Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

'The Advantage' - Peno shoot out revamp?

2

Comments

  • #32
    Peyton Manning
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,658 ✭✭✭✭Peyton Manning


    MrJoeSoap wrote: »
    That was in one of those pre-season triangle tournaments they had with kick-ins and short corners. None of the ideas took off, not surprisingly.

    Ah right, I knew I saw it alright. What were the kick-ins and short corners idea all about do you know?


  • #33
    PHB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    I don't like penalties. I don't like teams being rewarded for defending without attack. This minimises the advantage that you get from penalties, so I'd be incredibly happy with this. Also it gives people a chance to turn penalties around. Maybe it won't be as dramatic, but it would make football better to watch in the long run, and I think it would make for a better game.


  • #34
    Peyton Manning
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,658 ✭✭✭✭Peyton Manning


    PHB wrote: »
    I don't like penalties. I don't like teams being rewarded for defending without attack. This minimises the advantage that you get from penalties, so I'd be incredibly happy with this. Also it gives people a chance to turn penalties around. Maybe it won't be as dramatic, but it would make football better to watch in the long run, and I think it would make for a better game.

    What makes attacking more of a skill than defending though? Surely if a team is able to defend, and defend well, for 120 minutes against a constantly attacking team then they have earned their spot in a shootout...?


  • #35
    AnCapaillMor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,920 ✭✭✭AnCapaillMor


    Sounds b*ll*x, its a pity the golden goal was taken up as don't let them score a goal and knock us out instead attack and knock them out.


  • #36
    PHB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    I think the game is not just about defending or attack.
    There is a huge amount of skill in keeping a clean sheet.
    There is a huge amout of skill in scoring goals.
    There is much more skill in keeping a clean sheet and scoring goals.

    The current system favours clean sheets over anything else. It means you can win a game on defense alone. You shouldn't be able to do that just like you shouldn't (and can't) win by scoring goals.
    This system will still favour defending slightly, but less.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Eirebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    The fear of losing in a cup match will always outweigh the hope of winning.
    Its always been that way if you think about it, no one ever wants to lose the first goal because they know its going to be an uphill struggle from there.

    Im sick of people wanting to change the structure of football tbh, its fine the way it is.
    I cant think of another game that consists of so many differing styles of play, tactics and ideals, why would we want to change that?
    Especially in cup football where there is always the chance of a shock result/

    There will always be dull matches just like there are in many other sports, the problem with football at the moment is the sheer overload of games that fans can watch from the comfort of their own home, leading to a sort of fan burnout at times.


  • #38
    ziggy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭ziggy


    This post has been deleted.


  • #39
    Eirebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    ziggy wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I dont think id be happy going straight to penalties without extra time TBH.
    Another suggestion though is taking the peanlties away completely and then going down to 10 men after 10 minutes of extra time 9 after another ten and so on and so on.


  • #40
    Nunu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭Nunu


    I came up with this idea... and posted a thread here almost 10 months ago:eek:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055088104

    As you will read i am all for it. Seemless improvement on the current set up...but it seems no one else is:D

    Edit: apart from the enlightened PHB.


  • #41
    eirebhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,013 ✭✭✭✭eirebhoy


    I don't agree with it. There's no beating psychology. The poor team who win the shootout will have to try and hold out for half an hour while be bombarded with attacks.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Dubit10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 609 ✭✭✭Dubit10


    MrJoeSoap wrote: »
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Thats my opinion anyway. Change for changes sake isn't the way forward.

    +1


  • #43
    Nunu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭Nunu


    eirebhoy wrote: »
    I don't agree with it. There's no beating psychology. The poor team who win the shootout will have to try and hold out for half an hour while be bombarded with attacks.

    Really...who says they have to sit back and hold out? No one stopping them from attacking too.

    ...and it is broke people. Ending the World Cup Final from the peno spot is wrong and hurts the game in my opinion


  • #44
    MrJoeSoap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,117 ✭✭✭✭MrJoeSoap


    Nunu wrote: »
    Really...who says they have to sit back and hold out? No one stopping them from attacking too.

    ...and it is broke people. Ending the World Cup Final from the peno spot is wrong and hurts the game in my opinion

    Isn't this system still pretty much ending the game from the peno spot though?

    The only way it wouldn't be decisive is if the team losing the shootout scored twice (or more) in extra time, which rarely happens as it is, let alone when the opposing team is in a defensive mindset. Otherwise if the team who won the shootout scored in extra time it could be argued that the team who lost in the shootout were forced to attack because of the shootout loss.

    Still seems like using penalties to decide a winner to me.


  • #45
    Nunu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭Nunu


    MrJoeSoap wrote: »
    Isn't this system still pretty much ending the game from the peno spot though?

    The only way it wouldn't be decisive is if the team losing the shootout scored twice (or more) in extra time, which rarely happens as it is, let alone when the opposing team is in a defensive mindset. Otherwise if the team who won the shootout scored in extra time it could be argued that the team who lost in the shootout were forced to attack because of the shootout loss.

