A real alternative to penalties

cgpg5

You got a bit ridiculed for it I see which is incredibly harsh the more I look into it, the more I am in favour of it

ceegee

22 man over-the-toprope battle royale in a ring erected in the middle of the pitch. Last man standing wins it for his team. Could also be used to announce transfers.

eg - ECL final, with only Drogba and Neuer left in the ring, Terry distracts the referee by trying to join in, meanwhile Hazard runs in with a steel chair and clocks Neuer handing Chelsea victory. He then removes his top to reveal a chelsea jersey with his name/number on it.

Pros - Trap could drop Green and call up Sheamus to help us out

Cons - Players may begin to change teams every few months for no apparent reason

kakee

ceegee wrote: »

22 man over-the-toprope battle royale in a ring erected in the middle of the pitch. Last man standing wins it for his team. Could also be used to announce transfers.

eg - ECL final, with only Drogba and Neuer left in the ring, Terry distracts the referee by trying to join in, meanwhile Hazard runs in with a steel chair and clocks Neuer handing Chelsea victory. He then removes his top to reveal a chelsea jersey with his name/number on it.

Pros - Trap could drop Green and call up Sheamus to help us out

Cons - Players may begin to change teams every few months for no apparent reason

Just finished school yeah

kitakyushu

ceegee wrote: »

Pros - Trap could drop Green and call up Sheamus to help us out

I'd do this regardless of whether there was a battle royal possibility or not. Sheamus couldn't be much worse in CM.

plasmaguy

Team with the best looking Wags should be given the victory if sides level after 120 minutes.

Or else a Karaoke Sing Off between the opposing captains, with judging by Simon Cowell.

Or else Penalties on Ice presented by Holly Willoughby.

Mr.Crinklewood

(S x 10) + (P x 2) - (Y x 5) - (R x 10) / F

Where:-
S = total shots on target.
P = Possession
Y = Total Yellow cards.
R = Total Red Cards.
F = Total Fouls.

Use the formula above for both teams, highest outcome wins.

Rewards positive play, punishes negative play...I think.

Therefore recent Champions League would have been as follows:-

Bayern:-

(21 x 10) + (55 x 2) - (1 x 5) - (0 x 10) / 11 = 28.63

Chelsea

(6 x 10) + (45 x 2) - (4 x 5) - (0 x 10) / 26 = 5

Bayern win.

ceegee

kakee wrote: »

ceegee wrote: »

22 man over-the-toprope battle royale in a ring erected in the middle of the pitch. Last man standing wins it for his team. Could also be used to announce transfers.

eg - ECL final, with only Drogba and Neuer left in the ring, Terry distracts the referee by trying to join in, meanwhile Hazard runs in with a steel chair and clocks Neuer handing Chelsea victory. He then removes his top to reveal a chelsea jersey with his name/number on it.

Pros - Trap could drop Green and call up Sheamus to help us out

Cons - Players may begin to change teams every few months for no apparent reason

Just finished school yeah

Nope, thanks for the condescension though. Just figured this thread was a pisstake given your op

tolosenc

After the regular 30 minutes, go to 10 minute golden goal periods.

plasmaguy

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

(S x 10) + (P x 2) - (Y x 5) - (R x 10) / F

Where:-
S = total shots on target.
P = Possession
Y = Total Yellow cards.
R = Total Red Cards.
F = Total Fouls.

Use the formula above for both teams, highest outcome wins.

Rewards positive play, punishes negative play...I think.

Therefore recent Champions League would have been as follows:-

Bayern:-

(21 x 10) + (55 x 2) - (1 x 5) - (0 x 10) / 11 = 28.63

Chelsea

(6 x 10) + (45 x 2) - (4 x 5) - (0 x 10) / 26 = 5

Bayern win.

In theory looks good, but it would be a bit complicated for your average supporter.

Skid

Here is a video of one of the old NASL shootouts, from 1980.

You got the ball 35 yards out and only had 5 seconds to get the ball into the net. It was arguably a better test of skill. The average success rate was only about 1 in 3.

kitakyushu

plasmaguy wrote: »

In theory looks good, but it would be a bit complicated for your average supporter.

Plus it'd probably throw up strange scenarios like a team that's 1-1 in the 94th minute and currently 'winning' 29-28 on points just letting the opponent have a shot on goal rather than tackling because they don't want to risk 'losing' the game 24-28 or 19-28.

CSF

Let's face it lads, all these changes would just represent change for the sake of it, rather than a superior alternative to penalties

Mr.Crinklewood

kitakyushu wrote: »

Plus it'd probably throw up strange scenarios like a team that's 1-1 in the 94th minute and currently 'winning' 29-28 on points just letting the opponent have a shot on goal rather than tackling because they don't want to risk 'losing' the game 24-28 or 19-28.

