Oh you should ... we've been here before with our upset little friend and I can confirm that it's a belter. I can't wait for him to share. (PS - gets a bit teary over the little stuff in life, doesn't he? I'm thinking he needs some form of sexual intercourse. Urgently.)
lol..at matt anyway... i dont think the extra 10 minutes at the end would go down too well. After 120 minutes of running, would you like to play another 10 in sudden death?..sounds a bit painful... I think the moving of penalties back 3 yards (only for shootouts) could work but it is still the same format that people dont like... Also i dont think that allowing the keeper to move would work as it would cause too many arguements and controvertial decitions... But glad to see some people are actually making sensable contributions... uinlike somee (u know who u are...)
I think he gets plenty of ‘some form’ of sexual intercourse... Maybe he just needs a change, like try his left hand... But back to the subject in hand (Nooo..!) I would embrace any idea to end the game after 2 hours that didn’t involve. 1. Unlimited subs or any subs after 90 minutes. 2. Specialized kickers (unless they come on before 90 min.) 3. Corner kicks (For crying out loud) 4. Different sized or shaped balls 5. Bribing the ref. 6. Or extra, extra time. I’ve mentioned this before. That Terry Venables stated (tongue in cheek) he liked the MLS style 35 yd run on goal. BUT he would like a defender to start 3 yds behind the shooter. Imagine, “The whistle blows, you start your run on goal and you can hear the footsteps of Roberto Carlos or Danny mills coming at you. Then the sounds stop and you know that a missile wearing a pair of studded boots is airborne and homing in…….!” I think you’d see a lot of 35 yard shots.
The reason why..! In 1965 I saw one of the legs of the Qtr final Champs cup. The year Liverpool played and beat (1st leg) International Milan in the semi’s. FC Cologne and Liverpool played five and a half HOURS of football. 330 minutes of OUTSTANDING and exciting football. The first 2 games ended after XT in nil, nil draws. So they went to a playoff in Rotterdam and ended up after XT again at 2 goals each. Liverpool won this great and even match up, on a COIN TOSS. We knew in advance that if we tied it would end this way but it still was still a very unsatisfying way to win ‘or lose’. The PKs came in the next season I believe.
erm draw a line on the field?? two more lines on the pitch isn't gonna be an eyesore. a yard or so out from the goalline. to be used during tie-break pks only. refs might even call it when a player goes over the line... though i doubt it. seriously though. what most of you people fail to realise is that having pks nearly impossible to save is a GOOD thing. if everybody and their mother could save a pk it wouldn't be so amazing when a goalie did. and of course goalies bitch when they lose in pks... but if they won the game for their team in pks they'd be lionized. i like pks. pks should stay.
i've got it!! take all the players on the field at the end of regular time and tie their left hands together and then let them knife it out to determine the winner! the team with the most men standing at the end wins! i think FIFA will really go for this idea because it will lower the amount of violence/indiscipline in the game, no team will want to lose a man to red card, and then have to go into the tie-break knife fight down one man.
I wrote multiple e-mails to the MLS commish those initial years asking them to please ban the horrible shootouts. I think it is again a case of the MLS never gaining international respect until they start to play by international rules. And more importantly, MLS realized that until we get rid of clocks that countdown and the ridiculous shootout circus the real fans of soccer in the US will never materialize into MLS fans.
The solution is to bring in an outside party. Perhaps an interactive online poll of BigSoccer users, "Which team deserved to win--50 words or less." In the event of a tie in voting, the more eloquent arguement (judged by literary wizard Dave Dir) wins the day.
You're missing the point entirely. The reason the MLS shootout was (rightly) considered a joke was that it was used to break ties in regular-season matches. However, I consider it superior to penalty kicks as a knockout-competition tiebreaker. As long as it's not being used to settle every single drawn league match, I don't see a problem with it.
I know that you werent advocating the shootout in that way. I didn't intend my response to sound like a rebuttle. Just my thoughts on subject. I think that it is difficult to speak against or for the dribble shootout since it is such a new concept. If the roles were reversed and it was the traditional standard instead of the spot-kick penalty, then I could imagine it being a well-embraced tiebreaker situation. However, I still believe that we should play by the same rules as the rest of the world. But come on, we're the US. We never play by the same rules as everyone else.
Re: Re: Ideas for replacing shoot outs Nailed it. I like alternating free kicks myself, though, with the caveat that play continues until the defending team gets the ball into the other half of the field. This is analogous to the system that American college football uses -- each team gets its shot at scoring. Perhaps those who don't like the idea of free-kick specialists could answer a few questions for me: What's the difference between bringing in someone late in extra time who's a free-kick specialist and bringing in someone who's good at PKs? Or bringing in a goalkeeper who's good at stopping PKs? Or bringing striker late in the match when you need a goal or bringing in a defender late in the match when you need to prevent a goal? What's the difference? I saw something once on another message board that had a funny article written by someone on the NAS mailing list about how to settle tie matches. Perhaps someone could post it here?
Which, of course, completely ignores the reality that attendance went down the season after the shootout was scrapped.
I think the correlation between the decreased attendance and the removal of the shootout is weak. The exact opposite arguement could me made, saying that the rule chance came to late and the damage was aleady done.
But this thread isn't about the US. It's about the world. It's no secret that the penalty shootout is not well-liked worldwide. Some of the proponents of the MLS-style shootout in this thread are European. Let's consider it this way: the PK shootout is currently an appendix to the Laws of the Game. The text does not mandate golden-goal overtime or PK shootouts, it only names them as a suggested method of breaking ties. Given that rules have changed over the years, the most recent being the 6-second rule for goalkeepers replacing the 4-step rule, I see no reason why FIFA couldn't change their suggested tiebreaking method (it's not even a Law of the Game).
There are newer new rules. (not trying to put you down just mentioning) If you obstruck in the box it is now a penalty and a direct free kick in stread of indirect... Also there has to be daylight between the striker and defender for it to be offside. This is to advantage attackers...
Re: Re: Ideas for replacing shoot outs but we are still left with the same problem. What to replace penalties with? Without a good new method of deciding matches penalties will live on. I am one for keeping penalties. Along with full length extra time..
Ha! I love it, not having i-net at home anymore and coming back to a thread that a threw up just in haste. Ha, so much UK vs US hate, but isnt that normal? My main thrust of the thread was that penalties are the most unfair way to decide a game, more so than golden goal, just as unfair as a coin toss. Even after FIFA changed and rechanged the keeper rules for movement off the line, keepers still cheat their asses off in them with no consequences becuase every FIFA ref in the world is too ball-less to pull a card in a shootout. its unfair that a keeper can be up to three steps off the line before the ball is even struck, and there has to be a system to replace it. The dribble up sucks and would just favor the more athletic/fatass keeper who can run screaming at the player fast enough. Funny that UK players hate the idea of taking players off the field to open it up more (just like five aside, guys), but i guess they like the perfect scapegoat that penalties always provide. Maybe americans have too much love for resolve over "saving face".
How? Penaltys take skill, bottle and an iron nervem they aren't random. Why do yolu think Germany are so good at them?
Well, the only US/UK hate that's been sloshing around this thread is from our demented little friend counterattack. And whatever hang-up he is nursing there is most definitely his own. Poor sap. With regard to the rest of it all, the point being made is that no one has yet produced a better alternative to the penalty shoot-out, save a full replay (which I for one would always favour but which is not practicable in the modern game). To say it is "as unfair" as a coin toss, for example, is nonsense. A professional footballer being asked to kick a ball 12 yards into a net the size of a large garage door is manifestly not as unfair as getting the ref to eddy up. I agree that refs should be forced to make the current rules stick (we all remember the Korean goalkeeper for Spain's last penalty at the World Cup, after all) because, in so doing, you ensure a more or less even contest - the pressure on the striker to score roughly balancing out the unlikelihood of a keeper saving a well-struck penno. The extent to which people get their knickers in a twist about a perfectly workable solution to an inevitable quandary is really quite funny. I mean, counterattack may be short on marbles and, as such, not the fairest benchmark against which to view the anti-PK crowd, but come on guys. There are more important things in life than whacky solutions to the question of how to end a game of football in which neither side has managed to get the ball in to the net after two whole hours of trying.
Re: Re: Re: Ideas for replacing shoot outs I haven't read the entire thread but I'm going to assume this is the most sensible post here. Most other solutions will be just as, if not more, arbitrary as the penalty kicks. Like it or not, it's here to stay. PS - Matt, re: Korean keeper vs Spanish PK taker. I understand your point about enforcing the rules, but if you watch that kick again, you'll see that the kick taker start his run up, stop, then restarts, so the Spaniard is hardly innocent. The two violations cancelled each other out, imho.
Let me just say for all of those people who think that pk's are just random and goalies guessing the right way, they do take skill. I mean, if you can drill a shot into one of the four corners of the net (especially the top corners) you WILL SCORE I don't care what goalie is opposing you. Pk's are a quick, fair way to end a game. Isn't that what we all want? (except for that coin toss cause that's just wrong) Now yes, I would rather lose a match in the run of play than to lose in pk's, but if the match is still deadlocked after 2 hours, you need a quick, fair way to end it. I also think that replaying the matches like they used to do is also wrong. I mean think about it, you are playing in a huge tournament single elimination match and you fight all day and are tied after ET. Do u really want to come back another day and play the match all over again? At least I wouldn't want to. I would just want pk's, and end it already. And I don't understand why being able to guess the right way as a goalie is more lucky than anything else that happens in a match. People, it takes luck to win sometimes, whether in the run of play or in pk's. Luck is always a factor in a match. Personally, I think that many of the people that are against pk's has themselves lost in pk's or the team(s) that they root for have lost in pk's so they're bitter about them. I mean, I'm an Italy fan and look how many huge matches they have lost in pk's in the past 10-15 years and I still think that pk's are the way to go. I really can't believe this thread is this long. It's simple people: pk's are the quickest, fairest, and overall the best way to end a match that's been deadlocked for 2 hours. End of discussion.