Alternative to penalty shoot outs?

[Stevie Reid]

Further proof that Sepp Blatter knows **** all about what makes football great: -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18205513


"Football can be a tragedy when you go to penalty kicks," Blatter said."Football should not go to one to one. When it goes to penalty kicks football loses its essence."

What a load of pish - surely a striker vs a goalkeeper is the essence of football. I can't think of a better way to settle a game.

[Hainan Hibs]

And a link from that article has him saying (following the last world cup) that all draws in world cups should be decided by a penalty shoot out.

How the man is still in the job I do not know.

[HibsMax]

Further proof that Sepp Blatter knows **** all about what makes football great: -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18205513



What a load of pish - surely a striker vs a goalkeeper is the essence of football. I can't think of a better way to settle a game.[/FONT][/COLOR]

I hate penalties. The stats must surely show there is a heavy bias towards the striker?

In the US they used to have penalty shootouts at the end of the game if there was a draw (changed days now) but I kinda liked the style. Similar to the penalties at half time at the final. Same as ice hockey. Let the striker take a run at the keeper and let the keeper come off his line to meet him. I think that would change the goal to save ratio.

Edit : fixed some autocorrect typos.

[CRAZYHIBBY]

We could change it to a pie eating competition.......who ever eats the most wins

[Hibbyradge]

What a load of pish - surely a striker vs a goalkeeper is the essence of football. I can't think of a better way to settle a game.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Why bother with the preceding 90 minutes, then?

The game isn't just about striker v goalkeeper.

It's about tactics, passing, defending, strength, agility, speed and skill.

I've seen many a 0 - 0 game which were as captivating as a high scoring game.

Blatter is right, imo. It is a real shame when games are settled by the lottery that is penalties. (The use of the word tragedy is a bit hyperbolic.)

However, I can't think of any better, or more exciting, ways to settle a deadlock on the day.

We used to have replays; until 1950, replays were used in the World Cup to settle any drawn matches, the 1974 European Cup final had two games to decide a winner and remember, 3 Scottish Cup final games were needed in 1979 :boo hoo:.

That was better and fairer, but TV now demands that even domestic finals are settled on the day.

[Hibbyradge]

I hate penalties. The stats must surely show there is a heavy bias towards the striker?

In the US they used to have penalty shootouts at the end of the game if there was a draw (changed days now) but I kinda liked the style. Similar to the penalties at half time at the final. Save as ice hockey. Let the striker rage a run at the keeper and let the keeper come off his line to meet him. I think that would change the goal to save ratio.

Good point. Despite my post above, this would be better than the current system.

[PeterboroHibee]

I hate penalties. The stats must surely show there is a heavy bias towards the striker?

In the US they used to have penalty shootouts at the end of the game if there was a draw (changed days now) but I kinda liked the style. Similar to the penalties at half time at the final. Save as ice hockey. Let the striker rage a run at the keeper and let the keeper come off his line to meet him. I think that would change the goal to save ratio.

I imagine there would be but given that there is almost no pressure on the keeper and its all on the striker, more will be missed/saved than youd probably expect. I dont see it being a bad thing however that more penalties are scored than not given that its essentially the idea behind football. Theres also no real advantage to either team (other than things such as taking them in front of their fans, maybe having better takers/keepers) given that its the player vs the keeper.

Its one of these things that doesnt need fixed imo. If after 120 minutes (or longer if its over a number of legs) the teams cant be separated, penalties are an easy and definitive way of deciding things.

With all the major problems that still exist in football, such as corruption, racism, sexism, implementing technology, the quality of refereeing and so on, its really ridiculous that this is one of the things the president of FIFA is focused on.

[HibsMax]

We could change it to a pie eating competition.......who ever eats the most wins

Should Hibs manage to hold on that long, we would have it in the bag. Lol.

[HibsMax]

Good point. Despite my post above, this would be better than the current system.

Or, :tongue in cheek smilie:, we play best of 7. ;)

[HibsMax]

I imagine there would be but given that there is almost no pressure on the keeper and its all on the striker, more will be missed/saved than youd probably expect. I dont see it being a bad thing however that more penalties are scored than not given that its essentially the idea behind football. Theres also no real advantage to either team (other than things such as taking them in front of their fans, maybe having better takers/keepers) given that its the player vs the keeper.

Its one of these things that doesnt need fixed imo. If after 120 minutes (or longer if its over a number of legs) the teams cant be separated, penalties are an easy and definitive way of deciding things.

