Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: Cloakmaster
Date: 25-05-2012, 21:31
Edited by: Cloakmaster
at: 25-05-2012, 21:32

Blatter wants to find a new way to detemine the winner of a tie. Since penalty kicks can develop into tragedy, and they don't fit into the general idea of soccer (soccer is a team sport, but penalty kicks are just one-to-one situations) there sholud be a better way than this.
Franz Beckenbauer and his group "football 2014" are now invited to develop alternative ideas.

read at the german sports site www.kicker.de:

http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/intligen/startseite/569578/artikel_blatter-l
aesst-ueber-alternative-zum-elfmeterschiessen-beraten.htmlhttp://www.kicker.de/
n
ews/fussball/intligen/startseite/569578/artikel_blatter-laesst-ueber-alternativ
e
-zum-elfmeterschiessen-beraten.html

Author: adrian
Date: 25-05-2012, 21:38

I think you can't say that penalty is no team sport at all. The choice of which players shoot it is made by the team and the way that a team supports every single player within the team before he is going to the spot is a matter of the team spirit. An din the end a team consists of different players with differernt qualities. Putting them together you have a team and it is still the quality of a team that determines on who will win. It might be useful to expand the number of how many shots there will be, like up to 10, but to me it looks more like a spontaneous idea of Blatter. This man has got much more relevant things to do atm.

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: Cloakmaster Date: 25-05-2012, 22:28 Edited by: Cloakmaster at: 25-05-2012, 22:30	That were Blatter's words, not mine. Penalties can be hard, yes. But i couln't think of any alternative. Neverending Extra times, 15 Minute each until a goal has fallen? TV stations would rip FIFA/UEFA aprt for this. Some media are even pressing to reduce the time pf play more towars 60 minutes, instead of 90.

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: Friesland Date: 26-05-2012, 00:00	Well, you can let all 11 players take a penalty, instead of just 5. That's what I think is strange about the PSO's, the fact that just 5 players decide the fate of the whole team, that is less than half of the team. In fact, it could already be over after both sides have taken 3 penalties.

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: amirbachar Date: 26-05-2012, 01:06	My suggestion is after 120 minutes, remove a player and play another 15 minute and so on until there is a winner.

Author: Lorric
Date: 26-05-2012, 02:58
Edited by: Lorric
at: 26-05-2012, 03:10

Awwww. He's just mad that Chelsea took the trophy. I didn't hearing him saying this after Chelsea got beat in the final in Moscow on penalties.

However, I am not averse to the idea of making a change, depending on what you put on the table to replace them with. I wonder what penalty shootouts would be like if you threw in a defender too. So you have to beat a defender as well as the keeper.

I am however firmly in the belief the match must be brought to a conclusion at the end of 120 minutes. Press on past this mark, and you all but guarantee whoever wins is just going to be served up as easy meat for their next opponent, unless that opponent also had to go through the same thing.

So picture this, the ball starts on the centre spot. A defender is in the box along with the opposing keeper. That's your new shootout. The defender gets swapped out, just like the striker.

Option 2, 2 strikers, 2 keepers. 2 duels, first between strikers, then between keepers and strikers. Interesting options for who you pick. A pure striker would be best for shooting, but a ballwinner would have a much better chance of being the one who gets to take the shot. Fouls result in a standard penalty shot.

However, these are likely too similar to the penalty shootout in general and not what would be desired. They'd also drag the contest out longer.

I thought about a points system to settle it like a boxing match, but you could game such a system no matter what the criteria, so no.

Final verdict, even though it destroys England national teams, keep the shootout. I've pondered the question before, and never came up with anything better. It's an integral part of the game, and a big draw for fans too.

