I like Penalty shootout, the drama, the tense.
Although I understand why England fans normally hates them.
Although I understand why England fans normally hates them.
Is Golden Goal a Better Alternative?
- Thread starter RedDevilCanuck
- Start date
I remember it and it was shite. There's a reason why they abolished it as well as the silver goal.
I personally loved it 
@JPRouve Euro 2000
@JPRouve Euro 2000I like Penalty shootout, the drama, the tense.
Although I understand why England fans normally hates them.
It's becoming less of a game of chance, too. Some of the penalty shootouts in recent years have been filled with unstoppable penalties. The element of luck is still there but less so than a decade or so ago.
That said, when it comes to games with so much on the line such as the World Cup final or the Champions League final, instead of going straight to penalties after extra time I genuinely think replays need to be brought in. Sepp Blatter was actually in favour of this some time around the 2006 World Cup if I remember correctly.
Hated golden goal, and as awful as penalties are when you lose, when you win there is nothing like it whatsoever. That night in Moscow for gods sake, unbelievable tension and joy.
It is awful that a seasons worth of matches comes down to penalties in a way though, like the playoffs the other night, that's rough. But its the game.
It is awful that a seasons worth of matches comes down to penalties in a way though, like the playoffs the other night, that's rough. But its the game.
It's a logistical nightmare and a momentum downer though, imagine all the works and cost for a replay.
Prefer to just penalty it, if neither can't win in 120 chances are either of them is nor good enough either way. I may be alone in this but I do prefer a penalty shoot out as neutral and can't stand the extra 30 usually (unless the team I root for happens to be playing)
Team with most successful presses at 90 mins should win the game. Remember that’s the modern definition of playing good football.
I don't necessarily think so if it's reserved only for the most special of occasions, replays will just have to be accounted for during the planning process. I also happen to think it won't be a momentum-downer and as a matter of fact I reckon the opposite will happen. Imagine the drama leading up to a World Cup final replay between, say, England and Germany. It would be something else.
Just seen this thread after calling for it in another thread. At least with the GG the braver side should win more often than not. Penalties are little more than a lottery - and often give the wrong result: just look at City all those years ago with Nicky Weaver; if they'd lost they might not be where they are today. If DDG had scored a year ago, the damn final mgiht still be going on now
Seriously, I hate penalties (even though when I played I saved a lot more than I ever let in).
Seriously, I hate penalties (even though when I played I saved a lot more than I ever let in).
Definitely not. Though is it me or are a lot more finals being decided by penalties these days? I don't think there will ever be a good enough solution to fairly determine a winner without ruining the game. A replay would technically be the most fair way to decide it, but it's a logistical nightmare and then what if the replay ends in a draw too? Another replay? Best 3 out of 5?
I remember at school once sharing a cup! It was long ago and shootouts were not even in anyone's head outside of the USA I don't think (and I think I'm right in saying those were not penalties but runs from the halfway line with the player one-on-one with the keeper).
I hated the sharing at first but looking back both sides were absolutely knackered on a day where it poured almost all game and the pitch was like quicksand. We'd won the cup the year before and did so the year after so could claim three in a row!
Seriously, penalties are just a joke. I've even scored one in a shootout, sending the keeper the wrong way only because I completely mis-hit the ball and it went in off a post!
Replays for games where so much is on the line (such as the World Cup final) is the most fair way to decide the outcome of a major football tournament. Say a World Cup final ends in a draw after ninety minutes plus extra time, a replay will be held three or four days later and penalties will only enter the equation if the replay also ends in a draw after two hours. Replays shouldn't be that big of a deal logistically, either, if reserved only for games that happen once in a blue moon. I'd even argue replays of major finals would add spice to the whole drama side of things, too. Like I said earlier, the build-up of a World Cup final replay between England and Germany would be monumentally epic.
How about reducing teams to 9 players?
I wonder what shortening extra time would do, maybe teams would be more willing to push on if they knew that if they scored the opposition would have less time to respond
Might as well go straight to penalties - more often than not teams are too frightened and too tired to go for the win in ET
I wonder how fotball would be if it went the other way around.
Start with penalties at extra time. The penalities get added to the score. Then comes extra time where the teams have the ability to attack or defend that lead, it gives a team the ability to not lose directly from penalties . If its draw again then It goes back to match winning penalties.
No. Pens may not be the perfect way to settle a tie, but other alternatives that have been tried have been worse.
That sounds interesting, you could be on to something here.
It's interesting but football doesn't really embrace radical change.
Bring out one of those mechanised bulls. The manager who stays on the longest wins.
I would like them to figure our how to temporarily re-draw the pitch and play 6/7/8 a side in extra time. Like maybe just play on half the pitch. That would be fun.
