The idea that penalty shootouts are arbitrary and unfair

[Jev]

Where does this stem from?

At this moment in the Premier League, quite a few matches are decided by an incidental handball, a miniscule offside decision, a lucky screamer from 35 yards, a coincidental drop or a deflection after a moment of chaos in the penalty area.

Why would a penalty shootout, a measure of players' abilities to kick a football and manage their nerves in a high-pressure environment undisturbed by VAR or random incidents, be any more arbitrary or unfair?

Seems to me like a just as reasonable way to decide a football match than a freak incident provoked by fatigue in the 119th minute.

This notion that penalty shootouts are unfair is, I believe, one of the reasons why we're sticking with the nonsense of the away goals rule, which is inherently more unfair. Scrapping the away goals rule would lead to more penalty shootouts, seems to be the argument. I'd say bring them.

What's the CAF consensus?

 

[Siorac]

Endless replays are not an option in today's football saturated world, a coin toss (which was used to decide games in the past!) is the definition of cruel and arbitrary so there's not really a better way. It does say something about mental fortitude and shooting technique at least so it's not completely random.

 

[Desert Eagle]

It's not that it's unfair , it's more that it doesn't encapsulate football. It'd be like having a free throw contest decide a tied basketball game. You'd feel like it favors players with that one particular trait rather than all the others.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Where does this stem from?

At this moment in the Premier League, quite a few matches are decided by an incidental handball, a miniscule offside decision, a lucky screamer from 35 yards, a coincidental drop or a deflection after a moment of chaos in the penalty area.

Why would a penalty shootout, a measure of players' abilities to kick a football and manage their nerves in a high-pressure environment undisturbed by VAR or random incidents, be any more arbitrary or unfair?

Seems to me like a just as reasonable way to decide a football match than a freak incident provoked by fatigue in the 119th minute.

This notion that penalty shootouts are unfair is, I believe, one of the reasons why we're sticking with the nonsense of the away goals rule, which is inherently more unfair. Scrapping the away goals rule would lead to more penalty shootouts, seems to be the argument. I'd say bring them.

What's the CAF consensus?

Decades of England fans coping their national team's failures.

 

[Red_Aaron]

If its unfair then its equally unfair for both teams.

I've loved the drama of shootouts I've no stock in but I would rather something else, I don't think it's the best way to decide a game.

Have another halftime length break. Allow more subs including re-introducing players that had been withdrawn and keep playing until a golden goal winner arrives

 

[Mb194dc]

If its unfair then its equally unfair for both teams.

I've loved the drama of shootouts I've no stock in but I would rather something else, I don't think it's the best way to decide a game.

Have another halftime length break. Allow more subs including re-introducing players that had been withdrawn and keep playing until a golden goal winner arrives

The team that go first statistically have an advantage. They tried different sequences to make it even, don't think anything came of it though. Hope Southgate is taking note, as we all know England also love penalties...

There is some irony in Utd losing on penalties yesterday, those football gods do have a sense of humour after all.

 

[SecondFig]

Obviously it's not perfect, but it's a tie-breaker - a last resort. Pretty sure that at one point they used to just toss a coin and call one side the winner, so it's an improvement on that.
That said, for shoot-outs I would love it if we switched to the old US MLS method - with players starting with the ball on the halfway line and having a short time to run at the keeper and score;

 

[duffer]

I hate pens. After 30 mins of extra time the game should carry on until someone scores. Let a football match be decided by playing football.

 

[Fitchett]

I think penalty shoot outs are the best way to decide a match. Certainly preferable to having Cup replays, particularly in a crowded fixture list. The myth that "it's a lottery and a cruel way to lose" is nonsense. If it was a lottery, then over the years, the Germany national team would have lost 50% of them and the England national team would have won 50% of them. It's a good test of nerve and skill to score from 12 yards. At the end of the day, if a team can't beat their opponents after 90 minutes, fail again after another 30 minutes, fail again in a penalty shoot out, they can hardly say that "it's a cruel way to lose", as the media does. The team failed at three attempts ffs!

 

[Fitchett]

The team that go first statistically have an advantage. They tried different sequences to make it even, don't think anything came of it though. Hope Southgate is taking note, as we all know England also love penalties...

There is some irony in Utd losing on penalties yesterday, those football gods do have a sense of humour after all.

Agree with this, the ABBA system is the fairest way of doing it and should be reintroduced

 

[Red_Aaron]

I think a better system would be you nominate 1 player to take all the pens. The psychological aspect would be fascinating.

Maybe the kicker stays the same but the goalie changes. Why should the same goalie have to face every pen but the strikers only have to take one? One striker, 5 different keepers is a winner for me

 

[duffer]

I think a better system would be you nominate 1 player to take all the pens. The psychological aspect would be fascinating.