Author: biagio
Date: 26-05-2012, 06:12

Lorric wrote : Awwww. He's just mad that Chelsea took the trophy. I didn't hearing him saying this after Chelsea got beat in the final in Moscow on penalties.
ok, everybody knows that blatter(and some other people) don't like italy and italians, so what you wrote made me think of when italy won the world cup in 2006. if blatter said that today, i *knew* he said something that time too. i did my research and, low and behold, i found this. it's an article on the new york times from late 2006. basically blatter was annoyed that italy won on penalties(but he wasn't annoyed when brasil did the same in '94...). so he proposed, in case of a tie, just for the final to be replayed(not other games for lack of time) and for other games to take players away at specific time intervals(10-10,9-9,etc...) and play golden goal(very similar to american hockey,nhl). ahhhh blatter...
anyway speaking of american sports, the american mls, for the diciding PKs during the play off stage, had different kind of "penalty kicks"(called shoot-outs) in the '90s. basically the ball was positioned at the 35 yards and the player had 5 seconds to take the ball and kick(again very very similar to nhl). you could do anything you wanted with the ball up to 5 seconds, and the keeper too was allowed to do pretty much whatever you wanted. anyway mls started using the regular PKs at the turn of the millennium.

Author: nemesys
Date: 26-05-2012, 12:36

PKs are a pretty bad solution. But unfortunately we couldn't find better ones yet. Additional extra times and match replay are of course way more football-game oriented, but unfortunately those solutions have some limits.

- Play additional extra times after 120° waiting for a golden goal, either reducing the number of players or not, makes the game last virtually forever, and it's bad for injuries (more likely to happen after over 120' of playing, especially covering the pitch in less than 10) and for TVs scheduling.

- Replay the match has the TVs issue above even more deeply, is bad for people buying the ticket for a final and watching the useless "1st part" of it (even making the ticket valid for the replay, not everyone that buy the ticket will have the opportunity to be again in the stadium the day the replay is scheduled), and could also make a team play the final extremely defensively (maybe?), waiting for the good time to deadly counter attack, since not losing the match will allow a replay (instead of a PK series).

If you look other sports as Tennis, Volleyball, ..., you'll see the direction is to adopt shorter "tie-breakers" which toke the place of the "play until someone" rules they used to have in the past. Then of course, tie-break in Tennis is more tennis-game like than PKs in football are football-game like. But unfortunately (AFAIK) there is not an alternative quick football-game like solution to PKs so far.

Cheers!

- nemesys

Author: adrian
Date: 26-05-2012, 14:06

It would make sense to abolish 30 extra minutes If you see the fact that no goals are scored in most of this time. Expanding the number of penalty shots would be a solution that would work fine together with that. Removing one player after the other is not a new idea I think. I would just like to remark that with such a rule APOEL would have lost against Lyon and it would be an advantage for the top clubs and a way not to let the underdogs come to a realistic chance to win...a penalty shoot out would give them a better chance and it would be fairer as all players are part of the game until the very end...

Author: bert.kassies
Date: 26-05-2012, 14:06

I kinda like the penalty kicks as a match decider. Many times it's like a salvation from a match that is dying anyway. Players are exhausted, fear to lose sneaks in, everything slows down, and then ... penalties. A good way to decide the tie with drama as top players fail and goalkeeper make heroic saves. For me, it's usually a good way to end a match that didn't taste too good (at least near the end and in extra-time).

Of course, there are other examples. A fine match that culminates into extra-time with good play and enthousiasm from both sides. Then penalties can come as a disappointment. But I think any decider within a limited timeframe will have that same problem. We'll see but maybe Blatter just needs some media exposure to gain some popularity points

Author: Friesland
Date: 26-05-2012, 16:47

I like the idea of going straight to penalties after 90 minutes, especially in two leg ties in which the away goals rule applies. The team playing away in the second leg has 120 minutes to score away goals, while the other team has only 90 minutes to do that.

Also take of player after each 15 minutes, also sound interesting, but I believe every team is required to have at least 7 players on the pitch. So, how does that influence this idea?

Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 26-05-2012, 17:11
Edited by: Forza-AZ
at: 26-05-2012, 17:19

Maybe another idea to decide a match:

-When the game ends in a tie, let the team that had the lead the last time win. Most games that end into penalty kicks don't end 0-0 so this would work in most games.

Another period of extra time with golden goal is no good idea. Games might last forever, since no team wants to take a risk. And this will get the players so tired that it will influence their next game (which might not be in the same tournament!)

