'The Advantage' - Peno shoot out revamp?

whiskeyman

I heard about this on BBC5 Live a few nights ago... surprised no one mentioned it yet.

From here: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/33743/FIFA-ponder-end-to-shoot-out-woe

In the result of a draw, the penalty shoot-out is reduced to three each, and moved to the end of 90-minutes. The winner of the shoot-out takes their ‘Advantage’ (one ‘goal’) into extra-time, now played after the penalties. If the score (not including The Advantage) remains level, the team who won the shoot-out wins,
if the other team win in extra-time anyway, they win.
The idea seems to be to force teams to attack and go for the win during extra-time, and not ‘play for penalties’.

Really sounds simply and reports are that FIFA are interested. It would probably take more of the 'lottery' element away from penos at the end of a game though.

Thoughts?

homerjay2005

thats liverpools chances of silveware gone if that comes in so

Tusky

But...whoever wins the peno shootout will just plant 10 men behind the ball for the extra time which would give the opposite of the desired effect.

kaimera

homerjay2005 wrote: »

thats liverpools chances of silveware gone if that comes in so

Hardly, we'd had a 1 or 2 goal cushion after it

mike65

Smacks of tampering with tried and trusted for the sake of "entertainment". Watch US sport for that kind of thing.

Mike.

Mitch Connor

Tusky wrote: »

But...whoever wins the peno shootout will just plant 10 men behind the ball for the extra time which would give the opposite of the desired effect.

Exactly - it doesn't force both teams to attack at all! One can sit back and couner attack as the space opens up.

I always liked the idea of the 35yard free frun they had in a few preseason tournements a few years back. The attacking player got the ball 35 yards out and had 7 seconds (or something like that) to score, no rebounds. A lot more skill involved in that.

whiskeyman

mike65 wrote: »

Smacks of tampering with tried and trusted for the sake of "entertainment". Watch US sport for that kind of thing.

Mike.

But weren't peno shoot outs only introduced into major competitions in the 1970s?
They may be tried, but not really trusted by many.

gucci

Tauren wrote: »

The attacking player got the ball 35 yards out and had 7 seconds (or something like that) to score, no rebounds. A lot more skill involved in that.

Yeah sure, and alot more running too for cramped up players after 120 mins of football!! I'm not sure what the answer is here. Think the penalty shootout at the end of extra time is nearly the best....i dont believe it is a lottery, a test of nerve, stamina and accuracy.

MrJoeSoap

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Thats my opinion anyway. Change for changes sake isn't the way forward.

Eirebear

whiskeyman wrote: »

But weren't peno shoot outs only introduced into major competitions in the 1970s?
They may be tried, but not really trusted by many.

Yes up untill then it was a coin toss....maybe we should do that before extra time instead?

Taking the kicks before extra time is a daft idea IMO, it would still be the "lottery" that people dislike, and the winners would then go on to stick everyone behind the ball creating a completely uneven half hour of football afterwards.

Mitch Connor

gucci wrote: »

Yeah sure, and alot more running too for cramped up players after 120 mins of football!! I'm not sure what the answer is here. Think the penalty shootout at the end of extra time is nearly the best....i dont believe it is a lottery, a test of nerve, stamina and accuracy.

A LOT?

Its only 35 yards - and they would have a quick break to catch their breath between the full time whistle and the start of the run up.

MrJoeSoap

Tauren wrote: »

Exactly - it doesn't force both teams to attack at all! One can sit back and couner attack as the space opens up.

I always liked the idea of the 35yard free frun they had in a few preseason tournements a few years back. The attacking player got the ball 35 yards out and had 7 seconds (or something like that) to score, no rebounds. A lot more skill involved in that.

The MLS did that up until 2000, when they realised it just didn't work.

Xavi6

Keep it the way it is. I love penos.

The worst thing in football is when some w*nker scores in the 119th minute. Talk about an anti-climax.

gucci

Tauren wrote: »

A LOT?

Its only 35 yards - and they would have a quick break to catch their breath between the full time whistle and the start of the run up.

Which would you prefer to do if you had cramped up, dribble the ball 20 yards towards a goalie closing you down or a 5 yard run up to smack a dead ball?

Mitch Connor

gucci wrote: »

Which would you prefer to do if you had cramped up, dribble the ball 20 yards towards a goalie closing you down or a 5 yard run up to smack a dead ball?

