ABBA

[Akshay]

I'm slightly confused at the logic here. One of the key points about the statistics is the factor of added pressure due to constantly being behind the team taking the first pens. Yet you're unwilling to accept the factor of difference in pressure related to meaningless friendlies vs big tournaments.

The point is, let's assume you're right and the study did include meaningless games (which we don't actually know) and that the team that shoots second is under more pressure in a big tournament compared to meaningless game. In that case, the true value of the advantage of going first is even larger than that postulated by the study. So all you're suggesting is that the advantage is more than 60%.

 

[Razvan]

I'm surprised that so many just reads something and accepts it as valid.

Sure, let's disregard actual research and base our decision on what we feel is correct.

 

[frank lee madeer..]

This is the tennis system!!!

Feck me, aren't you the bright spark.

 

[Brwned]

Hahaha what is this?
It's totally stupid and unnecessary, I doubt the player who goes second will fee any less pressure at all, which I assume is the idea, in fact only 2nd player B will see any advantage from what I see.

Jog on uefa, stop tying to appear relevant and try and stop corruption instead

This isn't UEFA, it's an independent organisation from the IFAB supported by statistical analysis from an indepedent investigation, as per this article...

It's more than that. There was research done that revealed a significant advantage for the team going first, meaning it's more than a case of merely 'freshening up something'. Lots of opinions here, however, are based on emotions and nothing more. For the lazy:

The idea is to stop the team going second having to always, potentially, play catch-up. The sport's rule-making body, IFAB, approved the trial after looking at the research that says the team taking the first penalty have an unfair advantage as they win 60% of shootouts.

Full article.

 

[Kazi]

Sure, let's disregard actual research and base our decision on what we feel is correct.

Now you're talking

 

[Oscie]

The rule I'd change on penalties is banning TV companies from showing the 'head on' camera angle when one's being taken. It's the worst angle possible and semi-disorientating. Fine if you're playing a computer game but not watching a shoot out on the TV. Know it didn't happen today but surely TV executives have realised that angle is fecking horrendous.

 

[Sad Chris]

You can't just dismiss the objective evidence because you don't like it though. That's the kind of thinking that leads to organisations going backwards and corruption festering in the darkness. You either decide to take on board all evidence and make decisions based on that, or you dismiss all evidence and decisions based on what you think is right. You can't pick and choose.

The evidence only tells us that the team shooting first won roughly 60% of the time with the old system.

Take away all physical factors like player and keeper skills and all external factors like which supporters are behind the goal and the only possible cause can be psychological.

I'm not a fan of this new system, because I think the psychological pressure has just been shifted. We'll need to evaluate the new evidence once we have a decent amount of numbers. But I'm convinced that the player who needed to shoot after Courtois was under massive psychological stress.

I'll wait for data but I'm very sceptical.

If you want something fair, let every player in the league take 100 penalties at an open goal and based upon the power and accuracy of his shots, he gets rated up to 100% scoring probability. If it does come to a penalty shoot out, just calculate who wins. Fair isn't always the ideal solution.

 

[MThomas]

The point is, let's assume you're right and the study did include meaningless games (which we don't actually know) and that the team that shoots second is under more pressure in a big tournament compared to meaningless game. In that case, the true value of the advantage of going first is even larger than that postulated by the study. So all you're suggesting is that the advantage is more than 60%.

Actually, we do know it involves meaningless games. http://www.palacios-huerta.com/docs/professionals.pdf

I'm not suggesting anything else than the reported data being misleading.

 

[Akshay]

Actually, we do know it involves meaningless games. http://www.palacios-huerta.com/docs/professionals.pdf

That study isn't about penalty shootouts or which team shoots first? It's about independent penalty kicks taken during a game.

 

[MThomas]

That study isn't about penalty shootouts or which team shoots first? It's about independent penalty kicks taken during a game.

weihfowiehf

I'll have to find the right link later. Had it on my phone

 

[SirScholes]

Statistics say otherwise, 60-40 in favour of the team that goes first.. is a pretty big difference.

I don't think this addresses the balance, I think it's just UEFA trying to be heard.
It's not that great either to be fair

 

[Sad Chris]

For the nth time, this is not a pointless change! It's been researched and proven that going first in the tradition format gave you an advantage. This evens that out, and makes the shootout more fair, which is a good thing. Why in the world would someone be against this...

It hasn't been proven that this change evens it out. I am not necessarily against it, but I'll wait for the evidence that it is more fair than the old format before I am all for it.

 

[stevoc]

We could be sceptical about the motivations behind this rule change after all the modern game is all about money, money, money. But when all is said and done this could have a positive effect. Its still five penalties each so score more and the winner takes it all.

Voulez-Vous

 

[SirScholes]

This isn't UEFA, it's an independent organisation from the IFAB supported by statistical analysis from an indepedent investigation, as per this article...

It's UEFA who are implementing the rule toolington, IFAB just suggest it

 

[Oscie]

If the new system reveals that it favours the team who goes first or second by a significant percentage shall the rules continue to change until data reveals that there is a 50/50 chance of either team winning regardless of if they go first or second or what blindfold they were and regardless as to which item of clothing they remove first?

 

[frank lee madeer..]

I'd say the chances of winning a point against the serve are higher than the chances of saving a pen. Also in tennis , you have to win a tie break by 2 clear points. If you went 2 serves each , the person serving first could win just by both players holding their own serve , ie , no mistakes by either player, Penalties , you only have to score 1 more .
I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not convinced the situations are similar enough to merit using the same system.

 

[Fener1907]

It hasn't been proven that this change evens it out. I am not necessarily against it, but I'll wait for the evidence that it is more fair than the old format before I am all for it.

This is a sensible approach. Nobody's really asking for fans to outright embrace the new system, but it's ridiculous for people to be writing it off after it's been used in just one big game.

 

[Razvan]

If the new system reveals that it favours the team who goes first or second by a significant percentage shall the rules continue to change until data reveals that there is a 50/50 chance of either team winning regardless of if they go first or second

Yes. Why not?

 

[Oscie]

This is a sensible approach. Nobody's really asking for fans to outright embrace the new system, but it's ridiculous for people to be writing it off after it's been used in just one big game.

It's not the system I object to as much as the need to change. If there is an advantage to going first then great, but it's decided on a coin toss. There's probably an advantage to winning the coin toss in an afternoon kick-off and timing it so you spend less time playing into the sun than the opposition. For me that wouldn't justify changing the rules of the game.

 

[Brwned]

It's UEFA who are implementing the rule toolington, IFAB just suggest it

Yes, it was the IFAB that conducted the analysis, drafted the rule and made the proposal. What UEFA have done is accept that proposal, they haven't invented with some new idea to seem relevant. They've done exactly what they're tasked with doing in this scenario - evaluating the information and making a decision based on that. Criticising them for that is entirely misplaced.

 

[Fener1907]

It's not the system I object to as much as the need to change. If there is an advantage to going first then great, but it's decided on a coin toss. There's probably an advantage to winning the coin toss in an afternoon kick-off and timing it so you spend less time playing into the sun than the opposition. For me that wouldn't justify changing the rules of the game.

Right, and that's something which can be improved on. Bringing unrealistic examples about further "improving" the game doesn't detract from this being a potential step forward.

 

[Oscie]

Right, and that's something which can be improved on. Bringing unrealistic examples about further "improving" the game doesn't detract from this being a potential step forward.

Who decides who goes first in a penalty shoot out and who decides who kicks off first is decided by a coin toss. If there's statistics that prove going first in a shoot out or kicking off first, advantages the team that does why are changes to how penalties work fine but not for the other thing?

You could break every game where the sun is a factor into 3 periods of fifteen minutes. I wouldn't but why would the argument against it not be Ludditist standing in the way of progress.

Change and progress are two different things.

 

[frank lee madeer..]

Right, and that's something which can be improved on. Bringing unrealistic examples about further "improving" the game doesn't detract from this being a potential step forward.

How do they decide who goes first under Abba ? and how do they decide which end to take the pens at ?

 

[Fener1907]

Who decides who goes first in a penalty shoot out and who decides who kicks off first is decided by a coin toss. If there's statistics that prove going first in a shoot out or kicking off first, advantages the team that does why are changes to how penalties work fine but not for the other thing?

You could break every game where the sun is a factor into 3 periods of fifteen minutes. I wouldn't but why would the argument against it not be Ludditist standing in the way of progress.

Change and progress are two different things.

Where's the evidence showing that this it does provide an advantage? If that's available, the discussion suddenly becomes more substantial and questions can be asked of that. Even then, it still doesn't detract from this being a potential step forward for how penalties work.

How do they decide who goes first under Abba ? and how do they decide which end to take the pens at ?

Wouldn't it still be a coin toss i.e. the random advantage they're trying to eliminate?

 

[frank lee madeer..]

Where's the evidence showing that this it does provide an advantage? If that's available, the discussion suddenly becomes more substantial and questions can be asked of that. Even then, it still doesn't detract from this being a potential step forward for how penalties work.



Wouldn't it still be a coin toss i.e. the random advantage they're trying to eliminate?

Exactly my thoughts.

 

[Fener1907]

Exactly my thoughts.

Elaborate, please. Your thoughts are ambiguous.

 

[VorZakone]

It'd be better if both teams take simultaneous pens, one team on the one half and the other team on the other half of the pitch. And then split the screen so we see both pens. If that ain't fair...

 

[Moby]

It'd be better if both teams take simultaneous pens, one team on the one half and the other team on the other half of the pitch. And then split the screen so we see both pens. If that ain't fair...

You're hired.

 

[frank lee madeer..]

Elaborate, please. Your thoughts are ambiguous.

The reason I asked the question..... , how do you decide who goes first under abba, and how do you decide which end to take the pens ? It was a prompt, you replied by answering it, ie they'd still have to use a cointoss, hence, my reply of , my thoughts exactly.

 

[Oscie]

If you lose the toss at the start of a game you don't get to decide who kicks off first. If that means you're less likely to win the game then so be it. It's one of those things. With that and penalties I don't see what the logic is to insist the rules of the game have to change to implement a system whereby there's a 50/50 statistical outcome of probability of winning either.

Certain home teams like to play towards a certain end during the second half. Liverpool with the Kopp, us with the Stretford End. If someone released statistics showing that teams that got to play towards their preferred end in the second half were more likely to win that wouldn't justify changing the rules to even out that advantage either.

 

[No11]

why the feck do they have to mess about................. leave the penalty shoot outs as they have always been.

feck ABBA.

 

[vanrooney]

If you lose the toss at the start of a game you don't get to decide who kicks off first. If that means you're less likely to win the game then so be it. It's one of those things. With that and penalties I don't see what the logic is to insist the rules of the game have to change to implement a system whereby there's a 50/50 statistical outcome of probability of winning either.

Certain home teams like to play towards a certain end during the second half. Liverpool with the Kopp, us with the Stretford End. If someone released statisticss showing that teams that got to play towards their preferred end in the second half were more likely to win that wouldn't justify changing the rules to even out that advantage either.

O come on. You are against everything new. Who says that the way pens were played out was the right one. Abba is fair and so why don't change the system? Because some guys can't live with the change? You would have been against penicillin

 

[JustFootballFan]

What are the reasons behind it?

A FIFA committee needed a reason to exist, pay themselves and have a free vacation in a nice place.

 

[Fener1907]

The reason I asked the question..... , how do you decide who goes first under abba, and how do you decide which end to take the pens ? It was a prompt, you replied by answering it, ie they'd still have to use a cointoss, hence, my reply of , my thoughts exactly.

Right, and this system potentially makes the coin toss redundant. That's the entire point.

 

[Oscie]

O come on. You are against everything new. Who says that the way pens were played out was the right one. Abba is fair and so why don't change the system? Because some guys can't live with the change? You would have been against penicillin

You'd have bought a Sinclair.

We've seen the system once. On what basis are you declaring it 'fairer'?

 

[Fener1907]

You'd have bought a Sinclair.

We've seen the system once. On what basis are you declaring it 'fairer'?

Yet again, 'trial period'. Try and have a bit of patience.

 

[frank lee madeer..]

Right, and this system potentially makes the coin toss redundant. That's the entire point.

Is it ? So this is now deemed fairer system ? So , if you was involved in a penalty shootout under abba rules, you would have no preference of wether you went first or second? You think there is now no advantage, or added pressure on either ?

Be great if it turns out that way , we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Oscie]

A system whereby we don't know what the win statistics are for teams that go first (or second) yet by the data at hand, is likely to be more fair than the system that already existed simply by virtue of the fact it's been introduced?

 

[PeteManic]

From someone with a source on the inside (i.e. UEFA), they thought that whoever went first in the shootout had too much of an advantage. Allegedly they did research and produced a report on it.

Have there been any seriously positive changes made to football in the last 25 years apart from the back pass rule? Maybe straight red for a tackle from behind?

 

[spwd]

Absolute shite. Meddling for the sake of meddling.

Not heard that one.

Anyway I think it's a good idea I do, i do, i do, I do, I do.