alternative to ‘tragedy’ of soccer’s penalty shootouts

[ZippyRulz]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-spo...ticle-1.1084525

[GP1]

Isn't the real solution to adopt rules that promote more scoring throughout the game? I don't know what those changes would be because I don't like the sport, but years of playing craps has taught me about the odds of something happening. Years of watching sports has taught me that fans love watching scoring and when a league like the NHL adopted rules to promote scoring, fan interest went up. It becomes a win-win for the sport.

If four goals is the norm (I really don't know what that number is right now, but I think I'm being generous), it presents three ways of getting to four and two present no PK: 4-0, 3-1, 2-2. Lower scoring games offer even fewer options and better chances of a tie. Thus, the PK comes into play.

If the game was modified to promote more scoring, there would be fewer PK endings. For example, if soccer changed the rules and there were eight goals total in a game, the ways of getting to that number become 8-0, 7-1, 6-2, 5-3, 4-4...Five in total (four non-PK endings) and the odds of a PK ending are reduced.

If a game ends in a tie, sudden death becomes the best way to finish in a sport that now has a better chance of scoring as the overtime will not last six hours. Whatever they do, there should not be a different set of rules in OT as there is in regulation.

[Zipmeister]

Lots of ways to increase scoring. Just a few:

1. Increase goal size by 50%.

2. Last team to score has to play two men short.

3. Establish a basketball like 3 pt line; e.g., any goal from more than 25 yards out worth 2 points.

4. If goalie makes three saves he has to play the rest of the game with one arm tied behind his back.

5. If goalie makes three more saves with arm tied behind his back he must play the remainder of the game with one arm tied behind his back and his shoes tied together with his (regulation length) shoe laces.

6. All corner kicks taken from the penalty kick line.

7. Eliminate offsides as a penalty.

[TheTank123]

Lots of ways to increase scoring. Just a few:

1. Increase goal size by 50%.

2. Last team to score has to play two men short.

3. Establish a basketball like 3 pt line; e.g., any goal from more than 25 yards out worth 2 points.

4. If goalie makes three saves he has to play the rest of the game with one arm tied behind his back.

5. If goalie makes three more saves with arm tied behind his back he must play the remainder of the game with one arm tied behind his back and his shoes tied together with his (regulation length) shoe laces.

6. All corner kicks taken from the penalty kick line.

7. Eliminate offsides as a penalty.

There is absolutely no need to increase scoring. The only people who want to see scoring increased is people who don't like soccer. Nevermind that they are perfectly ok with a 21-14 football game, which is really just a 3-2 score.

The issue is penalty shootouts vs. another way to decide a game, not how to increase scoring.

[bisbee]

There is absolutely no need to increase scoring. The only people who want to see scoring increased is people who don't like soccer. Nevermind that they are perfectly ok with a 21-14 football game, which is really just a 3-2 score.

The issue is penalty shootouts vs. another way to decide a game, not how to increase scoring.

True and you still could have a 6-6 tie with PKs looming. As much as i don't like the shootout I doubt it will change.

[MDZip]

I have long advocated a system where you remove players from the field (therefore opening more space) for each successive overtime, including removing the goalies at say, the third overtime. First overtime, nine players, second, seven, and the third five (goalies are gone). Keep going with five until it is decided (addtional overtimes past three would allow substitutions at the beginning of the overtime but not during). Penalty kicks can be dramatic, but they really shouldn't be the way to decide a well played match.

[johnnyzip84]

What reason did FIFA give for abandoning the "golden goal" a while back?

[fknbuflobo]

These supposed remedies are mostly nonsense!

The game does not need repairing; it is doing just fine. Most of these rules are very old by sporting standards, well over 100 years. Leave the rules alone. If Soccer is not your cup of tea, watch something else! I would love to incorporate more fans; I am not the least bit elitist. The more the merrier! But attracting more fans cannot come at the expense of the game itself.

Imagine how entertaining Baseball would be if runners could be forced out by hitting them with the ball. Of course, the very fabric of the sport would be forever altered, losing all historical perspective. But hey, it sure would be fun to watch!

