Sepp Blatter calls for end to penalty shootouts

If a drwa after ninety minutes, play extra time and take a player off each team every three minutes until a golden goal. Will be much fairer.

just let blatter choose the winner. seems to be want he's after.

sepp seething an english team won

why don't bayern just look in a mirror. they had 30 shots and scored 1 goal. that's not bad luck, it's sh1t.

so in short sepp btwatter was gutted chelsea won

sooner this buffoon retires the better

which ever way a game ends will be bad for some individual

i think penalty shoot outs are great

i think there is a few people calling for an end to Sepp Blatter

If only everyone would call for an end to Sepp Blatter

Blatter has called for this before it is all hot air, it won't be changed.

Obviously he will say it again when a team parks the bus and ends up winning.

Good to see the paranoid little Englanders come out every time an idea Blatter/Platini has is actually reported in the even more xenophobic English press.

It's all very well him wanting it changed but realistically there is no other decent way of sorting it.

He tried golden goal and that didn't really work.

Next we'll have players dribbling from halfway to try and score like in ice hockey?

Penalties have been around for decades, everyone knows it, everyone gets on with it, it doesn't really need changing.

Personally I think penalty shoot outs are great entertainment.........and no matter which way you look at any match, a draw WILL occur 28% of the time.

However, should the powers that be decide that penalty shootouts are to be phased out, then the only logical solution to me would be having the draw favour one side by means of other reasons such as numbers of red or yellow cards picked up in previous games, or maybe diving offences picked up by the TV cameras or something similar etc. At least both teams will go into a final knowing that a draw favours one or the other....

Decide it like cricket, end of 90 + ET and let the statistics decide it.

You spend 120mins defending, you lose on basis of attacking superiority stats.

Everyone has to play at some stage for the goal and everyone on +2.5 goals wins!

The only decent thing i can suggest in the way of penalties is to perhaps take them BEFORE extra time, so that there's not so much pressure on the poor sod that misses. His team have got 30 minutes to turn it round. The other side to that is obviously the team that wins the shoot out might then go all defensive during extra time. So probably not much better really, there's problems with any way.

go to the judges cards

Crossbar challenge for me

play extra time with no offside rule

There should be at least a replay at at neutral
venue, the following Tuesday or Wednesday, and if
still level after two matches + 2 bouts of extra time,
joint winners. It's not necessary to have an artificial
winner.

it is neccesary for a team to get knocked out in a knockout competition though ken, penaltys arent just for finals.

Should be a replay, and if still equal,
joint winners. I don't think it's necessary
to have an artificially created winner.

Joint winners!!

How does that solve the problem?

Schedules are packed enough as it is, you can't go adding more games.

When would they have fitted a replay in for Real v Bayern?

How would your joint winners theory work in a play off final? You can't promote 2 sides.

What about a world cup semi final? No time for replays, and you can't have joint winners as 1 side needs to go through.

Should be a replay, and if still equal,
joint winners. I don't think it's necessary
to have an artificially created winner.

Are you one of the parents that believes everyone should get a medal for taking part on kid's sports days and no one should win?

As highlighted pens are the best solution to an unsolvable problem.  That stats idea sounds appealing but then you'll get teams pinging shots from the half way line or holding the ball in the corner so they swing in their favour

Has it crossed anyone's mind that the Final is the
only round in the CL when the protagonists play
each other just once ? Much more chance of getting
a result by playing 2 matches rather than one, don't
you think ? BTW what will happen in the Olympics in
the event of a dead heat in one of the finals ? It
could happen.

why not stick the ball 20 yards from goal and let teams take a shot against a full defence, give them 20 seconds to score

then the other team gets a go


at least it will take a bit of skill (or lucky deflection) to win it

biscuit, you mention other situations but we are talking
about the the Champions League final, not who gets promoted,
in the playoffs, also perhaps they should consider reducing
the rounds played these days. I can remember when it was
a proper European Cup, not as now when when the finalists
play 13 games now. They manage to sqeeze all the extra games
to accomodate all the dead wood theses days that didn't exist
a few years ago. BTW How many penalty shoot outs have there
been in the last say, 5 years ?

"BTW what will happen in the Olympics in
the event of a dead heat in one of the finals ? It
could happen"



Then it goes to penalties.

I got the feeling Blatter was talking about football generally though, not just for the Champions league final.

Not many world cup finals have gone to pens (think only 2 in history) but quite a few CL finals do, although that's probably down to there being 1 every year as opposed to 4 years.

so football has been losing it's essence for about 25 years
, and he's just realised it?

the man is a complete and utter c@nt.

All those calling for a replay, thats fine for cup knockouts. But the reason penalties were brought in were to stop 3 and 4 legged quarter finals.

okay, that might not be completely true but multiple replays were abolished in 1990. I suppose being born in 1989 means that the idea of this is more alien than anyone who was around to see it.

But the idea of a final replay is ridiculous. The amount of organisation for one final is huge, if it was replayed in the same city there would be positives such as more money spent in the city but the disruption caused is huge too (any boost to the local economy will probably have to be spent on security and extra policing.

Imagine if you had tickets for the CL or WC final. This ticket, whether your team was in it or not would be the absolute pinnacle of your football viewing pleasure. You have a seat in the house to see who is crowned the Champions of Club football, or Europe, or the World.....

...but oh no, it ended in a draw. 80,000 other fukcers get to see the winners live in front of their eyes.

What is so wrong with penalties? You have your chances in a game, if you get to the final, get through extra time, you haven't done the job- take the pressure of thousands watching you, you take a large enough pay cheque home.

Penalties are exciting for the neutral. They are tense for those with their team involved and someone has to be disappointed in the end, whether its from 12 yards or not.

i've been to two replayed finals having been to the original game, and i promise you it's a logistical, and financial nightmare.

can you imagine if last saturdays game had been replayed on tuesday?empty planes coming back to london sunday /monday. nowhere near enough planes to get everybody home after the replay.

the only good thing would have been more fans would have seen the game because none of the corporate ponces would be there.

but what would you do if the replay was drawn?????

They used to have Cup final replays, why did they
stop them ? The Champions League used to be called
The European Cup and was confined to Champions of
the top leagues in the different European countries,
which ensured that it was won by a country's champion,
not by a side that finished as low as 4th in their
respective League, why did they change that ? Truth
is, their is nothing they can do different if they want
a Champion on the night of the final. They are stuck
with it, like it or not.

They used to have Cup final replays, why did they
stop them ? The Champions League used to be called
The European Cup and was confined to Champions of
the top leagues in the different European countries,
which ensured that it was won by a country's champion,
not by a side that finished as low as 4th in their
respective League, why did they change that ? Truth
is, their is nothing they can do different if they want
a Champion on the night of the final. They are stuck
with it, like it or not.

in the event of a tie, shots to goal ratio declares the winner

The most obvious is endless extra times til a winner is found, works in nhl ice hockey, no problem there

adopt an "duckworth lewis" method, like they do in cricket.

Penalties are imperfect but it's the best system.  Wouldn't oppose a change to running in at goal from halfway, but anything else is highly unappealing.

The problem is caused because football is a sport
with a low scoring rate producing 3 very possible
result. Impossible to solve perfectly, as the
result not wanted, a draw, can almost be fav at
times.

they should have the penalty shoot outs before they play extra time and award a 0.5 goal lead to theam that wins the shootout.

I don't like the idea of stats - would make it too technical.  Everything needs to be simple to understand.

I don't like the idea of penalties before the game - would affect how the teams play and most of the time would be a waste of time.

I definitely favour the idea of taking off a player every 5 minutes.  That would let the best players shine in more and more space.  Imagine it getting down to the 5-a-side!  Superb entertainment.

in the states in the 70,s they used to have a 35 yard run up, one on one player vs keeper. was more emphasis on skill and finishing. goalie could come off his line too. so better test than pens. was entertaining as well.

Perhaps they should just toss a coin.

I have a great idea, Play extra time but without goalkeepers and first goal wins.

Play extra time without a ball.

Legalize the offside rule at extra time...

loui
26 May 12 14:28
Joined:
30 Mar 03
| Topic/replies: 1,715 | Blogger: loui's blog
in the states in the 70,s they used to have a 35 yard run up, one on one player vs keeper. was more emphasis on skill and finishing. goalie could come off his line too. so better test than pens. was entertaining as well.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpAo9c705RE&t=132s


Check it out. The first fella who takes it looks like an 1970´s version of Fernando Torres  ha ha.

Sepp is sitting in front of the TV with his trousers around his ankles loving this Sheff U v huddersfield game

Why did golden goal get scrapped anyway?

extra time the managers have to go in goal

Same reason he silver goal got scrapped..wikipedia
Silver goal

In the 2002 season UEFA introduced a new rule, the silver goal, to decide a competitive match. In extra time the team leading after the first fifteen minute half would win, but the game would no longer stop the instant a team scored. Competitions that operated extra time would be able to decide whether to use the golden goal, the silver goal, or neither procedure during extra time. The only major competitive match to be decided by a silver goal was the semi-final match of Euro 2004 between Greece and the Czech Republic, when Traianos Dellas scored for Greece after a corner kick in the last two seconds of the first period of extra time. This was also the last ever professional silver goal.

[edit] Abolition in football

The golden goal rule was introduced to stimulate offensive flair and to effectively reduce the number of penalty shootouts. However, it was widely thought[by whom?] that golden goal rules encouraged teams to play more defensively to safeguard against a loss. Teams often placed more emphasis on not conceding a goal rather than scoring a goal, and many golden-goal extra time periods remained scoreless.[citation needed] The silver goal also failed to please the IFAB, as it denied the losing team the chance of saving the match simply by virtue of when the goal is scored. The Euro 2004 semi-final best illustrated the point; if the Greek goal had been scored 15 seconds later, that is immediately after the extra-time interval (instead of the last two seconds of the first period of extra time), the Czechs would have had nearly 15 minutes to attempt to score the equalizer. Furthermore, one team could benefit unfairly if conditions, such as a strong wind, favoured attacking in one direction.

In February 2004, the IFAB announced that after Euro 2004 in Portugal, both the golden goal and silver goal methods would be removed from the Laws of the Game. The 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany did not employ the golden goal in the event of a tied match during the knockout stage,[3] but reverted to the previous rules: In the event of a tied game after the original 90 minutes, two 15-minute halves of extra time were played. Then, if a tie remained after the 30 minutes of extra time, the winner was decided by a penalty shootout.[4]

This is the clown (Sepp Blatter, no one on this thread) that in 2010 was quoted by German magazine Focus as saying:

"If there is no winner at the end of 90 minutes of play, we would proceed directly to penalty kicks."

Not going to happen but imagine the hilarity of Sepp's massive seethe if England won the Euro's on penalties.

I'm not a betting man nor am I a cynic but what are the odds that this is just a tactic to try and deflect importance away from the goal line technology debate after the Euros.