Ideas for replacing shoot outs

Discussion in 'The Beautiful Game' started by benine, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. usscouse

    usscouse BigSoccer Supporter

    May 3, 2002
    Orygun coast
    Most of your points fit with the majority of thinkers here but it took a while to understand your “taking players off..!”
    I think that after 2 hours of a hard fought game that all the players would like to come off, hence the PKs. Maybe you’ve never played the game or know the agony of cramping. Or did you give any thought that these guys in the WC have to play again, usually within 3 days.
    End the game, NOT drag it out.
    Why you turned it into a UK/US thing beyond me. Or do you think that you’re speaking for ALL US fans when you want to drag out the game until you play one-on-one, or are you falling for what your buddy brainattack wanted.
     
  2. benine

    benine New Member

    Jul 22, 2002
    Chicago
    See, bah to cramping I say, force the manager to take off the less fit players and force the players into taking better care of themselves (cramping isnt a sign of fatigue, it's a sign of dehydration which is totally avoidable if you treat your body right). I made it a UK/US thing because it seemed the standard UK response was "ah, you stupid yanks and your ideas about football". I dont think all players would like a game to be decided on something as trivial as penalties, which represents a total of none of what the rest of the game is about (really, how often does a player get a free shot from 12 yards direct at just the keeper? never unless a penalty is called). So why subject a games outcome to be decided by a part of the game meant to punish a team? That would be like deciding a baseball game by the number of walks allowed or a basketball game ending in freethrow shooting for the win. I really do think that people who say that penalties are a good way, better than golden goal even, to decide a game are people who love having a good excuse for why their side lost ("oh, we only lost on penalties"). F that. Yeah, ultimatley, i would rather see a replay than golden goal or penalties, but if the game has to end in one matchday, then why make it end on such a trivial note? Really, coin toss or corners won is just as satisfying of a result as 5-3 on penalties. and i never said it would get down to 1 on 1 (thats penalties), just 5 on 5 because it is a TEAM GAME.
     
  3. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    No, the people who say penalties are a perfectly acceptable way to end a game are just realistic about the fact that

    a) no better alternative to this flawed option presents itself and
    b) all attempts at a trying to provide a better alternative anyway rest on crap logic.

    For instance:

    "None" and "never", eh? Well, unless a penalty is awarded adds up to 18 times in this past World Cup.

    Eighteen separate occasions in 64 games where a player was asked to do exactly what you describe.

    Should I go an check on how many occasions players were asked to play with just four colleagues on a full-size football pitch in the heat of a Far Eastern summer? I have the stat here. It's quite round ...

    And just one more thing - want to know how many shoot-out penalties were taken at this past World Cup?

    Nineteen.

    So, to recap - the penalty shoot-out is bad because it is not part of the game. This is because situations in which a player is asked perform the action commensurate with taking a penalty never occur ... except on all those times a penalty is called within a game. Or, to put it another way, in roughly a third of all the games at the recent World Cup. Ergo, the penalty is not part of the game. I think ...

    Yep ... that whole penalty kick thing is a bitch, eh? I say we DO get rid of it, because hey - compared to other solutions involving five-a-side (or maybe a bit of Beach Soccer - or some Babi-foot perhaps?) - it's just so gosh-darn alien to the game!!!
     
  4. skipshady

    skipshady New Member

    Apr 26, 2001
    Orchard St, NYC
    If you believe that the only harmful effect of overexertion is cramping then you obviously did not follow this year's World Cup and the build up to it.

    Most serious injuries occur after the 75 min mark, and the longer you play after that, the more likely and more severe the injury will become. Plus, you're talking about players who play 2, maybe even 3 matches within a 7 day span for almost the entire year. Combine insuffcient R & R with overexertion, you're talking about putting serious abuse on the body.

    Well, that is the way of life in football right now. But you're asking players to go even further and expose themselves to an exponentially increased risk of injury.

    I'm sure clubs who paid multi million dollar transfer fees will be happy to see their investments abused and fans will be happy to see their favorite players carried off in stretchers with fractures and torn ligaments, simply because for whatever reason, some people seem to think a shootout is a dishonorable way to finish a match.

    Continued play after 2 hours is simply too dangerous and no one in their right mind would allow it.
     
  5. mikelley037

    mikelley037 New Member

    Aug 7, 2002
    they should select 3 players from each side to play paintball in the stadium. they can build like towers to shoot from until all 3 are hit by the paintball that would be pretty cool huh
     
  6. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    Best post of the thread.
     
  7. Boro_lad

    Boro_lad New Member

    Agreed, this is a senseble point, and its agreeing with what i am saying, After exerting yourself for that length of time it is unacceptable for someone to suggest they have to run even more as there would be less players on a pitch the same size.

    Although cramp is a serious problem as it is a sign of high salt levels in the muscles which is a sign of dehydration, this can cause problems for player's health. Although injuries are serious they are less frequent than dehydration would be.

    Normal ET and Penalties are the best and most practical option.
     
