The shoot out is unfair on the side shooting second.

statistically team that misses first wins

statistically the side that goes first, wins 58%.

Have women goalies at extra time and watch the goals rain in.  The FA is always trying to make the game more inclusive.

Exactly someone had to hit the pen first ffs such a stupid thread

Nothing more to see here move on..

blindfolded

I agree! Should be played out like a tennis tie break until sudden death.

At least there is at least one voice among 
the simpletons who agrees with me. hooray!

Of course it won't happen that way, but I believe
it is being reviewed next close season. Problem is
that it doesn't affect many, and would need a concerted
protest to draw attention to it.
I watched it last night as a neutral and felt for
Middlesboro every time one of their players stepped up
knowing if he missed, it was all over, something that
the Liverpool players didn't have to face, on top of that
they had to take their pens at the Kop end.

charwell.     23 Sep 14 23:44 
yes, because Liverpool won the toss and had the advantage of 1st this is just not cricket. Let's make it so Liverpool can't possibly have any advantage.........but it is a trifle tricky to have both teams take a penalty at the same time!

I don't think ken's post was an anti-Liverpool one, more an anti-current penalty shootout format one, though I could be wrong. I actually quite like the idea. The team going first would still have a slight advantage, albeit reduced from the one they currently hold.

I thought the referee chose which end to take the kicks ?  It isnt decided on a toin coss ?

Mikael, I did say I watched as a neutral.

i,d prefer side getting more corners going through, but you,d have loons like fat sam,pardew,pulis etc encouraging their team to gain corners instead of scoring or crossing,and the media would spotlight reffs as though every corner decision is a pen,so might as well stick with pens

1st time poster     24 Sep 14 16:41 
who says the teams going 1st had the choice,as posted teams might win the toss and opt for going 2nd,its only an advantage if you score 1st

If a team wins the toss and opts to go 2nd, they deserve to lose. Could the bolded part be any more obvious?

par     Joined: 20 Jul 01
Replies: 5649 24 Sep 14 17:06 
should they change after a certain amount of penalties like in tennis

say after five penalties and it is still tied change the order of penalty taking.

I think the suggestion, which I agree with, would be simply A-B-B-A, and so on. Take a chance on this format, I say.

I'll tell what's unfair.

Keeping a 7 or 8 second delay in place when it gets to pens.
Makes the in-running a market a total farce

golden goal is the answer

i think 7 a side for extra time is a better option, 10 mins each way, but that aint happening
so penalties with alternate starts is the best option

golden goal, and silver goal were tried and rejected

As Donny suggested, plus first to reach 5(or6)
and be at least 2 clear.
One thing anyway, one shouldn't chasing the other
for the whole sequence as was last night, when
Middlesboro were on sudden death (I think) about
10 times whereas Liverpool not once.

Mikael, the side taking the first pen could
go 5-4 after 9 pens with no pens having been
missed so the minimum of 2 would be required,
as in the tennis tie-break. Think about it.

The side taking the 11th pen would be facing
sudden death at that point, because they had
missed the 10th, not because they were going
second every second pen previous. They are
up against it as they would be in a tennis
tie break, makes sense to me.

First to 5 and win by 2, first to 7 and win by 2, first to 9 and win by 2

etc, etc, what's the diff?