I mean especially in a World Cup? Pls justify your answers. Thanks.
2006-07-14 19:29:13 · 9 answers · asked by buzzy bug 1 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ FIFA World Cup (TM)
Is it the best resolution? No. Does it suit the players? Yes. We have to remember that when they reach PK, they have already been running for 2 hours...they are pretty tired and need to end the game somehow and it seems like PK's seem to end it quick. Some teams can just play and play and never score and that could also pose problems. Like the Germany Argentina game, they both played so well...and neither team would score until they got to the PK's.
2006-07-14 20:29:15 · answer #1 · answered by Lahmsdagr8est! 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it is the best resolution. In an important match such as the World Cup final. I think its unfair that the two teams ( France, Italy) had worked so hard to get to the finals by winning and playing as best as they could and to have it all thrown away in the end by a penalty shoot out. It doesnt determine how well a team can play just by shooting at a goal. It just reflects on 5 players individually. Those five players didn't get the team to the final, it was the whole team so why should the fate of the game be put in their hands? Im not very good at soccer but i have a really good shot when in penalty position. So how would it be fare that a team i play for wins a competition because of a penalty shoot out even though our over all match performace was shocking compared to that of the other team. Its not! Sorry if this doesnt make sense, it did in my head lol
2006-07-14 19:46:30 · answer #2 · answered by Zoe 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think penatly shootouts should decide the winner of the game. There should be provisions for more extra times else call the game a draw. During penalty shootouts, only 5 team players are given a chance, which I think is wrong. There should be a way to test the capabilities of all the players on the team and not just the best players.
2006-07-14 22:11:12 · answer #3 · answered by kaps78 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They've already played for 120 minutes, so why should they be forced to keep going? If they did, it would favour certain styles of play and therefore certain teams, which is unfair in itself.
This is especially important for tournaments like the WC when teams are playing so many games during the month with only a few days rest between.
PKs can be anti-climatic and unsatisfying, especially when your team loses. But there has to be some way other than continued play to resolve it; if not PKs, then how?
2006-07-14 21:36:24 · answer #4 · answered by The angels have the phone box. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't like the penalty kick resolution too but if the teams are not producing any results after all that extra time then the hell with it. Time for another game ......
2006-07-14 20:32:35 · answer #5 · answered by Kingston 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2006-07-14 19:43:15 · answer #6 · answered by sox_rchrd 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am in agreement with the other`s BUT what other choice do we have. They can`t have a replay on World Cup Final day can they!!!!!
2006-07-14 20:56:20 · answer #7 · answered by madge 51 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes,because some teams can play unlimited without scoring.
2006-07-14 19:42:10 · answer #8 · answered by oppong k 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no....i think that scoring(did i spell that right?) penalty goals are not really impressive
2006-07-14 20:26:25 · answer #9 · answered by Big Bike Biker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