Penalties

So someone mentioned to me the idea they should change it so you have the penalty shootout before extra time.

Winning the shootout would be like an away goal, only counting if it's still equal after you play the extra time. The big advantage of this being that if you lose the shootout, you have the chance to make up for it on the pitch again by winning at actual football.

It would alter the spectacle of shootouts, and would seem strange to go back to playing after the huge emotional stress of a shootout. Also, it would change the dynamic of extratime, with the shootout winner likely to go all-out-defensive.

So pluses and minuses. Still, I like the way this idea de-emphasizes the importance of one single kick winning/losing at trophy.

Thoughts?

Maurice de Hond, Dutch-Jewish internet Guru, launched that idea in 2000 after Oranje missed 5 penalties in 1 game!!!!!

Cool, I don't remember hearing it before, but some things do just pass me by

Sounds like an interesting idea that would be popular.

I think penalties should be abolished all together, because it's simply unfair. Winners and losers may as well be decided on a flip of a coin if penalties are going to continue, as Man U didnt deserve that champions league any more than Chelsea did.

Someone on here suggested that a player should be taken off every 5 minutes of extra time played - i much prefer that idea because it would open up the game a lot, and goals would be scored quickly. That would make it much fairer.

pens are $h!t...probably introduced by some german who was visiting england and who decided to f@ck up football for the posterity


anyway, get rid of em says I

I think it is much fairer. I don't know if it would make the game much more spectacular.

But now. It is odd a CL (Or a World Cup) has to be decided by some one who slips away

I like penalties...I think it's fair tbh. If a team gets a penalty during a game...they are odds on to score. Most fans would think they are about to score/concede if they have a penalty for/against them. So basically the teams have 5 chances to score from a position that they are odds on to score from...I think that's fair enough.

Terrible idea IMO, I'd like to see Golden goal brought back but limit the time to maybe half an hour each way or it could go on for ever, if it's still undecided then have penalties or there would be no way of settling the game

I think it's a good idea on the whole. But at the same time it will take away a lot of drama and excitement.

L.r.d wrote:I think it's a good idea on the whole. But at the same time it will take away a lot of drama and excitement.

the penalties would lose a bit of drama, but it would make the extra-time a lot more exciting, as one team would be going into it needing to score, so they would have to go out and chase victory - rather than now when it often happens that both teams play cautious and wait it out for penalties.

Penalties are fine as they are - I didn't like the outcome the other night but they are fair and exciting.

Great idea, but it's one of those that is so against the grain that it will probably never happen.

I think that the idea, as it is, is a perfect idea, with the winner of penalties having a sort of 'away goal' that comes into play only if the score after extra time is equal. It's maybe less dramatic than deciding a game on a penalty shootout, but I think it would be far more satisfying and true to the game overall.

I don't like penalties. I think that, in theory at least, they are fair, that the team with the best technique and the strongest mentality will usually win, and I can understand why people do find them exciting. But I don't enjoy watching them that much.

I always feel a little sorry for the player who ultimately costs his team the game; I think that various things make them less than fair in practice, for instance, the fact that staggered run-ups are usually allowed, that keepers get away with playing all sorts of irritating and unsportsmanly games, that sometimes referees let keepers move from their line, sometimes this is strictly forbidden; I also don't like how, often, playing safe and hitting penalties quite central pays off, whereas those players who go for outstanding penalties are more likely to miss and be castigated for it. More, penalties changes the face of the game - football is a team game where team play excels, but when it comes to penalties, it is all about the individual.

im confused, what happens at the end of extra time if the scores are level again ? or have i missed something

Rosicky? wrote:im confused, what happens at the end of extra time if the scores are level again ? or have i missed something

L.r.d wrote:

Rosicky? wrote:im confused, what happens at the end of extra time if the scores are level again ? or have i missed something

what ?

Rosicky? wrote:im confused, what happens at the end of extra time if the scores are level again ? or have i missed something

The result of the shootout doesn't give a team a goal - it gives them a sort of imaginary 'away goal', which only counts if the scores are level after extra time. If the score is 0-0 after normal time, it will still be 0-0 going into extra-time - if a team then scores, and extra-time finishes 1-0, then that team will win the game, but if the score stays 0-0, or finishes 1-1, then the team who won the shootout will win the game.

Bashmachkin wrote:

Rosicky? wrote:im confused, what happens at the end of extra time if the scores are level again ? or have i missed something

The result of the shootout doesn't give a team a goal - it gives them a sort of imaginary 'away goal', which only counts if the scores are level after extra time. If the score is 0-0 after normal time, it will still be 0-0 going into extra-time - if a team then scores, and extra-time finishes 1-0, then that team will win the game, but if the score stays 0-0, or finishes 1-1, then the team who won the shootout will win the game.

ok, i assumed i was missing something. thanks for clearing that up.

I love extra-time & penalties in that sequence. Don't like golden/silver goal at all.

Don't think a tournament final should be decided on penalties. Think if it's still undecided after extra time, another 2 15 minutes halves of extra time should be played, and if needed another 2, etc...

Pierre Littbarski wrote:Penalties are fine as they are - I didn't like the outcome the other night but they are fair and exciting.

You are making sense often lately. What happened?

Penalties are part of the game, stop fucking around with it, it's not as if that idiot Blatter does not have enough bullshit ideas already. If you suck at penalties, try to win the game in 120 minutes, and stop whinging. There are no excuses.

Playing extra time first makes sense as an opportunity to settle the outcome of the match in an extension of normal play. Penalties are so emotionally draining, for both the players and spectators that I think it will be asking a lot for players to actually play another 30 minutes after a shootout, and also for the spectators to watch it. We see how extra time play often descends into a scrappy hoof and hack as it is, it'll be much worse if it was preceded by a shooutout.

blutgraetsche wrote:

Pierre Littbarski wrote:Penalties are fine as they are - I didn't like the outcome the other night but they are fair and exciting.

You are making sense often lately. What happened?

Penalties are part of the game, stop fucking around with it, it's not as if that idiot Blatter does not have enough bullshit ideas already. If you suck at penalties, try to win the game in 120 minutes, and stop whinging. There are no excuses.

Penalty shootouts were only introduced in the 70s. they are not an inherent and absolute part of football.

I'm surprised you don't like this idea, given that you speak in another thread quite rightly and passionately about how football is a team game and how you don't like individual player comparisons. this idea means the match is much less likely to end with all the emphasis on one individual... it gives the team who loses the shootout a chance to make up for it on the pitch.

I just think that is a better way for a game to end - often, the most exciting spells of football are when one team is desperately trying to score the decisive goal with time running out. the way it generally works now is that extra time is played out cautiously, waiting for penalties...whereas in this alternative, extra time is make or break and one team has to go out and try to win.

It's not perfect - Crazy58 sums up the main downside to this - but it might work, and I like it in theory.

TheCrazy58 wrote:
Playing extra time first makes sense as an opportunity to settle the outcome of the match in an extension of normal play. Penalties are so emotionally draining, for both the players and spectators that I think it will be asking a lot for players to actually play another 30 minutes after a shootout, and also for the spectators to watch it. We see how extra time play often descends into a scrappy hoof and hack as it is, it'll be much worse if it was preceded by a shooutout.

Extra time often descends into a farce because the rest periods in between halves of Football are minimal at best. By allowing penalties you effectively get a second half time, which means that when extra time actually occurs half the game won't be a series of stoppages from people going down with cramp.

The alternative of course would to be actually give them a proper intermission after full time as has finished and a 5 minute break mid way through half time, as at the moment it's a pointless waste of time half the time. Getting the TV companies to agree would be the tricky part.

blutgraetsche wrote:

Pierre Littbarski wrote:Penalties are fine as they are - I didn't like the outcome the other night but they are fair and exciting.

You are making sense often lately. What happened?

Penalties are part of the game, stop fucking around with it, it's not as if that idiot Blatter does not have enough bullshit ideas already. If you suck at penalties, try to win the game in 120 minutes, and stop whinging. There are no excuses.

I agree with Blut 100percent.

This reminds me of when the Aussies tried to change the 3 point rule for a drop goal in Rugby straight after they lost to England in the final of the Rugby WC in 2003.

Strange how the teams who suck at these things are the ones to ask for the rules to change.

Germany will not be invincible at them forever,

likewise England wont be Cr@p at them forever either,

Im sure Italy - who had a terrible record up until the 2006 final - would have liked this to have been changed prior to 2006. Im guessing they dont now.

No excuses- just win a few and the whole outlook changes.

It is a $h!t way of judging who is best or more deserving, but then arent goals aswell ? How many times do we see a team who doesnt deserve it win 1-0 for example?

Football is like that. The Germans have won many games on penalties that they shouldnt have, so good for them, other teams should take a leaf out of that book.

Nevermind that its fucking exciting

For a start, whilst I agree that penalties do provide an exciting and dramatic end to games, under the alternative that we are discussing the penalties between normal-time and extra-time wouldn't be so emotionally draining, for the players or for the supporters, precisely because they wouldn't determine outright the result of the game. Something would be lost from the excitement of the penalties because of this, but as a spectacle, the penalties might be more varied and entertaining because there would be less pressure. Dwarf makes a valid point, that it would give players a break before the extra-time - and the fatigue factor is why I don't think other options, like playing until someone scores, would work.

It's interesting to consider a player missing a penalty between normal-time and extra-time, then trying to make amends and save the game in the period of extra-time.

For me, this isn't about about changing the rules because, as they are, they don't suit some teams; it has nothing to do with pandering or whinging; and penalties aren't so fundamental to the game that I see a problem with changing how they function, how games are decided. The issue is that, for me, penalties don't decide games in a satisfying manner; they don't decide games in a way that fits with football's team ethos; and they don't really promote football at its best - football with a focus on the team over the individual, and where, ideally, real skill and ability is what seperates teams.

good posts Bash.

agree with you entirely.