'The Advantage' - Peno shoot out revamp?

Mitch Connor

Penalty shoot outs are terrible.

I mean, come on, asking professional footballers to knock the ball into the goal from 12 yards? All that pressure! What if the player that has to take the penalty has no bottle or composure? really unfair.

whiskeyman

eirebhoy wrote: »

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

eh, no it's not, and I think a few others are thinking the same? Otherwise the whole thing wouldn't make sense!

Whoever wins the peno shoot out after 90mins is given 'the advantage'.
It's not a 'goal lead' as if the other team scores, they'll be in the lead.
Having the advantage means you'll win the game if the result after 120mins is a draw (if neither team scores, or both score equal no. of goals after the shootout).

Would be interesting to see it trialed first anyway. I don't think anyone can go 'don't change the beautiful game!!!' stance anymore. Remember passing back to goalkeepers? Anyone feel taking that away has hurt the game?

Third_Echelon

Tauren wrote: »

Penalty shoot outs are terrible.

I mean, come on, asking professional footballers to knock the ball into the goal from 12 yards? All that pressure! What if the player that has to take the penalty has no bottle or composure? really unfair.

Well its their job and they get paid enough to do it...... Professional footballers should be able to score from a dead ball situation, one on one with the 'keeper from 12 yards...

Eirebear

eirebhoy wrote: »

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

whiskeyman wrote: »

eh, no it's not, and I think a few others are thinking the same? Otherwise the whole thing wouldn't make sense!

Whoever wins the peno shoot out after 90mins is given 'the advantage'.
It's not a 'goal lead' as if the other team scores, they'll be in the lead.
Having the advantage means you'll win the game if the result after 120mins is a draw (if neither team scores, or both score equal no. of goals after the shootout).

Eeeem...so that means that if the team who have the "advantage" hold out for 30 minutes without conceding they......win?
Meaning the game is .....whats that word again? oh yeah....Decided by the penalty kicks!

whiskeyman

Eirebear wrote: »

Eeeem...so that means that if the team who have the "advantage" hold out for 30 minutes without conceding they......win?
Meaning the game is .....whats that word again? oh yeah....Decided by the penalty kicks!

Well, I think it tackles a few issues.
The main one is extra time. It's rare to see a game where extra time is worth watching. I know people will question the players stamina and fitness, but it always just seems to be a 'waiting game' until the penalties arrive.
The introduction of the Golden / Silver goal tried to solve this, but didn't really work.

Also, big difference that the penalties are not the deciding factor at the very end. For a team to finally get the upper hand (by getting the advange), should mean the team without will have to throw more attacking options in, and should result in more of an entertaining outcome for the fans.
How many times have you said to yourself, 'God, a goal would really open this one up now'... well, that's what the advantage can do, and as the opposition only need 1 goal to take the lead and win, the holders of the advantage can't really have comfort in defending it for 30mins either.

Nunu

whiskeyman wrote: »

Well, I think it tackles a few issues.
The main one is extra time. It's rare to see a game where extra time is worth watching. I know people will question the players stamina and fitness, but it always just seems to be a 'waiting game' until the penalties arrive.
The introduction of the Golden / Silver goal tried to solve this, but didn't really work.

Also, big difference that the penalties are not the deciding factor at the very end. For a team to finally get the upper hand (by getting the advange), should mean the team without will have to throw more attacking options in, and should result in more of an entertaining outcome for the fans.
How many times have you said to yourself, 'God, a goal would really open this one up now'... well, that's what the advantage can do, and as the opposition only need 1 goal to take the lead and win, the holders of the advantage can't really have comfort in defending it for 30mins either.

Finally, a like minded soul!:D

If people cannot see how the re-scheduling of the penos would not change extra time for the better and improve the knockout format then I'm not surprised they think this is a bad idea.

DerekD Goldfish

gosplan wrote: »

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

Football is always decided by narrow margins doesnt make it unfair or bad for the game.
If Trezuget had missed that peno in extra time and it cost france the game how would it be any less an "Injustice"

Penalty shoot outs are terrible.

I mean, come on, asking professional footballers to knock the ball into the goal from 12 yards? All that pressure! What if the player that has to take the penalty has no bottle or composure? really unfair.

What if a player is 5'4 it is fiar for him to ahve to compete with a 6'7 player for a header perhaps we should ban headers . Or what if a player cant pass the ball better get rid of passing as well.
Worst argument ever

Penaltys are an exciting way to end a game and a great test of composure I dont think there is a better way of deciding games

whiskeyman

DerekD Goldfish wrote: »

Penaltys are an exciting way to end a game and a great test of composure I dont think there is a better way of deciding games

Do you really think so?

Maybe for the neutral fan, but I thought that the general feeling was they aren't seen as 'the best' way to end the game, and many fans, players managers and commentators alike weren't fans of them.
Having the WC decided by them caused plenty of controversy.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Sepp-Blatter-Wants-NO-More-Penalty-Shootout-in-World-Cup-Final-36692.shtml

Sepp wrote:

Another solution would be lowering the number of players on the pitch and play until the first goal

Maybe MrJoeSoap was right!!:D

I think the advantage would be seen as the more adoptive solution tbh, should one be looked for.

DerekD Goldfish

whiskeyman wrote: »

Do you really think so?

Maybe for the neutral fan, but I thought that the general feeling was they aren't seen as 'the best' way to end the game, and many fans, players managers and commentators alike weren't fans of them.
Having the WC decided by them caused plenty of controversy.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Sepp-Blatter-Wants-NO-More-Penalty-Shootout-in-World-Cup-Final-36692.shtml


Maybe MrJoeSoap was right!!:D

I think the advantage would be seen as the more adoptive solution tbh, should one be looked for.

Yes
although Ideally games should be decided in 90 mins in cases were a replay has already been played or where one isnt feasible I think no solution that has been suggested yet is better than it.

Its a lot better than the old days when cups have been decided by things as irrelevant as corners

DSB

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.

This sounds like a fair summary of why this isn't a good idea yeah.

gosplan

So if people are saying that basically whoever wins the advantage will just defend for half an hour, then why are they against it as this isn't so different to the status quo?

Surely it's better to have one team defend and one attack rather then two teams just play for penalties and bore the arse of everyone?

This way, at least one team will have to go for it!!

The team who won the advantage may go through based on it but at least it would have livened the last half hour up.

What's not to like?

Penalty shootout as before - Can't see a problem here.

One team wins or loses the shootout based on a mix of skilll and luck - Or here?

But if the losing team manage to play good football and score a goal from play - i.e. be successful at attacking football, they can still go through.

I'm realy struggling to see how people can protest against this?

The only truly valid argument I can see is that defensive teams will just shut up shop for the last 15 minutes of normal time hoping to pick up the advantage and go on to keep a clean sheet.

However, this isn't at all different to what happens now in big games where teams are more scared of conceeding in the closing stages as opposed to hoping to score.

The only difference is that if they don't pick up the advantage, they have to attack and if they do, the opposing team have to attack.

Basically this is the away goals rule reworked and implanted on single game fixtures - the away goals rule rules(duh!).