At least it might make games closer a d stop teams parking the bus and fouling the heck out of the opposition to stop them playing.

losthorizon

Des wrote: »

Determine the outcome of a game before a ball is kicked?

Yeah, cool.

Why should we copy the Italian system? We are Irish!

ROCKMAN

As I've said before
Each team picks a player and then its a one on one fight in the centre circle ,winner takes all .
Think about it ,,,this could be a specialise position and the transfer window could look different ,The likes of Vinny Jones coming out of retirement , Barca/Real in transfer war to sign Joey Barton etc etc

Paul Tergat

kakee wrote: »

If team A win the toss then they will win the game if it is level after 90 minutes. To stop team A from just defending, team B gets a one goal start.

Team B knows that if they concede and the game finishes level then they will lose so they will most likely need to get a second goal at least.

Team A knows that they have to score at least one goal in the game to have a chance of winning.

A really stupid proposal.

Why give any team a goal head start? You give logic for Team B needing a second goal so why wouldn't team A take that same attitude? i.e. to quote yourself 'Team A knows that if they concede and the game finishes 0-1 to B then they will lose so they will most likely need to get a second goal at least.

conor360

Crossbar Challenge ? =D

Ganymede Glow

What a stupid ridiculous suggestion by yours truly once again. Why does Sepp come out with all this utter tripe everytime any English team wins something. He doesn't even hide the fact that he hates seeing the English teams winning anything. I didn't like seeing Chelsea win the CL but they won it fair and square as do every team. If you don't like penalties piss off and play some other sport.

The sooner/quicker he's ****ed off the better for the game. Penalties are one of the most exciting parts of a game of football, the players know the score since they first kicked a ball when they were in nappies. Utter utter cabbages at the head of the game :mad:

cgpg5

Ganymede Glow wrote: »

What a stupid ridiculous suggestion by yours truly once again. Why does Sepp come out with all this utter tripe everytime any English team wins something. He doesn't even hide the fact that he hates seeing the English teams winning anything. I didn't like seeing Chelsea win the CL but they won it fair and square as do every team. If you don't like penalties piss off and play some other sport.

The sooner/quicker he's ****ed off the better for the game. Penalties are one of the most exciting parts of a game of football, the players know the score since they first kicked a ball when they were in nappies. Utter utter cabbages at the head of the game :mad:

In no way am I trying to stick up for him, but I think it was originally after WC 2006 final that he initially proposed this.

I don't really like pens myself but my fear is that the alternative FIFA come up with will be worse off

RandolphEsq

Skid wrote: »

Here is a video of one of the old NASL shootouts, from 1980.

You got the ball 35 yards out and only had 5 seconds to get the ball into the net. It was arguably a better test of skill. The average success rate was only about 1 in 3.

I think that's awful. Surely the keeper can just come out and hack or use his hands outside the box. What sort of punishment could they impose?

It is asking for trouble by only having a 5 second rule if there is a close call.

And it seems like there are hardly any shots, let alone goals, which is not entertaining.

cgpg5

RandolphEsq wrote: »

I think that's awful. Surely the keeper can just come out and hack or use his hands outside the box. What sort of punishment could they impose?

It is asking for trouble by only having a 5 second rule if there is a close call.

And it seems like there are hardly any shots, let alone goals, which is not entertaining.

Never actually considered that. Many of these ideas I fear sound decent in theory but could potentially throw up a lot of complications/unusual scenarios

gnfnrhead

RandolphEsq wrote: »

I think that's awful. Surely the keeper can just come out and hack or use his hands outside the box. What sort of punishment could they impose?

Send him off. With no subs they wont do it again.

UglyBolloxFace

This is quite possibly the worst proposal I've ever heard in my life.

So say if a shitty Spanish team, for instance Granada, are lucky enough to make it to the Copa del Rey final, against Barcelona. If Barca win the coin-toss they automatically go 1-0 up.

Now, what's to stop Barca parking the bus and holding out for the easy win? Because let's be honest, against a shit team, such as Granada and apologies to the huge Granada support in Ireland, Barca would easily win regardless, and this rule you've pulled out of yer hole makes it even easier for them.

tolosenc

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

(S x 10) + (P x 2) - (Y x 5) - (R x 10) / F

Where:-
S = total shots on target.
P = Possession
Y = Total Yellow cards.
R = Total Red Cards.
F = Total Fouls.

Use the formula above for both teams, highest outcome wins.

Rewards positive play, punishes negative play...I think.

Therefore recent Champions League would have been as follows:-

Bayern:-

(21 x 10) + (55 x 2) - (1 x 5) - (0 x 10) / 11 = 28.63

Chelsea

(6 x 10) + (45 x 2) - (4 x 5) - (0 x 10) / 26 = 5

Bayern win.

