Alternatives to penalty shootouts in World Cups

[Mockney]

I joke, but away goals is very exciting, if in unto itself unfair. Attack vs Defence. Risk vs reward. Do or die.

Exactly. Which is precisely what penalties are.

I completely understand why people don't like them. But there's nothing like the atmosphere at a game when penalties are deciding something important. It's the purest distillation of the footballing experience.

 

[Cloudface]

60% of the time, the team that goes first wins.

Really? I assume that's attributed to the psychological effects of being behind.

If this is accurate (it seems too round a number to me) then I'd say you could easily fix it by implementing the same order of play as a tie break at the end of a set of tennis. Where one team goes first and then the teams take penalties in twos.

 

[DanBorja]

Keep it the way it is... it isn't a coin toss, a well taken penalty even if the goalie guesses it's direction has at least an 80+% chance of going in.

 

[Reddevilboy]

Why not change them to shots from in your own half without a goalkeeper?

Kind of similar to the rugby penalty

 

[Speak]

It's been around for a while and some studies have been written on it. You have a penalty shootout at the end of 90 minutes, possibly a shortened version, and the team that wins gets "away goal" advantage for extra time. I.e. if its a draw, they will go through.

This works because it is no different to what we currently have, but swapped. If its a draw in extra time and Germany win on penalties, they are through, or if Germany win on penalties and they draw they are through.

I like this.

Like you say, it's not too different to what we have now as a draw and penalty win gets you thorough either way.
But it at least means that the penalties themselves haven't been the final decider. They've been used to create a degree of advantage, and both teams have still been given the chance to react to the advantage/disadvantage.

I don't really mind penalty shoot-outs in their current form though.

 

[rcoobc]

Really? I assume that's attributed to the psychological effects of being behind.

If this is accurate (it seems too round a number to me) then I'd say you could easily fix it by implementing the same order of play as a tie break at the end of a set of tennis. Where one team goes first and then the teams take penalties in twos.

Yeah, exactly. Someone has mentioned that the last 5 or 6 or 7 World Cup penalty shootouts have bee won by the team that goes first. I've posted a page from that moneyball football book on the page 2, but this is what the FT has to say:

Some insights into penalties are specific to the shootout. Most importantly, says Palacios-Huerta, the team that wins the toss before a shootout should always choose to shoot first. Historically, the team going first wins 61 per cent of shootouts, says Ben Lyttleton, author of Twelve Yards, a new book on penalties. That is probably because the team shooting second constantly faces the negative pressure of having to score just to stay in the game. Palacios-Huerta points to the crucial fifth penalties in the Brazil-Chile game: first Neymar for Brazil, then Gonzalo Jara for Chile. “Neymar had less pressure than Jara. Jara is do or die. Neymar is do, or well, we’ll see.” Neymar scored, Jara missed off the post. In the tournament’s two shootouts so far, Brazil and Costa Rica shot first and won.

Lyttleton sees another psychological factor in shootouts: cheering. “Statistics show that if a player converts his penalty when scores are level, and he celebrates with one or two hands raised over shoulder-height, his team is 82 per cent more likely than if he does not celebrate to go on and win. [Brazil’s] David Luiz and Marcelo both celebrated enthusiastically after their penalties.” That probably heartened their teammates. By contrast, Kostas Mitroglou netted Greece’s first penalty but then walked back to the centre-circle head down, unsmiling.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c08e6f62-0134-11e4-9750-00144feab7de.html#axzz36PRszaAR

And yeah, I suggested that tennis style tie-breaker too.

The only thing with that, is that having the keeper have to save two penalties in a row would seem a bit weird. But fair. Fairer.

 

[Sarni]

Fairness isn't the issue. The issue is that deciding the outcome of a tied match on something like penalties is an unsatisfactory end to proceedings. Dramatic, yes, but penalties are crude at best and encourage teams to play for nil-nil against better teams. At least this way you're tying it to something that happens in the game itself. Its every bit as reasonable as an away goal. (Granted I don't particularly like the away goals rule...)

