Penalty Kicks To Decide Soccer Games

How is Hockey decided properly by doing overtime, then going to a shootout, but Soccer is not decided properly by doing the exact same thing?

I agree with what you say, Kingsrule41, and I understand why you think like that. However, you must consider the amount of energy it takes to run up and down a field NONSTOP (key word) for 120+ minutes. In basketball, you get time outs, and you only play for what? 50+ minutes in basketball.

It also tests which goalie is better when a game is decided on penalty kicks.

With all of that said though, I don't like the fact that a game is decided on penalty kicks sometimes. I would much rather see two teams battle it out regardless of how much time it takes to score a goal. You have what... 10 more players on your bench that you can use if a player is that tired.

This actually makes me think about the 2005 World Cup for example. I'm sure that if someone scored an actual goal for the win during overtime rather than kick in the winning penalty kick would excite the fans a lot more. And he would be remembered as the guy who scored the game winning goal of the World Cup Finals. Soccer is supposed to be the one sport that takes the most toll on your body, as you run up and down the field for at least 90 minutes. It's supposed to test your stamina, as it is considered to be that one sport that tests your stamina the most. If I had to choose between allowing PK's after 120 minutes or not, I'd say "Let them play more." However, I respect the game, its rules, and it's history, so I'd be fine with the two teams battling it out for PK's to test the goalies as well.

Hockey does get it right in the playoffs which is the most important. But yes they have a shootout in the regular season which is similar to soccer.

I say that the only other thing you could do would be instead of penalty kicks maybe set plays from near the goal. Either corner kicks or free kicks that are done similar to a shootout. Each team gets a set number and after that they are done. If they are still tied than you start taking a player off the field for each team until someone scores.

I think that would work. I understand why they don't just keep playing because it could take a whole month to score another goal in some games. But yes to have a championship game or a World Cup Final game decided by pk's is ridiculous.

First of all, the game is for 90 min, you don't score a goal you get 15 min and break and another 15 min to score a goal, if you still can't make it, then u get to play it over penalty kicks. First of all you can't play the full ROSTER team, because a team is limited to how many subs they can sub in. Due to the fact the players are running around non-stop over and over again I'm assuming they players would get very very tired within 120 mins, i get tired after running 60 mins around the field. I myself don't like the idea for world cup 06 France VS. Italy going for penalty kick outs, I was cheering for the french, cuz they deserve it after eliminating Spain, Brazil and Portugal. We don't want to watch a football game and see a player collapsing due to over time. free kicks or corners to decide who wins, come on. David Beckham will be the best player for this, this will be unfair for the defenders that have to shoot free kicks, and as corners not much talented players are tall, so being a tall player will dominate in that kind of ruling.

I should have clarified; I meant to decide championship or playoff games. You don't see the shootout in the playoffs. I would decide some games like this, but 4 of the last 8 UEFA championship games?

I also agree that sudden death would not work with fatigue and what not. Some of the ideas I threw out in my podcast were...

- Have 20 min breaks to get fresh legs - Let players that were subbed out be subbed back in in OT

- As the game goes on, take players off the field. 30 mins 11 on 11, 20 mins 10 on 10, 20 mins 9 on 9, etc. With the open field more scoring chances should be created. Not perfect but better than the PKs IMO.

Oops, didn't realize I logged out. That ^ is me.

I still think the golden rule should have stood and after that they could have gone into penalties.

i mean the golden goal rule

Over here, the FA Cup had the most practical solution for the players, it was even used in the World Cup pre-war. At the end of the game, if the scores are level, they replayed. In the case of the FA Cup, it was at the other team's ground. They would go back and forth until eventually you had a winner. The games were spaced out, so the players were refreshed. A nightmare for fans and clubs though, who had to sell tickets in a short space of time for the replay. A lot of admin to do. The shootout was introduced for the sake of the fans. I don't think anybody particularly likes penalties, but it's the only practical solution.