Let the teams play a replay also doesn't work in most tournaments, since the calender is already overcrowded.

Expand the penalty series to 11 kicks each might make the luck-factor a bit less, so that can also be an idea. Or invent some kind of shoot-outs like in icehockey or fieldhockey.

Author: nemesys
Date: 26-05-2012, 20:55

Bert wrote:
I kinda like the penalty kicks as a match decider. Many times it's like a salvation from a match that is dying anyway. Players are exhausted, fear to lose sneaks in, everything slows down, and then ... penalties. A good way to decide the tie with drama as top players fail and goalkeeper make heroic saves. For me, it's usually a good way to end a match that didn't taste too good (at least near the end and in extra-time).

This is also true. Pretty often PKs are actually a good way to finish up tactical/technical "stalemate" blocked matches.

@Friesland
I like the idea of going straight to penalties after 90 minutes, especially in two leg ties in which the away goals rule applies. The team playing away in the second leg has 120 minutes to score away goals, while the other team has only 90 minutes to do that.

True. Or flipping the coin you can say that a clubs gets 30' extra playing at home, while the other have to play 30' extra away. If we are fine with the fact that statistically it is easier to score at home, you will have that the first club has 30' extra of "easier to score" time. Then of course, as you said, the second club goals are considered "away goal" for total 120' (over 210') instead of 90' (over 210'), so, bottom line, at the end I can't tell which club, if any of them, really gets an advantage.

However, what you say does make sense, ET in 2 legs clashes creates a discrepancy between the two clubs involved in the clash.

@Forza-AZ
When the game ends in a tie, let the team that had the lead the last time win. Most games that end into penalty kicks don't end 0-0 so this would work in most games.

And why not the last one to score wins? I mean if Club A wins 1-0 and knows that unless it will lose 2-1 is the Champion, it will even more likely starting to defend its position: the opponent needs 2 goals now to hope!

However, in both cases I don't know if this could be considered a good solution, basically you give a club 2 results over 3 to win, and this sounds pretty uneven to me. At that point just let the "most Corner Kicks got tiebreaker" decide the match. Or ball possession %. Or shoots on target. Or just shots. Or such things based on how much a club was closer to score than the other. But personally I don't like those stats solutions over PKs after playing ET, especially for a final match: those were play that missed the target after all, and "close" in sports is good enough only in the game of "bocce" (*).

* ( Bocce Link on Dictionary.com )

---

Again, I'm not a big fan of PKs, especially for deciding finals, but I believe so far IMO we didn't discover yet any better solution, to decide quick and quite fairly the output of a decisive match (or 2 leg series) blocked on a draw result after 120°, 180° or 210°.

As always, just my 2 cents.

Cheers!

- nemesys

Author: Pilon23
Date: 27-05-2012, 02:35

Amirbachar wrote:
My suggestion is after 120 minutes, remove a player and play another 15 minute and so on until there is a winner.

I agree, and have had these thoughts myself. However, players don't last forever, and quality tends to go down during extra time.

I would propose the teams each taking a player off the pitch at the start of extra time and doing so in every break until a winner is found. Halves should probably be tweaked to 10 minutes for this to be kept short and fair.

Author: ferdi
Date: 27-05-2012, 07:46
Edited by: ferdi
at: 27-05-2012, 11:13

nemesis wrote: Play additional extra times after 120° waiting for a golden goal, either reducing the number of players or not, makes the game last virtually forever

Players should be allowed to drink water and drinks containing minerals ad libitum, but no nutrients (i. e. no "engergy supply").

The human "power energy tank" (glycogen store) is more or less exhausted after two hours of football. After that, there is still enough energy available to keep up vital functions (mainly fat reserves) but not for high power action like sprinting.

So the performance of the players will soon break down dramatically. (Without endangering the health of the players, provided they drink enough.) They will all hit the wall, one after the other. Except the substitutes, who will then be able to score easily.

The player who sustains the longest will make the difference.

So it will not go on forever.