Nice in theory, but then there are all sorts of complications. If the ref plays advantage you could be done out of the match. Who defines possession? Or shots on/off target?

plasmaguy wrote: »

But if we were indeed to suspend reality for a while and entertain Blatter's fantasy of a non shoot out solution to a draw, probably the fairest way would be to award the game to the team who had most possession in a game, as this would probably indicate they were the better side and the other team just parked the bus as Chelsea did for later rounds of CL.

But the whole point of football is to score as many goals as possible, not to hold on to the ball as long as possible. I'd envision a 10 man ring around 1 player in possession for 45 minutes, followed by the same by the other team in the second 45.

Ultimately, it should come down to who can stick the ball in the net the most times, be it regular time, extra time, golden goal, penalties, olimpico corners or whatever.

plasmaguy

tolosenc wrote: »

But the whole point of football is to score as many goals as possible, not to hold on to the ball as long as possible. I'd envision a 10 man ring around 1 player in possession for 45 minutes, followed by the same by the other team in the second 45.

Ultimately, it should come down to who can stick the ball in the net the most times, be it regular time, extra time, golden goal, penalties, olimpico corners or whatever.

Firstly, I think penalties is a fine way to decide a match, but if there was an alternative, some form of rewarding possession would be a good solution. It's too easy for some teams to just sit back and even willingly concede possession as Mourinho's Inter did in the Nou Camp a few years ago and park everyone in two lines of five and hope to stop the other team scoring for 90 minutes.

Let's say Barca-Inter Milan went the whole game up to penalties and Barca had 80% possession while Inter were only interested in defending, then surely Barca deserve some recognition for that, and it would be a travesty if they then lost on penalties after playing so positively for the game.

I don't think my idea would lead to boring 0-0 draws where teams just tried to hold on to the ball. It would lead to far more competitive games with opposing teams actually fighting and making an effort to win the ball back, and it would also lead to more open games and an end to parking the bus and putting 10 men in your own half of the field. It would reward the Xavis and Inniestas of this world and encourage the development of more of these type players. With more open games, there would be more chances to score goals and a team will always try to score goals. It would be worth trying anyways to see how it worked.

DH2K9

Us goalkeepers need our moment in the spot light. Why take it away from us?

tolosenc

plasmaguy wrote: »

Firstly, I think penalties is a fine way to decide a match, but if there was an alternative, some form of rewarding possession would be a good solution. It's too easy for some teams to just sit back and even willingly concede possession as Mourinho's Inter did in the Nou Camp a few years ago and park everyone in two lines of five and hope to stop the other team scoring for 90 minutes.

Let's say Barca-Inter Milan went the whole game up to penalties and Barca had 80% possession while Inter were only interested in defending, then surely Barca deserve some recognition for that, and it would be a travesty if they then lost on penalties after playing so positively for the game.

Fundamentally, a team should not be rewarded or disadvantaged in any way by the "aesthetics" of how they play. There's not a whole lot between that and a panel of judges holding up 7.2 and 8.6 at the end of extra time. And again, look at Ronaldo's goal against Ajax from this year, the best attacking play doesn't at all necessitate bucket loads of possession.

In that case, Inter were 3-1 up from the first leg. How would that factor in? Inter also had a ridiculous refereeing decision go against them in the red card for Thiago Motta. In a shootout (which I too think is a fine way to end a game), this wouldn't affect a team massively, but in terms of possession held for the whole 210 minute tie, it's not going to do them any favours.

plasmaguy

tolosenc wrote: »

Fundamentally, a team should not be rewarded or disadvantaged in any way by the "aesthetics" of how they play. There's not a whole lot between that and a panel of judges holding up 7.2 and 8.6 at the end of extra time. And again, look at Ronaldo's goal against Ajax from this year, the best attacking play doesn't at all necessitate bucket loads of possession.

In that case, Inter were 3-1 up from the first leg. How would that factor in? Inter also had a ridiculous refereeing decision go against them in the red card for Thiago Motta. In a shootout (which I too think is a fine way to end a game), this wouldn't affect a team massively, but in terms of possession held for the whole 210 minute tie, it's not going to do them any favours.

Obviously you don't remember football before the back pass rule was brought in It was to punish teams who just rolled it back to the keeper and played keep ball for most of the match especially when they were leading or the teams were drawing and holding out for penalties.

A lot of games particularly in the CL when teams like Chelsea and Inter Milan play the likes of Barcalona, they just end up shutting up shop for 90 minutes. To be honest I know Chelsea won the CL, but Bayarn dominated the game and played the more positive football. So next season the lesson coaches take is if you shut up shop, park the bus and hold out for penos, there's a good chance you can beat teams like Barca and Bayarn.

I'm in favour of anything that encourages more exciting, open football.

