Should PK Shootout be eliminated

[KND2]

I used to be a big fan of the PK it is tense and dramatic.

The rule change that allows the GK to move has allowed the Save percentage to increase and nowawdays a significant amount of PK are in fact "missed" or saved

Teams still play for draws with the hope that they can win in the PKs.

i think is time for a change away from the PK.

If PK were to be eliminated

Replaced with 30 Mins extra time

then sudden death extra time where 1st goal wins it may in fact be a better way to declare a winner.

Argentina, Brazil and USA all dominated the game and drove forward to make the game more exciting only to get piped from the spot.

By eliminating the PK this may in fact make the game more attacking and exciting since this lifeline will not be there for defensive teams.


Keep playing the game give a few additional subs or something and allow the game to continue to the end.

Sooner or later a winner will be determined.

the down side is the game may go on for hours but that is part of the excitement.

[injunchile]

Sorry brother- Golden Goal then PK. Who knows we may just spend four hrs at a football game with your suggestion

[kicker]

It's not perfect but it works.  Good drama and entertainment- part of the game. 

120 minutes is enough time to outscore a team. 

I liked golden goal extra time (or even silver goal - i.e. if the tie is broken after the first 15 min, then game over)... but some might argue that that is even harsher than penalty kicks...

I still don't understand how seasoned professionals miss penalties the way they do... 3 of Brazil's 4 missed penalties yesterday weren't even on target!!

[Jah Gol]

To be honest I don't mind the idea of activating 2 additional subs after 90 mins.

[Bitter]

We've seen golden goal and silver goal in competition before. All methods of deciding a knockout game are unsatisfactory on some level. It's not as if penalties are a sure thing.

I actually prefer the MLS style shootout, but there are problems with that as well.

[Bitter]

It's not perfect but it works.  Good drama and entertainment- part of the game. 

120 minutes is enough time to outscore a team. 

I liked golden goal extra time (or even silver goal - i.e. if the tie is broken after the first 15 min, then game over)... but some might argue that that is even harsher than penalty kicks...

I still don't understand how seasoned professionals miss penalties the way they do... 3 of Brazil's 4 missed penalties yesterday weren't even on target!!

Cow pasture!

[warmonga]

I personally believe to make it more excited gK should be able to move however he or she choses as long as the ref blow the whistle it should be on.. and I like the golden goal rule.. Y did they stop dat??

war

[Peong]

I used to be a big fan of the PK it is tense and dramatic.

The rule change that allows the GK to move has allowed the Save percentage to increase and nowawdays a significant amount of PK are in fact "missed" or saved

Teams still play for draws with the hope that they can win in the PKs.

i think is time for a change away from the PK.

If PK were to be eliminated

Replaced with 30 Mins extra time

then sudden death extra time where 1st goal wins it may in fact be a better way to declare a winner.

Argentina, Brazil and USA all dominated the game and drove forward to make the game more exciting only to get piped from the spot.

By eliminating the PK this may in fact make the game more attacking and exciting since this lifeline will not be there for defensive teams.


Keep playing the game give a few additional subs or something and allow the game to continue to the end.

Sooner or later a winner will be determined.

the down side is the game may go on for hours but that is part of the excitement.

That sounds like it will be bad for ppl's health. The amount of injuries will increase and you will have ppl getting cramps.  They already cramp up from 120mins.
I think 1 sub in extra time is a good idea.
Golden goal was decent, I don't mind if they bring that back.
Silver goal is too too.

[Dynamite Warrior]

I used to be a big fan of the PK it is tense and dramatic.

The rule change that allows the GK to move has allowed the Save percentage to increase and nowawdays a significant amount of PK are in fact "missed" or saved

Teams still play for draws with the hope that they can win in the PKs.

i think is time for a change away from the PK.

If PK were to be eliminated

Replaced with 30 Mins extra time

then sudden death extra time where 1st goal wins it may in fact be a better way to declare a winner.

Argentina, Brazil and USA all dominated the game and drove forward to make the game more exciting only to get piped from the spot.

By eliminating the PK this may in fact make the game more attacking and exciting since this lifeline will not be there for defensive teams.


Keep playing the game give a few additional subs or something and allow the game to continue to the end.

Sooner or later a winner will be determined.

the down side is the game may go on for hours but that is part of the excitement.

Sound like you been watching ESPN. They been talking about that all morning probably because the U.S lost last night. Because i didnt hear all the fuss when they beat Brazil. But anyway like most everyone else i think they should go back to golden goal format. The 2002 world cup was real drama because of it.

[FF]

ah man once say kick the penalties before every knock out match...

think bout it... dat go be real excitement

[real madness]

Golden goal didn't work because some teams were so afraid to concede that they didn't attack at all and the games were usually decided by penalty kicks.  For example, I doubt there would have been a differnce yesterday with Paraguay and Brazil if we had golden goal.  Paraguay just sat back and absorbed pressure for 120 minutes and hoped to win on penalty kicks.

[Football supporter]

I would prefer to take off one player from each team after 90 minutes and allow 1 additional sub to made, but only in the interval before extra time. So you get to take off 2 players and introduce a fresh one. If still a tie after 15 mins, another player per team is removed. At the end of 30 mins extra time, number of shots on target determines winner.

This means a team can't play defensively, coaches substitution decisions will be more considered, fitness will play a big role and there should be more excitement.

[Peong]

I would prefer to take off one player from each team after 90 minutes and allow 1 additional sub to made, but only in the interval before extra time. So you get to take off 2 players and introduce a fresh one. If still a tie after 15 mins, another player per team is removed. At the end of 30 mins extra time, number of shots on target determines winner.