All you need is a fresh set of referees.

amirbachar wrote: My suggestion is after 120 minutes, remove a player and play another 15 minute and so on until there is a winner.

That will not even be necessary. The players will soon remove themselves "virtually", and some even practically (i. e. they have to give up, or just stand on the pitch, totally exhausted).

Forza-AZ Another period of extra time with golden goal is no good idea. Games might last forever, since no team wants to take a risk.

How can anyone say that games will last forever? That would only be possible if you have an infinite pool of substitutes. Players are human beings and as such mortal, plus they have physiological limits. But also, they will sooner or later be willing to "take a risk", if only for that it's over for them.

I do however dislike the idea of a "golden goal", because if it turns out to be irregular (for example off-side), the winner would then be regarded as irregular. It can always occur that a goal turns out to be irregular, but an irregular golden goal seems to be unacceptable for me.

So either you need video confirmation of the goal, or, what I suggest, continue to play until one team leads by two goals (like in tennis).

Author: nemesys
Date: 27-05-2012, 12:01

@ferdi
So it will not go on forever.

In fact I used the word "virtually" before forever.

But if you think so, then change football into a survival thing could be a good idea after all, but are you sure you won't have two defensive "walls" of 5-6 players at each side of the pitch waiting for a lucky counter attack, even while unable to run?

By the way, players falling on to the ground unable to run anymore doesn't score goals. Actually makes the GK the most advantaged player. Besides that after over 120' of running trying to cover the pitch in even less than 10 men, with muscles full of lactic acid already, muscle injuries are way more likely.

But however it might work, I have nothing against it, it just doesn't sound such an attractive solution to me to be sincere.

Cheers!

- nemesys

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: Todor Date: 27-05-2012, 16:16	I don't know how feasible it is, but if the penalties are taken before the extra-time, this should: a) reduce the pressure on the penalty takers. b) make the extra-time really interesting as one of the teams will have to play for the win.

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: Forza-AZ Date: 27-05-2012, 16:35	The downside is that the other team only has to defend to win the match.

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: Di_Gule Date: 27-05-2012, 17:33	Make it 5 vs 5 in Extra Time. i'm joking by the way.

Author: putje
Date: 28-05-2012, 14:32

My idea looks so simple, that I don't understand why nobody thinks of it.

Use the number of corners as trigger. Most corners wins.
Whoever got the last corner wins when there's a draw on corners.

- The team that is most in attact, will normally have the highest number of corners. => fair decision for most of us I guess.
- The team that is behind on (a) corner, can't wait for 90' (120') so you get an more open game.
- TV stations will know for shure that there are any panelty shoot out (extra times).

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: Lorric Date: 28-05-2012, 15:40 Edited by: Lorric at: 28-05-2012, 15:41	I did, but you can still play for corners. It's a lot easier to get a corner than score a goal, just go down the wing and bounce it off a defender. Rinse and repeat. Keep the shootout.

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: Johnzon Date: 28-05-2012, 15:42	Very simple, but I like it because it needs attacking football. It will also increase the risk being taken by defenders by not just kicking the ball behind, but looking for another solution. Only, did not understand the last part; with this rule we can stop after 90 minutes...Oh, and I assume the corners from both home/away matches will be added together.

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: pip_the_red Date: 28-05-2012, 17:06	Will there ever be a good way of deciding a tournament after 120 minutes of football. It's always going to be hard for 1 club / country. If more of a team aspect is required for shootouts then how about a handicap depending on how many bookings have been accrued during the game. Each team can have 10 penalties minus the number or yellow cards they recieved during the game (minus 2 for a red).

Author: Cloakmaster
Date: 28-05-2012, 17:28

Once upon a time there was the idea of penalties before> the match. So let give 5 shots each, and start the game with - for instanca a 2-3 lead.

for my part i don't like it. I'm comming back to that phrase: Why try to 'repair' something wich isn't broken?

If there shuold be any changes, then i would agree to an increase of minimum shots (to 7, so its more than half of the team) , and/or a lead by two goals for one side. But of course these action would delay the decision instead of speeding it up.