It would be easier to do the 5 yard run. HOWEVER, the 35 yard run would be a greater test of skill and ability for both the goalkeeper and the attacker. It wouldn't be the 'lottery' that peolpe complain about. Also, I don't actually see too many people go down with cramp so bad that it would ruin the idea. A couple of players in the Liverpool/West Ham FA Cup final, Taylor for England in the U21 champs in the summer - can't remember too many else to be honest. Don't remember there being any problems in the United vs Chelsea FA Cup final.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

MrJoeSoap

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Jaysis, thats a radical approach. How about making the crossbar ten feet higher?

Helix

i quite like the sound of this advantage jobbie to be honest

Xavi6

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah that's a ridiculous idea. Let's make the playing area bigger by taking away offside? Let strikers hatch on the peno spot instead of playing 25 yards out? With offside the game is really played in about 60 yards but you want it played over the full 110 or so?

The players would be knackered as it is without having more ground to cover.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

MrJoeSoap

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So did I actually. Whilst we're on the subject of radical approachs, why not do an NHL job on it and reduce the teams to 8v8 or 9v9.

Mr Alan

i am praying you are taking the piss

MrJoeSoap

Mr Alan wrote: »

i am praying you are taking the piss

Well I am but I can't vouch for everyone else here.

~Rebel~

What happens if the 3 pens just end up in a draw? Still have to keep going sudden death style?

MrJoeSoap

~Rebel~ wrote: »

What happens if the 3 pens just end up in a draw? Still have to keep going sudden death style?

No, its a rock, paper, scissors best-of-five until a winner can be determined.

Peyton Manning

Penalties are fine, theres nothing wrong with them.

I dont think you can have any complaints if you dominate a match yet still lose on penalties. Look at the United vs Arsenal FA Cup final a few years ago. We battered them off the pitch but lost on penalties. And its our own fault for not being able to put the ball in the net. Playing for penalties is all part of the game. And penalties themselves are a skill. Train and practise them to avoid it being a 50/50 and put the odds in your favour. Theres nothing wrong with football, all these new rules and overseas matches ideas are BS.

Third_Echelon

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

The MLS did that up until 2000, when they realised it just didn't work.

It started in the american league in the late 70's/early 80's when Pele, Beckenbauer and co were playing in the states.

Beckenbauer to this day says it is the best way to decide a game. He was pushing FIFA for years to get them to trial this in tournaments (U20's etc) with a goal of bringing it into the senior game.

He maintains that it made deciding a game a lot more interesting that penalty kicks.

I saw this on a film. Must try and find it somewhere on the net for linkage..

ROCKMAN

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

No, its a rock, paper, scissors best-of-five until a winner can be determined.

Always liked the idea of both teams forming a ring around the mid -field circle, and picking a player from each team to fight it out , Last man standing, Winner takes all :D

Think off the fights we could have witnessed over the years

Peyton Manning

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

The MLS did that up until 2000, when they realised it just didn't work.

Didnt Serie A try this as well? Or was it given a trial in pre season friendlies? I remember Robbie Keane taking one in his first match for Inter...

MrJoeSoap

Archimedes wrote: »

Didnt Serie A try this as well? Or was it given a trial in pre season friendlies? I remember Robbie Keane taking one in his first match for Inter...

That was in one of those pre-season triangle tournaments they had with kick-ins and short corners. None of the ideas took off, not surprisingly.

Peyton Manning

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

That was in one of those pre-season triangle tournaments they had with kick-ins and short corners. None of the ideas took off, not surprisingly.

Ah right, I knew I saw it alright. What were the kick-ins and short corners idea all about do you know?

PHB

I don't like penalties. I don't like teams being rewarded for defending without attack. This minimises the advantage that you get from penalties, so I'd be incredibly happy with this. Also it gives people a chance to turn penalties around. Maybe it won't be as dramatic, but it would make football better to watch in the long run, and I think it would make for a better game.

Peyton Manning

PHB wrote: »

I don't like penalties. I don't like teams being rewarded for defending without attack. This minimises the advantage that you get from penalties, so I'd be incredibly happy with this. Also it gives people a chance to turn penalties around. Maybe it won't be as dramatic, but it would make football better to watch in the long run, and I think it would make for a better game.

What makes attacking more of a skill than defending though? Surely if a team is able to defend, and defend well, for 120 minutes against a constantly attacking team then they have earned their spot in a shootout...?

AnCapaillMor

Sounds b*ll*x, its a pity the golden goal was taken up as don't let them score a goal and knock us out instead attack and knock them out.

PHB

I think the game is not just about defending or attack.
There is a huge amount of skill in keeping a clean sheet.
There is a huge amout of skill in scoring goals.
There is much more skill in keeping a clean sheet and scoring goals.

