FIFA to look again at 'golden goal' rule

JerryHandbag

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2010/0909/fifa.html

Thoughts?

"Blatter wants to encourage more free-flowing football at tournaments and was concerned teams' priority in extra-time was to secure a penalty shoot-out."

....but was one of the critisisms levelled at the golden/silver goal that teams were even more afraid to concede and settled for penalties??

Needless tinkering from Blatter/FIFA? I think its fine as is.....no need to fix it IMO.

greendom

It wasn't a success last time they tried it. Teams became even more defensively minded as they knew a mistake would literally finish the game. Why should it work now when it didn't 10 years ago /

v3ttel

JerryHandbag wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2010/0909/fifa.html

Thoughts?

"Blatter wants to encourage more free-flowing football at tournaments and was concerned teams' priority in extra-time was to secure a penalty shoot-out."

....but was one of the critisisms levelled at the golden/silver goal that teams were even more afraid to concede and settled for penalties??

Needless tinkering from Blatter/FIFA? I think its fine as is.....no need to fix it IMO.

Arguably, you could see less attacking football from certain teams, as now they only have to hang on for 90 mins to get penalties, rather than 120 mins.

The golden goal rule is bullsh*t. Usually, teams become more defensive because they know one slip, and they are going home. Game over, good night Irene.

Leave as is, and sort out the ball.. something is not right when you have that many players & managers complaining about it.

ctrl-alt-delete

They should reduce it to 5 a side in extra time with last man back,

guaranteed excitement if that's what they are after.

mike65

When it was tried last time I thought it a great idea until seeing it in action, which proved to be a disaster, with both teams transfixed by fear of conceeding rather than trying to score.

TangyZizzle

mike65 wrote: »

When it was tried last time I thought it a great idea until seeing it in action, which proved to be a disaster, with both teams transfixed by fear of conceeding rather than trying to score.

Yeah, sounds great for a while until you realise a lot of teams will go for out and out defense making for veeeery boring football.

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

They should reduce it to 5 a side in extra time with last man back,

guaranteed excitement if that's what they are after.

:pac:

kakee

Why not scrap extra-time and just go straight to penalties. Give each team 11 penalties each. If a team finished with 10 players then another player will have to take two kicks for his team.

At least this way would be fair in that if a team missed their first 3 kicks then they would still have a chance of winning. I think the supporters would welcome this.

SlickRic

kakee wrote: »

Why not scrap extra-time and just go straight to penalties. Give each team 11 penalties each. If a team finished with 10 players then another player will have to take two kicks for his team.

it would be better if penalties could happen less frequently in all honesty.

of all the ways they could think of, going straight to penalties is the way in which you're least likely to find out who the 'better team' was on the day.

if it's purely excitement and drama they're after, then fine, let them at it. but this isn't Corrie. they should be striving for a way to find out who the better teams are, not simply for a way to make things more exciting.

it reeks of a marketing ploy, rather than trying to find a way to make the game better...but then none of us should be surprised by that.

i always hated the Golden Goal rule too.

just leave it as is FIFA, for the love of God...

greendom

I sometimes think Blatter is just out to create copy. He always seems to be spouting nonsense about some new scheme. Very rarely do they go anywhere. He's probably in league with journalists in need of a story on a quiet news day.

Mister men

Seen a match in the states when i lived there where in extra time each team has to remove one player every 5 minutes from the pitch and you just play until someone scores. Does'nt take long to get a goal when it's 7 v 7.

DazMarz

The Golden Goal was a desperate rule, the Silver goal being not much better (I thought it was slightly worse, as it meant that say a team absolutely dominated for the first half of extra time, but fail to score, coceded a corner in the 14th minute and the ball is bundled over the line and into their net... they have no chance then to get an equaliser or anything, they're more or less gone).

The Golden Goal was FIFA's attempt at introducing the school yard tactic/cry of "NEXT GOAL WINS!"... but they utterly missed the point: instead of having lads going hell for leather to score, you had lads gritting their teeth and defending like mad.

Both rules had their chance and both failed... why bring back a failure

token56

If it ain't broke, then dont fix it.

The way things are at the moment are probably as fair as you can have them. As much as I dislike having penalties decide a match they are going to be necessary at times.

Having the golden goal rule will no doubt make teams more cautious in extra time. Teams can also get a lucky goal, then its boom, game over, without giving the other team a chance to even try level things. I dont think its better than what is there already and I really dont see any better solution than 30 mins extra time, then penalties.

There is always the option of more extra time, but you have to be fair to the players too and replays just dont really work in major tournaments like the world cup etc.

pickarooney

There is no attack-minded rule change that cannot be used defensively. It's like adding extra queens to a chess board - it gives much more freedom to attack but ultimately increases the chances of a stalemate for a player wishing to obtain one.

DanR

What's wrong with peno's anyway? I love peno's. Its exciting both as a viewer as a fan and as a player. I have won and lost games that I have played in via peno's and it always turns out to be a good measure of skill and nerve. I was never bitter to lose a game on peno's as whoever held their nerve and put their chances away won the game - that's football.

tolosenc

Golden goal, with no prospect of penalties at the end. Every 10 minutes ends are changed and a player is removed.

That or have it that the team that has scored more goals in the tournament before that match kicked off wins after extra time.

Regards what Blatter said about the 1st match in the world cup and defensive tactics, 0 points for a draw at the world cup, ie 3 points for winning, 0 points for failing to win.

SlickRic

what Blatter, and a couple around here don't seem to realise is, that open, all-out attacking football does not necessarily equal good football.

JerryHandbag

DazMarz wrote: »

The Golden Goal was a desperate rule, the Silver goal being not much better (I thought it was slightly worse, as it meant that say a team absolutely dominated for the first half of extra time, but fail to score, coceded a corner in the 14th minute and the ball is bundled over the line and into their net... they have no chance then to get an equaliser or anything, they're more or less gone).

Pretty much what happened the Czechs in the SF of Euro2004. Greece mugged them in first half injury time. I presume after Gold and Silver FIFA will come up with a Bronze Goal now :rolleyes: whatever the hell that will entail

sd08

Never like the golden goal rule, can't really recall any great matches ending in it. And when a team does score early the game seems to just end very abruptly.

gosplan

I know loads were very disappointed that the WC final went to penalties when Italy won it, and I'm guessing that FIFA were sh1tting it this time around that the Dutch might win a penalty shootout given the difference in approaches between the two finalists. I'm still not sure change is necessary though.

However, if it is, then the best idea I ever heard is ....

At full time both teams start a 3-man or even sudden death penalty shootout. Whoever loses this will be declared the loser after 120 minutes if the teams are still level at that time.

Then benefits are that you can mess up the shootout but will always still have 30 minutes to win the game on the football pitch. Also it means that one team simply has to attack in extra time.

Essentially, it's like introducing an away goals advantage for one team for the duration of extra time.

Good idea, no?

StupidLikeAFox

Why not choose one player from each team to have a fight to the death. Plenty of excitement.

Seriously though, once penalties are at the end then some teams are gonna play for penalties. Theyd have to scrap them altogether if they really want to spice things up

JerryHandbag

gosplan wrote: »

However, if it is, then the best idea I ever heard is ....

At full time both teams start a 3-man or even sudden death penalty shootout. Whoever loses this will be declared the loser after 120 minutes if the teams are still level at that time.

Then benefits are that you can mess up the shootout but will always still have 30 minutes to win the game on the football pitch. Also it means that one team simply has to attack in extra time.
Essentially, it's like introducing an away goals advantage for one team for the duration of extra time.

Good idea, no?

For that reason alone, thats a pretty good idea. Email Mr. Blatter!