With all the major problems that still exist in football, such as corruption, racism, sexism, implementing technology, the quality of refereeing and so on, its really ridiculous that this is one of the things the president of FIFA is focused on.

One thing about the revision suggested above is we wouldn't have these silly little arguments about did he come off his line or not? Did the striker pause in his run up? It would simply be a case of, you have 10 seconds to score. Go for it.

[PeeJay]

Maybe we could go back to flipping a coin?

FWIW I think penalties are a far better and dramatic option than the ridiculous "Golden Goal" idiocy they had a few years back.

Blätter is now claiming he never actually said he wanted to get rid of the penalty shootouts anyway, but then you can't actually believe anything the little ... says.

[Mon Dieu4]

Should be a square go, each team picks their 3 hardest players and whoever is standing at the end wins

[Stevie Reid]

Why bother with the preceding 90 minutes, then?

The game isn't just about striker v goalkeeper.

It's about tactics, passing, defending, strength, agility, speed and skill.

I've seen many a 0 - 0 game which were as captivating as a high scoring game.

Blatter is right, imo. It is a real shame when games are settled by the lottery that is penalties. (The use of the word tragedy is a bit hyperbolic.)

However, I can't think of any better, or more exciting, ways to settle a deadlock on the day.

We used to have replays; until 1950, replays were used in the World Cup to settle any drawn matches, the 1974 European Cup final had two games to decide a winner and remember, 3 Scottish Cup final games were needed in 1979 :boo hoo:.

That was better and fairer, but TV now demands that even domestic finals are settled on the day.

Funnily enough, I wasn't arguing that football should just be reduced to penalty shoot outs.

The object in football is to score more goals than the opposition - all the things that you mention (tactics, passing, defending, strength, agility, speed and skill) are all applied to either prevent or enable a player to put the ball beyond the goalkeeper and lead to one team scoring more than the other - and if that cannot be done, the penalty shoot out exists for the teams to outscore each other at the most basic level. I don't see how you can really take issue with what I have said.

Incidentally, penalty taking is very much a skill in itself - you kind of step on your own point about the importance of all the other elements of football if you describe the skill of taking/stopping penalties as a "lottery".

[Future17]

I hate penalties. The stats must surely show there is a heavy bias towards the striker?

In the US they used to have penalty shootouts at the end of the game if there was a draw (changed days now) but I kinda liked the style. Similar to the penalties at half time at the final. Same as ice hockey. Let the striker take a run at the keeper and let the keeper come off his line to meet him. I think that would change the goal to save ratio.

Edit : fixed some autocorrect typos.

My memories of watching "American penalties" as we used to call it, is that the vast majority were scored.

[Stevie Reid]

One thing about the revision suggested above is we wouldn't have these silly little arguments about did he come off his line or not? Did the striker pause in his run up? It would simply be a case of, you have 10 seconds to score. Go for it.

That's the only advantage to this that I can see. Not a bad idea but still much prefer penalties.

Though I may well be biased as Hibs haven't lost one in my lifetime, IIRC.

[rcarter1]

I would favour at the end of the 90min +injury time, to go to sudden death extra time (like the golden goal).
However, both teams remove three players from their 11 at the start of this extra time making 8 a side (or less if players sent off). If after 15mins no goals, remove another 3 to make it 5 side. I would bet a considerable amount of potatoes that virtually all games would be settled within the 30 mins! Surely this retains the essence of it being football while virtually guaranteeing an outcome in a sensible amount of time.

[HibsMax]

Maybe we could go back to flipping a coin?

FWIW I think penalties are a far better and dramatic option than the ridiculous "Golden Goal" idiocy they had a few years back.

Blätter is now claiming he never actually said he wanted to get rid of the penalty shootouts anyway, but then you can't actually believe anything the little ... says.

This is the system they use in the NFL and I hate that too since the game is *almost* decided on the flip of a coin....although they changed the ruking last year to make that less likely. College football has slightly different rules (that won't work for "soccer"). When one team scores the game is not over, the other team gets a possession to try and score. Fail and they're toast.

[HibsMax]

My memories of watching "American penalties" as we used to call it, is that the vast majority were scored.

Damn. A flaw in my plan! ;). I don't have any stats at all. It just seems like a fairer system.

I know it is impossible but I like the "series" approach but that would never get off the ground. And I wouldn't want it for football. Home and away ties seem reasonable but it could still end up a draw. You would need an odd number of fixtures. And it could STILL need a decider.

Maybe this is the only answer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyv_MHxqRX0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Tell me that doesn't separate the men from the boys!!

