Penalty Shoot Outs?

[gene hughes]

So Blatter thinks they're some kind of tragedy or something. I've always enjoyed them but I'd love to see some other things tried.

For example:

Instead of a penalty why not have one-on-ones. The goalie starts on his line and the attacking player starts in the centre circle and when the whistle blows the attacker has only 30 seconds to score. Just like with penos each team has 5 goes each. I would love to see that.

 

[themn]

So Blatter thinks they're some kind of tragedy or something. I've always enjoyed them but I'd love to see some other things tried.

For example:

Instead of a penalty why not have one-on-ones. The goalie starts on his line and the attacking player starts in the centre circle and when the whistle blows the attacker has only 30 seconds to score. Just like with penos each team has 5 goes each. I would love to see that.

They used to do that in the USA, back in the Pele/NewYork Cosmos days.

 

[kingjulian]

But 30 seconds is a bit tight...may be 40 will make it even...no?

 

[Mystic]

I think that would be a bit too easy in football. Any decent striker should be able to score a one on one with a goalkeeper when there is no defenders pressuring him.

 

[OLD_Lewy]

think penalties are the best way to be fair, its all about holding your nerve when it comes down to it

 

[kingjulian]

Within 30 seconds is the tricky part...the goal keeper will stay on the line till theclock ticking sound gets louder and louder on the striker...pressure makes people do silly things...

I would love to see someone comically try to welly the ball from outside the box and fall on their arse without even making a connection...

Exhibit A:

 

[gene hughes]

They used to do that in the USA, back in the Pele/NewYork Cosmos days.

Did they? Any clips?

 

[refugee]

Did they? Any clips?

I've seen them do that as well. Think they stole the idea from Ice Hockey.

I like pens

 

[themn]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJEnwi7otu0

 

[gene hughes]

I think that would be a bit too easy in football. Any decent striker should be able to score a one on one with a goalkeeper when there is no defenders pressuring him.

Yea, but after Suarez and Gerrard have scored our first two, how would you feel when the rest of them took their turn? I think most players would prefer a penalty. For the viewer, you'd probably get to see really great players going around the keeper.

 

[Mystic]

Within 30 seconds is the tricky part...the goal keeper will stay on the line till clock ticking sound gets louder and louder on the striker...pressure make people do silly things...

I would love to see someone comically try to welly the ball from outside the box and fall on their arse without even making a connection...

Exhibit A:

If the goalkeeper stays on his line, any competent player could beat him with ease.

 

[kingjulian]

Defi makes for a better viewing..i can't see how anyone can deny that.

Gene knows...

 

[kingjulian]

If the goalkeeper stays on his line, any competent player could beat him with ease.

From the half way line....you gotta be kidding me..

 

[gene hughes]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJEnwi7otu0

That was weird. Why only give them 5 seconds?

 

[kingjulian]

Ok after seeing that clip...30 seconds is a lot of time. 5 is too short, may be 10 would work better...

 

[gene hughes]

I want the player to have time enough to run to the keeper and then when the keeper runs out to meet him, still have enough time left to run away.

 

[refugee]

That was weird. Why only give them 5 seconds?

To force him the players into making mistakes, and shooting from further back

 

[themn]

That was weird. Why only give them 5 seconds?

The countdown clock thing only went up to that ?

 

[mr_moo]

i actually think 30 secs is too long, i believe 20 secs would be better as this would give the attacker pretty much one chance only to score as he would have to make his mind up pretty early what he's going to do. with 30 secs he may get 2-3 chances to score.

 

[HC]

Why not revert to old rules? If you cant settle it in 90 mins have a rematch.

More gate money, bigger sponsership deals and teams wont spend a season getting to a cup final to go out cause someone fluffs a peno.

 

[gene hughes]

I can't agree HC, I like the way things these days usually get finished on the night.

 

[themn]

Hmmm...German side loses a penalty shoot-out, so the head of FIFA tasks the man that basically symbolises said team/club/country (Beckenbaur) to find an alternative.

HOW MUCH GOLD ARE YOU HIDING SEPP ??!!

 

[peterhague]

I think penalties are a bloody ludicrous, if exciting, way to settle a match. They've got almost nothing to do with the normal sport of football.

The best suggestion I've ever heard is to break extra time into chunks of time and after each period have both teams remove a player of their choice, so gradually opening up the game. A team wins by being ahead at the end of one of the periods.

 

[FoxForceFive]

I think both teams should submit a brown paper bag to blatter after the match, the team with the most money inside wins.

Just like the rights to staging the world cup.

 

[nealmac]

No, fuck replays. Finish it on the day/night.

I don't honestly think there is a viable alternative to penalty kicks. It's quick, it's straightforward and it's entertaining. I know it's an awful way to decide a match, but if two teams can't avoid stalemate after 120 minutes of football, then so be it.

 

[peterhague]

No, fuck replays. Finish it on the day/night.

I don't honestly think there is a viable alternative to penalty kicks. It's quick, it's straightforward and it's entertaining. I know it's an awful way to decide a match, but if two teams can't avoid stalemate after 120 minutes of football, then so be it.

How about the idea I mentioned? What are your objections to that?

 

[nealmac]

How about the idea I mentioned? What are your objections to that?

Sorry, mate, I missed it.

I wouldn't be against trying it. Only problem is, it could potentially go on for a very long time. I also think the less players on the pitch, the less chance there'd be of a goal. How long would each "period" be?

 

[peterhague]

I can't remember if the article mentioned the length of each period. I'd have thought 7.5 minutes might be about right, including the 90th minute - so down to ten men each from the start of extra time. That'd leave it at 7 a side at the end of 120 minutes. But they're just details to be argued over.

I definitely disagree that fewer players would mean less chance of a goal. Surely it'd mean more space and more stretched defences?

 

[FoxForceFive]

I think penalties are a bloody ludicrous, if exciting, way to settle a match. They've got almost nothing to do with the normal sport of football.

The best suggestion I've ever heard is to break extra time into chunks of time and after each period have both teams remove a player of their choice, so gradually opening up the game. A team wins by being ahead at the end of one of the periods.

Fuck, the players would be done in & then take players off, the game would be awful imo.

 

[peterhague]

Well it would be a bit of an endurance test, and I think that's the main argument against it, but IMO winning a 7 a side game with knackered players still requires more footballing quality than winning a penalty shoot out. I think most people have lost sight of just how stupid an idea penalties are. They're a complete cop out.