The fairness question between the system has nothing to do with whether they get to take a kick -- that is only a question of whether it would be futile. And neither system can create greater futility issues. (What Evan pointed out was not a difference in fairness, but a trivia question.) the fairness question is based on the assumption there is a different pressure being first or second in a pair of kicks and more evenly distributing that pressure.
So I watched the highlight clip at the link sulfur posted and my first thought was: "Hmm, she's using a Fox Sonic Blast on a girl's U17 match. Seems like overkill." There is something wrong with me...
You're correct that I was not trying to say one system is better than the other. Pierre Head understood what I meant.
Yea I misunderstood you somewhat, sorry about that. And PH might have understood you but he did go on about fairness issues. btw, I think you are wrong. Technically you can have a team score 4 straight unanswered PKs, you just have to go into round 6 to get there. R1 - A scores, B misses R2 - A scores, B misses R3 - A scores, B scores R4 - A misses. B scores R5 - A misses, B scores 3-3 and a tie so; R6 - A misses, B scores 3-4 with 4 straight makes right?
You're right. I wasn't thinking about the possibility of the first two or more makes being scored by the losing team.
Yea I didn't think of it until I was writing my reply and looking back to see where/why I misunderstood you. One of those "wait a minute" moments.
I would like to know the order before kicks are started. You could do something like the NFL overtime where both teams get to choose something. The team that wins the coin toss will probably choose to receive the kickoff rather than choosing which way they want to go, and the team that loses the coin toss gets to decide which way they want to go. With penalty kicks, the team that wins the coins toss could get to choose one of four things: 1. Kicks will be ABAB and the other team gets to decide who is A and who is B 2. Kicks will be ABBA and the other team gets to decide who is A and who is B 3. We will kick first for the first attempt for each team and the other team gets to decide ABAB or ABBA 4. We will kick second for the first attempt for each team and the other team gets to decide ABAB or ABBA I admit that would be complicated.
I like this idea a lot, however, it would not work well in most of the games I do - we have trouble getting an answer to "do you want to kick first or second" I can't imagine the head explosions when faced with 4 choices
It is actually only 2 choices, as usual with a coin toss. Winner chooses either the method or the order. Loser chooses from whatever the winner does not select. PH
OK - it is one choice from 4 options my point is in the youth game having to decide 1 thing from 2 options is difficult, adding 2 options and trying to explain ABAB versus ABBA could cause impressionable young brains to overload assuming every referee has it down to start with (a poor assumption based on my experience in the levels I referee). And again I like the suggestion having each team be able to choose something when at the KFTPM stage.
No, it's two choices, each from two options: Choice #1: Do you want to pick the method or the order? If they pick method: Choice #2: ABAB or ABBA? Then, to the other team: Kick first or second in the first round? The they pick order? Choice #2: Kick first or second in the first round? Then, to the other team: ABAB or ABBA? (just been helping my daughter study for the GRE, so I'm in a particular mindset)
If team A wins the toss they have one choice. They choose from 4 options although actually only 2 categories (team kicking first - order of subsequent kicks) but they are considering 4 options. 1)kick first 2)kick second 3)ABAB 4)ABBA Team B then has one choice from the remaining 2 options in the one remaining category. There are 2 choices, but the winner of the toss only gets one, the losers gets the other.
We can tinker till the cows come home, but KFTM will never be a truly fair way to decide who wins a game . . . .
Which is why arguably a 60/40 split shouldn't have been enough to change the system in the first place. Oh well. Based on some of the proposed changes we have been reading about I think the next couple years are going to be a fun roller coaster.
Fairness and practicality collide. The truly fair soccer results are either a replay or extended time. KFTM are a gimmick -- at least they are better than a coin flip. I'd like to see an experiment with a different version of golden goal. The problem with golden goal was that teams played not to lose rather than to win -- knowing that KFTM were pretty much a coin flip in disguise. So I'd like to see going back to golden goal without KFTM a the end. Open up the field by having each team remove two players at the start of extra time. Ten minute periods, flip ends and remove a player every ten minutes. I think it would be rare that extra time lasted the current 30 minutes. Games would end with a goal. Alternatively, after the first 20 minutes, the GK becomes a field player, unable to use his hands. Or, the old ASL created shoot out was better than KFTM -- I think its flaw in FIFA;';s eyes is that it was created by Americans.
+1 with @socal lurker I was going to write that there is an irony in us (and FIFA and the IFAB) trying to tinker with the KFTM format to get the odds as close to a coin flip as possible. It sort of shows that we accept it's just a game of chance, separated from the game of skill that had been played prior. Replay is ideal from a purist perspective, but never going to happen for logistical reasons (and even though I'm close to a purist, even I'd concede it probably shouldn't happen even if it could). I'm all for the "remove a player" principle. We already have matches that finish with fewer than 11 players, so it's not a gimmick, per se, and involves situations that teams already train for. I'd personally say you remove 1 player at full time and then an additional player every 10 minute period (so if no one gets sent off, you're playing 8 v 8 during the 110'-120' range should you get there, which would be the current end of extra time). You might have the rare game make it past 120' to the 7 v 7 format, but I doubt it would be commonplace. You can tinker with the rules (there would be arguments both for allowing and not allowing substitutions) and I'd personally not make such a format golden goal, because an 8 v 8 battle to force an additional extra time would be awesome to watch, but I don't think anything has to be a deal-breaker. But the framework of removing a player each per set period of time makes the most sense to me because it's still soccer and it probably shortens, rather than prolongs, games.
If you were a coach, would you want to spend practice time all season teaching players about 9 v 9, 8 v 8, etc. that could only happen months later in possible playoffs? You could have situations where Team Y scored because Defender 1 on Team X forgot that Defender 2 on Team X had been removed.
Somewhat true for lower levels although having spent my time there it would make practice different and fun and many already practice small sided anyway. In all honesty how many practice KFTPM or PK's at all until playoff time? At professional levels I would think they are extremely capable of handling playing short, especially since they will be equally short (if they end regulation 11v11 that is). As an experiment it seems very easy to try and see how it works.
Did they "go back" or is the tournament just not part of the trials? I genuinely don't know the answer to that, but the distinction is important.
I just know they used the ABAB format. I'm assuming ABBA will be used in the Confederations, if needed (?)