Alternatives to penalty shootouts in World Cups

[Prufrock]

The pressure on the penalty taker is really the only argument against penalty shootouts that makes sense to me. If that constitutes a genuine concern, go back to the old coin toss. Penalties really only magnify the amount of luck that's already inherently involved in football.

Any solution that involves extending the playtime beyond 120 minutes seems impracticable and taking into account previous results makes little sense and is extremely unfair in that it affects the game from the get go and not after 2 hours, after neither team managed to win.

 

[Jev]

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..

I dont see how that's anymore fair than a penalty shoot-out.

There's nothing wrong with penalties. For one thing it's amazingly crowd-friendly, incredibly exciting.

Second, would it really be more fair to let the game continue after 120 minutes only to have it decided by a sudden cramp in the 156th minute when players can hardly walk anymore?

It's a test of nerves in the most pressured situation. It's fine.

 

[No11]

Penalty kicks is a perfectly fair way to decide a tie. It takes bottle and skill to score whether by penalty or any other way.
Its unbeatable for drama. The silver and golden goal days were horrible, a terrible way to end a game.
Also I can't really feel sorry for a player for missing, it has happened to many great players.
Lets leave the great game alone.

 

[Member 39557]

A dance-off. It's the only fair way.

 

[No11]

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

This is ridiculous.

 

[Brinky]

Anyone can practice penalties. There is no luck to it, practice, practice, practice, obviously you can't replicate the pressure and atmosphere, but it certainly isn't a lottery.

Players know that in an event of a draw, this is what happens.

 

[Member 39557]

Keep-ups.

All 22 players stand in a line and start doing keep-ups. Last man to lose control of the ball wins.

 

[PSingh]

I agree with op that penalties arent a fair way tp decide a football match.

I don't see how it isn't fair? It's the fairest way of doing it. So what if some teams have traditionally been better at penalties than other teams (e.g Germany being better than England at them). But we shouldn't say it's 'unfair' on England just because Germany have players who can score a penalty and England don't.

I mean you can talk about the pressure of taking a penalty and argue that's unfair. But players are under pressure during the 120 minutes before the penalties, one mistake could see your team go out of the World Cup.

To be honest, I don't really see there being an alternative.

 

[Revan]

Penalties are reasonably fair IMO. They are very basic and I think that anyway in most of the times the best (or better saying, the most prepared) team wins.

The only suitable alternatives I think is going immediately after the 90 minutes in a Golden Goal without time limit, and then the idea of removing players every 5 or 10 minutes. I don't like the second approach at all, it is very terrible IMO.

The idea of OP for deciding on the number of goals is absolutely wrong IMO. The likes of Portugal on 2010 (who despite being very poor on most of their matches, scored 7 against North Korea) would get an advantage against other teams who played better but they didn't had a shit team in their group.

The idea of one on one is pretty much a glorified version of penalties, but I think without the drama. Also, I don't think that it would work where there are good teams playing because most of the good strikers wouldn't lose 1 on 1 chances (when there isn't any pressure from defenders).

Penalties are just fine. However I think that the order of them should be changed. Something like: 1,2,2,1,1,2,2,1,2,1

Edit: Just read rcoobc idea, and it sounds very good. However, I don't think that is better than the current approach, and I think it is unfair if the team who wins the shootout then goes out on extra time. However, it is an interesting idea.

 

[No11]

Like anything, someday someone will come up with something so stupendiously simple and brilliant we'll all say "Why didn't I think of that".

Someone will come up with what they think is a good idea, but like the rest and pretty much all the ideas on here it won't be any better at all.
Things like goal line technology are fine, and the offside rule should be more clearer but apart from that leave the game alone.

 

[No11]

Coin toss?

Well that takes a lot of skill.

 

[gingerless]

What if it's decided by who has hit the woodwork most? it's the closest thing to a goal that you can get to. Having said that, I don't mind penalty shootouts, just a thought.

 

[No11]

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)

I'm speechless, almost.

 

[Snowjoe]

Jousting.

 

[Mister_Stubbs]

Well that takes a lot of skill.

Best out of 3?

 

[Mr Mata]

Think it would be unfair. My reason for this is what if one team is in a group stage with a bunch of minnows and just racks up goals against them. Not too fair.

 

[Cheesy]

If we're getting rid of penalties and keeping extra-time as it is, I'd say that golden goal after extra-time would be the best solution, as it'd mean that a team had to score eventually. While penalties are intense and dramatic, a situation where either team has to score eventually could be pretty exciting to a neutral.

The most goals idea is nice in principle, but too flawed. What if one team has a surprise 8-0 win against a minnow who made it in (say North Korea), and draws their other two games 1-1, while their opponents are in a group of death, alongside say Spain and Holland, and win all three of their games 3-0. That's undoubtedly more impressive than the former example, but the former would progress in this case. I think deciding a game based on previous ones is flawed in a knockout format: a team hasn't progressed in this case, they've just not gone out because of previous results, which defeats the point of a knockout format.

I'd say the first suggestion makes more sense.

 

[Gannicus]

The argument against a penalty shootout is ludicrous on its face and the alternative of deciding the match on an aggregate goals basis a farce for the reason already described here.