On the other hand: 5 shootets plus one keeper is already more than half of the team involved in penalties. (unless you give the keeper a shot in the first five, like Heynkes did)

So maybe skip extra time for "compensation"? Hrm. I somewhat like extra time, even if there are rarely any goals in that 30 minutes. So one team has a plus of 30 minutes for an away goal, but the other side has this plus of 30 Minutes in support from thier home fans. Tied again...

Author: carragher23
Date: 28-05-2012, 23:15

Once extra time is over, use a form of "countback" like in the long jump in athletics (if 2 competitors have the same best jump then the one with the longer second jump finishes ahead).

Some sort of list like:
1) if it's the first knockout round after a group phase then the team which finished higher in their group goes through (so a group winner only needs a draw whereas a runner up needs a win)
2) team with the least countback wins goes through
3) away goals rule - same as at present but group winners get precedence as do teams with fewer countback wins
4) team with the most wins so far in the competition goes through (and if 1 of them has had more qualifying rounds to get those wins then the "seeded" team should have been good enough to beat them in normal play)
5) team with the most draws so far in the competition goes through
6) team with the best goal difference in the competition goes through
7) team with the most goals so far in the competition goes through
8-11) repeat 4-7 counting away games only
12) if all else fails then the team whose home ground is furthest from the ground where the game is being played goes through (for 2 legged games it's the away team in the 2nd leg - not sure what to do when AC Milan plays Inter though!

Advantages are:
1) both teams know who needs to win to go through, so 1 team tries to win in extra time (sometimes it seems like both teams want penalties).
2) you can't win a competition with countback in every round - soon you'll play a team that's won normally so you'll have to win (in theory a team could win the World Cup without winning a game).

And to make goals more likely in extra time, each period is to start with a direct free kick to be taken from anywhere outside the penalty area - each team kicks off 1 half so it's fair and there's a good chance at least 1 of the teams will score there's so in a 2 leg tie away goals will decide it before countback is needed.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 29-05-2012, 10:16

I agree with no more penalties. If it is a draw after 90 minutes, the SMS voting by the fans from all over the world should be a decider. If the fans vote mostly for some other team (3rd team, so to speak) than the 3rd team should be the winner.

On a more serious note, here is my true suggestion - if it is a draw after 90 minutes, the SMS voting by the fans from all over the world should be a decider. If the fans vote mostly for some other team (3rd team, so to speak) than the 3rd team should be the winner.

Author: greenbay
Date: 31-05-2012, 11:50

In case of a draw, they should declare the team that scored last winners.

Reason is quite simple. Conceeding a goal but then scoring the equalizer wins you the game. So the fear of conceeding the first goal and therefore the need to score two, which is the by far the main reason for the destructive football we see in many of those usually low scoring semi-finals/finals between teams of somewhat equal strength, isn't that important any more. As then nothing happens, if you conceed the first goal or not, you can still win the match with the next goal.

Author: BBP
Date: 05-06-2012, 23:40
Edited by: BBP
at: 05-06-2012, 23:45

Very interesting discussion about penalty kicks, yes or no. My vote goes to yes. A lot of the advantages of other creative ways to decide a match, suggested in this topic, apply also on PK's.

1) It's a positive enforcer for attractive football, no team really wants to decide the game in PK's. There will be almost no occasions where both teams really want PK's.

2) It's way more spectacular to decide with PK's. Good business for TV stations.

3) Lots of drama, emotions running high, and it's very beautiful to see the players group around the pitch.

4) PK's lets showcase some other important sportive properties that aren't always really shown in a regular football game. This is the difference between true stardom and losing the final in PK's. Some of these properties include, handling emotion, tension, and getting around with the immense pressure.

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: Ricardo Date: 08-06-2012, 23:42	Anybody knows how any decided by coin flip? I just heared of a Dutch youth team in the sixties or so, that they lost the title because of a coin flip. A final decided by this. Unbelievable nowadays.