Maybe the kicker stays the same but the goalie changes. Why should the same goalie have to face every pen but the strikers only have to take one? One striker, 5 different keepers is a winner for me

I don't like penalty shoot outs but the best part of then is seeing the likes of Lindelof or Tuanzabe smashing them in, or watching goalie v goalie.

If anything, I'd like to see the managers nominate their opponents first five takers .

 

[tomaldinho1]

They should do golden goal and then penalties. Penalties are fine - completely fair and the fastest way to settle a game that’s dragged on too long without a winner.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

They should give the trophy to both teams.

 

[sullydnl]

They're not arbitrary but they are heavily luck-dependent. And when it comes to them being unfair, that's down partially to one side always having a statistical advantage but mostly down to it making villains of players who fall on the wrong side of luck in what is a very niche representation of footballing skill.

But then who ever said sport is fair?

 

[Oranges038]

I hate pens. After 30 mins of extra time the game should carry on until someone scores. Let a football match be decided by playing football.

Ah the old next goal wins rule.

Remember playing that in school, there'd be fights, especially when the lad that called it was on the team getting beat.

To stop the first v second taker argument. They should go at the same time at either end.

 

[Welbeckham]

Nothing unfair or random about it. The better team has had 120 minutes to win the game, only got themselves to blame. It’s about technique and mental strenght and it’s the only right way to decide things.

 

[Withnail]

Agree with this, the ABBA system is the fairest way of doing it and should be reintroduced

How come they scrapped it?

We're the results statistically any more evenly split between going first and second?

 

[stefan92]

They should give the trophy to both teams.

Would only work in the final, not in the stages until then.

They should do golden goal and then penalties. Penalties are fine - completely fair and the fastest way to settle a game that’s dragged on too long without a winner.

A golden goal is a bad idea, because it gives no chance to equalize. So it does make teams become very careful and defensive, as you risk that you lose everything just in one situation. Some of the greatest games did become that because of the drama in overtime (like the "game of the century" Germany - Italy at the world cup 1970. Germany equalised 1:1 in the 90th minute, after overtime it was 4:3 for Italy).

In a penalty shootout you can at least be sure that both teams have the same amount of shots and you know you can always equalize. It isn't perfect, as beginning it obviously is a little advantage, but it does give a chance a golden goal just takes away from you.

To stop the first v second taker argument. They should go at the same time at either end.

That might be the best idea there is for this problem. And looking at how many referees there are at todays top matches it should be possible to do this.

 

[Siorac]

That might be the best idea there is for this problem. And looking at how many referees there are at todays top matches it should be possible to do this.

It would be awful for the spectators though.

 

[Bob Rivers]

The best and fairest way to resolve a 120-minute stalemate is to let two teams fight it out right there on the pitch. The last man standing gets to claim a win for his side. In that scenario adding a couple of UFC fighters in January transfer window to a six month contract is a smart move. This way if the extra time is coming to an end and the all-hands-on-deck brawl is looming, those boys can be subbed on at the 120th minute and go to work after the final whistle.

 

[june1996]

Here’s a possible solution...
- at Full Time have a sudden death penalty shootout
- Then Play Extra Time
- whoever wins in Extra Time wins the game irrespective of the previous shootout
- If teams still level at end of Extra Time then the shootout winners are victorious
- this finishes the game on time on the pitch, and stops the farce of 2 knackered teams wasting time playing for penalties. Under this system 1 team is always behind, so at least 1 team will have to keep on attacking.
(Playing until “next team scores” is impractical as in theory it could go on all night, the police would never allow it).

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

Love penalties, as long as its not my team taking part. IMO there is nothing more tense and yet entertaining in football, especially in a big final. For the record I took no joy in your defeat last night.

 

[Red_Aaron]

I don't like penalty shoot outs but the best part of then is seeing the likes of Lindelof or Tuanzabe smashing them in, or watching goalie v goalie.

If anything, I'd like to see the managers nominate their opponents first five takers .

Maybe the managers have to take the penalties

Lampard would still be Chelsea manager and we'd probably have Steve Bruce in charge

 

[kps88]

I'm not a fan of having goalkeepers take a penalty. It's fun to watch as a neutral but I don't want a game of football being decided on whose GK is better at something that has nothing to do with their role.

 

[stefan92]

I'm not a fan of having goalkeepers take a penalty. It's fun to watch as a neutral but I don't want a game of football being decided on whose GK is better at something that has nothing to do with their role.

Doesn't it? Every goalkeeper has to be able to pass the ball or to just thrust it forward. Being able to move the ball precisely and powerful is something that is very much part of their role, as it is with every other football player, and that's what needed for a penalty. Admittedly it is rare, but some GKs are even the first choice as penalty takers for their team.