 

[Sid84]

Strange how some people cannot find penalty shoot outs entertaining

 

[Steven Seagull]

Penalties are the fairest and most exciting way to do it. Only technique and mentality comes into it. There's nothing about luck, if you can't handle the pressure of going second then tough titties.

 

[antohan]

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..

Was trialed about a decade ago in a few tournaments here, there was a time limit, of course. Didn't quite work TBH, it would with absolutely cracking players but more often than not it was dull and unimaginative. Again, in a World Cup it could be a good way to separate real class from also-rans, but as a universal solution it's quite a dull and time-consuming unnecessary alternative.

I still don't get why people think penalties are a lottery. Take Chile the other day, their keeper was quite clearly terrible at penos. There's also shooters you can always bet your left nut will score while others are erratic... Surely that shows there's a sufficient amount of actual skill and mental strength involved?

 

[No11]

Best out of 3?

Well at least a bit of stamina would be required, I think you have cracked it.

 

[Jacob]

After full time, I'd like to see 8 on 8, then 6 on 6 ten minutes later, 4 on 4 twenty minutes in, 2 on 2 after half an hour. I.e. golden goal with less and less players as time goes on. Fatigue will be the major decider until somebody eventually scores.

 

[No11]

After full time, I'd like to see 8 on 8, then 6 on 6 ten minutes later, 4 on 4 twenty minutes in, 2 on 2 after half an hour. I.e. golden goal with less and less players as time goes on. Fatigue will be the major decider until somebody eventually scores.

Why do people want to turn the game into a farce?

 

[rcoobc]

Why do people want to turn the game into a farce?

I think we're not all serious.

 

[dappamikey]

I believe Ice Hockey's version of shootouts consists of the player starting on the halfway line and having to score from there. Perhaps each player could be given the choice of the traditional PK where the keeper has to stay on the line or starting from, say, 30 yards out and there being no restrictions on the keepers' positioning.

 

[Silva]

A dance-off. It's the only fair way.

Keep-ups.

All 22 players stand in a line and start doing keep-ups. Last man to lose control of the ball wins.

get a job at FIFA man

 

[jim]

They should remove players from the pitch, one from each side every 5 minutes, decided by phone vote until a Golden Goal is scored.

There are three key advantages here:

1) It makes matches more interesting, effectively turning matches into joga bonito style skill contests rather than those dull, solid defensive displays that we're all sick of.
2) United would do well when it was extended to club matches, because we've got more fans. For instance, we could all vote that the other side loses their keeper, and also vote to remove Ashley Young from United's line-up, putting us two steps ahead of the opposition.
3) If they charged 20p per call, they'd make a fortune, and it could all go into a pot that's awarded to the scorer of the winning goal. The amount would be shown on a big screen, and encourage players to try harder.

 

[No11]

I think we're not all serious.

Now I feel better.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

This is ridiculous.

Are you sure? I think it sounds completely reasonable.

 

[Becknaldolencia]

This thread definitely needs a poll.

 

[No11]

Are you sure? I think it sounds completely reasonable.

Are you seriously suggesting that it would be a better alternative to a penalty shoot out to add more balls as the game goes on?

Its not a feckin circus, its football.

 

[No11]

This thread definitely needs a poll.

Does it really?

 

[Dylan94]

I really like the idea of continuing to play on after the 30 minutes, and every five minutes you have to take a player off. Imagine how interesting that could get tactically and it could be really entertaining if it got down to 2 v 2 or 1 v 1. Obviously you would have to have unlimited substitutions from after the 30 minutes.

 

[illafied]

Trial By Combat

 

[tentan]

Bring back Golden Goal.

 

[7th level red]

if one thing MLS did right, it was using the 'moving' penalty to settle a shootout.

start 35 yards from goal, have 5 seconds to get a shot off, 1v1 against a keeper.

essentially it is 1v1 from regular match play.

much better than spot-kick penalties (which are fine for fouls in the box but not for shootouts at end of matches IMO)

 

[D.D.]

I dont see how that's anymore fair than a penalty shoot-out.

There's nothing wrong with penalties. For one thing it's amazingly crowd-friendly, incredibly exciting.

Second, would it really be more fair to let the game continue after 120 minutes only to have it decided by a sudden cramp in the 156th minute when players can hardly walk anymore?

It's a test of nerves in the most pressured situation. It's fine.

It's more fair because it utilizes more skills I think. You'd actually need someone with good finishing in this scenario. I also believe it gives goalkeepers a better chance/

 

[Rednotdead]

I really don't see any sensible alternative to penalties. The arguments against it don't stand up.

Too much pressure on the players - Is there any more pressure than if the teams are drawing and one team gets a penalty in the last minute of normal/extra time? In any sport there's pressure when it comes to deciding a match if the scores are equal.

Penalties are just a lottery - No they're not, penalty taking is a football skill.

1v1 is fairer/better - No it's not, it's still exactly the same pressure situation. The player still has to put the ball in the net.

Continuing play until there's a winner - Complete non-starter. Players would be put at serious risk of injury. Broadcasters wouldn't allow it anyway as it would play havoc with programme scheduling.

As I said, there is no sensible alternative to penalties. Players may miss them but they won't be the first or last ever to do so. Goalkeepers are in a no-lose situation - if they don't save a penalty, so what? If they do save one they're a hero.

 

[nick2004]

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

Fantastic idea! I'd like to see that!