ABBA

[Mindhunter]

At first I was amused that we are discussing 70s music in a football forum. Then realised my stupidity and Googled this.

I think this is a good move to even things up a bit. Starting a penalty shootout is similar to having runs on the board in cricket. In a crunch match, chasing a total is always more difficult due to the psychological pressure of having runs on the board.

Even in tennis, it is always difficult for the player who is serving second to hold serve in do or die games where getting broken would mean giving away the set or the match.

 

[Cliche Guevara]

This is bizarre, I had no idea there was even a thing about fairness in penalties. Now loads of people are delighted at this odd change.

In any event, if there was an advantage in going first, isn't that the benefit of winning the coin toss?

 

[frank lee madeer..]

At first I was amused that we are discussing 70s music in a football forum. Then realised my stupidity and Googled this.

I think this is a good move to even things up a bit. Starting a penalty shootout is similar to having runs on the board in cricket. In a crunch match, chasing a total is always more difficult due to the psychological pressure of having runs on the board.

Even in tennis, it is always difficult for the player who is serving second to hold serve in do or die games where getting broken would mean giving away the set or the match.

In the event that the first 9 pens have been scored , you are still left with the team that went 2nd trailing 5-4 & having to score to stay in. Doesn't this still make it advantageous to go first ? Or if they miss, does the team that went first , now have to score a 6 th penalty to win by 2 clear pens , as is the standard in tennis ? You have to win by 2 clear points.

 

[Oscie]

Heaven forbid what'll happen once someone notices the home team wins more than the away side.

A system whereby the away team have 12 players, get a goal start and the game is divided up into 6 periods of 15 minutes, with the crowd rotating after each one to avoid any perceived 'advantage'. Progress! Yay!

 

[SirScholes]

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.

Not really, they could of looked at it and went nah mate looks shit....which it does

 

[SirScholes]

Heaven forbid what'll happen once someone notices the home team wins more than the away side.

A system whereby the away team have 12 players, get a goal start and the game is divided up into 6 periods of 15 minutes, with the crowd rotating after each one to avoid any perceived 'advantage'. Progress! Yay!

This made me chuckle ha

 

[KirkDuyt]

Same as in tennis. Tennis is for smart and fancy people. Surely this is the way forward.

 

[horsechoker]

Same as in tennis. Tennis is for smart and fancy people. Surely this is the way forward.

What's next? Strawberries and cream instead of pies?!?!

 

[Fener1907]

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.

Yes... which is what I've been saying all along. You're asking questions that are waiting to be answered, and you might have noticed I keep using the word 'potentially,' which is to say I also want these questions answered.

 

[stepic]

Seems stranger to me that people are kicking up a fuss for making such a small change.

But this small change helps even things up. How is that a bad thing?

People against this are the types that throw out the old 'it's political correctness gone made' cliche. Now where is that Stewart Lee clip...

 

[VorZakone]

You're hired.

I'm unemployed so good timing that.

 

[Oscie]

Seems stranger to me that people are kicking up a fuss for making such a small change.

But this small change helps even things up. How is that a bad thing?

People against this are the types that throw out the old 'it's political correctness gone made' cliche. Now where is that Stewart Lee clip...

How is a system where two teams do the same thing alternately, uneven?

There's also absolutely no evidence this will 'even' anything up, even assuming you recognise there to be a disparity in the first place.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

When I first saw it used in the UEFA u17 tournament I thought it was an interesting wrinkle. I could not imagine it becoming controversial.

 

[Ainu]

I don't understand those calling it a pointless change. You're only calling it that because you couldn't be bothered looking up the reason behind the change. It's a slight tweak that could make a significant difference and it's also perfectly intuitive and logical. Even if after a couple of years of statistics the conclusion is that it's not fairer than the old system, it wouldn't be a pointless change as without trying it you'd never know.

 

[Oscie]

When I first saw it used in the UEFA u17 tournament I thought it was an interesting wrinkle. I could not imagine it becoming controversial.

It's just weird seeing people welcome a system yet proven fairer, as an improvement on a system that I can recall absolutely nobody complaining about in the terms that the new system has been introduced for.

It feels like everyone's praising an invention that makes your popcorn yellower. I wasn't aware insufficiently yellow popcorn was something that was blighting people's enjoyment of the snack.

Bet if everyone in this thread had a £1 if, prior to this change, they were aware of or saw as an issue the perceived advantage the team taking a penalty 1st had prior to any penalties being taken, they'd have precisely £0. With that backdrop it's bizarre seeing it not only welcomed as a much needed change, but the assumption that it works based on nothing other than being different. It could well lead to a 61/39 success rate and we'd still have poorly yellowed popcorn.

 

[Sigma]

How is a system where two teams do the same thing alternately, uneven?

There's also absolutely no evidence this will 'even' anything up, even assuming you recognise there to be a disparity in the first place.

Because humans aren't robots, they feel emotions, such as pressure. There has been evidence which states that going second is disadvantageous. This is a logical step to make penalty shootouts fairer.

 

[ADJUDICATOR]

What are the reasons behind it?

Apparently, the team that goes first wins 60% of the time. So ABBA creates a situation where the 'advantage' can belong to both teams even when all the pens are scored.

 

[frank lee madeer..]

Seems stranger to me that people are kicking up a fuss for making such a small change.

But this small change helps even things up. How is that a bad thing?

People against this are the types that throw out the old 'it's political correctness gone made' cliche. Now where is that Stewart Lee clip...

I've asked this a million times, do you have to win by 2 clear pens like you do in a tennis tie break ? Cos if you don't , if all pens are scored, the team that takes the first pen gets to 5 before the team that takes the 2nd pen, meaning there is still the added pressure on the 2nd team to score the 5 th pen just to stay in, If this is the case, anybody who thinks the team taking the first pen doesn't have a similar advantage to what they had under the previous rule must be a trump sympathiser, my apologies for the use of the cliche, I was just following your lead.

Ps. When was the last controversial penalty shootout under the old rules ? I can't remember .

 

[Oscie]

Because humans aren't robots, they feel emotions, such as pressure. There has been evidence which states that going second is disadvantageous. This is a logical step to make penalty shootouts fairer.

How do you know that?

This system might well end up leading to an even more one-sided outcome of penalty shootouts. It's fair enough to say that this might improve things, but why are people declaring this a solution?

Again, especially to a problem that I'd be surprised anyone has honestly ever heard anyone raise.

 

[Cheesy]

Heaven forbid what'll happen once someone notices the home team wins more than the away side.

A system whereby the away team have 12 players, get a goal start and the game is divided up into 6 periods of 15 minutes, with the crowd rotating after each one to avoid any perceived 'advantage'. Progress! Yay!

This is inherently ignoring the fact that the unfairness of home advantage is recognised though, by having sides play a home and away game against every side in their league, and by the fact that major finals are almost always held at neutral venues.

 

[Walters_19_MuFc]

Apparently, the team that goes first wins 60% of the time. So ABBA creates a situation where the 'advantage' can belong to both teams even when all the pens are scored.

Oh, right. Thanks.

 

[Oscie]

This is inherently ignoring the fact that the unfairness of home advantage is recognised though, by having sides play a home and away game against every side in their league, and by the fact that major finals are almost always held at neutral venues.

You mean a system where you take it in turns based on the outcome of random chance to do things alternately?

I agree that would NEVER work with penalties.

 

[sullydnl]

This is inherently ignoring the fact that the unfairness of home advantage is recognised though, by having sides play a home and away game against every side in their league, and by the fact that major finals are almost always held at neutral venues.

Indeedy.

 

[Harry190]

Take a chance on me.


That's what it's saying.

 

[Sigma]

How do you know that?

This system might well end up leading to an even more one-sided outcome of penalty shootouts. It's fair enough to say that this might improve things, but why are people declaring this a solution?

Again, especially to a problem that I'd be surprised anyone has honestly ever heard anyone raise.

That's why I said it's a logical step. Once its implemented fully, there should be a study which shows which iteration is better.

 

[Oscie]

That's why I said it's a logical step. Once its implemented fully, there should be a study which shows which iteration is better.

Is it though? For it to be a logical step surely there has to be some evidence that the pressure on a player going second is equal to the pressure of a player/team having to wait twice as long as ordinary to take their own penalty. I don't see how it's possible to quantify that, certainly not to the point where it justifies a major change in the game.

Penalties at alternate ends where each side is either permanently taking spot kicks either in front of their own or opposition supporters, to me would be logical. Not sure you can use the word to describe this change. Especially if the first taker misses and his team finds itself 2-0 down before their second player walks up. Any system where you can miss a penalty and be 2-0 down by the time your second player walks up to take his is one that surely one where there's an argument to be had to see if it's logic and fair.

 

[stepic]

You mean a system where you take it in turns based on the outcome of random chance to do things alternately?

I agree that would NEVER work with penalties.

It's pretty clear. If you get to go first, you have an advantage. Simple. This is an attempt to try and redress that fact.

 

[Oscie]

It's pretty clear. If you get to go first, you have an advantage. Simple. This is an attempt to try and redress that fact.

Only if you score, presumably. If you miss surely going into your next penalty 2-0 down is a bigger psychological disadvantage than going into your first one 1-0 down.

 

[stepic]

I've asked this a million times, do you have to win by 2 clear pens like you do in a tennis tie break ? Cos if you don't , if all pens are scored, the team that takes the first pen gets to 5 before the team that takes the 2nd pen, meaning there is still the added pressure on the 2nd team to score the 5 th pen just to stay in, If this is the case, anybody who thinks the team taking the first pen doesn't have a similar advantage to what they had under the previous rule must be a trump sympathiser, my apologies for the use of the cliche, I was just following your lead.

Ps. When was the last controversial penalty shootout under the old rules ? I can't remember .

No you wouldn't have to be 2 clear.

If everyone scores then yes, the team going second (B) would have the pressure for the 5th kick. But that's the same as it is now (which you somehow prefer), and further, team A will have had similar difficult kicks to get through to get to that point (i.e. When they are 2-1 down, the pressure is on them to keep it even). It balances it out up until that point when the 5th kick goes in. Then again, how often does everyone score?

 

[MThomas]

Seems stranger to me that people are kicking up a fuss for making such a small change.

But this small change helps even things up. How is that a bad thing?

People against this are the types that throw out the old 'it's political correctness gone made' cliche. Now where is that Stewart Lee clip...

How do you know it helps even things up ? How much does things need to be evened out ?

It seems that the majority is just jumping on a statistical number and believes it proves everything, without having much of a clue about any of it. No wonder the world is going to shits when this is the amount of investigating people are willing to do in an effort to understand a statistical number.

 

[stepic]

Only if you score, presumably. If you miss surely going into your next penalty 2-0 down is a bigger psychological disadvantage than going into your first one 1-0 down.

Yes, but you deserve it to be worse because you've missed your first kick. That's the punishment. Going into a kick 1-0 down and having that pressure through no fault of your own isn't as fair.

 

[stepic]

How do you know it helps even things up ? How much does things need to be evened out ?

It seems that the majority is just jumping on a statistical number and believes it proves everything, without having much of a clue about any of it. No wonder the world is going to shits when this is the amount of investigating people are willing to do in an effort to understand a statistical number.

Because any system that means the second team isn't permanently being forced to even things up, is more fair.

What a relatively simple and actually non dramatic change has to do with the world going to shit is behind me. Lol?

 

[MullerUtd]

Would this be implemented at the World Cup next year? God forbid I hope not. This new format is dreadful.

 

[ADJUDICATOR]

Only if you score, presumably. If you miss surely going into your next penalty 2-0 down is a bigger psychological disadvantage than going into your first one 1-0 down.

That's true, but they wouldn't be trying this if first penalty misses were themore regular occurrence.

 

[Oscie]

Yes, but you deserve it to be worse because you've missed your first kick. That's the punishment. Going into a kick 1-0 down and having that pressure through no fault of your own isn't as fair.

Then there's surely more pressure on the first team to score the penalty than the second. As the second team can theoretically miss their first and yet still put the first team under pressure with their second.

If the first team miss their first penalty, the player taking their team's first penalty is under less pressure than perhaps any taker in the entire shootout, knowing that even if he doesn't score his side still has one more shot at putting the second taker of the opposition under pressure by scoring first.The very pressure apparently so unbearable that the system needed to change to address.

Also the premise of there being less pressure on someone coming forward on a big stage to take the first penalty is something I'd question to be honest, too

 

[stepic]

Then there's surely more pressure on the first team to score the penalty than the second. As the second team can theoretically miss their first and yet still put the first team under pressure with their second.

If both teams miss their first kick, and B gets their second, they're 1-0 up, but team A then has 2 more kicks to come. Pressure sure, but not unfair pressure.

 

[Oscie]

So it's only ABBA if A scores, if not it's ABAB?

 

[TheBarnacle]

Is it though? For it to be a logical step surely there has to be some evidence that the pressure on a player going second is equal to the pressure of a player/team having to wait twice as long as ordinary to take their own penalty. I don't see how it's possible to quantify that, certainly not to the point where it justifies a major change in the game.

Penalties at alternate ends where each side is either permanently taking spot kicks either in front of their own or opposition supporters, to me would be logical. Not sure you can use the word to describe this change. Especially if the first taker misses and his team finds itself 2-0 down before their second player walks up. Any system where you can miss a penalty and be 2-0 down by the time your second player walks up to take his is one that surely one where there's an argument to be had to see if it's logic and fair.

Well, to get that kind of evidence, you would need some data. And how can you obtain that data without implementing the changes in some games? There is probably a reason that the changes are only being implemented in lesser tournaments, don't you think? If you can never make alterations because you dont have any data on the effects of the changes, no alterations could be made at all. They have recognised that the penalty shootout today gives an unfair advantage, and because of that, they are testing out alternative methods to make it more fair. That seems like a logical step to me.

 

[frank lee madeer..]

No you wouldn't have to be 2 clear.

If everyone scores then yes, the team going second (B) would have the pressure for the 5th kick. But that's the same as it is now (which you somehow prefer), and further, team A will have had similar difficult kicks to get through to get to that point (i.e. When they are 2-1 down, the pressure is on them to keep it even). It balances it out up until that point when the 5th kick goes in. Then again, how often does everyone score?

I don't prefer it, I just don't think this new system eliminates the advantage of winning the toss and going first. I assume there is still going to be coin toss to determine who goes first, and I'd assume that most people / players would figure out that it is still beneficial to go first and have the opportunity to get the task completed before your opponent.

Under the new ruling, under what circumstances would you win the toss & decide t to go 2nd ?

I'm not against it, I'm just not convinced this is more fair, and I don't remember too many cries of foulplay whilst the old system was in use, that would make a change necessary. It's being pushed as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist & in my eyes , it doesn't solve. There is still an advantage to going first.

 

[ADJUDICATOR]

So it's only ABBA if A scores, if not it's ABAB?

A BB AA BB AA .. and so on.