The unfortunate proposal to remove Off-Sides has reared its stupid head once again. This is a common and frequent suggestion, but without real insight. Remove Off-Sides and every match would result in one herd at one goalmouth and another herd at the other goalmouth, each fouling and slogging about for a garbage goal. The Off-Side rule is integral to the sport. Do not tamper with it.

The only small modification I would make is to extend extra time, keeping the golden goal. In NCAA, two 15 minute halves is just not long enough. Make it an additional 45 minutes, with no intermission. Fatigue will set in and someone will eventually score. If still equal at the end of an additional 45 minutes, then call the regular season a draw, and call the post season PKs. Done.

[a-zip]

First of all, I do not think they will change anything. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world so.......if it aint broke, don't break it.

Personally I do not like penalty kicks deciding a match because there is too much luck involved. The hardest thing to do in ALL of sports is for a goalie to stop a penalty kick. The only way to stop one is to GUESS properly and even if you guess properly, a well struck/placed PK is unstoppable.

I think the best alternative would be to do something similar to hockey. A "shootout" where you have a one on one breakaway against the goalie and a limited amount of time to get the shot off. There is a lot more strategy involved in it and it is exciting.

[GP1]

There is absolutely no need to increase scoring. The only people who want to see scoring increased is people who don't like soccer. Nevermind that they are perfectly ok with a 21-14 football game, which is really just a 3-2 score.

Fans of hockey argued against changing rules that increased scoring for years. When rules were changed to promote scoring and action, more fans were created and the loyal fans stayed. The game was improved. The mistake hockey made was the introduction of the shootout to win OT games. I don't like the idea of it in either sport.

I disagree that people who don't like soccer want to see scoring increased. People who don't like soccer aren't going to watch regardless of the numbers of goals scored. The NBA could have games end 200-198 and I wouldn't watch because I don't like the NBA. Increased scoring picks up the marginal fan who likes the sport but wants something a little different. Increased scoring won't lose fans.

[GP1]

Imagine how entertaining Baseball would be if runners could be forced out by hitting them with the ball. Of course, the very fabric of the sport would be forever altered, losing all historical perspective. But hey, it sure would be fun to watch!

Not the analogy I would use. Actually, you can get someone out by throwing the ball at a runner in baseball. Can anyone name the play?

A better analogy for a rule change that is really good for a game like football takes place in the CFL. The CFL allows multiple receivers to run toward the line prior to the snap of the ball. Creates a different dynamic in the game. Every sport has some rules that can be changed to promote more exciting play...Soccer is not immune from looking at ways to making changes that make the game more exciting.

[fknbuflobo]

Not the analogy I would use. Actually, you can get someone out by throwing the ball at a runner in baseball. Can anyone name the play?

A better analogy for a rule change that is really good for a game like football takes place in the CFL. The CFL allows multiple receivers to run toward the line prior to the snap of the ball. Creates a different dynamic in the game. Every sport has some rules that can be changed to promote more exciting play...Soccer is not immune from looking at ways to making changes that make the game more exciting.

I cannot name that play; I do not particularly care for Baseball. Perhaps mine was not the best analogy to illustrate my point.

Eliminating Off-Side rule is as radical a shift in Soccer's structure as permitting the handling of the ball. Alter the Off-Side rule (while keeping all else constant) and you have an entirely different sport.

There are many rules I would change, in several different sports. Your example of CFL Receivers moving before the snap is a good one. I like how the CFL game is much more fluid and natural. The NFL needs to cut their rulebook in half. I am not especially worried about which half they keep. I just know that fat guys blowing whistles is not entertaining to watch, regardless of the scoring, regardless of the sport. What I want more than anything is uninterrupted action.

I do not equate scoring with excitement. The buildup to a crescendo is much more exciting to me than repetitious scoring, as in Basketball. I happen to enjoy Basketball (having played it for years), but I am not the least bit put-off by a low scoring game where each possession is crucial. Conversely, I remember high scoring NBA yawners back in the day, when no one played serious defense. There was plenty of scoring, without any drama whatsoever. Scoring and action are not exactly the same things.

