So Italy made 5 out of 5 penalty kicks and France had one blocked, does this prove who the better team is? I think it is a crappy way to end soccer matches. I say get rid of offsides penaltys and it will open things up and allow for more goals to be scored.
2006-07-09 13:55:02 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football ➔ FIFA World Cup (TM)
yeah I hate it too
and sometimes I feel that
they are pushing it to a penalty-shootout on purpose
which is really lame
and sort of ruins the game
coz it takes away from one team beating the other within 90 minutes by being more fabulously amazing...
2006-07-09 14:00:20 · answer #1 · answered by chicawhappa-the-great 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ummm...shootouts are really a tossup and don't particularly prove who played a better game, but throwing out the rules that standardize and regulate the game, does not make sense either. There should be a better answer than penalty kicks, but with limited subs, at some point the game & overtime do have to conclude.
2006-07-09 14:00:25 · answer #2 · answered by MindelaBB 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yea it may be unfair to the losing team but there are probably two reasons for the Penalty shootout resolution in FIFA elimination matches. One, a blocked shot in a game can easily be the cause of loss for a side, and two, you can't medically expect players to continue running for longer than two hours. So, without a definitive end, there would be no end to play as players are exhausted.
2006-07-09 14:02:48 · answer #3 · answered by smita k 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are two ways to interpret the ending of a game with a shootout. One, it places too much emphasis on simple shots and guessing. But, if it was a never ending golden goal overtime, it would just turn into an endurance game. There will never be a fair way to determine an end of a game.
2006-07-09 14:36:07 · answer #4 · answered by aSfasgadgds 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are not a joke, and I never see a player laughing hysterically when it comes to the shoot out... the game has to end, and the best strikers win.. and back in '94 Italy lost the same way to Brazil. It sucked, but there has to be winner - Italy hit all five, France did not.. so there.
2006-07-09 14:03:12 · answer #5 · answered by Sam_I_Am 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't want to see two exhausted teams play sloppily for 3 hours either.
Both teams know the rules, and sometimes it comes down to having good penalty strikers. Ask England about not hitting penalty shots.
2006-07-09 14:24:26 · answer #6 · answered by Kermit renversant de corporation 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that it is a crappy way to end a match but can think of no better way. I know after 120min those guys gotta be exhausted! I don't think getting rid of offsides penatlies would be such a good idea though.....
2006-07-09 14:02:12 · answer #7 · answered by beth l 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a good way becuse the players are tired and arent going to run so there not going to make goals.if there were no offsides it would ruin soccer becuse teams would be worrying about defense
2006-07-09 13:58:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are a joke. They should play until someone scores. They could learn something from NHL hockey. Now that I think of it, they should also play on ice and use a puck made of cheese.
2006-07-10 09:23:45 · answer #9 · answered by El Guapo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree
shootouts are luck games
you and your luck
Italy won not because of their so good called players but because of luck and their cheap tactics
2006-07-09 14:01:14 · answer #10 · answered by h87t19a 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