    Still seems like using penalties to decide a winner to me.

    Oh dear...you don't fully understand it. Go back and think about it again.


  • #46
    MrJoeSoap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,117 ✭✭✭✭MrJoeSoap


    Nunu wrote: »
    Oh dear...you don't fully understand it. Go back and think about it again.

    Ah yes, get ya now. Still doesn't really float my boat but then again I'm all about keeping things as they are unless something really needs changing.

    Plus it still means that penalties would decide things if the 120 minutes were a draw, which was my point... I think I'm right in saying that? :D


  • #47
    eirebhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,013 ✭✭✭✭eirebhoy


    Nunu wrote: »
    Really...who says they have to sit back and hold out? No one stopping them from attacking too.
    "There's no beating psychology"


  • #48
    Nunu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭Nunu


    eirebhoy wrote: »
    "There's no beating psychology"

    I've just been reading throught the other thread I linked and we've been through this before:D


  • #49
    eirebhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,013 ✭✭✭✭eirebhoy


    hehe. :) In fairness though, it'd be the equivalent of a team being 1-0 up in a cup final with a half hour to go. Only difference is they don't have the cushion of a draw if the opposition score.


  • #50
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    Can't believe some people are taking the if it ain't broke attitude.

    Penos is the worst way possible to decide a game. How are Italy world champions and France not - because Trezuget hit the bar. Not good enough and poor for the so called world's greatest game.

    This is not quite so bad. one team can still defend but one is forced to attack. They give away and advantage but don't lose the game on penos. What's wrong with that? Also, the team defending would be defending the equivalent of a lead on away goals and we know from the champions league how dangerous that can be.

    There was the amazing idea of playing past 120 minutes and making the goals a yard wider every couple of minutes - now that would be fun.:D:D:D


  • #51
    eirebhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,013 ✭✭✭✭eirebhoy


    gosplan wrote: »
    Penos is the worst way possible to decide a game.
    If the team that wins the shootout manages to hold out for 30 minutes without conceding. Guess how the game is decided? ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Mitch Connor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 49,324 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    Penalty shoot outs are terrible.

    I mean, come on, asking professional footballers to knock the ball into the goal from 12 yards? All that pressure! What if the player that has to take the penalty has no bottle or composure? really unfair.


  • #53
    whiskeyman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,564 ✭✭✭✭whiskeyman


    eirebhoy wrote: »
    If the team that wins the shootout manages to hold out for 30 minutes without conceding. Guess how the game is decided? ;)


    eh, no it's not, and I think a few others are thinking the same? Otherwise the whole thing wouldn't make sense!

    Whoever wins the peno shoot out after 90mins is given 'the advantage'.
    It's not a 'goal lead' as if the other team scores, they'll be in the lead.
    Having the advantage means you'll win the game if the result after 120mins is a draw (if neither team scores, or both score equal no. of goals after the shootout).

    Would be interesting to see it trialed first anyway. I don't think anyone can go 'don't change the beautiful game!!!' stance anymore. Remember passing back to goalkeepers? Anyone feel taking that away has hurt the game?


  • #54
    Third_Echelon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,867 ✭✭✭Third_Echelon


    Tauren wrote: »
    Penalty shoot outs are terrible.

    I mean, come on, asking professional footballers to knock the ball into the goal from 12 yards? All that pressure! What if the player that has to take the penalty has no bottle or composure? really unfair.

    Well its their job and they get paid enough to do it...... Professional footballers should be able to score from a dead ball situation, one on one with the 'keeper from 12 yards...


  • #55
    Eirebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    eirebhoy wrote: »
    If the team that wins the shootout manages to hold out for 30 minutes without conceding. Guess how the game is decided? ;)
    whiskeyman wrote: »
    eh, no it's not, and I think a few others are thinking the same? Otherwise the whole thing wouldn't make sense!

    Whoever wins the peno shoot out after 90mins is given 'the advantage'.
    It's not a 'goal lead' as if the other team scores, they'll be in the lead.
    Having the advantage means you'll win the game if the result after 120mins is a draw (if neither team scores, or both score equal no. of goals after the shootout).

    Eeeem...so that means that if the team who have the "advantage" hold out for 30 minutes without conceding they......win?
    Meaning the game is .....whats that word again? oh yeah....Decided by the penalty kicks!


  • #56
    whiskeyman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,564 ✭✭✭✭whiskeyman


    Eirebear wrote: »
    Eeeem...so that means that if the team who have the "advantage" hold out for 30 minutes without conceding they......win?
    Meaning the game is .....whats that word again? oh yeah....Decided by the penalty kicks!


