Poll: Penalty shoot-outs
Earlier this week, Sepp “Weak” Blatter announced that he wants to end penalty shoot-outs in the World Cup.
This isn’t exactly a controversial idea; I don’t know anybody who believes that it’s a good idea to reduce the consummate team sport to little more than a staring contest.
This being the case, how should draws be decided?
46 comments
Keep the penalty kick shoot out and overtime, however each team gets one new sub for each overtime period. I think penalty kick shootouts have a place, but giving teams a shot in the arm during extra time would be cool
I could have voted for anything because I think anything is better than penalty kicks. PK’s are a horrendous way to decide a game, much less crown a world champion. I despise deciding a winner in a way other than basically continuing to play the game the way it is played during regulation. I love hockey, but I think playing 4 a side in overtime and then PK’s is idiotic. Penalties have about as much to do with your average soccer match as do throwins, for instance. Why not have a throw in contest? Penalties provide no evidence as to which team is better. I am all about the ‘come back and play another day’ method, but with the realities of the modern game (television, packed schedules, sponsors, etc etc) I think most would realize that this is not a workable solution (what if the replay is a draw?). If I were king of the world, I think the fairest solution would be to return to the ‘Golden Goal’ overtime, play 20-30 minute overtimes, and at the beginning of each OT period each team is alloted one substitution, which could be carried over if the coach wished (although I am flexible on this last part).
Some have argued that play-until-they-drop would result in an ugly affair, but I would much rather see an ugly 11v11 match than a 1v1 penalty shootout. Also, it could be argued that unlimited OT rewards the team who wants it more, or who has the better conditioning, etc etc
Sorry for the long comment, but this is really a pet-peeve of mine.
each team gets one new sub for each overtime period
Some have argued that play-until-they-drop would result in an ugly affair
I think the first would mitigate the second.
Well said, lads.
Penalty kicks aren’t a flip of the coin.
There is skill involved and luck, a lot like the rest of all sports in general. It’s just that people would rather some other skill be used to decide the game.
But have you ever thought how many regular matches are decided by a penalty kick anyway (the only difference being it is awarded by the referee)? I think it is a lot more than have decided cup champions.
I know the main onus is to avoid the usage of negative defensive tactics to force a penalty-kick shootout. But in this modern era of football, especially G-14’s continued legal battle in suing FIFA for players injured on international duty, a never-ending overtime (even with subs) opens up even more complaints/lawsuits from club managers.
P.K.’s are the best way until some court somewhere decides whether clubs CAN sue FIFA for players injured while on international duty.
And yay if the Golden Goal comes back.
But have you ever thought how many regular matches are decided by a penalty kick anyway (the only difference being it is awarded by the referee)? I think it is a lot more than have decided cup champions.
Not to be snarky, but there are about 50 - 100 times more regular matches than championship matches, so I would expect that there would be more regular matches decided by a referee.
And PK’s are a flip of the coin. Why do you think that lesser teams play for a draw and hope to get to PK’s against giants, such as Brazil? Because they know that they (almost) never beat them on the field, but when it comes to a shootout, anybody can beat anybody.
“but when it comes to a shootout, anybody can beat anybody.”
Not to be snarky back, but anybody can beat anybody on any given day in any sport anywhere - KC sweeping the Red Sox, Puerto Rico beating the USA in olympic basketball, USA beating England in nineteen fifty whatever year it was.
Does a shootout close the talent gap between teams? Perhaps it does. Does this mean a penalty shoot out is not a fair way of determining a winner? I don’t think so.
You can’t say that France and Italy played to a boring draw in the World Cup Final. And do you really want to watch 245 minutes of soccer just so you can see the France and Italy substitute benches finish the match?
I hope PK shootouts stay in the game.
Shootouts suck…can you imagine the NBA Finals coming down to D-Wade v Dirk Nowitzki in a one on one contest, or the Twins losing the 7th game of the World Series because they don’t hit as many dingers in the “since we’re tied after x innings, we’re going to hold a home run derby” rule?
If I recall the World Cup final, once the Zidane incident occured, France turned the game into one of those oh so exciting “let’s waste time and play for a draw, cause I think our only chance to win is a shootout” affairs.
I don’t think it’s even a matter of whether it’s fair or not, it’s just an extremely weak way to decide the outcome of a game.
can you imagine the NBA Finals coming down to D-Wade v Dirk Nowitzki in a one on one contest
I think a free throw shooting contest is more analogous…
KC sweeping the Red Sox, Puerto Rico beating the USA in olympic basketball, USA beating England in nineteen fifty whatever year it was
If I recall correctly all of those victories were accomplished without resorting to some sort of tie breaker.
And do you really want to watch 245 minutes of soccer just so you can see the France and Italy substitute benches finish the match?
Yes and no, I would prefer they come back and play it again, but we all know that won’t happen. But I would rather watch 245 minutes of soccer to find out that one team had a deeper bench and had the desire to go as long as it took to win the game, as opposed to the PK’s which basically told me that Barthez and Buffon suck at stopping penalties.
Okay, I’ve given this a lot of thought, and I think I’ve finally arrived at the solution: a flopout. Similar to a shootout, the participants of a flopout instead take turns flopping, and whoever best convinces the refs that there was an infraction, wins the game for his/her team.
Or, maybe this: Play an unlimited overtime, but force teams to remove one player from the field every time their team makes an infraction of any sort, even losing the ball out of bounds (forgive me if I’m using all the wrong terms).
I think a free throw shooting contest is more analogous…
I started with that one, but since shootouts involve a member from both teams for each kick, I went with the one on one analogy.
Granted, some lead-footed keepers might be compared to a basketball standard, but at least the keepers have the ability to move, while the hoop doesn’t (Shaq might disagree).
OK, but the amount of scoring that takes place in baseball and basketball (and other sports) is higher than in soccer.
(Excepting the thrilling debacle that was the 3-3 Fulham v. Watford draw last night.)
The political/legal situation that currently clouds international soccer does not allow for a “play until they score” overtime policy.
Also, once you start pulling people from the field, you tire already tired players by making them cover more of the field.
If you win on penalties it’s because you couldn’t play well enough to beat them during the regulation game and your players had the composure to slot home from 11 yards. Once again, this is only necessary because the amount and rate of scoring in soccer is significantly lower than most other sports.
Mark, can you explain the political/legal situation for me? I have a general idea, but don’t follow the international scene closely enough to have a good grasp of what’s going on. Sounds like perhaps club teams can possibly sue FIFA if their players get hurt playing on a national squad…?
“Sounds like perhaps club teams can possibly sue FIFA if their players get hurt playing on a national squad…?”
Basically that is the slippery slope on which the international game is currently teetering.
I’m actually going to do a full-blooded post on this issue, so please look for that in the next few days.
I’m actually going to do a full-blooded post on this issue, so please look for that in the next few days.
Nice. I was going to ask if you would do that. You are much more steeped in the issue than I. I’m looking forward to it.
If we want to have a shoot-out of some type, why not get the whole team involved and make them corner-kick shootouts? Now that would be entertaining and would be much more dramatic (I think).
Scott,
That is the best idea I’ve heard. Send resume to FIFA.
That would be a vast improvement. Good idea.
You could use just one net and have all three officials watching for infractions. Defense clearing the ball 35-40 yards ends the play. Away team decides from which side they want to take the first corner. Home team has to take corner from same side. After that the corners alternate sides (ie. away takes corner from right, home team takes corner from right, away from left, home from left, away from right etc.)
Once a team scores on the corner, the other team has one attempt to peg them back.
Did anyone else here play “World Cup” in pee-wee soccer practices? Maybe they could just do that…
Or not.
I love the corner kick idea. Even as a fringe fan, that sounds infinitely more exciting than the penalty kicks. It’s the perfect combination of anything-could-happen and but-you-have-to-be-good-enough-to-make-it-happen.
I haven’t been a rabid fan for my whole life, but as evidenced by my posting on a blog like this, I guess I’ve reached that status now. I just don’t know why the idea hasn’t really been brought up before, or if it has, why they decided against it. Just doesn’t seem like an overly revolutionary idea to me, but I’m glad everybody is in favor of it. Just put us in charge and we’ll take care of all the problems…right?
I’ll throw it up to Bobby McMahon’s Q/A blog on FSC
Still too artificial for me. Corner kicks, free kicks, penalty kicks, etc., all happen within the course of regular play, but staging a corner kick competition doesn’t seem true to the game.
I think it would be an improvement over straight PK shootouts (if for no other reason that it’s something new), but still a far cry from letting teams settle a tie by simply playing on.
“Still too artificial for me.” -
Leave it to Nate to ruin the spirit of good will around here.
I prefer to think of it as “measured pragmatism”.
I think it is “the teams playing on”, it’s just that they are starting from a set point that has a higher likelihood of one team succeeding with a goal. In my head, it’s kind of like (American) college football overtime. Actual action involving the whole team, starting at a spot on the field where there is increased likelihood of scoring.