It's certainly more fair than deciding that one team deserves to go through on the simple basis of scoring first even though they've scored the exact same amount of goals in the game. Penalties are absolutely fine, if you think you're the better side then you have 120 minutes to prove it plus you should be able to execute penalties better - sometimes it doesn't work out but it's usually your fault for missing penalties.

 

[thelemon]

Penalties is the best way to do things imo.

 

[rcoobc]

"In the event of a tie, the last goal wins" would be amazing. Really amazing. In fact that would be awesome. And amazing. None of this first goal nonsense.

Win 1-0 for 89 minutes and then go out with an added time goal. Well you should have scored 2.

 

[doodle]

I read that the last 9 world cup penalty shootouts have been won by the team that went first

 

[Momochiru]

They aren't subjected to be public humiliation of penalty shoot outs.

Possibility of public humiliation is the main reason people watch sports according to Ann Coulter...

Penalties are great. The suspense in a penalty shoot out is unparalleled in professional sport IMO. I've never felt how I did during the shootout at the CL final in Moscow. Just shaking with emotion. I don't think any other part of football, or any other sport, can really come close to that. It's simultaneously brilliant and horrible.
...
Penalties are wonderfully brutal.

This! There is so much suspense and drama in a penalty shootout it's pretty much unrivaled by any other sport. Subconsciously the reason why people watch sports is the suspense. Appreciation of skill, tactics, physicality, etc. is secondary.

A penalty shootout is one of my favorite aspects of the game. I don't think it is a bad way of deciding a tie and it is certainly not luck! Every pro player should be able to hit the target from 11 yards, so it is all about mental strength - I think it is a fantastic part of the game.

It's the same for my wife - she doesn't have the interest to watch a full game, but if she hears there are penalties she runs from the other end of the house, so she doesn't miss them. I imagine it similar for many people who watch football only during WC/EC - wonderful excitement and entertainment. Why would you want to remove this aspect of the game?

60% of the time, the team that goes first wins.

So what? It's because there is more pressure if you go second (assuming the first one scored). It's all about mental strength - it's not like the team that goes first gets an extra try or something. This is part of the game, the same with home advantage. Brazil is not the best team in this WC, but they are the favorite to win it because of home advantage. Is it fair? No. Would I propose to play the WC at a neutral ground in order to be fair? No way!

If this is accurate (it seems too round a number to me) then I'd say you could easily fix it by implementing the same order of play as a tie break at the end of a set of tennis. Where one team goes first and then the teams take penalties in twos.

This is the only reasonable idea in the whole thread.

 

[rcoobc]

I read that the last 9 world cup penalty shootouts have been won by the team that went first

If that's true they need to change it asap

Possibility of public humiliation is the main reason people watch sports according to Ann Coulter...


This! There is so much suspense and drama in a penalty shootout it's pretty much unrivaled by any other sport. Subconsciously the reason why people watch sports is the suspense. Appreciation of skill, tactics, physicality, etc. is secondary.


It's the same for my wife - she doesn't have the interest to watch a full game, but if she hears there are penalties she runs from the other end of the house, so she doesn't miss them. I imagine it similar for many people who watch football only during WC/EC - wonderful excitement and entertainment. Why would you want to remove this aspect of the game?


So what? It's because there is more pressure if you go second (assuming the first one scored). It's all about mental strength - it's not like the team that goes first gets an extra try or something. This is part of the game, the same with home advantage. Brazil is not the best team in this WC, but they are the favorite to win it because of home advantage. Is it fair? No. Would I propose to play the WC at a neutral ground in order to be fair? No way!


This is the only reasonable idea in the whole thread.

I'd already suggested that. To be fair, this thread is dedicated to alternatives to penalty shootouts

 

[spontaneus1]

Multiball extra time after 120 minutes: subtract a player and add a ball every five minutes. First goal wins.

That would be the best thing ever for fans, horrible for the players though. Imagine having to keep an eye on 4 balls at the same time.

 

[Crackers]

Multiball extra time after 120 minutes: subtract a player and add a ball every five minutes. First goal wins.

