Penalty Shoot Outs: An alternative?

Originally Posted by Patty_b

Always had a soft-spot for the MLS thing they tried out for a bit years ago. Player starts with the ball further up the pitch and had about a 5 second time limit to score past the keeper on a one-on-one with as many touches as they want.

Still not a perfect solution but more mental than penalties, and who wouldn't love to see De Gea try and cover 25 yards and slide one past another keeper in a 5 second time limit.

Edit:

Found a video. Looks £#%&!ing brilliant and shite at the same time. 2:40, a Penalty within a penalty shootout

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRITqS6WEn0

Yes.
Bloody loved this as a kid.

Originally Posted by Patty_b

In that case just award it to the team that spent the most time with possession in the opposition half. Would force teams to stop trying to defend their way to scab through on penalties, and force team to push up and play.

That's more like it, but harder to keep track of without the use of technology (which actually wouldn't be a problem these days, come to think it). Would still go for the shots on target, including hitting the woodwork, then have possession as a decider if the scores are equal.

*If it's still a draw then you could have two blindfolded, cloned David De Geas, give them an equal amount of sedatives and a corner flag to use as a javelin in a cross bar challenge to decide it?

Penalties are great. And they're absolutely nothing to do with luck or anything else. All about if you've got the minerals to step up and score under pressure.


If there was no penalties, we'd never have been given the John Terry slip. One of the greatest moments in sporting history.

Originally Posted by Pop

£#%&! that. I love them. They simply cannot be beaten for pure brutal tension.

Me too.

In fact: I say ramp up the pressure.

If it gets to 5 all, let the opposing team choose who gets to take the next peno against them. Proper tighten the screw of pressure

I love the traditional pen shoutout to decide things tbh

Originally Posted by Stickman

I love the traditional pen shoutout to decide things tbh

Unless DDG is playing for us?

Originally Posted by BarryX

That's more like it, but harder to keep track of without the use of technology (which actually wouldn't be a problem these days, come to think it). Would still go for the shots on target, including hitting the woodwork, then have possession as a decider if the scores are equal.

*If it's still a draw then you could have two blindfolded, cloned David De Geas, give them an equal amount of sedatives and a corner flag to use as a javelin in a cross bar challenge to decide it?

If we're going down the mental route, then pick 11 supporters for each time from the crowd. Seat numbers picked at random from each allocation.

11 vs 11 Golden goal rule. If the players can't decide it then the fans can.

Originally Posted by BarryX

Why not reward the team who play to win and entertain for the duration of the game?

that runs totally against the spirit of all of the rest of the laws, though.

I mean... who didn't want the swiss to progress on pens v spain after they suffered and withstood attack after attack? it's spain's fault for their poor finishing. why reward a team that is on top and still can't £#%&!ing score.

there is nothing wrong with penalties. if you want to avoid them, try £#%&!ing scoring.

Originally Posted by jem

that runs totally against the spirit of all of the rest of the laws, though.

I mean... who didn't want the swiss to progress on pens v spain after they suffered and withstood attack after attack? it's spain's fault for their poor finishing. why reward a team that is on top and still can't £#%&!ing score.

there is nothing wrong with penalties. if you want to avoid them, try £#%&!ing scoring.

Uneasy "I agree with jem" feeling

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Uneasy "I agree with jem" feeling

Same here

Originally Posted by jem

that runs totally against the spirit of all of the rest of the laws, though.

I mean... who didn't want the swiss to progress on pens v spain after they suffered and withstood attack after attack? it's spain's fault for their poor finishing. why reward a team that is on top and still can't £#%&!ing score.

there is nothing wrong with penalties. if you want to avoid them, try £#%&!ing scoring.

Not quite sure how it runs against the spirit of the laws, but I am certain that penalty shootouts can lead to a weaker (or negative) team progressing at the expense of a stronger/more entertaining one. And that goes against the spirit of how I like the game to be played.

'Why reward a team on top for ninety minutes without scoring', is the same as saying why reward a boxer who's battered his opponent for 12 rounds without knocking him out. The fighter who has outfought his opponent for the duration of the fight gets the win, as it should be and as it should be in tournament football IMHO. You don't see them having a random game at the end of a slug fest, to see who's the better fighter.

Penalty shootouts are the equivalent of giving little Timmy the chance to get a sticker, even though he's been shit and doesn't deserve one.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Uneasy "I agree with jem" feeling

Originally Posted by Time For Heroes

Same here

It will pass.

(I’m lying. It will haunt you. You will take endless showers to remove the feeling of being dirty. But it won’t be enough. No amount of showers will ever be enough).

Originally Posted by BarryX

Not quite sure how it runs against the spirit of the laws, but I am certain that penalty shootouts can lead to a weaker (or negative) team progressing at the expense of a stronger/more entertaining one. And that goes against the spirit of how I like the game to be played.

hey, don't get me wrong, baz... I have no time for mou-ball. I think teams have a duty to entertain, as well as win. pragmatic football that sucks the joy out of life can just £#%&! right off. I am with you 100%. I don't want the game played like that. I want my team to be on the front foot from the off and take risks.

however, the game is purely about who puts the ball in the net. nothing else in the game rewards possession, shots on or off target, time spent in the opponent's half, etc. if you don't take your chances (moreno and morata), the game punishes you. except switzerland didn't, the dipsticks.

it does lead to shitty teams going through at the expense of "better", "more expansive", "more entertaining" teams. but this is the whole game. why should extra time suddenly favour any of that shit?

otherwise, you might as well dispense with the concept of goals and just have a panel of judges giving scores out of ten for prettiness.

Originally Posted by Fat Al

It will pass.

(I’m lying. It will haunt you. You will take endless showers to remove the feeling of being dirty. But it won’t be enough. No amount of showers will ever be enough).

learn to enjoy the dirtiness.

Originally Posted by jem

hey, don't get me wrong, baz... I have no time for mou-ball. I think teams have a duty to entertain, as well as win. pragmatic football that sucks the joy out of life can just £#%&! right off. I am with you 100%. I don't want the game played like that. I want my team to be on the front foot from the off and take risks.

however, the game is purely about who puts the ball in the net. nothing else in the game rewards possession, shots on or off target, time spent in the opponent's half, etc. if you don't take your chances (moreno and morata), the game punishes you. except switzerland didn't, the dipsticks.

it does lead to shitty teams going through at the expense of "better", "more expansive", "more entertaining" teams. but this is the whole game. why should extra time suddenly favour any of that shit?

otherwise, you might as well dispense with the concept of goals and just have a panel of judges giving scores out of ten for prettiness.


learn to enjoy the dirtiness.

Games used to be decided on a coin toss though, so it's not like it's ingrained in the game of Football that a result must be secured by the ball hitting the back of the net.

I wouldn't get rid of penalties at the moment, but if a viable alternative can be thought up then I wouldn't be against the idea of getting rid of them at some stage.

Fairly interesting thread on the stats and psychology of penalty shootouts

https://twitter.com/GeirJordet/status/1412298939408306177?s=19

Originally Posted by jem

hey, don't get me wrong, baz... I have no time for mou-ball. I think teams have a duty to entertain, as well as win. pragmatic football that sucks the joy out of life can just £#%&! right off. I am with you 100%. I don't want the game played like that. I want my team to be on the front foot from the off and take risks.

however, the game is purely about who puts the ball in the net. nothing else in the game rewards possession, shots on or off target, time spent in the opponent's half, etc. if you don't take your chances (moreno and morata), the game punishes you. except switzerland didn't, the dipsticks.

it does lead to shitty teams going through at the expense of "better", "more expansive", "more entertaining" teams. but this is the whole game. why should extra time suddenly favour any of that shit?

I'm not talking about just what happens in extra-time though. If it's a draw after 90 minutes, then play the extra-time. If it's a draw after extra-time, then the points system for shots on target for the full 120 minutes would come into play. Then something like possession in the opposition half, if it's still level.

That way, you encourage and reward teams for going for it, which is what we all want to see. A lot of extra-times are very drawn out affairs, without either team wanting to risk going behind. This suggestion would ensure that a Mou-style team, who've tried to stop the opposition for 90 minutes, rather than play entertaining stuff, would have to attack at all costs in extra-time. Far more entertaining.

The game would, of course, still be about trying to put the ball in the opposition net, up until the end of the 120th minute. In case that didn't happen, it would be far fairer to reward the team that tried their hardest to do so.

Originally Posted by BarryX

Not quite sure how it runs against the spirit of the laws, but I am certain that penalty shootouts can lead to a weaker (or negative) team progressing at the expense of a stronger/more entertaining one. And that goes against the spirit of how I like the game to be played.

'Why reward a team on top for ninety minutes without scoring', is the same as saying why reward a boxer who's battered his opponent for 12 rounds without knocking him out. The fighter who has outfought his opponent for the duration of the fight gets the win, as it should be and as it should be in tournament football IMHO. You don't see them having a random game at the end of a slug fest, to see who's the better fighter.

Penalty shootouts are the equivalent of giving little Timmy the chance to get a sticker, even though he's been shit and doesn't deserve one.

But a team that has held out against one with superior possession and shots hasn't been shit, they've been really, really good at defending, which is as much a part of the game as scoring goals.

Also, how many matches in the prem last year would have gone the other way if they were decided on possession or shots on goal rather than actual goals scored?

What you are proposing is settling games on "xG"

https://www.sportskeeda.com/football...ed-goals-xg-xa

Originally Posted by red red robbo

But a team that has held out against one with superior possession and shots hasn't been shit, they've been really, really good at defending, which is as much a part of the game as scoring goals.

Also, how many matches in the prem last year would have gone the other way if they were decided on possession or shots on goal rather than actual goals scored?

What you are proposing is settling games on "xG"

https://www.sportskeeda.com/football...ed-goals-xg-xa

The primary aim in a football match is to score more goals than the opposition. How good you are at stopping the other team from doing so, is important, of course, but will always be secondary to that. You don't reward a boxer because of his defensive skills if he never lays a glove on the opponent...

Reward the team that at least tries to achieve the primary goal, as opposed to one that's happy to sit back and soak up the pressure (no matter how good their defensive skills are).

Originally Posted by BarryX

The primary aim in a football match is to score more goals than the opposition. How good you are at stopping the other team from doing so, is important, of course, but will always be secondary to that. You don't reward a boxer because of his defensive skills if he never lays a glove on the opponent...

Reward the team that at least tries to achieve the primary goal, as opposed to one that's happy to sit back and soak up the pressure (no matter how good their defensive skills are).

If a more attack minded team creates loads of chances but doesn't score then that comes under one of the universal laws that governs all out lives...

Shit happens

It's one of the things that makes football, especially knock-out football, so special, otherwise why bother to play the game, just run a simulation on a computer.

"Wembley Pairs" or "Headers and volleys" with a neutral keeper.

Quickest to three wins.