The current system favours clean sheets over anything else. It means you can win a game on defense alone. You shouldn't be able to do that just like you shouldn't (and can't) win by scoring goals.
This system will still favour defending slightly, but less.

Eirebear

The fear of losing in a cup match will always outweigh the hope of winning.
Its always been that way if you think about it, no one ever wants to lose the first goal because they know its going to be an uphill struggle from there.

Im sick of people wanting to change the structure of football tbh, its fine the way it is.
I cant think of another game that consists of so many differing styles of play, tactics and ideals, why would we want to change that?
Especially in cup football where there is always the chance of a shock result/

There will always be dull matches just like there are in many other sports, the problem with football at the moment is the sheer overload of games that fans can watch from the comfort of their own home, leading to a sort of fan burnout at times.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Eirebear

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I dont think id be happy going straight to penalties without extra time TBH.
Another suggestion though is taking the peanlties away completely and then going down to 10 men after 10 minutes of extra time 9 after another ten and so on and so on.

Nunu

I came up with this idea... and posted a thread here almost 10 months ago:eek:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055088104

As you will read i am all for it. Seemless improvement on the current set up...but it seems no one else is:D

Edit: apart from the enlightened PHB.

eirebhoy

I don't agree with it. There's no beating psychology. The poor team who win the shootout will have to try and hold out for half an hour while be bombarded with attacks.

Dubit10

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Thats my opinion anyway. Change for changes sake isn't the way forward.

+1

Nunu

eirebhoy wrote: »

I don't agree with it. There's no beating psychology. The poor team who win the shootout will have to try and hold out for half an hour while be bombarded with attacks.

Really...who says they have to sit back and hold out? No one stopping them from attacking too.

...and it is broke people. Ending the World Cup Final from the peno spot is wrong and hurts the game in my opinion

MrJoeSoap

Nunu wrote: »

Really...who says they have to sit back and hold out? No one stopping them from attacking too.

...and it is broke people. Ending the World Cup Final from the peno spot is wrong and hurts the game in my opinion

Isn't this system still pretty much ending the game from the peno spot though?

The only way it wouldn't be decisive is if the team losing the shootout scored twice (or more) in extra time, which rarely happens as it is, let alone when the opposing team is in a defensive mindset. Otherwise if the team who won the shootout scored in extra time it could be argued that the team who lost in the shootout were forced to attack because of the shootout loss.

Still seems like using penalties to decide a winner to me.

Nunu

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

Isn't this system still pretty much ending the game from the peno spot though?

The only way it wouldn't be decisive is if the team losing the shootout scored twice (or more) in extra time, which rarely happens as it is, let alone when the opposing team is in a defensive mindset. Otherwise if the team who won the shootout scored in extra time it could be argued that the team who lost in the shootout were forced to attack because of the shootout loss.

Still seems like using penalties to decide a winner to me.

Oh dear...you don't fully understand it. Go back and think about it again.

MrJoeSoap

Nunu wrote: »

Oh dear...you don't fully understand it. Go back and think about it again.

Ah yes, get ya now. Still doesn't really float my boat but then again I'm all about keeping things as they are unless something really needs changing.

Plus it still means that penalties would decide things if the 120 minutes were a draw, which was my point... I think I'm right in saying that?

eirebhoy

Nunu wrote: »

Really...who says they have to sit back and hold out? No one stopping them from attacking too.

"There's no beating psychology"

Nunu

eirebhoy wrote: »

"There's no beating psychology"

I've just been reading throught the other thread I linked and we've been through this before:D

eirebhoy

hehe. In fairness though, it'd be the equivalent of a team being 1-0 up in a cup final with a half hour to go. Only difference is they don't have the cushion of a draw if the opposition score.

gosplan

Can't believe some people are taking the if it ain't broke attitude.

Penos is the worst way possible to decide a game. How are Italy world champions and France not - because Trezuget hit the bar. Not good enough and poor for the so called world's greatest game.

This is not quite so bad. one team can still defend but one is forced to attack. They give away and advantage but don't lose the game on penos. What's wrong with that? Also, the team defending would be defending the equivalent of a lead on away goals and we know from the champions league how dangerous that can be.

There was the amazing idea of playing past 120 minutes and making the goals a yard wider every couple of minutes - now that would be fun.:D:D:D

eirebhoy

gosplan wrote: »

Penos is the worst way possible to decide a game.

If the team that wins the shootout manages to hold out for 30 minutes without conceding. Guess how the game is decided?