That'd be fantastic to watch.

 

[justboy68]

They should at least make the penalties serpentine to get around the problem of going first being a clear advantage. It seems to be an even bigger issue in the world cup (maybe due to added pressure), the team that goes first practically always seems to win.

 

[saivet]

A 100m race between the respective managers. If the manager has been sent to the stands, the assistant manager must take his place.

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

It's the same for my wife - she doesn't have the interest to watch a full game, but if she hears there are penalties she runs from the other end of the house, so she doesn't miss them. I imagine it similar for many people who watch football only during WC/EC - wonderful excitement and entertainment. Why would you want to remove this aspect of the game?

Same. My missus will watch penalties, despite not really liking football at all. If I hear that a non-descript FA Cup 4th round tie that I have no interest in has been settled by a penalty shootout, I will usually go out of my way to watch the highlights, where as if it was any other result, I probably wouldn't. A lot of people are blindly drawn to shootouts. Fantastic to watch as a neutral, and horrible to watch as a supporter.

 

[ThaReaper01]

Play until somebody wins FFS. Hate shootouts in hockey as well. Useless. Nobody wants to see a match decided on chance.

 

[antohan]

"A penatly shootout is comparable to a pubic flogging in the market square".

Terrible idea BTW.

 

[MarylandMUFan]

Make the defenders play in their socks in extra time (no boots)?

 

[antohan]

Keep penalties, because they're ace, but play the extra time periods with no offside rule. Defenders can't really push up, and all of a sudden, the pitch becomes huge. Loads of goals. Extra time will probably finish 20-20, and will still go to penalties anyway.

Nah, you can't settle a game of football by playing with different rules to the ones football is played in. It doesn't settle which is the better team, just which one is better placed to take advantage of that. Certain styles/tactics would be favoured by that momentary rule change, which is unfair on the other side setup with 11 men picked to play a different ballgame.

For sure. I think penalties are fine. Only change I'd make is to have an additional sub in extra time.

There's definitely a case for that. I would worry about depth though. For some countries it's already hard enough to find 11 starters that can compete, let alone replacements. Same for a club punching above their weight in a cup.

I suppose at the WC, where weather differences are relevant, it could be an option. By the time you get to the knockout stages most sides should have squads good enough to do it. I would never do it in domestic cups though, it would be a major disadvantage IMO.

 

[Jammydodger7]

I don't agree with this, I think penalties is a fair enough way to decide a game. Albeit a slightly harsh way to lose however there's a reason why Germany are great at penalties and England aren't. They practice! I heard one of the commentators spout utter nonsense during the Greece/Costa Rica game when he was told that Costa Rica had been practising penalties, he said something along the lines of "But they didn't practise them in front of 60,000 people after 120 minutes" as if to say well why bother practising because its totally different! I've heard this a few times in the British media "You can't replicate the scenario in training". Whilst this is true, you certainly can give yourself a better chance of scoring. Look at Costa Rica, not the greatest set of players ever but they practised and low and behold, they scored all 5!

 

[zain]

How about a shootout where instead of penalties, you're 1 on 1 with the keeper?

The old way the MLS used to do it. The ONE thing that I thought the Americans got right about football!


Want people's views on this..

 

[rcoobc]

I don't agree with this, I think penalties is a fair enough way to decide a game. Albeit a slightly harsh way to lose however there's a reason why Germany are great at penalties and England aren't. They practice! I heard one of the commentators spout utter nonsense during the Greece/Costa Rica game when he was told that Costa Rica had been practising penalties, he said something along the lines of "But they didn't practise them in front of 60,000 people after 120 minutes" as if to say well why bother practising because its totally different! I've heard this a few times in the British media "You can't replicate the scenario in training". Whilst this is true, you certainly can give yourself a better chance of scoring. Look at Costa Rica, not the greatest set of players ever but they practised and low and behold, they scored all 5!

According to that football moneyball book, once a nation has lost a penalty shootout their kick conversion rate is lower than those who have never taken one before; 66% vs 75% (on average).