[fknbuflobo]

There is absolutely no need to increase scoring. The only people who want to see scoring increased is people who don't like soccer. Nevermind that they are perfectly ok with a 21-14 football game, which is really just a 3-2 score.

The issue is penalty shootouts vs. another way to decide a game, not how to increase scoring.

Thanks for putting us back on track. As I stated above, the only small modification I would make is to extend extra time, keeping the golden goal. In NCAA, two 15 minute halves is just not long enough. Make it an additional 45 minutes, with no intermission. Fatigue will set in and someone will eventually score. If still equal at the end of an additional 45 minutes, then call the regular season a draw, and call the post season PKs.

Like everyone else, I hate PKs at the end of extra time. However, if the match demands a winner (post season), PKs is the tradtional way to decide things. I see no need to change it, even though I have tasted that bitterness more than once.

[ZippyRulz]

I have long advocated a system where you remove players from the field (therefore opening more space) for each successive overtime, including removing the goalies at say, the third overtime. First overtime, nine players, second, seven, and the third five (goalies are gone). Keep going with five until it is decided (addtional overtimes past three would allow substitutions at the beginning of the overtime but not during). Penalty kicks can be dramatic, but they really shouldn't be the way to decide a well played match.

+100. It would only increase scoring in overtime to decide the match in the same fashion as regulation play. We've lived and died by penalty kick shootouts and I agree it's a 'tragic' guessing-game way to determine a winner. A basketball analogy would be at the end of a hard fought tie game to have each team shoot half a dozen free throws to decide the outcome.

[Zipmeister]

I cannot name that play; I do not particularly care for Baseball. Perhaps mine was not the best analogy to illustrate my point.

Eliminating Off-Side rule is as radical a shift in Soccer's structure as permitting the handling of the ball. Alter the Off-Side rule (while keeping all else constant) and you have an entirely different sport.

There are many rules I would change, in several different sports. Your example of CFL Receivers moving before the snap is a good one. I like how the CFL game is much more fluid and natural. The NFL needs to cut their rulebook in half. I am not especially worried about which half they keep. I just know that fat guys blowing whistles is not entertaining to watch, regardless of the scoring, regardless of the sport. What I want more than anything is uninterrupted action.

I do not equate scoring with excitement. The buildup to a crescendo is much more exciting to me than repetitious scoring, as in Basketball. I happen to enjoy Basketball (having played it for years), but I am not the least bit put-off by a low scoring game where each possession is crucial. Conversely, I remember high scoring NBA yawners back in the day, when no one played serious defense. There was plenty of scoring, without any drama whatsoever. Scoring and action are not exactly the same things.

I tried to Google the Grate One's question to get an answer, but there was too much interference.

I like the idea of forcing a runner out by hitting them with the ball.

They could do the same thing in golf.

[RootforRoo44]

I like soccer the way it is. As Z.I.P. stated, removing a player or two in OT makes the most sense in terms of stopping PK's, not ruining the game by making it a boring goal-fest.

[Z.I.P.]

I like soccer the way it is. As Z.I.P. stated, removing a player or two in OT makes the most sense in terms of stopping PK's, not ruining the game by making it a boring goal-fest.

Thanks for the credit -- but I just logged onto this thread. Apparently it was MDZip, the Baltimore Oriole who advocated that crazy softball-like concept. Me, I like 8-overtime finals! As long as Indiana isn't involved!

[RootforRoo44]

Thanks for the credit -- but I just logged onto this thread. Apparently it was MDZip, the Baltimore Oriole who advocated that crazy softball-like concept. Me, I like 8-overtime finals! As long as Indiana isn't involved!

My bad...MD Zip, ZIP...too many 'ZIP' names!

[MDZip]

Thanks for the credit -- but I just logged onto this thread. Apparently it was MDZip, the Baltimore Oriole who advocated that crazy softball-like concept. Me, I like 8-overtime finals! As long as Indiana isn't involved!

Ah I knew what he meant, but in case everyone hated the idea, I was fine with letting you take the blame. By the way, my idea would not eliminate multiple overtimes, just the PK finish. I'm also fine with regular season games ending in a tie. And finally, what kind of bizarre softball leagues do you play in ... ?