Ending a World Cup Game with Shootout

FromLine · 13 Jun 2002, 06:49 PM

I hate shoot out!

I think it's an absurd way to end a game - by penalty kicks.

Imagine if we determined basketball games by free-throws.

Yes, I do understand that goals are rare and sudden death overtime could result in lasting several hours until the players litterally collapse.

By the way, I've played competitive soccer for many years and I'm a certified referee in California.

Here's my suggestion:

If the game is tied after overtime, instead of shoot out:

Play 7 on 7 for 15 mintues.

If still tied (no goals),

Play 5 on 5 for 15 mintues

If still tied (no goals),

Play 3 on 3 for 15 minutes

In the above cases, the first goal would win and the rest of the time not played out. The "15 minutes" suggestion is arbitrary, just a suggestion (which is probably moot because I don't think FIFA will implement my suggestion).

Does anyone else here hate shootout?

***Edwin*** · 13 Jun 2002, 06:57 PM

An intriguing idea... you could of course start with "9 on 9"

You'd also have to write in a provision taking into account red cards i.e. if the game is 11 on 10 when it ends in a draw, then the extended time is 9 on 8 and so on

Frankly, it's just too controversial an idea to get a decent real-world hearing though

crazytimes · 14 Jun 2002, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Edwin

Frankly, it's just too controversial an idea to get a decent real-world hearing though

perchance that's why this idea ended up in a off-topic lounge, like here...

FromLine · 14 Jun 2002, 03:25 AM

I got some interesting perspectives on this at the Craigslist forum too:

http://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=1667308

Grhm · 18 May 2023, 07:08 AM

I've been telling everyone for years that the answer to this problem is to have the penalty shoot-out at half time.
Then the game is decided in open play, and there's no stultifying "holding out for penalties".
But do they listen?

Bamb0 · 19 May 2023, 07:00 AM

Ya they could do alot of things better huh??

Grhm · 19 May 2023, 08:28 AM

...Or, as an alternative, to answer the criticism that it is excessive to have a penalty shoot-out at half time in every single 'knockout' type game, how about this:
If the score is nil-nil at half time, there's a penalty shoot-out at half time to determine who will be the winner if it's still nil-nil at full time.
Then, if it's a score draw at full time, victory is awarded to the team that scored last.

hadaso · 20 May 2023, 02:36 AM

That's a great idea. It would provide an incentive to a team leading by one to try harder to score and not just defend their lead.

Grhm · 22 May 2023, 08:50 AM

Thank you! I think so, too.

Tsunami · 24 May 2023, 12:51 AM

An interesting suggestion I've read somewhere is to, in case of a draw, award the victory to the team which had most corner kicks. In that way you reward attacking play of style as opposed to defending the majority of the game. It's not ideal either because the number of attacks doesn't always reflect the number of corner kicks, but it's surely not a bad idea.

That said, I am not totally against penalty kicks as a decider. You cannot continue playing until the first team scores because some games would take ages to complete, resulting in physical damage to the players. And while penalty kicks aren't ideal, it's hard to come up with a better alternative. It's not like a total lottery ; some players hardly ever miss a penalty kick because they have that special gift to convert a penalty. Likewise, some goalkeepers seem to have a gift in stopping penalty kicks. In the last World Cup final (Qatar 2022), as soon as the extra time in the final was finished, I had a gut feeling Argentina would lift the trophy as Emiliano Martinez is a specialist in stopping penalty kicks, while Hugo Lloris very rarely stops a penalty kick. Iker Casillas and Gianluigi Buffon were other goalkeepers who had that gift, you just knew if it came down to shootouts they'd stop 1 or more kicks.

So while alternatives should be discussed, I wouldn't say a better alternative has been found as yet. You need a tie-breaker at some point. In tennis, we've seen a few games that had to be spread across 2 or 3 days because the final set kept on going and no tie-breaks were allowed in a final set. The players who had to play those games were physically broken after such a game, so eventually they introduced the tie-breaks even for the decisive sets to avoid a repetition of those seemingly endless games.

Stevendavis · 7 Jun 2023, 03:30 PM

Is any cricket lover here, hope having debate in world cricket championship today.