[speedy_gonzales]

I would favour at the end of the 90min +injury time, to go to sudden death extra time (like the golden goal).
However, both teams remove three players from their 11 at the start of this extra time making 8 a side (or less if players sent off). If after 15mins no goals, remove another 3 to make it 5 side. I would bet a considerable amount of potatoes that virtually all games would be settled within the 30 mins! Surely this retains the essence of it being football while virtually guaranteeing an outcome in a sensible amount of time.
You ever worked behind the ticket desk at ER?? I only ask as they guy there mentioned something similar to me last season, if after 90 minutes it's still a draw, each team should forfeit a player every 5 minutes until it's decided. There's a chance it could end up with 2 goalkeepers having a game of long bangers!!

[keep the faith]

I would favour at the end of the 90min +injury time, to go to sudden death extra time (like the golden goal).
However, both teams remove three players from their 11 at the start of this extra time making 8 a side (or less if players sent off). If after 15mins no goals, remove another 3 to make it 5 side. I would bet a considerable amount of potatoes that virtually all games would be settled within the 30 mins! Surely this retains the essence of it being football while virtually guaranteeing an outcome in a sensible amount of time.

Good idea. would be up for that

[PPZPOL]

Further proof that Sepp Blatter knows **** all about what makes football great: -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18205513



What a load of pish - surely a striker vs a goalkeeper is the essence of football. I can't think of a better way to settle a game.[/FONT][/COLOR]

There's already a perfectly good alternative to penalties, its called winning the game in normal time. Too often teams settle for penalties. Lost count of the amount of ET periodsthat I've watchd that have been nothing more than a stroll around for 30mins just to take the chance of winning in a shoot out (normally both teams as guilty as each other). Live by the sword then you have to be prepared to die by it as well.

[Seanair]

Why bother with the preceding 90 minutes, then?

The game isn't just about striker v goalkeeper.

It's about tactics, passing, defending, strength, agility, speed and skill.

I've seen many a 0 - 0 game which were as captivating as a high scoring game.

Blatter is right, imo. It is a real shame when games are settled by the lottery that is penalties. (The use of the word tragedy is a bit hyperbolic.)

However, I can't think of any better, or more exciting, ways to settle a deadlock on the day.

We used to have replays; until 1950, replays were used in the World Cup to settle any drawn matches, the 1974 European Cup final had two games to decide a winner and remember, 3 Scottish Cup final games were needed in 1979 :boo hoo:.

That was better and fairer, but TV now demands that even domestic finals are settled on the day.

When outdoor 5-a-side football competitions were played by professional teams after the main season was finished (often as part of a Sports Day--at Meadowbank for example), if the score at the end of the Final was tied, the winning team was decided on the number of CORNERS scored (presumably on the basis that the team who had won the majority of corners had been more attack-minded).
Modern technology tells us as we go through a match not just how many corners each team has won, but how many shots on/off target, how many free-kicks awarded, how many bookings/sending offs. On an agreed system of points added and deducted for positive and negative actions on the field, the official computer could declare a winner in seconds after the referee blew the whistle. No replays, no nerve-wracking shoot-outs. Sheemples!

Funnily enough I can't remember how the winners of the 5-a-side Final were decided if the number of corners was equal at the end of the game. Probably by the toss of a coin so that they could all get away to the pub together.

[Hal Jordan]

Should be a square go, each team picks their 3 hardest players and whoever is standing at the end wins

Matty Jack.
Geebsie.
Erich Schaedler.

Reckon we'd win a few with them.

[snooky]

The problem with penalties is that the striker is expected to score so, if you can get my reasoning, it's the missed ones that the focus is on.

If the kick was taken from say, the 18 yard line, the chances of scoring would be reduced to approx 50/50 thereby increasing the skill level required to score.

Currently, penalties are a lottery with the keeper just guessing and diving one way. In real terms, that should be the only chance he should have to make a save.




So, to summarise, there's nothing wrong with a shootout - just move the ball further away from the goals. - Get it sorted Mr Bladder!

[rcarter1]

You ever worked behind the ticket desk at ER?? I only ask as they guy there mentioned something similar to me last season, if after 90 minutes it's still a draw, each team should forfeit a player every 5 minutes until it's decided. There's a chance it could end up with 2 goalkeepers having a game of long bangers!!

Ive never worked behind the ticket desk, but I remember something similar being bandied about years ago so it must be doing the rounds. I think people were against it cause it was originally discussed as a full 30 min extra time. (Ie the other team gets a chance to equalise). I reckon a 'next goal wins' type of thing with less players could work. Personally I reckon it could be quite exciting to watch - games where loads of people are sent off from both sides tend to be more end to end because of the extra space.