  8. Red Star

    Red Star Member

    Jan 10, 2002
    Fayetteville, AR
    An Idea

    I like extra time and penalties to decide a match. However, in the interest of exploring alternatives, which I understand the point of this discussion to be...

    Take Corner Kicks, ball is alive until it goes out of bounds or over the midfield line, a 35 yard line would be better but I hate to add another line to the field. Take them alternatively the first team to fall behind after a pair loses. Alternate sides from which the kicks are taken. If you still have subs available you may use them. Perhaps even reduce the number of players in order to better simulate a run of play corner. This basic idea could work with free kicks too. Let the teams pick a spot within a larger area to spot the ball.

    Just an idea.
     
  9. benine

    benine New Member

    Jul 22, 2002
    Chicago

    Yes, very well reversed logic, if only i had some crayons and drawing paper maybe i could give a scouse a lesson on what "part of the game" means.

    basically, you're saying you prefer a provision of the game added to penalize the defending team for a direct infraction within the penalty area. Thats the only time a penalty is awarded, right? I mean, it's not awarded for a well cleared ball, right? They're not given for a well executed offsidetrap, right? So why put all 120 minutes of a match into a part of the game that ISNT SUPPOSED TO BE A MATCH BY MATCH OCCURANCE? I mean, ************, why not just have it all decided on a drop ball or indirect freekicks in the box, given that they are about as much a day to day part of the game as penalties.

    Either way you want to think, I dont really care. You opened your response up with the agreance that penalties are not a good way to end a game, but at least I'm thinking of other ways to do it, you seem to have no original ideas in your head. Go figure, an uninspired scouser.
     
  10. benine

    benine New Member

    Jul 22, 2002
    Chicago
    Okay then, allow for the clubs to empty their bench to get their 5 players. Its perfectly doable since WC rosters can suit 23 now, and after the starting 11 and three regular subs you still have 7 non-keeper players to choose from.
    Basically, anyway that awards more of a team-aspect of skills vs an individual player and cheating keeper to decide a game is one that has to be explored and it's just so damned puzzling that no-one seems to want to award team play. I mean, this is a team sport, right?

    Still, I'd have less of a personal problem with penalties if there was more than one ref in the world with the balls to card a keeper in a shoot out for coming off his line.
     
  11. Boro_lad

    Boro_lad New Member

    Benine...You have left yourself open a bit there like. with the scouse comment...

    The way i see it is if the keeper comes off his line before the player has kicked the ball, he should step over it and make it really obvious that the keeper has cheated...i do it...works everytime...same tihe freekicks when the wall rushes at you....just step over it and complain like a bitch....

    i see it as the players fault in not putting a stop to it, the keeper will do anything he can to keep the ball out, and i say fair play to him...its the same for both sides.
     
  12. Doctor Stamen

    Doctor Stamen New Member

    Nov 14, 2001
    In a bag with a cat.
    Things to replace penalties

    1. Thumb war between goalkeepers
    2. Tag team wrestling.
    3. 5 minute pinball playing, whichever player gets the highest score wins.
    4. mini version of watercolour challenge, or countdown.
    5. Memory game from the Generation Game (as long as Jim Davidson isn't there)
    6. BULLSEYE !!!!!. WITH JIM BOWEN (and the speedboat) !.

    Mikelley037's paintball idea is my favourite so far.
     
  13. Maczebus

    Maczebus New Member

    Jun 15, 2002
    Ou peutetre, un peu de babyfoot?

    Fantastic game.
    In the National Football Museum in Preston you can play on a table with cameras on, they show replays of goals and reactions on (human) players faces on a TV next to you.
    The handles can chafe after several hours though.
     
  14. Joe Hadar

    Joe Hadar New Member

    Jun 1, 2000
    Midwest
    If Penalties are so great....

    ....why not just start each major final with a pk shoot out?

    Positives: The game starts with one team knowing that it must score to win. PK's must be taken starters (no putting in PK specialists (or worse, PK specialist keepers) in the last 5 minutes). The player who misses the critical PK, has the whole game to redeem himself.

    Negative: It shows how ridiculous PK's are for settling the game.

    If a tournament must have a winner, replay the final a week later, like the FA cup.
     
  15. Slash/ED

    Slash/ED New Member

    Apr 19, 2002
    Dublin
    And That'd work espically great if you're in the semi final and the final is in three days, where's the reply fitting in? The FA cup goes to penaltys now too.
     
  16. skipshady

    skipshady New Member

    Apr 26, 2001
    Orchard St, NYC
    Re: If Penalties are so great....

    No, it doesn't. If you're going to make an inane argument, you can at least make it funny. The post leaves so much to be desired I'm not sure where to begin. I suppose I'll start at the beginning.

    Penalties are not great. It is anything but desirable I'm sure we can agree on this point. No one enjoys watching a match go to penalties. Players would want to keep playing if they weren't so damn exhausted. Promoters certainly wouldn't mind another payday by holding a replay. But for all the reasons mentioned before, extending the match further or holding a replay are unreasonable propositions.