The most famous example in Germany would have been him: https://www.transfermarkt.com/hans-jorg-butt/elfmetertore/spieler/294

 

[WeePat]

I think a better system would be you nominate 1 player to take all the pens. The psychological aspect would be fascinating.

Maybe the kicker stays the same but the goalie changes. Why should the same goalie have to face every pen but the strikers only have to take one? One striker, 5 different keepers is a winner for me

Would be even more interesting if the coach could send whoever he wanted out for any given penalty in the shootout, including sending the same player out for all of them.

Something similar to this.

 

[Vidyoyo]

There's nothing wrong with penalty shootouts. It's a simple way to end a game that's gone on far too long already.

 

[Stocar]

The concept of one game cup final deciding everything is also harsh. But the game must end eventually, and penalties are an elegant solution.

 

[NasirTimothy]

Endless replays are not an option in today's football saturated world, a coin toss (which was used to decide games in the past!) is the definition of cruel and arbitrary so there's not really a better way. It does say something about mental fortitude and shooting technique at least so it's not completely random.

A good point you make here. Not a lot of people know that they used to use a COIN to decide some games in the past. Incredible. Here’s the story of Italy getting to the final of the European Championships in ‘68 on the back of a coin toss….

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....hip-semifinal-was-decided-by-a-coin-toss/amp/

 

[DoomSlayer]

Maybe both teams should do the penalties at the same time?

 

[JuveGER]

The myth that "it's a lottery and a cruel way to lose" is nonsense. If it was a lottery, then over the years, the Germany national team would have lost 50% of them and the England national team would have won 50% of them.

Germany has participated in only 7 penalty shoot-outs in European Championships and World Cups (winning 6). That's far too small of a sample size to draw any conclusions. If you include the Four Nations tournament in 1988, where Germany lost again Sweden, then it is 6 wins out of 8. Flipping a coin 8 times and having it land on the same side 6 times isn't that unlikely despite 50/50 odds.

But it also does not make sense to look at penalty shootouts of national teams over decades to draw conclusions, unless you think there is something inherently favorable to penalty shootouts in German genes/food/culture/etc.

Penalty shootouts are a pretty arbitrary way to decide a football match, and while skill and preparation are certainly a factor, luck is definitely involved. But knockout matches have to be decided one way and this is a fairly entertaining way.

 

[SirReginald]

Agree with this, the ABBA system is the fairest way of doing it and should be reintroduced

That was a horrible idea and implemented even worse. It was like trying to say Red is statistically more successful than blue (in anything) so now everyone wears red or no one wears red.

 

[Bullhitter]

Here’s a possible solution...
- at Full Time have a sudden death penalty shootout
- Then Play Extra Time
- whoever wins in Extra Time wins the game irrespective of the previous shootout
- If teams still level at end of Extra Time then the shootout winners are victorious
- this finishes the game on time on the pitch, and stops the farce of 2 knackered teams wasting time playing for penalties. Under this system 1 team is always behind, so at least 1 team will have to keep on attacking.
(Playing until “next team scores” is impractical as in theory it could go on all night, the police would never allow it).

30 minutes of time wasting and faking injuries and for the 10 minutes the ball is in play one team camped in their defensive third? I'd rather the coin toss decided it.

 

[Eternitiy]

Penalty shootouts are incredible. The pure passion and emotion of the shootout in 2008 against Chelsea. Easily the most memorable and best moment I've had as a football fan.

And against Villarreal. 11-10. That must have been astonishing for neutral fans, if we had won, we would have been cherishing the moment for years as well.

My only issue is why Bruno chose to go second. It's baffling that he would choose to put us at a disadvantage. I really can't understand it and I'm beyond disappointed in him.

 

[Statue of Limitations]

Would be even more interesting if the coach could send whoever he wanted out for any given penalty in the shootout, including sending the same player out for all of them.

Something similar to this.

That's unreal! Our penalty taker list would be easy to decide anyway!!

 

[choccy77]

Penalty shoot outs should be at both ends to be fair.

 

[Cheimoon]

I hate pens. After 30 mins of extra time the game should carry on until someone scores. Let a football match be decided by playing football.

I agree, continuing the football is nice. Maybe they should do a variant where, from the start of extra time, (i.e., right after the 90 mins of regular time) each team has to take a player off every 5 mins. This goes on until there are two players left on each team, and there is a break every 15 min. Whoever scores first, wins the match.

That would make it more fun and it would remain rooted in a wider range of football skills than just the ability to take penalties.

 

[Alemar]

Admittedly it is rare, but some GKs are even the first choice as penalty takers for their team.

And one GK has even scored 132 goals in his career 5 GKs scored over 40 goals, and our very own Great Dane scored 13

 

[stevoc]

I hate pens. After 30 mins of extra time the game should carry on until someone scores. Let a football match be decided by playing football.

That match the other night would still be going.