Xtratime Community banner

Should FIFA replace penalty shoot outs with sudden death XT2?


  • Total voters
    5
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,907 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What are your thoughts on replacing the current spot kicks as tie breaker?

I envision it going something like this:

If games are tied after 90', then proceed to normal Extra Time as it currently exists. If after Extra Time there is still no winner, then proceed to a sudden death Extra Time 2 where the first team to score wins!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,664 Posts
I had this idea a while ago

a winner be declared by taking the teams’ previous three games into account. Let’s say a second round World Cup game reaches the penalty shootout stage, how about letting the team with the better group record (in this case the 3 group games) win? Of course this would seem unfair to a team that has finished second in the group stage – and is playing a first placed team – but why not? A World Cup semifinal match would take into account the quarter final, second round and last group matches to decide, not really unfair. A champions league quarter final second leg would look at the results of the quarter final first leg and the two round of 16 matches, again not really unfair.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,722 Posts
The problem, or one of the problems, is that the XT can be extremely long and tedious, and players are just incredibly tired. I think on paper it's not a a terrible idea, but would not work in practice.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
30,050 Posts
Yeah, the truth is that this will not be good for Television, the players will be dead tired and honestly, and the concern for their health should come first. Otherwise we could be back to the 30's, when another game was played in the next day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,536 Posts
I've always liked the icehockey shootouts, but I suppose the goalie would be too much at a disadvantage in a footie situation. Though maybe if there was the goalie and one defender? Too easy for the defending team then, I guess.

There's also been the proposal that each team withraw one or two players every 5 minutes during XT.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,722 Posts
I've always liked the icehockey shootouts, but I suppose the goalie would be too much at a disadvantage in a footie situation. Though maybe if there was the goalie and one defender? Too easy for the defending team then, I guess.

There's also been the proposal that each team withraw one or two players every 5 minutes during XT.
Those shootouts are amazing in football. The older MLS had them — though of course, the US being the US, in every game thar ended in a draw, not only playoffs.

I remember seeing as a kid in the early 90s a couple of summer tournaments in the stadium in Peru (the kind in which three teams play 45 minutes against each other) and in draws there was a three-way system: first, three corners without keepers, failing that, those shootouts, and then penalties. It was a blast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,907 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
The problem, or one of the problems, is that the XT can be extremely long and tedious, and players are just incredibly tired. I think on paper it's not a a terrible idea, but would not work in practice.
Yeah, the truth is that this will not be good for Television, the players will be dead tired and honestly, and the concern for their health should come first. Otherwise we could be back to the 30's, when another game was played in the next day.
that's right and them being tired will result in a game winning sudden death goal more easily than in the first 90' or first 30' of XT

I just feel like it's better to resolve the match with the teams playing football on the pitch rather than on a tiebreaker of who can score more spot kicks :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44,308 Posts
It's basically a golden goal after ET, innit?

Aside from the spectacle itself, the fact that there are shows scheduled after the match and ad sponsors all over them makes it a pain for TV. As things already are, the following shows can be cut into through a prolonged shootout. Pens can technically go on "forever" but they're a way of concentrating the opportunities to the goal so that a conclusion can be reached in a much quicker fashion.

The golden goal was scrapped because TV people didn't like it and many fans preferred pens. I thought it was pretty cool, tbh, especially with the Euro 2000 finale.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,722 Posts
I liked the golden goal too. But I figure TV had a role there too? Too unpredictable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56,633 Posts
playing on after 120 minutes is complete nonsense. 30 minutes of extra time often feels too long as it is. 3-4 hour matches is the last thing we need.

the current system is fine and has history. no need to tweak it.
indeed, and the penalty shoot-out at least is the last part of the drama they took away from us with that silly VAR thing
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,664 Posts
Playing 90 or 500 minutes before getting to the shootout is not the point imo. The thing with shootout is that the winner can have little to do with how the game went.
Why would we want :
Five times hitting the cross bar against a park the bus team but the park the bus team wins the shootout.
The winner must be determined 'within' the game.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,722 Posts
Reza, I think we agree on that. Essentially the penalties are in a way a different skillset than playing 11-11 football.

Even those who invented penalty shootouts would likely agree, as it's clearly an extreme tie-breaking measure. After all, playing 30 extra minutes is a lot, it's one third more than what these elite athletes are trained to endure, and, because of the kinds of competitions that have games in which draws are not allowed, they often imply an extra effort. Not to mention the heightened pressure. And there are even things like the away goal rule to make sure less games are decided by penalties. So they're trying to avoid the penalties.

However, surely you can't really think it does not matter whether it's 90 or 500 minutes. You already see it after 90 minutes, these guys are all cramped and nervous and rarely score. The penalties are the last resort. I also agree that a repeat match would be ideal, but that is hardly doable these days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,907 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Playing 90 or 500 minutes before getting to the shootout is not the point imo. The thing with shootout is that the winner can have little to do with how the game went.
Why would we want :
Five times hitting the cross bar against a park the bus team but the park the bus team wins the shootout.
The winner must be determined 'within' the game.
exactly!


Chelsea's last CL win comes to mind
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,669 Posts
Penalties are called a lottery by some, but it's not that, it's about which set of players can handle themselves better mentally from the spot. That aspect is really thrilling. See the shootout between Frankfurt and Chelsea. One of the Frankfurt players just shot it like a cannon straight at Kepa. Dumb pk, he didn't have the nerve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,528 Posts
Extra time and penalties, it doesn't matter. We did it both ways. :proud:

( Though we did have to go the penalty route vs Denmark ironically because we missed a penalty in extratime. ))





#weareCroatia :proud:

#youwishyouwere
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top