Should shoot-outs happen BEFORE extra-time?

Nunu

Right, I decided to open a thread on this as a result of a discussion on another thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055087468
I want to see what everyone thinks about this idea.
On first thought it might seem radical, but it's not. I'm not going to explain it in detail, because there's nothing new to explain. Nothing changes apart from scheduling the shoot-out before extra-time, then if after 120mins the game ends level on aggregate and no team has the advantage on away goals(as it is now) then the team that won the shootout wins.

Please post your thoughts and ideas.
For the record I'm 100% behind this idea and can't see a fault in it.

johnor

I think penalties are a horrible way to end a final, semi-final or whatever, i think the current format is much better and a replay for a later date would devalue to final and become impossible especially for teams involved in a lot of competitions. So i think 30 mins of extra time is ok, maybe allow an additional substitute to be made if teams have already made 3.... I disagree with the silver/golden goal rules aswell I think the current format of the champions league knockout stages makes the most sense..

eirebhoy

What happens if it's a draw after peno's and extra time?

Pepe LeFrits

How do penos end in a draw?

I don't like the idea to be honest. What it means is that instead of having two teams being afraid to risk going for the winner, you merely have one team defending and another team attacking. Not much improvement.

I'd rather the teams were reduced in size. Say 9 v 9 at the start of ET, 7 v 7 after 10 mins, 5 v 5 for the last 10...

eirebhoy

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

How do penos end in a draw?

It took me a while to understand what he was talking about. I can't make up my mind on it tbh. If a team had absolutely nothing to lose and 30 minutes to get a goal I'd say they'd get it a lot more often than not.

Nunu

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

How do penos end in a draw?

I don't like the idea to be honest. What it means is that instead of having two teams being afraid to risk going for the winner, you merely have one team defending and another team attacking. Not much improvement.

I'd rather the teams were reduced in size. Say 9 v 9 at the start of ET, 7 v 7 after 10 mins, 5 v 5 for the last 10...

How, is that not an improvement? As you said yourself instead of having two teams not going for it at least you'd have one. It's a no-brainer!

eirebhoy

Nunu wrote:

How, is that not an improvement? As you said yourself instead of having two teams not going for it at least you'd have one. It's a no-brainer!

What are the chances of the team that won the penalty shootout winning in extra time? I'd say very, very slim. If it does end in a draw it has been decided on peno's anyway.

Pepe LeFrits

Nunu wrote:

How, is that not an improvement? As you said yourself instead of having two teams not going for it at least you'd have one. It's a no-brainer!

I said not much, and to be honest I'm not even sure that's true now. It reduces one of the team's attacking ambitions even further, because they know they only have to hold on for a draw to win. At the moment it's not simply a case of neither team trying to win, but that both teams commit limited resources to trying to win. All this change would do would be to swap some of those attacking resources from one team to the other.

shane86

No way. Penos after extra time are heart stopping, its the height of 120 mins of brilliant defending where the burden goes to one man- the keeper. Its the keepers skill vs the shooters ability to keep their nerve.

Anyway, would you really have wished Romania vs Ireland had ended 1-0 to us, or did you rather the tension, the elation when Bonner whacked it out and when O`Leary knocked it in? Penos are the business.

Attractive Nun

I agree with the above. While it's probably true that this system would make extra time somewhat more interesting (not that I think that's really necessary - I love when players are going down with cramp and giving everything), it substantially reduces the drama of a penalty shoot-out. The problems associated with penalties are that they are generally considered to be an unfair way to decide a game of football, since they are often perceived to be little more than a lottery. Given the constistently brilliant performances of goalkeepers like Reina and Portugal's Ricardo, I don't think lottery is a fair word but that's beside the point. The proposed system doesn't eliminate any unfairness associated with penalty shootouts - games will still be decided on them - it simply reduces their wonderful drama.

Nunu

Some good reasoned points raised against my idea I have to say. Good to see people thinking about both sides of the argument, even if I think your ultimately wrong with your reasoning that the current system is better:D

For me it basically comes down to this - having the shoot-out before E.T. eliminates the possiblity of both teams settling for penos during E.T. which can only be a good thing.
Peno shoot outs are pure drama, no doubt about it, but for me they are not the proper way to end a match. I have always felt it's wrong when major finals(world cup, champions league) are finished with penos.

A lot of people have said it would more often than not just mean one team defending for their lives and the other attacking, as if thats a bad thing - surely that would be a wonderful spectacle for the supporter, as it has been in many games in the past when a team has had to go for goals?

I'm not surprised the poll reflects a small minority in favour of the idea either. Afterall, it is the tried and tested v's the unknown.
But, I distinctly remember when the pass back rule was introduced and the vast majority were wary of it and actually against it(especially keepers!;) )...and that turned out to be the best rule change footballs ever introduced.

Nunu

Attractive Nun wrote:

I agree with the above. While it's probably true that this system would make extra time somewhat more interesting (not that I think that's really necessary - I love when players are going down with cramp and giving everything), it substantially reduces the drama of a penalty shoot-out. The problems associated with penalties are that they are generally considered to be an unfair way to decide a game of football, since they are often perceived to be little more than a lottery. Given the constistently brilliant performances of goalkeepers like Reina and Portugal's Ricardo, I don't think lottery is a fair word but that's beside the point. The proposed system doesn't eliminate any unfairness associated with penalty shootouts - games will still be decided on them - it simply reduces their wonderful drama.

Yes, of course game could be still decided on them - thats why they'd still happen, but in reducing a shoot outs drama you would be increasing the 30 mins ET's drama. Surely thats a more than acceptable compromise, and as I've said all along an improvement?
Visualise it in your heads lads: The peno shoot out is over with and now onto 30 mins of heart stopping football, there's no room for stale mate anymore and going through the motions waiting for penos....it's definetly the way to go;)

Guy:Incognito

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

I'd rather the teams were reduced in size. Say 9 v 9 at the start of ET, 7 v 7 after 10 mins, 5 v 5 for the last 10...

That would be the worst game ever. Imagine the amount of running the 5 man teams would have to do, now think of that after having run for 110 mins. Players would start dropping dead.


As for the Penos thing? no chance, silly idea and 1 team attackign a defending team would be crap. Teh defendign team would have 11 players permenantly camped in their own box. I'd be willing to bet that no team that won the penalties would score in the match after the penos. Penos is a way to separate two teams that cant be separated by playing against each other for 210 mins.

Nunu

Stekelly wrote:

That would be the worst game ever. Imagine the amount of running the 5 man teams would have to do, now think of that after having run for 110 mins. Players would start dropping dead.


As for the Penos thing? no chance, silly idea and 1 team attackign a defending team would be crap. Teh defendign team would have 11 players permenantly camped in their own box. I'd be willing to bet that no team that won the penalties would score in the match after the penos. Penos is a way to separate two teams that cant be separated by playing against each other for 210 mins.

Your point? - That would still be the case.
You're just taking the penos at a different time.

And by the way its not enshrined that the team who wins the shoot out has to put 11 men behind the ball, it's up to themselves, but that would be very risky to invite a team onto you for 30 mins when you know the other team has to get a goal or they're out

PiE

Nunu wrote:

I'm not surprised the poll reflects a small minority in favour of the idea either.

Clearly you're a revolutionary visionary and should be running for FIFA president.

GAMES WOULD STILL BE DECIDED BY THE WINNER OF THE PENALTY SHOOTOUT 99.9999% OF THE TIME. How is that changing ANYTHING?!

If it did come in, it would just further sanitise football by sucking the drama out.

Personally, I love penalties.

Nunu

PiE wrote:

Clearly you're a revolutionary visionary and should be running for FIFA president.

GAMES WOULD STILL BE DECIDED BY THE WINNER OF THE PENALTY SHOOTOUT 99.9999% OF THE TIME. How is that changing ANYTHING?!

If it did come in, it would just further sanitise football by sucking the drama out.

Personally, I love penalties.

How the heck do you figure that? You actually think 99.9999% of games would have no more goals in ET, when one team already knows if they don't change the aggregate score they are out....I think the percentage would be more like 10% - at a stretch! And in a one off final do you honestly think the huge majority of games would have no goals in extra time if 1 team knew they had to score in ET or they lose?

Guy:Incognito

Nunu wrote:

And by the way its not enshrined that the team who wins the shoot out has to put 11 men behind the ball, it's up to themselves, but that would be very risky to invite a team onto you for 30 mins when you know the other team has to get a goal or they're out

Why would they risk losign a game that they have already "won" by going forward?