Orando Broom

Haven't gone through this thread in great detail so if this has been posted already apologies.

My suggestion would be for extra time each team has to remove two players from each side. 9-a-side would make it harder for a team to park the bus. essentially you'd be making the pitch bigger giving the creative attack-minded teams the impetus to take the game on as opposed to winding down to penalties. Also it would force the park-the-bus merchants to at least try to come out ten or finfteen minutes from the end of normal time to try and win it as the 9-a-side would not be in any way advantageous to a defensive set-up.

I suppose I'm juast sugestion for the sake of suggesting. I'm not really too bothered by how the game is played as it is. sometimes I think Extra time is a little pointless because teams lose the will to play. Maybe shorten extra time to ten minutes a half.

Adolf Hipster

Quite possibly the worst idea I have ever heard/read regarding any sport ever.

Orando Broom

Adolf Hipster wrote: »

Quite possibly the worst idea I have ever heard/read regarding any sport ever.

Which one? There are a lot of poor ideas here.

Adolf Hipster

Orando Broom wrote: »

Adolf Hipster wrote: »

Quite possibly the worst idea I have ever heard/read regarding any sport ever.

Which one? There are a lot of poor ideas here.

The OP.

DB21

plasmaguy wrote: »

Obviously you don't remember football before the back pass rule was brought in It was to punish teams who just rolled it back to the keeper and played keep ball for most of the match especially when they were leading or the teams were drawing and holding out for penalties.

A lot of games particularly in the CL when teams like Chelsea and Inter Milan play the likes of Barcalona, they just end up shutting up shop for 90 minutes. To be honest I know Chelsea won the CL, but Bayarn dominated the game and played the more positive football. So next season the lesson coaches take is if you shut up shop, park the bus and hold out for penos, there's a good chance you can beat teams like Barca and Bayarn.

I'm in favour of anything that encourages more exciting, open football.

Why should a team have to play that way? It leaves smaller teams open to massacre by the likes of Barcelona. It's a ridiculous school of thought propagated by the likes of Barca when they are frustrated and feel like throwing their toys out of the pram because they lost.

Leiva

Cum bickie .

recylingbin

Two words - multi ball.

firemansam4

Here is an idea! why not put out 2 balls in extra time!!

Would give the ref a lot to keep up with!
Ok this idea is completely mad but I think the op idea is even more barmy than this!!!

Being realistic though, just keep to the shoot outs, it works well - why change it?

Orando Broom

firemansam4 wrote: »

Here is an idea! why not put out 2 balls in extra time!!

Would give the ref a lot to keep up with!
Ok this idea is completely mad but I think the op idea is even more barmy than this!!!

Being realistic though, just keep to the shoot outs, it works well - why change it?

Extra time is too long I think. Teams practice for pennos and not for extra time. Teams are happy to let extra time pass them by and take their chances in the shoot out. It's half an hour of 22 men wandering round an enclosed grass park. Lop at least five minutes a half off.

speedboatchase

recylingbin wrote: »

Two words - multi ball.

Thank you. Extra-Time Multi Ball with a new ball being shot onto the pitch via a giant cannon at 60-second intervals, Royal Rumble-style. Don't act like you all don't want it...

plasmaguy

DB21 wrote: »

Why should a team have to play that way? It leaves smaller teams open to massacre by the likes of Barcelona. It's a ridiculous school of thought propagated by the likes of Barca when they are frustrated and feel like throwing their toys out of the pram because they lost.

In the interests of more open football and an end to one team not that interested in scoring or even having possession, just soaking up pressure and hoofing it clear. Chelsea practically played ten defenders against Barca in both legs with Drogba back in defence for much of the second leg and hoofing it clear. Wasn't much better in the CL final, Chelsea were very negative until the Bayarn goal forced them with five minutes left to actually try and attack. They got one corner in the 87th minute and scored from it.

I don't think it's right that a team should win a game and have only 20-30% of possession, it usually means they played very negatively.

Anyways, that's my last post on the subject, I am quite happy with penos and was theorising about a hypothetical situation where there was an alternative but have little interest getting into a long winded back and forth about it.

monkey9

There should be no alternative to penalties!! They're brilliant!!!

DB21

plasmaguy wrote: »

In the interests of more open football and an end to one team not that interested in scoring or even having possession, just soaking up pressure and hoofing it clear. Chelsea practically played ten defenders against Barca in both legs with Drogba back in defence for much of the second leg and hoofing it clear. Wasn't much better in the CL final, Chelsea were very negative until the Bayarn goal forced them with five minutes left to actually try and attack. They got one corner in the 87th minute and scored from it.

I don't think it's right that a team should win a game and have only 20-30% of possession, it usually means they played very negatively.

But that's how Ireland will play in 2 weeks time, and I'm sure you won't care then about "open, attacking football"