I'm sick of games being decided on shootouts! How about taking two players off from each team and playing an extra 5/10 minutes, first one to score wins. If no goal scored after 5/10 min then take off 2 more and play again. With the talent on the pitch I'm sure it wouldn't get down to 7 players very often, and some of the goals would be spectacular in extra time............... oh well ...........................
yeah...and when they get down to just the keepers, they can thumb wrestle! If after that they are still tied, we'll bring all the players back out and we can play Musical Chairs to the two teams' National Anthems. Anything besides penalties!!!!!!!!
They should use the old MLS shootout fromat during internationals. They were very exciting and unpredictable. If you don't remember they had one player dribble down from half field one on one with the goalie and a shot needed to be taken in 15 seconds. I think once the goalie touched it the attacker couldn't touch the ball anymore. They were the best way to end a game after OT.
after 120 minutes if neither team can score a goal more then it should go to penalties... tough luck if you lose the way england did -----they had a chance to win during the game but they opted to defend that mls penalty shutout thing is a circus ----
They need to end games with one of the contests from halftime, bring out 10' large soccer balls and three guys have to roll them into the nets, whoever does it first wins!
Cage match between keepers! I think pulling out 22 fans and making them play another 90 minutes makes just as much sense as anything else.
yeah, but the fans have to be wearing a full kit in the stands. cleats and all. it's a new way to bring the passion out of the stands and onto the pitch.
Yeah, when people make the arguments that shootouts suck they have to remember 4 things: 1-someone has to win 2-you should have won during regulation and if you lose in the shootout it is fault (the ref could make a bad call but that doesn't revent you from not scoring the rest of the game) 3-these guys have played hard for 120 minutes. 120 MINUTES!!!!! They are tired and probably don't want to run around for hours. Even if they do add more overime it would be incredibly boring for players and fans. 4-penalty shots are 100% fair to both teams and you can only blame yourself if you lose there Circuses are fun!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you talking about the MLS Shootout that they got rid of before you even joined BigSoccer? You should keep up.
Seriously ... How about this.. If the OT ends in a tie...the team that had the LEAD at Halftime of the Regular 90 minute match wins it. If there was a tie at halftime the PKs. This creates an extra motivation to take the lead into the half. As later it can benefit your side.
They are absolutely fair. No argument there. A coin toss is fair. Drawing straws is fair. I simply think that football matches should be resolved by playing football. Nothing else. Call me crazy... Nick
What if you are winning 5-0 at halftime. The other team comes back and ties. The game ends after overtime with no goals. Why should you win, you blew it? And to get technical they won the second half of the game, so that means nothing?
Just keep playing. Somebody is going to score eventually. As time wears on fatigue becomes a major factor and somebody will make a mistake.
That's ridiculous, you have to think of their health, and say, you know, the next match... *Not only the above suggestion, but everyone else's that isn't penalty kicks!
Well if they still had the golden goal, the match would have ended without penalties. Sick of watching England taking penalties, I'd rather they go out on the golden goal thus the match finishing earlier. Though if we had won on penalties my opinon may have been different.
well, penalties are a part of football, aren't they? and i'm sick of people claiming penalty shootouts are a lottery. usualy these are people who are simply not very good at them and just try laying the blame away from themselfes. if it would be a toss of a coin, each team would have a more or less 50:50 statistic. that's clearly not the case (just compare england with germany). obviously there are other factors than just plain luck. it might be easy for me to say, but i really like penalty shootouts, there's nothing more nerve-racking, a very exciting end to a football match.
I loved golden goal, but sometimes the golden goal can be a very very bad one like an own goal. They should go back to 2 periods of golde then penalties because everyone like it that way.
I think shootouts are an ok way to decide a winner. It takes nerves, and also some skill to shoot a good penalty. Only alternative I can imagine is the MLS shootout system with hockey-like penalties. That'd work too.
i like the golden goal too, i think it opens the game up quite a bit. and football can be very cruel, teams which don't deserve to win games do so quite often in normal time. anyway, i think after euro2004 they go back to the old format as it was before the golden goal.
Interesting perspective. I hated the golden goal -- it made teams fearful of going forward cause one lapse at the back ended their chances. Going the full 30 extra time allows for classics like Ita-Ger '70, and Ger -Fra '82. I think this current system is the the most pragmatic. It allows a team to come back in OT, yet seeks to minimize the total amount of minutes played if an advantage is won in the first OT period. We'd all like to see something other than penalties, but the alternatives are no better. In the past they have tried: a) coin tosses -- this takes away any ability for players to decide influence their fate. Penalties are better. b) replays -- this would be the most fair, but is not practical from a scheduling perspective. c) golden goal -- studies showed that this did not lead to greater number of games decided in the OT period. Caused coaches to get over-cautious. Suggesting that players play until there is a winner -- kind of like when you were a kid and played for "last goal wins" in the twilight hours, almost getting run over by passing cars and such -- would result in a sloppy spectacle and almost assuredly doom the winning team to a loss the following game. Removing players, shoot-outs, et al seem gimmicky to me -- ideas that don't preserve the essence of the game. You can come up with thousands of those ideas : freekicks from 30 yards, alternating corner kicks, 100 meter sprint with ball.......etc (I'm obviously being facetious to make a point). IMO Penalties are the only pragmatic, though unsatisfying, choice. A twist: I have heard proposed the idea of shooting the penalties prior to the game, so that the winner in the event of a tie post-OT period would be decided. I don't know if this is better, but it would assure that one team would be forced to make the game in OT. It would also remove some of the intense pressure on the kickers, and allow them to shoot when physically and mentally fresh. I don't know whether or not that's better, but maybe worth considering.
So we'd have to sit through penalties during every elimination match? A huge waste of time, if you ask me. And it might promote one team playing very defensively in overtime, whereas the whole idea of going back to silver goal was to make it more likely that both teams went for it a little bit during the two periods.