[ancient hibee]

I think that penalties make a complete travesty of the competition.

[Bostonhibby]

Further proof that Sepp Blatter knows **** all about what makes football great: -http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18205513



What a load of pish - surely a striker vs a goalkeeper is the essence of football. I can't think of a better way to settle a game.[/FONT][/COLOR]

:agree: how about pushing aboot the wheelbarrow full of money? or biggest brass neck wins?

[Bostonhibby]

Matty Jack.
Geebsie.
Erich Schaedler.

Reckon we'd win a few with them.

Big Bad John MacNamee against whatever the opposition had to throw at him :greengrin

[blackpoolhibs]

Why cant we just leave the game alone? :rolleyes:

[NAE NOOKIE]

A penalty shoot out is probably the most dramatic thing you will ever see at a football match ... screw fairness, its the drama that makes it worth watching ... I may be wrong here, but as far as I am aware certainly since I've been watching Hibs, they have never lost a penalty shoot out.

Oh I forgot .... If Blatter thinks its a good idea .... look twice

[Sammy7nil]

The problem with penalties is that the striker is expected to score so, if you can get my reasoning, it's the missed ones that the focus is on.

If the kick was taken from say, the 18 yard line, the chances of scoring would be reduced to approx 50/50 thereby increasing the skill level required to score.

Currently, penalties are a lottery with the keeper just guessing and diving one way. In real terms, that should be the only chance he should have to make a save.




So, to summarise, there's nothing wrong with a shootout - just move the ball further away from the goals. - Get it sorted Mr Bladder!


I like that but I would make it 25 yds out a shoot out could easily be won 1 - 0
The pressure would change from striker to keeper as most would be expected to miss and you would see some stunning top corner goals. It would be more celebrating a "goal" than a pen shoot out.

[Jonnyboy]

Once again Blatter claims his words were ahem lost in translation. What he actually said was "I'm a daft auld bugger and I should have been booted years ago" but the press reported it as "Penalties are not the way to decide a game"

Easy done really :wink:

[Macaroon]

I hate penalties. The stats must surely show there is a heavy bias towards the striker?

In the US they used to have penalty shootouts at the end of the game if there was a draw (changed days now) but I kinda liked the style. Similar to the penalties at half time at the final. Same as ice hockey. Let the striker take a run at the keeper and let the keeper come off his line to meet him. I think that would change the goal to save ratio.


And what happens if the keeper brings down the striker and commits a foul? And what decides when the striker has had "his go"? What if he shoots and the keeper keeps pulling off endless close range saves over and over before finally the striker gets it into the net? Surely that is un-fair.

There are so many factors and so many possibilities in such an open-play system. I doubt it would work without endless lists of rules to apply to it. Which would go against the very principles that caused the system to be implemented in the first place, wouldn't it?

[JohnStephens91]

They should put snails on a main road and clearly mark them as each teams snail. First snail to die loses, simple. If both get hit at the same time then it is decided that the first goalkeeper to finish eating the crushed snail wins...

Or we can just keep the penalty shoot-out.

[snooky]

They should put snails on a main road and clearly mark them as each teams snail. First snail to die loses, simple. If both get hit at the same time then it is decided that the first goalkeeper to finish eating the crushed snail wins...

Or we can just keep the penalty shoot-out.

FFS, we're just about to get rid of a shell suit mob and you want to bring more in. :wink:

[VickMackie]

The Bob Arum of football. A suicide pact between those two would do nicely.

[JohnStephens91]

FFS, we're just about to get rid of a shell suit mob and you want to bring more in. :wink:

To be fair this lot will be crushed under tires, the tires being symbolic of the relevant footballing authorities crushing the cheats into oblivion (hopefully)

[iwasthere1972]

Toss the coin. I loved it and would vote for it's return. Pure entertainment. Is it heads or is it tails?

[Scouse Hibee]

Cross bar challenge between the two managers. :greengrin

[iwasthere1972]

Cross bar challenge between the two managers. :greengrin

Big pillows and see which manager falls off first. :aok:

[heretoday]

No alternative to penalties. Everything else sounds contrived and a bit complicated - in other words right up Blatter's street.

Shame we can no longer have replays. Remember the 1979 Final?

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

What about settling it based on playground games from school? Given our cup final showing, if we chose hide and seek, we could be on to a sure fire winner.:rolleyes: