Alternatives to the penalty shootout
Three ideas for Sepp Blatter
28 July ~ FIFA president Sepp Blatter thinks we should be looking for better ways to settle drawn matches than penalties. I have some suggestions for him. There are three situations that can lead to shootouts, as far as I can see. They are domestic cup ties, end of season play-offs and games in the knockout stages of international and continental club competitions. The first, which I would only use in domestic cup competitions, is that penalties should still be taken, but before the start of extra time and not after it has failed to produce a winner.
This would mean the team that "lost" the shootout would still win the game if they scored more goals than their opponents in extra time. Some might argue that this solution would result in the team that "won" the shootout playing negatively. In many cases of extra time nowadays the impression is that both teams are playing for penalties.
I am fairly sure that in more than 50 per cent of games with extra time, the result does not change. If my suggestion were adopted, throughout extra time one team would inevitably have to attack as sitting back would not be an option. As a result extra time would have a dramatic content that it often lacks as things are at the moment.
My suggestion for end of season play-offs is very simple, and is already used in Italy. If two teams are level after 120 or 210 minutes, the winner is the one that finished higher in the regular season. It is simple and just.
The third suggestion, applicable in competitions with group games which lead to a knockout phase would, with rare exceptions, end the need for shootouts altogether. Italy against England in the recent Euro 2012 quarter-final will do as an example. With the game goalless after 120 minutes, England would have progressed because they had a better record in the group stage – seven points to Italy's five.
Had their points been equal goal difference, followed by goals scored, would have been the deciding factor. Only after these three factors had failed to produce a winner would penalties be used, but again they would be taken before the start of extra time. Of course, Italy's five points in their group might be worth as much as England's seven in theirs, but you cannot have everything, and in any case seeding means that in theory there are no weak or strong groups.
This solution would also make the group stage far more interesting. Teams that won their first two games and were already through to the next stage would think twice about resting key players in their final game. It would risk a defeat that could put them at a disadvantage in the knockout stage. Every team would have the incentive to get as many points as possible in their group games, and only matches between two teams already eliminated would be dead rubbers.
None of these changes is likely to be taken up because penalty shootouts make for very dramatic television. Have the football authorities, who appear to need TV money so much, really got the will to adopt solutions that will lead to fairer results but deprive the viewing public of the vicarious thrills that a shootout produces? If they have not, they might as well stop bleating about the inherent unfairness of the present system. If they have, they should stop talking and start doing something. Richard Mason
I hate the penalties-before-the-game idea, not the least of which kicking a ball at full strength before warming up is a good way to get 5 hamstring pulls. But the others are gangbusters.
Excellent, Mr. Mason. Anything that makes group games more interesting and rewards them should be commended.
Not before the game. Before the start of extra time. Not quite the same.
as the Italy England game has been brought to attention there is still no way a seeding system can still balance out Italy competing fairly in a group including Spain than the seeds 2-4 in any other group however the group distribution of points eventually end up...they did well to get a point off Spain at that stage but as the final showed they could have lost to Spain and still got 6 points yet chasing a match against England gaining 7 points from a group in which none of the 4 teams got further than the bare mininum knockout stages...
"My suggestion for end of season play-offs is very simple, and is already used in Italy. If two teams are level after 120 or 210 minutes, the winner is the one that finished higher in the regular season. It is simple and just."
I have an even more simple and just system for the end of season playoffs. Scrap them. If you finish 3rd (or 4th in League 2, or second in non-league), you get automatically promoted. Playoffs only exist to extend the season for those in midtable, and was only voted in, in England after Football League club chairmen had peviously voted to allow club directors to profit financially from running clubs. Sport is supposed to be about rewarding excellence. Playoffs punish the third best side in the division by rewarding mediocre sides below them.
That's another argument altogether, though, DA, and unlikely to change whilst there is money to be made out of it.
With regard to penalties, I like them, even though I support England. I've never yet heard a reasonable alternative. Maybe sometimes an undeserving winner comes out of it, like Arsenal in the 2005 FA Cup, but that is just as likely to happen with other methods.
At least the penalty shoot-out has an element of skill and tension about it. You wouldn't get that basing the outcome on statistics during the game.
The idea of a shoot-out before extra time is an awful idea, though.
Football is a team game. Deciding the outcome on a 1 v 1 situation goes against the grain of the sport. It also leads to individuals being solo'd out, which isn't very fair. I've always thought, that if you must have penalties, all 11 players should take one. If you've had a man sent off, then you're only get 10 penalties.
There was a thread about this after the League Cup if I remember correctly. It's fun to think about alternatives, but none sound good. I really don't like any of those proposed in the article above (no offense Richard since I don't have any alternatives myself beyond the replay). The only one that comes close for me is penalties before extra time. Again, the replay seems to be the best bet. Play again. If not, penalties it is. Most of the games I watch I watch as a neutral and too often (Spain v. Portugal in Euro 2014) the game is mind numbing. I want it to end. Penalties serves that purpose. Penalties suck when I have something invested, and do admit that winning on penalties never feels as good as winning during the game. I will take BVB beating Bayern in the DFB Pokal over Liverpool winning the League Cup because Dortmund won during regulation time; the game was much more exciting.
@ Sean of the Shed
Penalties before extra time are only proposed for domestic cup ties, and since in these there is no other guideline, like league or group position, they are only a suggestion. I continue to think that they would give an added frisson to extra time, in which teams often seem to be going through the motions before taking their chance with the penalties.
@ David Agnew
Get rid of play offs? Couldn't agree more, but the article was trying to find a fairer solution based on the fact that, whether we like it or not, they exist.
@ Harbinger of Hope
All 11 (or 10) players to take penalties? Again, I couldn't agree more. Apart from anything else, the responsibility for an eventual defeat would be less likely to fall on one individual.
It reminds me of one of Australia's greatest "wins" in One Day Cricket was the draw with South Africa in the semi final in England in 99. Australia went through as they had a better record from the group stages.
Get rid of all the losers who qualify for tournaments like the European Cup and World Cup when they have no right being there, then there'd be plenty of time to replay drawn matches.
Not keen on any of these ideas. They could all encourage negative playing tactics.
Deciding the result of a match based on how well a team has played in previous games seems highly controversial. You could have a team record three massive wins in an easy group then play a stultifying cynical game knowing that if they drew they would go through because their opponents only managed a win and two draws in a rock hard group.
The situation is really quite simple to resolve. It's called a "replay". What you would do is have the teams come back the next day, or the day after, and have another possible 120 minutes for the teams to settle things.
Hear me out. One of the practical reasons for the abolition of replays at the World Cup in particular was the logistics involved in them; but I think we've moved on a little since 1970, no? That's just a minor point, though. Here's the killer. From 1930 to 1962 (the period of time when a draw after extra time at the World Cup resulted in a replay; in 1966 it was replaced with drawing of lots except the final), there were 50 knockout matches played, of which precisely three required a replay, one in 1934 and two in 1938. Italy weren't affected after their replay in 1934 (for reasons which everybody knows), but in 1938, both teams who won replays were knocked out in the next round.
And that's why replays are best; they're like a nuclear war, in that neither team comes out of them in good shape. Sure, somebody eventually wins and advances, but that then means that they've played at least 90 minutes' more football than their opponents, and that fatigue is going to catch up with them very quickly. Therefore it's to neither team's benefit to just play for a draw, and they had to come out and attack at some point, so extra time was very rarely dull because of that looming threat of a replay.
You know it makes sense...
What about this? When we get to extra time, play until a goal is scored a la golden goal, but with a twist, every 5 minutes a player is taken from each team, either picked by your manager or the opponents manager, could make it interesting & entertaining
I think that some people are failing to understand the point of the original article. This was to suggest alternatives to an imperfect way of resolving matches that may not themselves be perfect, but might be less imperfect than the one that is currently in use.
Obviously the perfect solution is replay(s) until a winner emerges, but they are not going to happen. If it is thought that penalties remain the next best solution, that is fine by me, even though I do not personally agree.
I think that people who fear that the suggestions in the article will lead to stultifyingly negative football by the advantaged team are being too pessimistic. It is not easy, and also extremely risky, to play for a 0-0 draw for 120 minutes. Such pessimism also ignores the fact that most teams don't go on the defensive when they go 1-0 up in cup ties or league matches, so why should they do it in the situations described?
And even if they do, the match will not be dull because everyone will know that if they make a mistake, they could pay dearly for it. Whether a match grips spectators or not does not always depend on the quality of play on display, but on context.
Think of cricket and a team batting all day to save a test match and scoring at two or less per over. Is that boring for committed spectators?
No, no, no. Well yes to the play-off penalties as it seems to be obvious that this advantage should apply, no to gimmicks. Penalties before extra time would be pointless and disrupt the flow of the game - play 90 minutes, stop for 15 to take pens, then start again? The third idea as someone else has said, how can group situations be viewed as in anyway comparable situations?
What should happen is the end of the idea that penalties are a lottery; they are a test of technique, skill and composure and until someone brings an alternate that is clearly better they should stay.
If the main point of the article was to put some suggestions to Sepp Blatter, I think that the overall message to take back to him from the debate it has provoked is that penalties may not be wholly satisfactory but most fans see them as the least controversial way of settling drawn matches if the possibility of replays is excluded and the away goals rule does not apply. They should therefore probably be retained, and possibly extended to include all 11 players, until someone comes up with a better and more satisfactory solution. An exception should be made for end-of-season league play offs, when the team that took more points during the regular season should be rewarded.
Apropos of the away goals rule, it is my view that it should only become operative after extra time in the second leg. So a tie that produced, say, 1-1 and 2-2 draws would still have extra time, because we should do everything possible to ensure that ties are won by the team that actually scores more goals.
Just keep playing til somebody scores, like in the Stanley Cup.
Discuss this article
You must be logged in to comment. Please register if you don't have an account yet.