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: biagio Date: 09-06-2012, 01:22	@ Ricardo well, in the sixties there was the coin toss. UEFA Euro 1968(italian luck) Semifinal Italy - Soviet Union 0-0 AET Italy won coin toss and went to final(USSR captain Albert Shesternyov called incorrectly) Final Italy - Yugoslavia 1-1 AET(italy scored 10 minutes from the end) Final Replay(no coin toss for finals) Italy - Yugoslavia 2-0

Author: panda
Date: 10-06-2012, 14:06

it's just about TV, isn't it?

Penalty shootout a) makes good TV b) gives a certain amount of predictability to the scheduling- the broadcaster allows for the possibility of extra time (e.g. they schedule a 30 minute programme they can junk if necessary, or they agree to delay the next programme or something).

I've watched golden goal rules - when the side scores thee golden goal it is a big anticlimax - it comes out of nothing - and then the problem still arises if there is no golden goal.

Any system where the result is going to be known in advance is less exciting as well.....

It is a horrible system, but I can't think of anything better....

Author: tugrulkalinbacak
Date: 17-06-2012, 17:58
Edited by: tugrulkalinbacak
at: 18-06-2012, 16:45

After 90 minutes, the teams have a rest for 10 mns in the field, without returning to dressing-rooms.

First ET starts with the same number of players. Both sides remove one player from the field before 2nd ET. As tie is going on at the end of each ET, the removals are going on, too. If any team have been leading by the end of any ETs, removals stops and total ET duration is to be played.

-1st ET (7:30 mns) : 11 players vs 11 players
-2nd ET (7:30 mns) : 10 vs 10
-3rd ET (7:30 mns) : 9 vs 9
-4th ET (7:30 mns) : 8 vs 8

There is no rest between the ETs. The goals change after each ETs. In the ET periods, each team can make 1 extra substitution.

If any team shown red card(s) in 90 mns, the lacking status for this team goes when starting to first ET (i.e. 11 vs 9) (or 11 vs 8, or 10 vs 8...). But in this case, the ETs are played with 11 vs 9, 10 vs 8, 9 vs 7, and the 4th ET is to be played without any removals. Namely, when any or both teams are represented with 7 players in the field, even if none of the teams scores, the remaining ETs are to be played with the same player quantities.

If tie still goes on after last ET, teams have rest on the field for 10 mns and an 'Endless Extra-Time (EET)' starts with 7 vs 7 players. (even if the 4th ET ends with more than 8 vs 8 players, the teams reduces their players to 7 in the field.) Player deficiency(s) caused by red card(s) vanishes in EET.

Both sides can make limitless substitution in EET, namely until the last player that started the game on the bench enters the game.(i.e. in 90 mns, there are maximum 3 subtitution chances; in ETs, there is 1 substitution chance; in EET, there is limitless substitution chance.)

In EET, if any team scores (silver goal), other side must score in 7:30 mns after restart to continue to EET. If not, the game ends. If scores, the game continues. But in this case (in this 7:30 mns), if the team that scored silver goal scores one more goal (golden goal), the game ends suddenly. In the case of neutralization of silver goal, if the team that scored silver goal scores again (golden goal), the game ends suddenly. But if silver-neutralizating team scores, this goal isn't a 'golden goal'. Conceding team has a chance to neutralizing this 'silver goal' in 7:30 mns. If does, the match continues until a 'golden goal' from this time on. In contrast to current Laws of The Game, in EETs, if any team's player is shown red card(s) and this teams's player quantity falls to 6 or less, nevertheless the game continues.

My solution is like this. Exhausting problems diminish, enthusiasm rises, spirit of the game doesn't get broke down. Maybe it is considered that the team spirit of the game becomes more improved by allowing more player to be a part of the game in the field.

But two-legged matches remain as a problem because of 'away goal' rule which i haven't been understanding since i became interested in football, for 25 years. Why scoring 'away' is more valuable as a determiner of the tie than scoring 'home' is a great question mark for me. The reason may be the probability of necassarity of ET. Away team have to play 30 mns more away than home team of second leg. To compensation of this inevitable disadvantage against the team that plays second leg away, if a match needs an ET, scoring an 'home' goal can't be considered as more valuable than scoring an 'away' goal in respect to unfairness about match durations (90 mns vs 120 mns). But why are away goal quantities regarded as a first tie-breaker at the end of second 90 mns? Can any solution be created to quit this rule?