    But the shootout is a tie breaker (which is where the "why don't we have one before the match?" argument fails), and as of right now, it is the most sensible one we have. It takes the most important aspect of a match, i.e. scoring on goal and simplifies it by making it one vs one - and simplicity is the key here.
    As much as I hate to see a match go to penalties, it is far less arbitrary and less vulnerable to controversy than any of the ideas that have been presented here.
     
  17. usscouse

    usscouse BigSoccer Supporter

    May 3, 2002
    Orygun coast
    If this was the rivalries board, I’d tell you that you were an idiot and full of shite. (At least we know that brain attack was just trolling)And that trying to explain a sport that is so alien to your way of thinking is just a waste of time.

    For some couch potato who is used to watching a I hour game of US football go on for something like 3 and a half, watching defensive teams, offensive teams, kicking teams, kicking defense teams, field goal teams, field goal defense teams, coming and going from the field in between advertising and trips to the can and the fridge for more bud light and chips.

    The whole idea of closing the game out to a semi satisfactory conclusion would seem totally odd to you.

    But this is not the rivalries board so I’ll limit my comments to “You are sadly in error if you think changing the game from 11 a side to 5 a side would make the game more appealing to the masses”

    As you pointed out “at least you’re trying to think”…
     
  18. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    LOL! Another Yank "Man Yoo" fan with a take on Scousers. I love it. Do you lot cut'n'paste this stuff from a central resource on yahoogroups, or what?

    Iluvbecks: "Hey everybody, I've actually been to England and I once saw someone who had what may have been a northern accent (they spoke differently to everyone in London, anyway) so he was probably a Scouser because he wasn't wearing a Man Yoo shirt and I tell you what, he looked odd, so pass it on everyone! Now we can all join in with being the lamest shitwits on the face of this planet and pretend that we ARE from Manchester!

    Third-hand local perspectives = Internet cred, after all!"


    :rolleyes: Dolt.

    Look, your logic sucks, your point about the penalty not being a part of the game is (demonstrably) wrong and your clumsy attempts to claim some form of high ground on the basis that "at least I'm thinking of other ways to do it" are all very cute, but my point is that, a replay aside, there is no other way we NEED to do it. So I, unlike you, have no interest in spending hours concocting all these fabulous alternatives.

    Get a life man. Otherwise you, like counterattack, will need to be getting Mom to wash up that mess you made of your pants just thinking about the "abomination" that is the penalty shootout.

    I mean really - get over it.
     
  19. Boro_lad

    Boro_lad New Member

    Big flaw in the penalties before the match!

    Say you miss. Then
    1) It WILL affect your game
    2) It will put added pressure on his and his team amte shoulders
    3) it results in pointless penalties and unnessasary pressure and anxiaty (sp??)

    Players are under enough mental strain without having to be put through penalties every match....

    Everyone has stated how much they dislike penalties and yet u say you want more.....

    The original system works.
     
  20. Boro_lad

    Boro_lad New Member

    Well said!
     
  21. AFCA

    AFCA Member

    Jul 16, 2002
    X X X rated
    Club:
    AFC Ajax
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    Losing to a penalty shootout.... it burns inside and eats you up.... digests you for a month and than it takes about 2 months to get puked out by it.

    It hurts...

    But still it's the way the game is played now, and I don't see anything wrong with it.

    Some people are talking about luck here. Let me tell you something... luck is a part of the game. And so is bad luck.

    Golden goal makes less sense then penalties... score one goal and win. Are we forgetting that football is not a static sport and that you can always come back?
    Just make it 30 minutes ET, no GG. After that... penalties.

    The ONLY exception to this should be finals. Finals should get 1 replay if still tied after 30 ET.
     
  22. Boro_lad

    Boro_lad New Member

    i agree with everything you just said except the final bit. I hated the fact it went to a replay when middlesbrough drew 1-1 with leicester in 97 coke final.i wouldhave rather it went to penaltis and got it over with on the day.

    i would prefer for the game to have been settled there and then then at least it was over with
     
  23. benine

    benine New Member

    Jul 22, 2002
    Chicago
    I dont know really what the point of all that was. US-scouse...shite...funny.
     
  24. benine

    benine New Member

    Jul 22, 2002
    Chicago

    Ah, telling me to get a life while you are a moderator on an internet site and went through the trouble of typing a fake internet post, in italics mind you, to demonstrate who is the bigger "losser". And then being such a grown up little boy and making "poopoo" jokes. Hahaha, way to be the example of a mature moderator, ace. God knows there arent USSCOUSERS too, right?
    And thinking isnt an epic battle for me, like I assume it is for you since you think it takes "hours and hours" to come up with a simple idea; the 5-aside idea took me all of 3 minutes, while Cap'nd up, to come up with. I then typed it on the bored, god forbid that a part of the game that everyone at one time or another has cursed be discussed to possibly change. I mean, its not as if FIFA are a-okay with them, hince GG and the 4th official, so if the governing body of football is looking at other ways to decide a match, why cant the INTELLIGENT fans/players of the sport take a hack at it? Why do you have such a hardon for penalties anyway? Bet you're a keeper.
     
  25. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    What - no more Scouse jokes?

    You disappoint.

    Like I said - get over it.
     

Share This Page