• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Penalty shootout change?

Forums Unread posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
the count

the count

SCM's least favourite muppet- There was a poll
Honorary Member
Penalty shootouts in football could be transformed to make them fairer under new plans being looked at by Uefa.
The sport's European governing body is already trialling a new way for penalties to be taken in decisive shootouts.
Instead of teams alternating spot-kicks, Uefa is considering a new system similar to the tie-break in tennis.
The system is being tried out at the European Under-17 Championship, which began in Croatia on Wednesday.
What makes the perfect World Cup shootout penalty?
How does it work?

As it stands, teams take turns in a shootout, with the choice of who goes first decided by a coin toss.
For example, team A goes first, then team B, then team A again.
The new system is called 'ABBA' and sees team A followed by team B - before team B goes again. Team A would then get two successive penalties, and so on until there is a winner.
A coin will still be tossed to decide who goes first.
Why is a change needed?

The idea is to stop the team going second having to always, potentially, play catch-up. The sport's rule-making body, Ifab, approved the trial after looking at research it says proves the team taking the first penalty have an unfair advantage as they win 60% of shootouts.
"The hypothesis is that the player taking the second kick in the pair is under greater mental pressure," said Uefa.
The system is also being trialled at the women's European Under-17 Championship, which began in the Czech Republic on Tuesday.
 
What I imagined was both teams taking separate successive penalties at opposite ends of the pitch. Taker from each team must kick simultaneously. Best of 5 wins. Crowd will be a massive factor here.
 
reuque said:
What I imagined was both teams taking separate successive penalties at opposite ends of the pitch. Taker from each team must kick simultaneously. Best of 5 wins. Crowd will be a massive factor here.
Click to expand...

If we're going to go for a radical change, how about each team being allowed to choose to take one ice hockey style penalty with the player dribbling a ball from the centre-circle and GK being allowed to come off his line – if scored it counts for double. This would bring an element of strategy and skill to the lottery.
 
rurikbird said:
If we're going to go for a radical change, how about each team being allowed to choose to take one ice hockey style penalty with the player dribbling a ball from the centre-circle and GK being allowed to come off his line – if scored it counts for double. This would bring an element of strategy and skill to the lottery.
Click to expand...

I'm up for roll of dice after end of extra time to decide 1 of 6 different methods of penalty-taking. All left to the little adrenaline and whatever talent the players have left to win it. Managers can't do much with penalties as it is anyway so I reckon this can be reality.
 
rurikbird said:
If we're going to go for a radical change, how about each team being allowed to choose to take one ice hockey style penalty with the player dribbling a ball from the centre-circle and GK being allowed to come off his line – if scored it counts for double. This would bring an element of strategy and skill to the lottery.
Click to expand...

This was actually done in the 70s and 80s in America with the NASL. Didn't count for double but this was how they resolved shootouts



Check from about 2:15
 
Rather than a pre-determined sequence, they could also try this:

1. If a team misses a penalty, it goes on on taking kicks until either (a) it scores - see step 2, or (b) everyone in the team has taken a shot - see step 3.
2. Anytime a team scores, it's the other team's turn to kick.
3. If a team has taken all its kicks, then the team that still has unused kickers will just take the remaining kicks in a row, regardless if they score.

So you could have something like:
Man Utd -- score! Celta Vigo -- miss. (1 - 0)
Celta Vigo -- score! Man Utd -- miss. (1 - 1)
Man Utd -- miss. Man Utd -- miss. (still 1 - 1)
Man Utd -- score! Celta Vigo -- miss. (2 - 1)... no more kicks for Man Utd
Celta Vigo -- score! Celta Vigo -- score! (2 - 2, then 2 - 3)... fuck Man Utd. Yay!
 
I thought this was going to copy the rule from tennis where you needed to win by 2 points in a tie break. Which would make it more interesting and remove the ' sudden death' element of pressure that the team kicking 2nd in the sequence would feel.
 
This could be a real Waterloo moment in football.
 
darkstarexodus said:
This was actually done in the 70s and 80s in America with the NASL. Didn't count for double but this was how they resolved shootouts



Check from about 2:15
Click to expand...


One of the keepers' moustaches was a thing of beauty. Go to 4.08 for the best shot of a resplendent piece of facial fuzz.
 
Sudden death like in hockey. Play until the next goal and remove a player every 5 minutes.
 
Prefer the existing method. If you make the system fairer, the perverse incentive will be teams playing for penalties more often.
 
Agree. This has all the hallmarks of football administrators with not enough to do, trying too hard to justify their existence.

I'd add that, biased as I may be because of our record in shootouts, I don't think there's much (if anything) wrong with the current system anyway. Next they'll be trying to make the toss-up at kickoff "fairer". Leave well alone.
 
Judge Jules said:
Agree. This has all the hallmarks of football administrators with not enough to do, trying too hard to justify their existence.

I'd add that, biased as I may be because of our record in shootouts, I don't think there's much (if anything) wrong with the current system anyway. Next they'll be trying to make the toss-up at kickoff "fairer". Leave well alone.
Click to expand...
A 60/40 win ratio for the side going first is a fair big differential.
I am never in favour of change solely for changes sake but if this were to level the field a bit more and I don't know if I will, then I would be in favour of it.
It's a debate worth having I reckon
 
In a video of one of his stage appearances during a tour of New Zealand, Billy Connolly gives his own take on "Super Trooper" specially adapted for the host country:

"Like a Super Trooper
Life is gonnae find me
But ah won't be blue
'Coz ah'm goin' to
Find mysel' a nice big ewe".
 
Judge Jules said:
Agree. This has all the hallmarks of football administrators with not enough to do, trying too hard to justify their existence.

I'd add that, biased as I may be because of our record in shootouts, I don't think there's much (if anything) wrong with the current system anyway. Next they'll be trying to make the toss-up at kickoff "fairer". Leave well alone.
Click to expand...
I've always thought the idea of spending a season or even a couple of years in the international scene to lose out on a cup to penalties is a joke.

Bring back replays and or golden goals in the final and eliminate the possibility of nerve or chance deciding the fate of a side*


*All the above is propagated by the fact that i'm an England fan
 
Hughly in favour of this proposal.

Although I'd prefer they did away with penalties and after 90 mins they continue with extra time but every 5 mins both teams lose a player until a winning goal is scored
 
Dreambeliever said:
Hughly in favour of this proposal.

Although I'd prefer they did away with penalties and after 90 mins they continue with extra time but every 5 mins both teams lose a player until a winning goal is scored
Click to expand...
Actually I always liked the idea of dropping a player after extra time - Gimme Gimme Gimme.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom