Voices
in
Japan

have your say

Is a penalty shootout the best way to determine the winner in the knockout stages of tournaments like the World Cup?

38 Comments

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

38 Comments
Login to comment

I'd rather they play on.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Should play until they drop... get paid enough don't they? (with some exceptions I'm sure)

1 ( +5 / -4 )

No.

I hate them in hockey too.

Take half the players off each team and continue extra time.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I like that idea, probie. Lose a player every 10 additional minutes in second sudden death OT might work, too.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Allow two ten-minute overtime attempts to score. Then add up the total number of goals scored in the tournament. If that remains a tie, subtract the goals against over the entire tournament. If that still remains a tie, only then go to a penalty shoot out until one team scores. Penalty shoot-outs should be a last resort in any tournament. The over-all performance should count for more than one or two shots in the final throes.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I wonder if there is a better system such as making the first goal scored in overtime the decision. Doesn't this create much greater tension and excitement during the overtime. So you let in a goal and that's it. You don't have a second chance to rebound and come back from it. Maybe there is a more satisfactory way to resolve a tiebreaker match? I know some people complain that a shootout only determines the better team in one discipline rather than determining the better team in one play. How can they replace or modify this agonizing experience so it doesn't become a nightmare?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Allow two ten-minute overtime attempts to score. Then add up the total number of goals scored in the tournament. If that remains a tie, subtract the goals against over the entire tournament. If that still remains a tie, only then go to a penalty shoot out until one team scores. Penalty shoot-outs should be a last resort in any tournament. The over-all performance should count for more than one or two shots in the final throes.

I'm sorry, but that is an awful idea. If you started counting how many goals a team scored in the tournament, it would become asinine. What about really good teams who get an easy group and that thrash the weaker teams in the group games? That has nothing to do with a game played in the knockout stages.

Make them play with 1 goalie, and 5 dudes for the first half. Then, change for another 5 dudes for the second half of overtime. If it continues more than that, no change of players. So, the second set of guys have to play on till someone scores.

That would make it more tactical. Deciding to play your best guys in the first half of overtime, or the second and have to keep them out there for as long as it takes.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Probie, that's a brilliant variation on the reducing players theme. You should submit it to FIFA. I have often wondered why they don't reduce player numbers, it would be brilliant to watch.

The only possible reason I can think off is few players with more space means the odds are on players been further from the ball on average when, say, a clearance is made without much accuracy. Maybe this would lead to more 50-50 challengers with players running in a speed from distance, and a greater possibility of injury (particularly as players are tired in extra time)?

That, and maybe further schedule unpredictability. You would think FIFA would be happy with the opportunity to show more TV ads as the game went on, but sometimes games start very late anyway to cater to viewers in core market time zones.

This might mean that, given that most games are played in big cities and many fans arrive on public transport, your idea could lead to a clash between TV scheduling and the ability to physically get people out of the stadium and back home, when it is unclear how late into the night the event is going to run.

I don't necessarily agree with any of that, I'm just trying to think up some reason why FIFA would not implement this excellent idea and encourage some more argument!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

How about having the penalty shoot out before the game starts? Then the losing team knows they have to score while the winning team can play awesome defense. You'd see some really neat fisticuffs then, my friend.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I think Penalty Shootouts should be removed completely, they are so crap to watch and have nothing to do with Football or the team. Golden Goal is also crap, but a much better option that PK shootout.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

It is horribly wrong. Just see how Greece's Gekas cried in despair. One man is responsible for the happiness of millions of people. That is unfair. IMO, the best option would be the number of goals in previous matches. It is more realistic, and the argument that stronger teams scores higher against weaker one is not so accurate as well. I guess there's not exact science to this, but the number of goals would be the best solution.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Golden goal (next goal wins) made teams play too defensively to avoid conceding and taking the game to a shootout, that is why it was abolished 10 years ago. Alternatively replaying matches has been tried and tested, it took two teams playing in the FA Cup 6 games (660 minutes) before one of them won. A Penalty shootout is best option, from a health and safety perspective too.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

How can players back up next game if they are made to play until next goal in a tournament? Injuries and fatigue etc will impact the quality of next game where the people have paid a lot of money to watch. Its a cruel system but its a big enough reason to try and score during regulation time to avoid pks..

0 ( +2 / -2 )

serioulsy they need to widen the goal like they thought about a few years ago, higher scoring opportunities will make the game more exciting and lessen the chances of draws. PK are BS, extra time sudden death, first team to score wins!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Extra time?:

Option A - Remove the goal keeper. play 10 on 10. That should get the goal scoring on overdrive!

Option B - No offside during the extra time.