This almost made me

[sinned]

Golden goal didn't work because some teams were so afraid to concede that they didn't attack at all and the games were usually decided by penalty kicks.  For example, I doubt there would have been a differnce yesterday with Paraguay and Brazil if we had golden goal.  Paraguay just sat back and absorbed pressure for 120 minutes and hoped to win on penalty kicks.

True.

But if they said that no PK and you will keep playing until someone scores then I don't know if teams will still sit back.

Maybe after 120 (2nd extra time), unlimited subs on and off as a way of mitigating injury and keeping the level of the game high. Who knows how it will turn out? I'd at least like to see it tried at some league or tournament and see how it turns out.

[Socapro]

I would prefer to take off one player from each team after 90 minutes and allow 1 additional sub to made, but only in the interval before extra time. So you get to take off 2 players and introduce a fresh one. If still a tie after 15 mins, another player per team is removed. At the end of 30 mins extra time, number of shots on target determines winner.

This means a team can't play defensively, coaches substitution decisions will be more considered, fitness will play a big role and there should be more excitement.

Interesting! As odd as this sounds it might just work!!  

[KND2]

what about when sides start lobbing the ball from half line straight to the goal so it will count as a "Shot" this might change the who approach to the game.

[DeSoWa]

Why some people only look for change when the current scenario did not play out in their favour? I always hate when my team lost on penalties, but love it when we win. It works, it's exciting, lots of drama and only for the healthy heart. I say leave it as it is. If you change it, someone would still complain about the golden goal or whatever else is used to decide a winner!

Big Up!

[dinho]

Let men play out till they score?? Lol, allyuh trying to kill man.

What happen if all man jack so roast they can't even walk and no goal score yet?

I good with penalty kicks, i like the drama, the nerves, the climax of the game. It is a fitting and fair way to decide a game. At the end of the game, both teams in control of their own destiny. If you lose on PKs you can't be vex with anyone but yourself.

Every other method to arrive at at a result has proven to be flawed.

[Deeks]

Pks fine with me. It work for my side today, it work for yours tomorrow(I hope next year). But the PKs before the match is quite interesting.

[dinho]

Pks fine with me. It work for my side today, it work for yours tomorrow(I hope next year). But the PKs before the match is quite interesting.

I personally don't like the idea of PK's before a match because it influences the course of the game while its in progress.

Lets say one team wins the shootout before the match, and the match is headed for a draw. That team will camp in their half and play out the clock knowing that the result is already pre-determined. Or lets say 1 team is winning 1-0, it means that the other team will have to win 2-1 to get a result, which makes it twice as hard for a team to come back from a deficit.

Not exactly sure how people think this is supposed to work.

[Socapro]

Pks fine with me. It work for my side today, it work for yours tomorrow(I hope next year). But the PKs before the match is quite interesting.

PK's before tha match will make winning the game in normal time critical for the team that lost the PK's but will make winning the game less critical (we will still win if we draw game in nomal tme) for the team that won the penalty kicks.

I say its worth a try as it might make the game played in normal time after the PK's much more intense & interesting or would it?! 

[FF]

Lets say one team wins the shootout before the match, and the match is headed for a draw. That team will camp in their half and play out the clock knowing that the result is already pre-determined. Or lets say 1 team is winning 1-0, it means that the other team will have to win 2-1 to get a result, which makes it twice as hard for a team to come back from a deficit.

Not exactly sure how people think this is supposed to work.

You could imagine the frantic-ness though??

[kicker]

They should randomly pick 5 fans (man, woman and child) from the crowd to take the penalties in the shoot- that might discourage teams from relying on it...

[Dansteel - The Iceman]

They should randomly pick 5 fans (man, woman and child) from the crowd to take the penalties in the shoot- that might discourage teams from relying on it...

If the child missed the penalty, it would scar them for life. Besides, who is to say fans wouldn't lurk in the opposing section to throw away their chances.

[kicker]

They should randomly pick 5 fans (man, woman and child) from the crowd to take the penalties in the shoot- that might discourage teams from relying on it...

If the child missed the penalty, it would scar them for life. Besides, who is to say fans wouldn't lurk in the opposing section to throw away their chances.

lol

[Spursy]

ok this is a bad thread. b.c the purpose of penalties is to seperate a team after 120 minutes. The team that can out score the other is the better team. brazil had the lions share of posession and played what u guys called total football but couldn't finish. who u rather see the team that can finish or play great ball and not score?

pce. agree with extra subs. after et but meh.  u wouldnt want to change ur team that late b.c best players out there unless someone got injured. i love the uruguay game. showed how well that team is.

[Blue]

Weeknight games in Europe can end around 11 when extra time/penalties is played....you think we should just keep going until the sun comes up? In the real world, clubs have to worry about crowd safety, television slots, public transport availability etc

[Socafan]

They should randomly pick 5 fans (man, woman and child) from the crowd to take the penalties in the shoot- that might discourage teams from relying on it...

LOL..

[Fyzoman]

Let men play out till they score?? Lol, allyuh trying to kill man.

What happen if all man jack so roast they can't even walk and no goal score yet?

I good with penalty kicks, i like the drama, the nerves, the climax of the game. It is a fitting and fair way to decide a game. At the end of the game, both teams in control of their own destiny. If you lose on PKs you can't be vex with anyone but yourself.

Every other method to arrive at at a result has proven to be flawed.

handclap, handclap, handclap...dais de way I feel as well, yuh run, run, run for however long...then leh we separate de women from the girls, leh we see who have de poise, nerves-of-steel to score ah GIMME (!!!!)
Ah ha to go...

[100% Barataria]

I okay w/PKs but not for finals and perhaps semi-finals, I would vote for a replay of both of these types of games after extra time if still deadlocked.  Scheduling could be adjusted such that if a replay had to take place it could be accomodated, more $$ anyway for FIFA and the various associations....