 

[Rista]

So penalties are unfair and yet a team effectively being awarded a 1:0 lead from the start for scoring more goals in group stages isn't? Okay...

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with penalties in my opinion. They're mostly down to skill and mental strength, not luck. Football matches are very often "unfair" after 90 minutes. I don't see why should penalities be any different.

 

[rcoobc]

So penalties are unfair and yet a team effectively being awarded a 0.5:0 lead from the start for scoring more goals in group stages isn't? Okay...

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with penalties in my opinion. They're mostly down to skill and mental strength, not luck. Football matches are very often "unfair" after 90 minutes. I don't see why should penalities be any different.

At least I don't think anyone has argued for a 1 goal lead. 0.5 goals, or away goal advantage.

 

[Piratesoup]

Starting from the end of the regular game, one player from each team has to leave the field every 5 minutes. After 20 minutes tops, the goals will start coming.

 

[Plugsy]

Starting from the end of the regular game, one player from each team has to leave the field every 5 minutes. After 20 minutes tops, the goals will start coming.

It'll be a fecking awful spectacle. The game will reduce to a crawl as already exhausted players have to work increasingly harder to move the ball around the pitch as their numbers dwindle.

You're exchanging one of those most exciting and dramatic endings in sport with something that'll resemble a bit of a wet fart.

 

[Sid84]

penalties are great. They are fair. Just cos England are crap at it, it doesn't make them unfair.

 

[Zii]

It's not all luck. But there is a high element of luck. Take for example that one that greece missed the other night. It was a solid penalty kick that would have gone in 9 times out of 10.

Makes zero sense what you just said.

 

[rcoobc]

penalties are great. They are fair. Just cos England are crap at it, it doesn't make them unfair.

The team that goes first wins 61% of the time and the last 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 (can't remember) penalty shootouts have been won by the team that went first at the world cup

 

[Sid84]

The team that goes first wins 61% of the time and the last 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 (can't remember) penalty shootouts have been won by the team that went first at the world cup

do something (rather than coin toss) to determine who takes first pen and which end it is taken from

 

[Rista]

At least I don't think anyone has argued for a 1 goal lead. 0.5 goals, or away goal advantage.

True. It's still the most unfair idea suggested so far.

 

[Piratesoup]

It'll be a fecking awful spectacle. The game will reduce to a crawl as already exhausted players have to work increasingly harder to move the ball around the pitch as their numbers dwindle.

You're exchanging one of those most exciting and dramatic endings in sport with something that'll resemble a bit of a wet fart.

Well, the fitter and smarter team will probably prevail, a lot of tactic could go into the decision which players to leave on the longest and the increased space will allow for some dramatic late game action and counters. I'd rather have this than penalties, which is rarely more than a glorified toin coss. If it's down to 6 players, you can still have a shoot out.

 

[D.D.]

Best alternative imo would be a hockey style shootout.

 

[iKnowNothing]

I think penalties are great but one thing that I would tweak would be to make all the 11 players take the penalty - If a team is a man down, then the other gets to choose one person to not take a pen but everyone else must - including the goalkeeper.

 

[zain]

Best alternative imo would be a hockey style shootout.

Precisely what I posted above.. the old MLS way..

 

[The Farmer]

I think penalties are fine. They are just as much a display off skill and composure as regular time.
Counting goals scored in groupstages is the most unfair idea ever... what if a country plays a bunch of shit NT's? They are bound to score more.

 

[lalloyd]

I really do think they're a fair way of deciding a match. Players have been tested in the standard way over 90 mins, then their mental and physical stamina is really scrutinised over the ET, and if there's still nothing between them it's a test of mental strength. Every player on the pitch can score a penalty quite comfortably, just depends if they've got the balls to win.

 

[Snowjoe]

Not a fan of using prior games to hand an advantage in a knockout match then the two teams haven't faced the same opposition. The away goal rule over two legs isn't too bad because at least its an advantage based on them playing each other. In a single game knockout it should be whoever is the best team on the day.

I don't like the hockey style shoot out either, the instant impact of a penalty kick is much more exciting.