Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 59 comments are related to the topic:
The shoot out is unfair on the side shooting second.
The shoot out is unfair on the side shooting second.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 59
|
By:
non really ken
just seemed like others hadnt grasped your idea |
|
By:
I don't see the need to extend it beyond 5 penalties each if one is already winning 5-4, and I don't think many fans would support it either. I've already said I support ken's idea. For some reason, he's overthinking it though. Imo.
|
|
By:
Ken's initial idea, that is.
|
|
By:
As donny suggests, requiring a team to win by two almost guarantees longer shootouts. Seriously, who wants that?
|
|
By:
What was wrong was the fact that Middlesboro faced
sudden death about 10 consecutive times, while the home side not once. That is patently wrong and the the team going first has a historical 58% success, rate, that is a fact. Another fact is that no one is that bothered either!! |
|
By:
I've agreed with your initial idea ken, and still do, but why do you want to extend shootouts beyond the current 5 apiece unless necessary. The side shooting first would only have an 'unfair' advantage on their 5th penalty - if the side shooting 2nd scored their 5th it would be their advantage next. Why bother with this need to win by 2 nonsense?
|
|
By:
if it finishes all square after 5 penalties each, then both teams are under the same sudden death pressure to score with their next penalty.
that shootout the other night was an exception and it is normally sorted out after 5 each. |
|
By:
its like backing overs or unders in an abandoned match,the overs have a clear advantage because you have a chance of winning but you will never collect on unders in the abandoned game.
|
|
By:
Kenilworth,
In a tennis tie break, if a player misses a shot the other player wins the point. If the server misses at 7-6* he is not 'up against it', he loses the tie break. Therefore, the requirement to win a tennis tie break by two clear points is reasonable. In a penalty shoot out, if a player misses a penalty the other team do not gain a goal. Therefore, a requirement to win a penalty shoot out by two clear goals is not reasonable. Any gain in fairness over the current format would be off-set by the much longer expected duration and the reduced tension. It would create the bizarre situation such that no player would be required to take a penalty under the pressure of needing to score to avoid immediate defeat. However, as Mikael suggested, a tie break format with the requirement to be one goal clear after an equal number of penalties have been struck may well be an improvement on the current format. That would seem to be fairer whilst maintaining the excitement of the current format. Outpost, Under the current format, if it's 5-5, both teams are not under the same sudden death pressure. If Team A misses, they are only eliminated if Team B score their next penalty. If Team A scores, Team B are immediately eliminated if they fail to score. brassneck, It doesn't appear to be anything like backing overs/unders in a match that's abandoned. Wrong thread? |
|
By:
jt45 excellent post.
Perhaps it should follow the tennis tie break closer by following their sequence, that is to award a point to whoever wins the point, that is if the pen taker scores or misses, up to 6 and 2 clear, also the pens being alternate, a,b,b,a,a,b,b,a,a, etc, etc. |
|
By:
That would work but I'm not sure that you'll be able to persuade FIFA to adopt it.
|
|
By:
.
 |
|
By:
maybe awarding a goal to defending team for every missed shot in normal time
would see pelantiy shoot outs done away with |
|
By:
Still not sure why you want to mess with your initial, straightforward idea, ken. Just stick to 5 pens apiece but in the A-B-B-A format. Awarding a point/goal/whatever for missing is as daft as needing to win by two imo. Only the 5th round of penalties offers an 'unfair' advantage, but I guess there'd be no point winning the coin-toss if you didn't benefit from it somehow.
|
|
By:
paper scissors rock first to three
|
|
By:
How about not mess around with something which doesn't need fixing?!!!
|
|
By:
Criciuma EC U20 v Palmeiras U20 ii,30 thursday /cant find res /help
|
|
By:
jt45
"Under the current format, if it's 5-5, both teams are not under the same sudden death pressure. If Team A misses, they are only eliminated if Team B score their next penalty. If Team A scores, Team B are immediately eliminated if they fail to score." so you really think the penalty taker from team A is relaxed taking the penalty because he knows that the other team MIGHT miss theirs as well. so no pressure on him at all then. |
|
By:
Historic records show that the side going
first win 58% of penalty shoot outs. That is a fact. |
|
By:
Outpost,
I didn't state that Team A's penalty takers would be relaxed. I observed that your assertion that 'if it finishes all square after 5 penalties each, then both teams are under the same sudden death pressure to score with their next penalty' was incorrect. |