A solution to the penalty shootout problem

Posted by Creaven on July 4, 2010 under World Cup | 8 Comments to Read

It a pretty safe bet at least one of the last three matches of the World Cup (the stupid third-place match doesn’t exist to me) will end with two teams picking five players and taking undefended shots 12 yards from goal.

It’s like finishing a basketball game with a free throw shooting contest. It’s so idiotic, it’s somewhat amazing the penalty shootout has lasted as long as it has (It’s been around in international competitions since 1970. Before that, they had replays and even drew lots. No, you didn’t misread that, THEY DREW LOTS!). Trying to a determine a world champion by a shooting contest is completely unacceptable. This needs to be fixed. And, as the headline suggests, I know how to.

It’s simple. After 90 minutes, the tied teams start playing 10-minute periods. At the end of each period, each team has to take one player off the field of their choosing. So for the first extra time period (between the 90th and 100th minute) each team plays with 10 players (if no one has been sent off). For the second period, nine versus nine; for the third, eight versus eight; for the fourth, seven versus seven and so on. After the fourth overtime (130th minute), there will be no offsides.

The match ends when someone has the lead after one of the 10-minute periods ends (or, it could be golden goal, either way is cool with me).

That’s it.

With less players on the field the game will open up and lead to more chances on goal. Defensive teams won’t be able to surround their own goal forever and be forced to try and score, which will open up even more space. If the match is still tied after 130 minutes (which I’m guessing would rarely happen), not having offsides will open up the game further.

It’s not perfect. The best solution is to play 90 minutes, have two 15-minute extra time periods and if the match is still tied, both teams come back four days later and do it all over again. This, obviously, is logistically impossible (venues, schedules, television, tickets, sponsors, ect.), so the result has to be determined the same day the match begins.

I also realize soccer is meant to be played 11 versus 11, not eight versus eight or even three versus three. But, unlike in a shootout, the tied teams still have to use the skills they’ve honed since they were kids (passing, heading, dribiling, shooting, ect.) instead of just placing a ball on a white spot and firing a shot.

“The Survivor Extra Time” (can’t decide if that’s a good name for it or not), should also be extremely exciting. Not only on the field, with chances coming fast furious, but off the field too. Coaches will have to continually make tactical changes and everyone watching will have an opinion on who the coach should “eliminate” next.

There’s also the .0001 percent chance neither team scores in the first 10 extra times and the match ends with the two goalies going one v one. If it ever happens, it will be the most entertaining 10 minutes in the history of mankind.

(Note: For those of you asking yourself, “Well, what happens if the match is still tied after all the players are eliminated?” First, you’re a dork and second the last two players (persumably the goalies) can’t get eliminated. Also, after 90 minutes, the head referee will trade places with the fourth official (why don’t they already do this?).

Maybe someone can think of a better solution to the penalty shootout problem, but almost anything is exponentially better than the current format. Most everyone agrees the penalty shootout is a crazy way to determine a winner but there is little discussion on how to effectively change it. Most of the soccer progressives are focused on goal-line technology and instant replay, but I think there’s nothing more insane in the modern game than penalty shootouts. Just because it’s been around for awhile doesn’t mean it should continue.

Unfortunately, FIFA is more against change than Congressional Republicans (that’s right, I went there), so I have little hope penalty shootouts are going to end anytime soon.

—————————–

Tuesday’s Bet:

Germany to beat Spain in 90 minutes (+145) — $10 — to win $14.50

——————————–

Betting Summary

Hit both of my bets for Friday’s semifinals and I didn’t touch Saturday’s matches. I did lose my Luis Fabiano leading goal scorer future bet and my World Cup lock turned out to be a push (Kaka scoring more goals than Sergio Aguero — neither scored). So going into to the final three matches I’m in the black!

Individual matches: 4-8 (made $16)
Prop bets: 0-1 (lost $5)
Parlays: 1-2 (lost $15.68).
Over\Under: 3-2 (made $26.59).
Future: 1 pending, 4 wins, 4 losses, 1 push — made $2.33 — $23 invested
Total: Made $23.86.

You can get my most up-to-date bets on Twitter at IntelSoccer.

Also, if you want to start betting on soccer or any other sports, please click on the Sportsbook ad on IntelligentSoccer and signup. I’ve belonged to SportsBook for years and I can tell you it is the best online sports book on the Internet. I only get paid if someone signs up after clicking through the ads on IntelligentSoccer, so please go that rout. Thanks so much!!!

Milos said,

the most fair way is to wait 3 days and play again…I only advocate this for the final game however

another possible solution that my uncle likes to talk about, is have the penalty shootout before the game, so there is already a winner if the game ends in a tie…it forces one team to attack if the game is tied, because they know a tie means they lose
Jon said,

I kinda like Milo’s suggestion. But, I don’t think the penalty kick is anywhere near as absurd as a free throw shooting contest would be. A goal is more precious than a basketball goal (just by the creation it takes to get one in soccer comparatively.) Goalkeepers and their ability to stop most penalty kick’s (notice I said ability to) at least continues this idea of scarcity. I think the reason PK’s seem inappropriate is because it takes away a lot of what playing soccer means. The Shootout MLS did helped that, but for some reason was dropped. PK’s at least have a history of excitement and meaning. Changing it without a great idea would be as mis-lead as a congressional democrat… ya, I went there.
Bill said,

Bingo! The penalty shootout is a complete horror although its not like free-throws because of the keeper acting as an opposing player for the act. Nonetheless problems abound with this part of a competition.

Another issue with PKs in general are the complete lack of compliance with the rules by all players, particularly the goalkeeper. The goalkeepers violate the rules and come off the line before the ball is struck, and referee never enforce the rules.

1. I would simply go straight to 9 v 9 in the first 15 minutes, 7 v 7 for the second, and add one substitute extra for each period. Stay at 7 v7 there after, but continue to allow subs until all seven are used. Golden goal… right away, or after the first two periods? Not sure.

Imagine the drama, who comes off? who goes on? its difficult to imagine no score by the end of the second period, but…

2. With the pre-shootout idea, I worry that a weak team that won the shootout would immediately do a Mourinho and go for the nil-nil draw producing horrific football.
Marcus said,

Your removing players every 10 minutes is exactly what I’ve been espousing since I was in high school. Yanking players is great because it would kill the ability of defensive teams to hold their shape and it would make the game more individualistic. Tell me the prospect of Messi or Ronaldo playing with the space an 8 v 8 affords wouldn’t have the networks drooling. I’d only add one thing: Managers should be allowed an additional sub for the extra period. With that much extra running, the fresh legs are probably necessary. Moreover, that would reward the deeper of the two sides. I’ll also adopt Bill’s idea of going with golden goal once the game hits 7 v 7 (or once 5/10 minutes of 7 v 7 have elapsed).
The hidden beauty of pulling players is the ability to create multi-goal overtimes. A team down a goal playing 9 v 9 is going to open up huge spaces and the possibility for counters. Lastly, removing players will further punish negative/defensive tactics during a match because the risk of playing 9 v 10 or 8 v 9 is so onerous.
I’ll end by asking whether or not you would prefer soccer to switch to 10 v 10 at all times. The 11 v 11 game comes from an era where player fitness and tactics made it so the game was significantly more open (watch clips from the 60s and 70s and the amount of space and time afforded to attackers is amazing – inconceivable in today’s game). I know it will never happen, but I wonder if that wouldn’t be the ultimate solution for the negative tactics that dominate the game today (really at all levels).
nick said,

o god yanking players is horrible. it will just make a game go slower. UNLESS when you yank players you shrink your field.
OR they just go straight to the 3vs3 and we get this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZnSGLrZ9W0

yes they would have to be immediately flown to an oil rig somewhere in the ocean and get put into a cage.
nick said,

also has anyone watched that movie Pelada (trailer here: http://www.pelada-movie.com/trailers/index.html)
i bought it on itunes and gave it a watch. i think its a pretty good movie. makes you want to start a pickup game somewhere.
Bill said,

What are you going to write about next?

Now that you’ve stuck your toe in the rule change pool, what other changes would you recommend? This is sure to be one of the lowest scoring World Cups, and FIFA always looks at the rules in the light of this. How do we make games more naturally attacking?

What about refereeing and technology, how far to go, how far is too far?

What is the future for US Soccer and Bob Bradley? Should he be retained? Will Fulham (god help them!) take him off our hands? How does the US improve its lot internationally?

A lot has been said about the reform of German youth soccer, and how it led to their success this year? What should the USA do to reforms its youth development?

Topics abound!
Jason said,

I like comparing the penalty shootout to a Home Run derby to decide the winner of the game.

There is only 1 correct solution. Play by the same rules until there is a winner like in the NHL playoffs. Maybe you can allow some extra subs to people don’t die on the field. Or go to 10 on 10. That’s as far as I would go to determine a winner. We can’t just pick a new game (penalty shooting) to determine a winner.