PK's are terrible for the guy who misses, like an American Football kicker missing a game winning field goal in the dying seconds ala Scott Norwood in the Superbowl A infamous example is Roberto Baggio at the 1994 World Cup Final. I bet that still haunts him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voT5W9Doa-s

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

After 90 minutes, 8 players per team, first goal wins. One additional player removed each 10 minutes until there is a goal. But this kind of idea has been proposed to FIFA many times and is always rejected because FIFA like the drama of the penalty shootout.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I think all football games should just be a penalty shootout. None of that fannying about pretending you've been hurt, just five minutes of penalties then get a Bond film on.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

I like penalty shoot outs. After 120 minutes the players are dead on their feet and then have to go on a do or die mission. I think the tension and pressure just sets it up for a great finale. And I particulary enjoyed this mornings shoot out as I had a good wager on Costa Rica going through.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Hard to say. There needs to be a point where a game ends. I think PK overtime is extremely unfair and not really any statement on the talent of the team as a whole. For the loser it's heartbreaking. I say give another round of over time, and if THAT still means things are scoreless, do as Probie suggests for one final round of overtime, and then PK. At least PK overtime beats drawing lots.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I <3 Probie's suggestion.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

'Should play until they drop'

Watching the likes of England, Greece or Italy for over 120 minutes could be defined a torture.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Take the ball back another 10 yards.

Put two extra defenders in the net.

Or allow the reserve goalie to join the main goalkeeper and share in the defending and in any resultant recrimination and/or heartbreak.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

none of these solutions are taking into account the fact that soccer is not meant to be entertaining or fair. it's a game designed to gently lull you to sleep while drinking alcohol. how else do you explain all the games being played in the middle of the night!?

-6 ( +5 / -10 )

how else do you explain all the games being played in the middle of the night!?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_time_zones_by_country

-5 ( +3 / -7 )

It's exciting, to say the least. As I stated in another thread, I really don't care for it though! It's like deciding a World Series game tied after nine innings with a home run derby ! "sudden death" if tied after regulation)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

serioulsy they need to widen the goal like they thought about a few years ago, higher scoring opportunities will make the game more exciting and lessen the chances of draws. PK are BS, extra time sudden death, first team to score wins!

There has not been serious consideration to widening the goals, especially among fans of the game. Sort of thing that comes from American advertisers once in a while to make the game more accessable, but in reality would destroy much of the beauty of certain goals. .

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Every ten minutes one player goes off from each team. Golden goal wins it.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

... I don't like PKs... they are unfair. But then again I don't know what other way should to untie a game.... May be play another match? First leg Second leg thing?

But that may not be good option either...

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

I think penalties is the only logical way to finish it. Penalties are part of the game anyway and do require a certain skill and mental toughness. After all its part of the goal scoring process. If you can't score at least more goal than your opponent in 120 minutes, maybe you don't deserve to.

Over the years I've seen plenty of situations where the dominant team couldn't score and it resulted in penalty heartbreak for the dominant team. But tbh, football is not about possession, its about scoring goals. The only statistic that matters. How you do it, doesn't matter. That's the beauty of the game.

Btw, this opinion is coming from someone who has seen plenty of penalty heartbreak over the years...

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Penalty shootouts are used in every other competition, so why not the World Cup? It's not ideal but in a footballing world controlled by money, television rights and sponsorship, replays for drawn matches have gone the way of the dodo. First goal scored in extra time and, worst of all, taking players off the pitch, are ridiculous ideas that have been rejected by FIFA and other governing bodies over and over again.

0 ( +2 / -3 )

10 minutes extra time without goalies would get some goals.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Sorry. In Baseball you just keep playing until somebody wins. Basketball is the same. Even American football had sudden death. A 0-0 tie that is decided by penalty kicks is as exciting as watching paint dry. 3 out of four final 16 matches have been decided by penalty kicks. Mexico - Netherlands was by penalty kicks. Did you see the Stanley Cup finals. Any one of those games were immensely more exciting than even one of the Final 16 matches so far.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

One option would be to reduce the field to half. Designate a team by coin flip, with the winner deciding to attack or defend. The attacking team then has 15 minutes to score or they lose, the defending team must defend or they loose. There are no substitutions and any foul results in removal of the player for the rest of the match.

The good thing about this is it will put a sense of urgency in the match, but the issue will be the odds will favor the defense.

The other option I have is a 3 on 2 shoot out. The attacking team will have 2 members the defending team will have 2 members plus a goalie. The attacking team has 1 minute (unlimited passing) and 1 attempt (shot) at the goal. If the defending team stops the ball the play is dead. If the defending team stops the ball by fouling the attacking team, the attacking team is awarded the point. After the attempt the roles are reversed with the same players but the goalies are swapped. After both teams have attempted, a new set of players will try. Best 3 out of 5 wins.

The good point about this system is it will encourage dynamic plays on both sides of the ball. The bad point is, it puts the players health at risk having to play more 1 v 1 situations.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I like the idea. Makes the goal keeper have to earn it, as well as those kicking the penalties. However, another idea may be to simply remove the goalkeepers for each side in Overtime, and then continue play in sudden death.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Why in the heck are they called "penalty" shots? Nobody was naughty. Goalie doesn't have much of a chance ... unless the kicker screws up and misses the cage entirely.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

That depends on what kind of guns they use for the shootout. US teams would have a definite advantage because of their widespread use of guns. That would not be fair.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

How about a free for all fist fight? Biting competition? Seriously, i think extra time sessions until one team wins at full time. will put a premium on fitness......

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yes

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites