than comedy at a soccer match.
I don’t like shoot-outs!! I didn’t mind the running shoot-out if you were going have a no tie system. It added flare to pk's. Or as we would say Americanized it. It’s not a good way to end playoff matches or anything really important. If you're going to try and Americanize the game then is not too bad. I don’t like the Americanized version. But that’s what they were trying to do so from that point of view it was fine with me.
It just seemed that we slipped into the realm of the absurd when they would wheel a 5 second clock on the field. I wouldn't mind using a shootout instead of a penalty shootout if the rules are clearly defined, but its terrible if they do it right after 90 minutes (and you knew it was exactly 90 minutes with the countdown clock and all) of a regular season game
I don't think the majority of the fans supported it, besides which, several players picked up major injuries specifically in shoot-out action. I recall Eric Wynalda blew out a knee that way, and several goalkeepers weren't too fond of it either. Frankly, I'm happy leaving a tie alone. If the boys haven't decided it after 90 minutes, it's time to leave it alone. It has nothing to do with Europe, but with the way I like to see soccer played.
My question to the original thread starter: Why is one type of shootout good when the other is bad? Presumably if you don't like matches decided by shootouts it shouldn't matter if was MLS or international variety. Basically the same thing.
Because a penalty shootout, as it is, is a game of chance. Before the final shootout between Italy and Brazil in '94, Pagliuca said to Taffarel: "May the luckiest man win". The shootout gave at least a bit of chance to the keeper. The 5 second clock was lame though, I agree. But, yes, I don't think the game should be decided by PKs in any form. I don't think ties would be as much of a problem were the rules as they are written, enforced. i.e. shirt pulling, diving, offside
I think most people here are in agreement that neither the shootout nor penalties are necessary, and that even in games which must have a winner and are still tied after extra time, neither is a truly sufficient way of determining a winner. The disagreement really is over two other questions, and the relative importance of each: 1. Is the shootout an improvement over traditional penalties; and 2. how important is it not to have the game in America differ from the way things are done everywhere else. People who regarded the shootout as tantamount to a circus thought so because, intuitively at least, they felt that it was too different from established procedure as they understood it. People who felt this way probably regarded the first question as unimportant. People who liked the shootout (I'm sure there are some, you just don't hear them around here very much) believed it superior to penalties, since as you pointed out it at least gives the goalkeeper some chance besides luck. They probably regarded the second question as unimportant, or at least of minimal importance since it was such a small part of the game. Interesting question about whether it was used for regular penalty kicks. It was not. I've often thought that one of the problems with a penalty kick is that the kicking team is almost assured of a goal if awarded a penalty kick, and consequently referees let a lot of things go in the penalty area that they might otherwise call. If they were only awarded a shootout-style chance, or maybe a penalty-style kick from the 18 instead of the current penalty spot, you'd probably see a lot more fouls called for awhile, followed eventually by a lot less fouling in the box and consequently more scoring. I'm not advocating this, you understand. The penalty kick is too integral to the way the game has been played for so long that it would be too great a change. But it's an interesting question.
1) This question is a freakin' joke. You're no fan of football in my eyes. 2) What about the "MLS Shootout" resembled anything remotely similar to a football match? A dude starting 35 yrds away with 5 secs to get a shot off one-on-one w/the keeper. Kicks from the mark are actually in the FIFA book. WTF is the "MLS Shootout" in the LOTG? F---ing idiots trying to Americanize a game that is perfect already. 3) Constant injuries. What the f--- do you think is going to happen when you have a one-on-one 10 times at the end of a draw? Nearly every "MLS Shootout" generated either a field player or keeper injury (especially when you have non-strikers taking part in a situation that is EXTREMELY rare during the run of play for strikers). Ask Eric Wynalda (not that I'm a fan of his) how much fun it was getting injured REPEATEDLY on "MLS Shootouts." 4) Horseshvte regarding the clock and the ref's judgement on the timing. Goals were allowed that appeared after the clock expired and goals were disallowed that appeared to happen within the time limit. F---ing horshvte clock run by a stadium means you're probably one of the sick freaks that wants a 90 min count-down/up clock in the stadium with an air horn to kill the match. Do I need to continue. Oh, and nothing personal. Just using harsh language to give you (and the rest of the sick pups inside here) a sense of HOW WRONG YOU ARE. Love and kisses...
Why do you think I mentioned Wynalda. He was injured at least twice (in fact I think 3 times) enough to miss games each time. Many others...
Can you name just ONE other injury besides Wynalda? If they were constant, I would think you could name at least five.
Well, he wasn't really asking the question, just saying that's what the debate was about. But I can see how you would miss that - you got all hot and bothered and your brain pretty much stopped functioning normally when you saw the thread title. No one really wants to bring back the shootout, I just wanted to know why people hated it. Well, maybe you can tell us how a free kick from the penalty spot "resembles anything remotely similar to a football match." But to answer your question: It's called a one-on-one with the keeper. Josh Wolff had one that resembled a shootout against Mexico in Colombus, and Tony Sanneh had one against Germany in Florida when we won 3-0. Those are just off the top of my head These are perfect examples of reasons that suck. "It's in the book" or "the game's perfect", or "I'm a wanabee Euro who calls it 'football'. " Right. If you are going to say that the rules which decided last year's Champions' League final are perfect then half the people who read it are going to know your lying and the other half will just think you're an idiot.
Diego Serna and David Kramer were injured in shootouts as well. Here's a cute quote from the post-game notes of a 1999 match between Miami and New England: Even though Jeff Causey was red carded in the shootout, he played the next regular season match. WTF?!? Don't any of you freaks get it. Oh and I personally am American through and through. The EPL, Serie A, Bundesliga, Brasilian leagues, FMF, etc can all beat off. Long live the MLS and victory for the USMNT...