We can simply aggregate the scores of two 90 mns, and start the ETs as i offered above. But then, there will be an unfairness about match durations. Currently, in fact, the 'away goal rule' compensate this inevitable disadvantage. But only in ETs... Because of this, away goal rule must be applied for only ETs. In my design or in current ETs... If away team scores at any time in ETs, away team is advantageous for qualifying and in remaining ETs, no removal is to be made whether home team equalizes or not. Because advantageous side is away team from that time on. After 30 mns, regarding only this 30 mns, if the 'ET score' is a goal-consisting draw or away team wins, the away team qualifies. If home team wins, home team qualifies. EET is needed if only no goal occurs in ETs. Namely, the ETs are independent period as a determiner, and if any team scores a goal, there is no need to removals and remaining part of 30 mns is completed with the same player quantities.

For EET, my compensation offer about away team is as follows:
If firstly scoring team is the away team, this goal is considered as a 'golden goal' and the match ends suddenly. In the case of home team scores first (silver goal), if the away team doesn't score any goal in 7:30 mns from restart, the game ends. If the away team scores silver-neutralizating goal, this will be also a 'golden goal'. If silver-scoring (home) team scores one more goal (golden goal) in this 7:30 mns, the game ends suddenly (Leading of home team with two-goal differency). In short, in EET, if away team scores only one goal, this will be 'golden goal' and the game ends suddenly. In contrast to away team, home team's first leading goal isn't considered as a 'golden goal', if one more goal in 7:30 mns, this will be the 'golden goal' and the game ends suddenly. If 7:30 mns ends without another goal, the home team qualifies.

All i told seems a bit complicated, but not. In practise, what is going to happen is very easy to understand when you are watching the game.

If FIFA notices my thought one day, football will be more exiting and more fair game about tie-breaking.

Author: tugrulkalinbacak
Date: 17-06-2012, 20:45
Edited by: tugrulkalinbacak
at: 18-06-2012, 18:11

Another offers of mine consist PKs:

1) PKs can be put before the ET, but ET must be obliged to be played. Thus, starting to ETs, the tie might be broken. If the tie is kept at the end of the 120 mns, PKs are to be retaken.

2) PKs can be taken by all of the active players. (Note that, Laws of The Game says 'If a team is more lacking, the other team removes player(s) to equalize the numbers.'. It may be a little advantage to the team that has more players in the field. Because quantitively superior team has a chance to remove the 'worst penalty kickers'.)

3) The design that i describe in my previous entry consist of an 'Endless Extra-Time (EET)'. This can lead programming problems for TVs and consist of some behaviours against fair-play, e.g. mutual passive play by taking courage from endlessness. So we can restrict even this ET period. Then we pass to PKs by all active players.

4) All the single match finals can be extended to 120 mns as normal time. 45+(rest at dressing room for 15 mns)+45+(rest at the field for 10 mns)+30 mns. After this, PKs are to be taken by all active players.

5) Every team reduces 4 players from the field and starts to attack from midline of the pitch for 5 minutes. Defending team has no scorable goal. The midline becomes a line for throw-ins. After this 5 minutes, roles change. There are 6 ETs (3 vs 3). If any team scores, this ET ends and the other starts. Like taking PK... Maybe substitutions is made limitlessly.

6) In ETs, offside rule can be cancelled without any removals. After 30 mns, PKs are to be taken by all active players.

Out of this PK subject, my strictest objection is against 'away goal rule'. It is obviously nonsense. My offer is as follows:

After 90+90=180 mns, the scores must be aggregated and if there is a tie, ET must be played 'independent' from the 180 mns. Since this 30 minutes 'have to' be played at one side's home, away goal rule can be/must be used 'only' for compensating this disadvantage.