I think it is, I couldn't understand the pushback on it at the time being so "harsh" that you lost to a golden goal because there was no time to respond. Hundreds of matches every year across all leagues are scored in the last minute of normal time without the chance to respond. That's football, at least you scored a goal to win it instead of a penalty. The other thing is you had 90 minutes to win the game, or maybe even 180 minutes over two legged games. So why blame the golden goal and not the fact you couldn't win in regulation time?
Golden goal was awful. It makes teams even more defensive.
Normal extra time however are also still quite bad the vast majority of the time. I actually quite like the suggestion of taking the penalty kicks before the extra time. Then the losing team can have another go in the extra time and this creates that you have one team in the extra time that has to play offensive and go for it. That should definitely create a more interesting extra time period. You can also think about allowing more substitutions (but like only at one or two points during the play so those can't be used to slow down the game) and/or changing the length of the extra time. I don't see a need for 2 halves of extra time. Why not 1 extra time period of 15 or 20 minutes? If you do that after a penalty shootout, then the losing team can choose whether it's wants to have the kick off at extra time or whether it wants to choose a side of the pitch for the extra time.
Normal extra time however are also still quite bad the vast majority of the time. I actually quite like the suggestion of taking the penalty kicks before the extra time. Then the losing team can have another go in the extra time and this creates that you have one team in the extra time that has to play offensive and go for it. That should definitely create a more interesting extra time period. You can also think about allowing more substitutions (but like only at one or two points during the play so those can't be used to slow down the game) and/or changing the length of the extra time. I don't see a need for 2 halves of extra time. Why not 1 extra time period of 15 or 20 minutes? If you do that after a penalty shootout, then the losing team can choose whether it's wants to have the kick off at extra time or whether it wants to choose a side of the pitch for the extra time.
I agree with this
Scrap ET and go straight to pens
I think replays would be best, however there is so much football now, I am not sure it is possible. In my opinion, you may as well go straight to pens or go back to GG.
The solution is simple. After half an hour you carry on playing. Then, every 5 minutes a player is taken off each team until there is a winner at the end of one of the 5 minute intervals. Once it’s 6 v 6 the goals will be flowing and a winner will likely come.
Wouldn’t that be worse?? Teams are tired and all of a sudden they have more ground to cover. If anything adding two players a team makes it easier.
And all these solutions imagine if there’s a penalty shootout that they never stop scoring! What would happen?? I’m talking it’s already in the 200th penalty and they keep scoring.
In Hockey, it's essentially impossible to play defensive time-wasting for a long stretch. If you try to just cycle the puck in the neutral zone and your own zone, you'll lose it. It's much safer to attack with the puck than to just give it away or run the risk of a dangerous turnover, unless we're talking about riding out a penalty or protecting a lead for the last thirty seconds.
And yeah, GG sucked. Because in football, it's perfectly feasible to play defensive time-wasting for long stretches.
More and more teams seem to be sitting in during ET and holding out for pens.
Rather than golden or silver goal, I'd be inclined just to go straight to pens. With how much football there is being played now too, going straight to pens makes sense.
Rather than golden or silver goal, I'd be inclined just to go straight to pens. With how much football there is being played now too, going straight to pens makes sense.
I don't know, I hate seeing games decided by pens though. I think the ET is worth it for the occasions where you do get a decision.
I think going straight to penalties after full-time would only end up making games a lot more defensive.
No. One of the most unfair ways to decide a game.
Does it though? The rangers and pens just went to triple OT, I was at that game. Players looked jaded and I paid a bunch for tickets so stayed till the end but it ruined my day at work the next day.
ET + Pens is fine, golden goal would mean some games go on forever.
Didn't a lot of golden goal extra times just end up in penalties anyway? You can't play forever.
Silver goal was crap, as well.
Silver goal was crap, as well.
Golden goal and it goes on until its scored with no time limit but........
The goal posts move outwards at 15cm per minute
The goal posts move outwards at 15cm per minute
Penalties are getting a bit boring for deciding trophies. Europa League - penalties, Europa League last year - penalties, Euro2020 - penalties, Fa Cup - penaties, League Cup - penalties. Is anything not won on penalties any more? Golden goal wasn't great though, imagine how bad it would be it combined with VAR. I have no solutions.
I'd prefer going straight to pens really. Or as Van Gaal once said, extra time with 1 player coming of every few minutes until a team scores.
This. It’s stupid, but it’s fun.
I would be in favor of some kind of shootout where players have like 10-15 seconds to score while starting dribbling from the halfway line... I think it will be much more a skill and less lottery then penalties which decides the outcome of the game. Plus there is even more tension...
Also no more hassle about whether the goalkeeper left the line too early or something...
Also no more hassle about whether the goalkeeper left the line too early or something...
let's introduce the 2 and 3 point line in football