    Well, I think it tackles a few issues.
    The main one is extra time. It's rare to see a game where extra time is worth watching. I know people will question the players stamina and fitness, but it always just seems to be a 'waiting game' until the penalties arrive.
    The introduction of the Golden / Silver goal tried to solve this, but didn't really work.

    Also, big difference that the penalties are not the deciding factor at the very end. For a team to finally get the upper hand (by getting the advange), should mean the team without will have to throw more attacking options in, and should result in more of an entertaining outcome for the fans.
    How many times have you said to yourself, 'God, a goal would really open this one up now'... well, that's what the advantage can do, and as the opposition only need 1 goal to take the lead and win, the holders of the advantage can't really have comfort in defending it for 30mins either.


  • #57
    Nunu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭Nunu


    whiskeyman wrote: »
    Well, I think it tackles a few issues.
    The main one is extra time. It's rare to see a game where extra time is worth watching. I know people will question the players stamina and fitness, but it always just seems to be a 'waiting game' until the penalties arrive.
    The introduction of the Golden / Silver goal tried to solve this, but didn't really work.

    Also, big difference that the penalties are not the deciding factor at the very end. For a team to finally get the upper hand (by getting the advange), should mean the team without will have to throw more attacking options in, and should result in more of an entertaining outcome for the fans.
    How many times have you said to yourself, 'God, a goal would really open this one up now'... well, that's what the advantage can do, and as the opposition only need 1 goal to take the lead and win, the holders of the advantage can't really have comfort in defending it for 30mins either.

    Finally, a like minded soul!:D

    If people cannot see how the re-scheduling of the penos would not change extra time for the better and improve the knockout format then I'm not surprised they think this is a bad idea.


  • #58
    DerekD Goldfish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,048 ✭✭✭DerekD Goldfish


    gosplan wrote: »
    Can't believe some people are taking the if it ain't broke attitude.

    Penos is the worst way possible to decide a game. How are Italy world champions and France not - because Trezuget hit the bar. Not good enough and poor for the so called world's greatest game.

    This is not quite so bad. one team can still defend but one is forced to attack. They give away and advantage but don't lose the game on penos. What's wrong with that? Also, the team defending would be defending the equivalent of a lead on away goals and we know from the champions league how dangerous that can be.

    There was the amazing idea of playing past 120 minutes and making the goals a yard wider every couple of minutes - now that would be fun.:D:D:D

    :confused:
    Football is always decided by narrow margins doesnt make it unfair or bad for the game.
    If Trezuget had missed that peno in extra time and it cost france the game how would it be any less an "Injustice"
    Penalty shoot outs are terrible.

    I mean, come on, asking professional footballers to knock the ball into the goal from 12 yards? All that pressure! What if the player that has to take the penalty has no bottle or composure? really unfair.

    What if a player is 5'4 it is fiar for him to ahve to compete with a 6'7 player for a header perhaps we should ban headers . Or what if a player cant pass the ball better get rid of passing as well.
    Worst argument ever

    Penaltys are an exciting way to end a game and a great test of composure I dont think there is a better way of deciding games


  • #59
    whiskeyman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,564 ✭✭✭✭whiskeyman


    DerekD Goldfish wrote: »
    Penaltys are an exciting way to end a game and a great test of composure I dont think there is a better way of deciding games


    Do you really think so?

    Maybe for the neutral fan, but I thought that the general feeling was they aren't seen as 'the best' way to end the game, and many fans, players managers and commentators alike weren't fans of them.
    Having the WC decided by them caused plenty of controversy.
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Sepp-Blatter-Wants-NO-More-Penalty-Shootout-in-World-Cup-Final-36692.shtml
    Sepp wrote:
    Another solution would be lowering the number of players on the pitch and play until the first goal
    Maybe MrJoeSoap was right!!:D

    I think the advantage would be seen as the more adoptive solution tbh, should one be looked for.


  • #60
    DerekD Goldfish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,048 ✭✭✭DerekD Goldfish


    whiskeyman wrote: »
    Do you really think so?

    Maybe for the neutral fan, but I thought that the general feeling was they aren't seen as 'the best' way to end the game, and many fans, players managers and commentators alike weren't fans of them.
    Having the WC decided by them caused plenty of controversy.
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Sepp-Blatter-Wants-NO-More-Penalty-Shootout-in-World-Cup-Final-36692.shtml


    Maybe MrJoeSoap was right!!:D

    I think the advantage would be seen as the more adoptive solution tbh, should one be looked for.

    Yes
    although Ideally games should be decided in 90 mins in cases were a replay has already been played or where one isnt feasible I think no solution that has been suggested yet is better than it.

    Its a lot better than the old days when cups have been decided by things as irrelevant as corners


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    DSB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,951 ✭✭✭DSB


    Tusky wrote: »
    But...whoever wins the peno shootout will just plant 10 men behind the ball for the extra time which would give the opposite of the desired effect.

    This sounds like a fair summary of why this isn't a good idea yeah.


Advertisement
Advertisement