And if the shootout wasn’t over until the defending side cleared the ball out beyond some certain distance, then you would get the followup action in the box that is no different from what you are hoping for by letting them “play on”
Obviously I have no real stake or copyright to this idea, but I do think that it is much less artificial than a PK shootout. Real games have plenty of corner kicks in every game. Most real games don’t even have a single PK.
Scott: I think you forgot a big ol’ ©
Josh, I’ll settle for the internet archive and the personal satisfaction if it should ever come to be. Meanwhile, I’ll keep my day job.
[...] In 1994, Pekerman took over the Argentine U-20 and U-17 teams, leading the former to three FIFA World Youth Championships. In 1998, he was given a unique opportunity to be the general manager of all of the Argentine national teams, a position he held until 2003. After a brief stint in the Spanish second division, Pekerman became the head coach of the Argentina National Team, which qualified for the 2006 World Cup. The team bowed out in the quarterfinals, losing to hosts, Germany, on penalty kicks. [...]
Hey Nate, posted the G-14 article for you. Hope you enjoy it.
Mark - was just reading it - thanks for the info. Is this happening with other league’s club players and their respective national teams or just the European ones?
Just the European ones at this time.
I’m not sure if this would set a precedent for ANY club suing FIFA for injured players in the future though.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to get rid of that rule. I mean are going to change every rule you don’t like? And what makes every body so smart now …. I mean if it’s such a bad rule you’d think some one would have thought of it already. (since we’ve been playing “soccer” so long) All I’m saying is the penalty shoot out is one of the most exciting things to watch.
OH! I also don’t think Clubs should be abel to sue FIFA for there players getting injured.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to get rid of that rule. I mean are going to change every rule you don’t like?
Yes. The shootout “rule” was a change from an old rule. If the powers-that-were could change the rule, why can’t the powers-that-be?
Oh, Josh. You and your “facts” and your “logic.” Pssh.
I second that “Pssh”.
I’m clearly late to this party, but let’s call it “fashionable”, shall we?
To begin, I fall squarely in the camp that believes that PKs are a poor way to decide a game. Also at the start, I should admit to having a parochially defensive point of view (but I suspect this might become obvious).
Let’s take the case of a 0-0 draw as an example. It’s the job of the defensive players (i.e., keepers and fullbacks) to keep their side in the game: to prevent a loss. It’s the job of the forwards, on the other hand, to score goals and to achieve a win. The responsibilies of the halfbacks, naturally, include a mixture of both of these. Obviously this is an over simiplification of the players’ roles, but it’s not unrealistic; much mirth has been found in mocking my [ahem] offensive prowess, and our host (a veritable goal-scoring machine) has taken his lumps over his scarcity in the defensive third.
In our example of the 0-0 tie (after the extra time periods), the defenses for both teams have clearly held up their end of the deal, but the offenses have been unable to get their job done. So what do we do? Dismiss the defensive players from the pitch and lay the fate of the teams at the feet of the would-be goal scorers. This, of course, assumes that most of the PK shooters are forwards rather than fullbacks, but it seems like a reasonable generalization (if I do say so myself). How unjust it is to remove the solid defensive players from the game and serve up a scoring opportunity to the forwards without the fullbacks there to shut them down. (Again.)
Bryan:
The first post I wrote for this site was on March 2, 2006. Care to comment on that one?
A couple points:
1) Your scenario is interesting. I’m not accustomed to looking at the game from a defensive perspective so your insight, while clearly biased, is appreciated.
2) How did you vote? Play until someone scores? Play again another day?
3) To say that I am scarcely in the defensive third is absurd. I’m always in the defensive third of our opponent.
Tournaments should be set up so as to have each team play all of the other teams once. Then you can keep score EPL (or like the rest of the world) style and only use PKs if the top two teams come to draw and are tied for points. Furthermore, it would assist in more accurate rankings.
Your thoughts?
I do suppose, though, that would call for to many games. However, there could be a way around that…Ideas?
I do suppose, though, that would call for to many games.
I think you hit on it. I think it would be a logistical nightmare.
But suppose that you could restructure the whole competition. For instance, a rather simplistic idea, you could, after the first set of matches elimate the bottom 2-4 teams that scored the lowest. Maybe not in the first round but in the second round. Ideas?
Then that would eliminate teams a bit faster…
But suppose that you could restructure the whole competition. For instance, a rather simplistic idea, you could, after the first set of matches elimate the bottom 2-4 teams that scored the lowest. Maybe not in the first round but in the second round. Ideas?
It’s certainly not something I’ve considered previously.
When you say “scored the lowest,” are you referring to the number of goals scored or the number of points earned?
Points earned…
Leave a Comment