Football
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
By going first Liverpool were never coming from behind,
also they should do it like the tennis tie break.
also they should do it like the tennis tie break.
Show More
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.
By going first Liverpool were never coming from behind,
also they should do it like the tennis tie break.
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!
also they should do it like the tennis tie break.
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!
Exactly someone had to hit the pen first ffs such a stupid thread
Nothing more to see here move on..
Nothing more to see here move on..
why not have both pens taken at both ends simultaneously?
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!
the simpletons who agrees with me. hooray!
the tennis tie-break system makes sense to me. Won't happen though.
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.
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.
well if the pens were taken at the Kop end then presumably the Boro captain decided to go second?
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.
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.
Problem is that it doesn't affect many,
Soooooooooo, it's not a problem then!
Soooooooooo, it's not a problem then!
I thought the referee chose which end to take the kicks ? It isnt decided on a toin coss ?
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
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
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.
say after five penalties and it is still tied change the order of penalty taking.
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.
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.
a b
b a
a b
b a
a b
sudden death
b a
a b
b a
a b
etc
so simple it could only be football administrators that didnt agree
i cant think of a single reason for not changing to this fairer system
except perhaps its a bit complicated for footballers and refs to get the hang of
b a
a b
b a
a b
sudden death
b a
a b
b a
a b
etc
so simple it could only be football administrators that didnt agree
i cant think of a single reason for not changing to this fairer system
except perhaps its a bit complicated for footballers and refs to get the hang of
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
Keeping a 7 or 8 second delay in place when it gets to pens.
Makes the in-running a market a total farce
Donny, it would have to stop somewhere, so following
your sequence, perhaps when one side scores 5 and 2
clear?
your sequence, perhaps when one side scores 5 and 2
clear?
Golden goal was the worst idea ever. It worked great on the Playstation, just not in real life.
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
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.
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.
Don't understand the requirement to be 2 clear tbh ken.
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.
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.
So the side taking the 10th penalty misses but are then allowed to equalize on the 11th forcing the other side to score penalties 12 & 13? Makes no sense. If they're leading 5-4 after 5 penalties apiece, they go through.
I suggest you rethink.
I suggest you rethink.
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.
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.
tennis is first to 7 and win by 2
kens makes sense but is likely to produce longer shootouts but has its advantages too
id prefer to find a winner after 10 kicks , then sudden death
kens makes sense but is likely to produce longer shootouts but has its advantages too
id prefer to find a winner after 10 kicks , then sudden death
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?
etc, etc, what's the diff?
non really ken
just seemed like others hadnt grasped your idea
just seemed like others hadnt grasped your idea
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.
As donny suggests, requiring a team to win by two almost guarantees longer shootouts. Seriously, who wants that?
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!!
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!!
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?
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.
that shootout the other night was an exception and it is normally sorted out after 5 each.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
That would work but I'm not sure that you'll be able to persuade FIFA to adopt it.
maybe awarding a goal to defending team for every missed shot in normal time
would see pelantiy shoot outs done away with
would see pelantiy shoot outs done away with
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.
How about not mess around with something which doesn't need fixing?!!!
Criciuma EC U20 v Palmeiras U20 ii,30 thursday /cant find res /help
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.
"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.
Historic records show that the side going
first win 58% of penalty shoot outs. That
is a fact.
first win 58% of penalty shoot outs. That
is a fact.
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.
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.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539