Book Public Notice Ad in Newspaper

View Poll Results: Is Shoot Out a Reasonable way to determine the winner of a soccer game?
Yes. The status quo of Penalty Kicks is the best way to determine the winner	4	50.00%
No. Have them play sudden death overtime until a goal is scored (or until the players collapse)	1	12.50%
I like fb19's suggestion (see below) - 7 on 7 / 5 on 5 / 3 on 3 / etc...	3	37.50%
Voters: 8. You may not vote on this poll

13 Jun 2002, 06:49 PM	#1
FromLine The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,619	Ending a World Cup Game with Shootout I hate shoot out! I think it's an absurd way to end a game - by penalty kicks. Imagine if we determined basketball games by free-throws. Yes, I do understand that goals are rare and sudden death overtime could result in lasting several hours until the players litterally collapse. By the way, I've played competitive soccer for many years and I'm a certified referee in California. Here's my suggestion: If the game is tied after overtime, instead of shoot out: Play 7 on 7 for 15 mintues. If still tied (no goals), Play 5 on 5 for 15 mintues If still tied (no goals), Play 3 on 3 for 15 minutes In the above cases, the first goal would win and the rest of the time not played out. The "15 minutes" suggestion is arbitrary, just a suggestion (which is probably moot because I don't think FIFA will implement my suggestion). Does anyone else here hate shootout?

19 May 2023, 08:28 AM	#7
Grhm Essential Contributor Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UK Posts: 270	...Or, as an alternative, to answer the criticism that it is excessive to have a penalty shoot-out at half time in every single 'knockout' type game, how about this: If the score is nil-nil at half time, there's a penalty shoot-out at half time to determine who will be the winner if it's still nil-nil at full time. Then, if it's a score draw at full time, victory is awarded to the team that scored *last. Last edited by Grhm : 22 May 2023 at 08:52 AM. Reason: clarity*

13 Jun 2002, 06:57 PM	#2
*Edwin* Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: UK Posts: 3,118	An intriguing idea... you could of course start with "9 on 9" You'd also have to write in a provision taking into account red cards i.e. if the game is 11 on 10 when it ends in a draw, then the extended time is 9 on 8 and so on Frankly, it's just too controversial an idea to get a decent real-world hearing though

14 Jun 2002, 03:25 AM	#4
FromLine The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,619	I got some interesting perspectives on this at the Craigslist forum too: http://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=1667308

18 May 2023, 07:08 AM	#5
Grhm Essential Contributor Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UK Posts: 270	I've been telling everyone for years that the answer to this problem is to have the penalty shoot-out at half time. Then the game is decided in open play, and there's no stultifying "holding out for penalties". But do they listen?

19 May 2023, 07:00 AM	#6
Bamb0 Master of the @ Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: USA Posts: 1,871	Ya they could do alot of things better huh??

20 May 2023, 02:36 AM	#8
hadaso The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Holon, Israel. Posts: 4,837	That's a great idea. It would provide an incentive to a team leading by one to try harder to score and not just defend their lead.

22 May 2023, 08:50 AM	#9
Grhm Essential Contributor Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UK Posts: 270	Thank you! I think so, too.

24 May 2023, 12:51 AM	#10
Tsunami The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: in between the bright lights and the far unlit unknown Posts: 2,341	An interesting suggestion I've read somewhere is to, in case of a draw, award the victory to the team which had most corner kicks. In that way you reward attacking play of style as opposed to defending the majority of the game. It's not ideal either because the number of attacks doesn't always reflect the number of corner kicks, but it's surely not a bad idea. That said, I am not totally against penalty kicks as a decider. You cannot continue playing until the first team scores because some games would take ages to complete, resulting in physical damage to the players. And while penalty kicks aren't ideal, it's hard to come up with a better alternative. It's not like a total lottery ; some players hardly ever miss a penalty kick because they have that special gift to convert a penalty. Likewise, some goalkeepers seem to have a gift in stopping penalty kicks. In the last World Cup final (Qatar 2022), as soon as the extra time in the final was finished, I had a gut feeling Argentina would lift the trophy as Emiliano Martinez is a specialist in stopping penalty kicks, while Hugo Lloris very rarely stops a penalty kick. Iker Casillas and Gianluigi Buffon were other goalkeepers who had that gift, you just knew if it came down to shootouts they'd stop 1 or more kicks. So while alternatives should be discussed, I wouldn't say a better alternative has been found as yet. You need a tie-breaker at some point. In tennis, we've seen a few games that had to be spread across 2 or 3 days because the final set kept on going and no tie-breaks were allowed in a final set. The players who had to play those games were physically broken after such a game, so eventually they introduced the tie-breaks even for the decisive sets to avoid a repetition of those seemingly endless games.

7 Jun 2023, 03:30 PM	#11
Stevendavis Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2019 Posts: 0	Is any cricket lover here, hope having debate in world cricket championship today. Book Public Notice Ad in Newspaper