With fiery multi-balls?
Alternatives to penalty shootouts in World Cups
- Thread starter Twentythreeeleven
- Start date
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.
For sure. I think penalties are fine. Only change I'd make is to have an additional sub in extra time.
How about PKs where instead of the players, they are taken by the manager and backroom staff and if it goes to sudden death, fans for each team step up!
Notice how it's only goals scored that count. Teams should just agree that for the first 5 minutes of a game they let each other score goals until it's 7-7 afterwards they play a normal game.
They won on penalties in 82,84?, 90, 96 and 2006. Point is though for one reason or another they don't lose. I might be wrong, but no German; West German and or German has missed in a shootout since 82.
I also have a silly idea, as a lover of penalties, every match at conclusion should end by penalties. Every one who completes the game should take a penalty and the penalty score added to the score at 90 to decide a winner
The thing is, although I am a fan of the penalties before extra time route... there cant be much in sport more iconic than a penalty shootout in a World Cup or European Cup final.
I'm not a big fan of penalties, I don't like the fact that one team gets a major advantage by striking first, I don't think its particularly fair.
But it is so, so iconic.
I'm not a big fan of penalties, I don't like the fact that one team gets a major advantage by striking first, I don't think its particularly fair.
But it is so, so iconic.
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 might seem a bit clunky at first but having penalty kicks after 90 minutes and then the extra time is actually a really brilliant idea. It's fair, it decides the game ultimately by the football (as the team that loses still has 30 minutes to get ahead) and most of all it absolutely guarantees a gripping half hour of football, because no matter what one of the teams will need to throw caution to the wind at every stage of the extra time, whatever the score.
There's literally no downsides as far as I can see, just the notion of wanting to stick with the traditional method. But things like the backpass rule and more recently goal-line technology have come in and shown that the traditionalist argument is just a burden. If there is a good idea that is better than what we currently have, introduce it and it will be a success.
There's literally no downsides as far as I can see, just the notion of wanting to stick with the traditional method. But things like the backpass rule and more recently goal-line technology have come in and shown that the traditionalist argument is just a burden. If there is a good idea that is better than what we currently have, introduce it and it will be a success.
For the Last 16 matches, I would also suggest that the group winner goes through automatically if the scores are level at the end of 90 or 120 minutes.
1) It would give a larger advantage to winning the group, and makes the group more exciting.
2) Using the group ranking is probably fairer than penalties in the Last 16.
3) It makes the Last 16 more exciting
4) If it was done at the end of 90 minutes, it would make the Quarter Final's more fair, by ensuring all 8 teams had played the same number of minutes.
5) It makes the golden boot fairer, by making the players play a more similar number of minutes.
6) The "iconic" penalties are only used in the iconic matches (the "finals"; quarter, semis, finals)
1) It would give a larger advantage to winning the group, and makes the group more exciting.
2) Using the group ranking is probably fairer than penalties in the Last 16.
3) It makes the Last 16 more exciting
4) If it was done at the end of 90 minutes, it would make the Quarter Final's more fair, by ensuring all 8 teams had played the same number of minutes.
5) It makes the golden boot fairer, by making the players play a more similar number of minutes.
6) The "iconic" penalties are only used in the iconic matches (the "finals"; quarter, semis, finals)
Penalties are brilliant - a test of players skill/stamina/mentality and ability to perform under the most intense pressure... it is genuinely the best way to settle a stalemate for my book.
To be honest PKs are great entertainment and really fun to watch whilst also nerve wrecking. The can leave you extremely elated of deflated. Make you cheer or cry. It is so edge-of-the seat and makes you put your hands over your eyes if your team is taking one. Isn't that what sport is all about?
I agree with the idea of having the penalty shootout before extra time starts. That way, the pressure isn't as intense on the players as anyone who misses will have the chance to redeem themselves in ET, and we are guaranteed to have one team needing to go for the win in ET if they lost the penalties. Plus, we will get to see more penalty shootouts and they're always good to watch!
Wasn't this done in the old US football league? and it was terrible.
Or a crossbar challenge shootout. That would be good drama...
It really was terrible. The ones I've seen, the goalkeeper always comes charging out really quickly, yet nobody goes for the chip for some reason. If this was re-implemented, Wayne Rooney would become a penalty shootout God.
After 30 minutes of ET, move to golden goal. Keep playing till one team scores. Unlimited goal goal extra time. Separates the fit from the fitness. After 6 hours of non stop football, I want to see the goalkeeper dribble around 20 players half dead exhausted players, to blast it into the roof of the net in front of a half asleep stadium.
It'll be brilliant.
It'll be brilliant.
Put all the players in a room and Suarez too. Whoever Suarez bites first loses the match.
Yeah with his dozens of mishit lobs he definitely would.
I wouldn't.
No it wouldn't. It would make the group exactly the same, only the winners would be smugger.
No it isn't. It gives the winner of the group (who may have won on goal difference or by a single point) the advantage of a lesser team AND the knowledge that they can simply hold on for a draw.
No it doesn't. It makes it less exciting. One team are playing for a draw and there's no penalties.
What's all this bullshit about fairness? When has football ever been fair? We didn't deserve to win the CL final in 99, nor did Chelsea in 2012. Should we try and fix football so no smash and grab shocks ever occur?
Lets just base the whole game on possession stats or shots on target while we're at it.
He would if keepers bombed off their lines like they did in those weird NASL penalties. Rooney tries lobs when keepers are on their line and well positioned, and they just scoop it up like a soft mislaid pass.
Penalties are the absolute biggest nightmare for every Dutch football supporter.
The only other possibility would be, to keep playing until one team scores or
one team has no players left on the pitch
The only other possibility would be, to keep playing until one team scores or
one team has no players left on the pitch
I saw it tried in a pre-season game for Inter, featuring Robbie Keane's debut. He dribbled the ball to goal, tried to go round the keeper, got tripped up - but what do you give? Penalty? Nope, take it again. Flawed idea.
I love penalties and they're the best idea, but, if we're looking for other solution, there is only one which isn't incredibly stupid. Just play overtime till someone scores.
Sorry but that's also a daft idea. You can't have it that there's no guarantee a game will ever end. Indefinite 15 minute intervals of two knackered teams without the energy to attack would be terrible. You could literally have 3 or 4 hours overtime if both teams were out of puff. Besides, teams would have to adjust their 90 minute tactics to account for the potential of an extra 90 minutes afterwards, which would fundamentally change the game.
How about whoever scores first in the match wins if tied after 120 minutes? Penalties only for nil-nils. Then there'd be a huge advantage for attacking football during the game.
Pointless as well, what if you lead concede first, score three and then concede two - you go out because you conceded first? How is this more fair than penalties?
It'd be interesting if they removed the offside rule after 120 minutes.
That said, I love penalties. It's more about holding your nerve than finishing ability at that point, which is just as important as any aspect in the world cup.
That said, I love penalties. It's more about holding your nerve than finishing ability at that point, which is just as important as any aspect in the world cup.
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...)
This looks interesting. The only problem I see is the timing (which is necessary though) because it will cause endless arguments about the shot being made before or after the time was up.
If you gave an advantage to winning the group, even more of an advantage, of course teams would try harder to win the group. Teams already go out "on goal difference or by a single point" so complaining that the group winner is given an advantage because of that hardly holds water.
How does it make it less exciting. The Champions League is the amazing competition it is because of the away goals rule, not because there are the best players playing for a few clubs. I joke, but away goals is very exciting, if in unto itself unfair. Attack vs Defence. Risk vs reward. Do or die. It doesn't even need to be only after 90 minutes, it could be after 120.. giving the runners up two chances to find the winning goal.
Football is intrinsically fair. In many ways, it's one of the most fair sports you will find. It's a low scoring sport, where even a lower league minnow can take down a premier league giant.. on their day. In football, every team plays every other team twice in the league; fair. In the cups, you either play home and away (fair) or have replays at the opposition's ground (fair). Football is a game of two halves (fair), of taking turns. Even the classic British formation is beautiful and symmetric. Everyone has a buddy; two central defenders, two central midfielders, two attackers, two wingers, two fullbacks.. and the goalkeeper.
Which, I actually think counts against my proposal. How is it fair that one team would be given a disadvantage because they finished second in a group containing Portugal, the USA and Germany, for example, whilst another would get the advantage in a more terrible group? In many ways this is a fallacy of the seeding system, and not of my proposal though.
Penalties are great fun, but the 60% problem is stupid. They are also slightly over used in international football knockouts, compared to how little they are used elsewhere.
I have to say, these alternative suggestions make me thankful for Fifa committees.
Penalties are fair and fine. Each team has an equal chance to outscore the opponent in a shootout. You can't get more fair than that and the drama is great.
Penalties are fair and fine. Each team has an equal chance to outscore the opponent in a shootout. You can't get more fair than that and the drama is great.
Penalties are not as random lottery as people suggest. There is so much going on physically and mentally to ever call it random lottery. I really think there's an art to taking penalties and it is so entertaining that it would be ridiculous to get rid of them. Having said that, if they replaced penalties with a topless model competition for the WC, I'd be well up to see that
60% of the time, the team that goes first wins.
Really not a fan of the OP's idea. Really hate it 
For one reason, this:
Penalties is the only way for it. I'm a fan of them. I think they're incredibly harsh but ah well.
For one reason, this:Also, a team could actually sit back in extra time knowing that as long as they draw they're through due to scoring more goals before hand
Penalties is the only way for it. I'm a fan of them. I think they're incredibly harsh but ah well.
And the English too. I wonder who will win in a penalty shootout between the English and the Dutch.Penalties are the absolute biggest nightmare for every Dutch football supporter.
The only other possibility would be, to keep playing until one team scores or
one team has no players left on the pitch
Im afraid it would never end and we would have to settle it over a couple of beers. Perhaps a beer tasting competition That be brilliant!
That be brilliant!I think a penalty shootout is fair, it's not luck it's a test of one of the most basic aspects of the game under extreme pressure. A moment where the very best are on the same level as players of much less ability.
Let's not forget a shootout occurs after 120 mins of football where the teams can't be separated, that's a lot of time in a football match. In most cases the stronger teams prevail in extra time - Germany and Argentina easy examples. Both of those teams I mentioned had far more ability in their team than their opponents but barely was able to score against them.
If the match goes on and on whether 11v11 or 7 aside or golden goal the stronger team will prevail 8/10. So after 120 mins of football it's down to the bare basics, which is more than fair on both sides
Let's not forget a shootout occurs after 120 mins of football where the teams can't be separated, that's a lot of time in a football match. In most cases the stronger teams prevail in extra time - Germany and Argentina easy examples. Both of those teams I mentioned had far more ability in their team than their opponents but barely was able to score against them.
If the match goes on and on whether 11v11 or 7 aside or golden goal the stronger team will prevail 8/10. So after 120 mins of football it's down to the bare basics, which is more than fair on both sides
Why not change them to shots from in your own half without a goalkeeper?