No more penalties?

Question

Bit late with this, but I'm fervently against penalties in any match. Would it be a solution, after half time is done, for each team to lose 2 players and continue for another 10 minutes? And to continue on like that, if must be, until there's just the 2 goalkeepers left? An incredibly tight came would take a maximum of 90+30+(5x10min)=170 minutes. Too long, too tiring maybe - until you realise a Tour de France takes 3 weeks and gets decided on seconds. But what is your preferred solution?

A game decided on penalties takes 120+20 minutes. The ide above should take no more than an extra 30 minutes. How 'punishing' is that? Penalties don't pick the best team - they pick the least nervous.

gww100 i know more about life than about football, hence my disgust at such snooty comments. Arguments?

Answer 1

one solution to that problem could be that every time the ref interrupts the game, the clock would stop - this would bring at least 15 minutes more. also, video evidence could be an additional solution, in order to find out if goals and pks are goals and not offside-goals and/or pks are correctly given or not. another possibility could be that teams are allowed to exchange more than three players (like in other sports). they used to be allowed to only exchange 2 in the past, so why not allowing them an unlimited exchange.

a total different alternative is to discontinue the k.o.-rounds (all rounds starting from the second one) and to organize a WC like the one in 1950 in uruguay were all the teams played against the other (like in regular national championships) and at the end the winner was the one with the most points.

as you can see, there are future alternatives to penalty kicks. at the moment though and for the next 20 years i guess nothing will change...

Answer 2

For me a solution would be to increase the chances of scoring during the game or during extra time, it has been clear that strikers are very tired after extra time and sometimes there are no more replacements because there are only 3 permitted, it would be a good idea to let the teams make more replacements 1 or 2 during extra time so that theres more energy inside the pitch. But if nothing happens, penalties are the best solution as its the basics of the game, the ones who say penalties are just based on luck I say that the whole game is a bit of luck, if Argentinas Maxi Rodriguez shot vs Mexico went to the post instead they probably had lost the match but it did enter when the probabilities are 1 in 30 maybe. So penalties are the correct way to determine the winner in an even game ,although there should be elements guaranteed to try to avoid this stage which in a way ruins the essence of the game.

Answer 3

It shouldn't be penalties (many players lose confidence in their careers if they miss) , there would be 2 other solutions.

1. Both teams lose 2 of their back 4 and 2 of their midfield. The game will then be 7 a side. Be more attacking.

2. Teams should be judged by independant impartial group of 5 judges. They give a mark out of 10 for each team. If they are tied after that, the judges choose who should win.

3. After the second half of extra time, both team play a five a side match, with unlimited subsititutions. Only 1 recognised defender or defensive midfielder is allowed. They carry on, the first to 3 wins.

4. Replay - Probably the worst solution is to play a replay after the second period of extra time.

The penalty shootout is just lucky and ruins too many careers, it should be changed soon.

Answer 4

NOO!!!! the rules of the game will NOT be changed. penalties MUST stay.

its silly to take out players and keep adding time to the match. these guys get tired. if they cant score in the game or in the 30 extra minutes, theres no use in keeping on trying. i agree that penalties suck cause great teams lose this way...its based on skill, but also luck. a great goalie can stop a penalty...but so can a lucky one. a crappy player can miss a penalty...but so can a good player. its just gonna have to stay that way, as much as we dislike it.

Answer 5

Play a 30 minute extra time, with two 15 minute halfs. Each half you get two additional substitutions. If still tied, play another extra time with the same rules, except its golden goal. I really cant see a match going more than 130 minutes with this, can you?

Answer 6

My idea for this is for there to be an independent panel of 5 judges (referees) watching the match. They could score each team on a points sytem (just like in boxing) and would only be asked for their opinion in the event of a draw after extra time. Details to be worked out to make this work properly

Answer 7

Maybe the first thing they could do after the final whistle is to take all the players with yellow cards off the field and play the extra time.

Answer 8

120 minutes are tiring enough. You can't see players play good enough. They're just exhausting. So, penalty is the last option. I like the drama of it. Even the famous one can't do it right sometimes.

Answer 9

I think it needs to be something that encourages teams to be more attacking.

Maybe something like, extra tine first and after this the team that has most shots on target within full and extra time wins the game.

Answer 10

As intersting as your idea is i don't think FIFA will be taking it up. they have tried numerous solutions before: Golden goal, silver goal etc. nothing works. when it comes down to it the only decider that is viable is a penalty shootout. fans of teams involved hate them but for neutral fans they are great.