Penalty shoot outs.

europne

Forum Patron
Patron
Is this really the best way to decide the outcome of a game?

It puts impossible pressures on individuals and awful ongoing criticism for those that miss.

Surely there is a better way........
 

pnewortham

Forum Patron
Patron
Would honestly rather just go for it in normal time, make attacking subs, shit or bust, and lose by another 3 goals. As soon as you get to 70 minutes you just know what's coming. Too many times, you just see them grinding time waiting for the shoot-out and hoping for the lottery.
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
What's been tried?

penalties
golden goal
replay
coin toss

what else is there?
At 90 minutes, extra time could be played 8-a-side. If a team has had one or more players dismissed, they play with 7.

I would allow complete interchangeability between the 8 on-field and 3 who have gone off so it’s not too exhausting for individuals (and so there is enough energy available for teams to keep attacking) - and maybe also allocate teams an extra 2 substitutes to add to any they didn’t use in the 90 minutes- again for player safety and to maintain energy level.

It’s against the rules of football to play with less than 7, so if a team goes down to 6 players, they lose.

Perhaps combine with golden goal. I would be amazed if that didn’t reduce the need for penalties to almost zero - and would be a fairer, more team-based solution.

Surely reducing team numbers has been trialled before. But maybe not this Regardless Format (copyright)! Could be worth a shot.
 
OP
E

europne

Forum Patron
Patron
What's been tried?

penalties
golden goal
replay
coin toss

what else is there?
How about in extra time each team loses one man and starts with 10 men then they have to lose a player every ten minutes......

There must be other options.....

For the PC brigade please use ‘player’ instead of ‘man’.....
 

pnewortham

Forum Patron
Patron
At 90 minutes, extra time could be played 8-a-side. If a team has had one or more players dismissed, they play with 7.

I would allow complete interchangeability between the 8 on-field and 3 who have gone off so it’s not too exhausting for individuals (and so there is enough energy available for teams to keep attacking) - and maybe also allocate teams an extra 2 substitutes to add to any they didn’t use in the 90 minutes- again for player safety and to maintain energy level.

It’s against the rules of football to play with less than 7, so if a team goes down to 6 players, they lose.

Perhaps combine with golden goal. I would be amazed if that didn’t reduce the need for penalties to almost zero - and would be a fairer, more team-based solution.

Surely reducing team numbers has been trialled before. But maybe not this Regardless Format (copyright)! Could be worth a shot.
Sounds a bit knackering that. 8 tired players running around on a full size pitch.

On reflection, I think the answer is sharks. And laser beams.
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
Penalty shootouts are class,one of the best things in tournament football

They definitely split opinions. I feel like the loser has been a bit robbed and the winner doesn’t really deserve the prize - all a bit unsatisfactory.

Obviously it’s dramatic. Pickford’s save of that 4th penalty was certainly a “moment” But overall, I really would prefer to find a another resolution.
 

daddyman16

Forum Patron
Patron
I think for excitement, penalties really are the best, however, I don't like extra time. I don't like the fact that a team that concedes still has the second half of extra time to equalise.
The point of extra time is to allow for a winner, so why drag it out?

So no extra time, straight to penalties. Might encourage teams not to park the bus, might open up play more because players will chase the ball more and tire?
 
Top