I do agree with you a bit Salman but that is why they have a toss at the beginning of the game to decide the sides so there is no unfairness about one side better than the other. its just bad luck to lose the toss.

Not really, you get the toss we get the best side of the field, then later on you switch so no team can complain. If both teams are tied you go for PK's

Tosses have been a part of almost every sport since centuries. If im not mistaken Basketball is one of the few major games that does not have a coin toss but every other game does. You win some and you lose some.Also I feel one has to see the public view also, if a game is to carry on till a winner is found then how many of the viewers can actually sit and wait for the game to finish. People are working harder and longer hours and as it is with penalties the game goes on for almost 3 hours with penalties. people usually have to take time off to watch I know cos lot of people called in sick or took sometime of from work to watch the UEFA final. Thats why people say a coin toss is so important even in cricket it is one of the most important aspects of the game. its part of it

I know sports are based on talent and skill of the players but can some body please tell me which of the major games in the world except which dont have a coin toss.

i meant except basketball

I would prefer that if the final game of a tournament ended drawn after extra time then it should be replayed at another date. But that solution is not practical in today's sporting world when a winner must be decided on a that day. So given that penalty kicks are the best way to go.

after all these years of soccer, you want it to change? aint gonna happen

I think everyone misunderstood me.

I don't expect each player to take a free kick or corner kick to score. I mean line up as a team and do the kicks. Just like they would in the match but not using the whole field. You give each team a few attempts. It would be more like college football where the whole team plays but not the entire field.

By doing this it would make it so that there is more impact from actually playing to determine the game. I am not saying PKs are easy but it isn't fair to finish a game like that, basically luck for a goaltender.

Just like it wouldn't be fair to do shootouts for the Stanley Cup playoffs.

I like the way baseball does it - play until someone wins. And I especially love that the home team gets a chance to tie/win every time. No matter what, you give the other team a chance to win. That said, it's apples and oranges here. I don't like penalty kicks, but I agree with all commenters who point out how exhausted the players must be after playing the game for all that time. Kicks may not be ideal, but at least the rule is the same for everyone, and everyone knows that is how it's done.

You're right, wins on pens always seem a bit arbitrary and meaningless. They are skill-based, though, and dramatic, and a fantastic test of mental toughness (Hargreaves and Ballack the other night - awesome).

The Golden Goal rule was rubbish, partly because it meant that both teams had more incentive to defend, and partly because it always meant that the game finished just when something interesting had happened.

I quite like the idea of having players steadily removed as extra-time goes on - so after every 5 minutes you take another player from each side out of the game (maybe down a minumum, 6 or 7 or something).

First off, as everyone has said above running up and down for +90 mins with a 15 min break in between is exhausting and not all games are like that "only knockouts" but then there is +30 mins given to decide the winner but divided into 15 mins with a couple of minutes in between "maximum 5".

Also after playing for +120 mins they go to Penalties, but they are not EASY, the pressure is Huge, especially if u saw the Champions league final it was crazy...

so whats the problem, why is it stupid?

if you think its stupid i beg of you to give a different way to decide a winner cause I believe its the easiest and most exciting way to decide....

Good point, I want to see golden goal back in the World/Euro Cup, not in club tourneys like the Champions league because most teams still have a league game the same week.

In Soccer, and soccer only is this manner of deciding an outcome acceptable due to the 120 minutes of playing time that occurred prior. Add that to the limited substitutions and I say yes PK's are the right way, heck the only way, to decide the game at that point.

The NFL has the best method and those that criticize it forget the history of the NFL. It is the only acceptable method for breaking a tie in the game of American Football. Anyone suggesting anything else is a wimp and does not understand or respect the game. The 1958 NFL championship game put the NFL on the US sports map and the league would not be what it is toady without it. Changing the OT rules would disrespect the history of that game.

Each sport has a different history, culture, and rules, these are acceptable things to take into consideration when determining tie-breaking procedures. Both types of Football have entirely different methods for breaking ties, but each works for that sport, and changing either is stupid.