* If away team scores first, this must be a 'golden goal' and the game ends suddenly.
* If home team scores first, this is a 'silver goal' and away team has 7:30 to neutralize this goal to carry on their chances. If does, the game continues and if the ET's final score is a goal-consisting draw (i.e. 1-1) like this, nevertheless away team qualifies. After away team conceded 'silver goal', regarrdless of remaining ET mns, the game is to be played 7:30 mns for away team to equalize.
* If home team finds another goal (golden goal) after scoring 'silver goal' in this 7:30 mns, the game ends suddenly.
* If the score becomes 1-1 in ET (First goal by home team as 'silver goal' followed by the second one by away team as 'silver-neutralizing goal'), the goals change and there is 15 mns to be played for 'golden goal' for both teams.

* In short;
- only regarding to 30 mns ET; if there is goal-consisting draw (only 1-1 is possible, the away team's goal is called as 'silver-neutralizing goal') or superiority of away team (only 0-1 (namely, by 'golden goal') or 1-2 (namely, by 'golden goal' following 'silver-neutralizing goal') is possible), the away team qualifies.
- The home team qualifies only if wins over away team ET (only 1-0 (namely, by 'silver goal') or 2-0 (namely, by 'golden goal' following 'silver goal') or 2-1 (namely, by 'golden goal' following a 'neutralized silver goal') is possible).

* If there is a goalless draw in ETs, the game goes to PKs with all active players.

In my opinion, even in this case there is an unfairness against away team while taking PKs in terms of in which side's home the game is being played. The solution can be as follows:

* After all active players PKs, if there is still a tie, away team qualifies.

I bet each of these offers is much more fair than current practice.

Author: cska
Date: 20-06-2012, 13:23

Hm, too much of philosophy over too plain problem...

1. Football is NOT hockey. In football, you have RED cards. In hockey, you have suspensions of 2-20 min.
So, the idea to gradually take 1 player out of the teams and decrease them to 10, 9, 8... is stupid.

What if one of the teams had 2 red cards and still managed a draw ?

Espanyol did it in EL final against Sevilla. They equalized with 2 men down.

In football, a team cannot play if it has less than 7 players.

2. Football is not like basketball or voleyball.

Goals are rare events if compared to baskets or spikes.

So, that's why football games frequently end up in draws.

Interesting - a team can win by making the rare event happen more times than the opposing team can make.

Interesting - in penalties it's the other way round. Missing a penalty is as rare event as is scoring a goal in regular time.

But in both cases - in regular time and during penalties, victory is decided by the occurience of rare events.

So, for me deciding victory on scoring more goals or missing less penalties works equally well.

Penalties are better than coin tosses.

And are quite a good amusement... provided that it is not your club that would miss a shot...

Author: sirasheli
Date: 20-06-2012, 17:22

Ajax fans: Ajax heeft onze stemmen te winnen de belangrijkste poll - het beste team ooit! Ga in op de link en stem zo veel Ajax! We kunnen wijzen op geen einde, door te klikken op de "back" / "Reload" / "opnieuw te stemmen"! Laten we wat weinig tijd blijft voor ons om deel te nemen en te beïnvloeden deze enquête! de link- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDZSd3dORnVTb056RlBMQ2NsVV
Z0cEE6MQ#gid=0

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: Lorric Date: 24-06-2012, 23:32	I'd like to take this opportunity to reiterate, right after yet another trademark England loss on penalties in the quarter final of a major international tournament, that I still firmly believe the penalty shootout should stand as the way to break ties.

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: bert.kassies Date: 24-06-2012, 23:49	Oh Lorric, what a brave statement just after the game.

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: Lorric Date: 25-06-2012, 00:37	That is a kind thing to say Bert. Thank you.

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: Nick Date: 25-06-2012, 08:00	Actually penalties are always a unique thriller. And most people still remember single missed penalties in major tournaments, while they struggle to remember then goalscorers of the same tournament.

Re: no more penatlies after extra time?
Author: JPV Date: 25-06-2012, 09:33	That's right. We (Belgians) still love penalties just because of the Dutch tragedy at Euro 2000 .