Big Ears

Nunu wrote:

Your point? - That would still be the case.
You're just taking the penos at a different time.

And by the way its not enshrined that the team who wins the shoot out has to put 11 men behind the ball, it's up to themselves, but that would be very risky to invite a team onto you for 30 mins when you know the other team has to get a goal or they're out

When you are watching a game of football and you have no support for either team , if that game goes to extra time the first thing you think of is 'I hope it goes to penalties' . Now obviously we want an exciting extra time with some goals(although in some cases a goal means there will be no penalties because of away goals rule) but you really want to see the tension and drama of penalties .

If penalties were done before extra-time(and hence not the conclusion of the game) it would take from the excitement . I don't think extra time is currently that boring , the tension in it usually has us glued to the screen whether teams are pushing forward or not .

I think the game is perfect as it is , bar the away goals in extra-time in some competition . This does not balance out home advantage as it gives the away side something which is worth more than playing at home .

Pepe LeFrits

Stekelly wrote:

That would be the worst game ever. Imagine the amount of running the 5 man teams would have to do, now think of that after having run for 110 mins. Players would start dropping dead.

Well, the idea would be for it to be used in conjunction with a golden or silver goal rule, so that the game would end pretty quickly. The less players on the pitch, the harder it becomes to defend.

Guy:Incognito

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

Well, the idea would be for it to be used in conjunction with a golden or silver goal rule, so that the game would end pretty quickly. The less players on the pitch, the harder it becomes to defend.

and the harder it is to get up the pitch and score.

Pepe LeFrits

Stekelly wrote:

and the harder it is to get up the pitch and score.

How on earth would it be harder to score?

Guy:Incognito

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

How on earth would it be harder to score?

Have you ever played 5 a side on a full pitch? Go give it a go and get back to me.

Then try it straight after playing a 90 min game.

Pepe LeFrits

Stekelly wrote:

Have you ever played 5 a side on a full pitch? Go give it a go and get back to me.

Then try it straight after playing a 90 min game.

Er, yes, I have, and it's a lot easier to score than in 11 v 11. It's like when commentators get excited with "it's 3 on 3 here...!" and less excited with "oh, only 9 more to get past now!".

Besides, switching to 5 a side at full time isn't what I suggested.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

eirebhoy

Nunu wrote:

And by the way its not enshrined that the team who wins the shoot out has to put 11 men behind the ball, it's up to themselves, but that would be very risky to invite a team onto you for 30 mins when you know the other team has to get a goal or they're out

It's all well and good saying that but it's impossible, too much psychology involved in football.

therecklessone

Couple of problems I see with this...

1. Are there that many games going to ET and penos that we need to change the format? Of 14 CL knockout ties this season, only one went to ET (and then on to penos)

2. What happens if the shootout is tied after 5 penos each? The inaugural Scandinavian Royal League title was decided after 26 penalties were taken in the shootout after the final finished 1-1. And that was straight after the regulation 90mins, no ET was played.

3. Isn't there a psychological blow involved in losing a penalty shootout? Imagine David Batty or Gareth Southgate having to pick themselves up after penalty misses and play a further 30 minutes. Some players might respond by trying to make amends, others might go to pieces.

4. As already mentioned, the winning side in the shootout would be inclined to defend and play for the draw. That would not be a good thing.

el rabitos

no. just....no. imo, tbf, qft.

Running Bing

Sh1ttest idea I've heard in yonks tbh.

DaBreno

No. Liverpool should be just dumped out of Europe in favour of a bigger club.

Penalties are just sooooo after ManU getting knocked out.... :rolleyes:

Pepe LeFrits

DaBreno wrote:

No. Liverpool should be just dumped out of Europe in favour of a bigger club.

Penalties are just sooooo after ManU getting knocked out.... :rolleyes:

Very tiresome.

Vokes

Ah sure, why even bother having penos. Just have a toss of the coin before extra time.

3greenrizla's

ziggy67 wrote:

Intersting suggestion OP but i would be against it in that it basically guarantees that one of the teams isn't going to attack.

I would try and stretch the game by abandoning the offside rule in extra-time with maybe some sort of rule governing when you can and can't enter the 6 yard box so you don't obstruct the keepers vision too much.

thats what i was going to write.
cheers