No more penalty shoot-outs!

So Sepp Blatter wants to scrap the good old Penny Shoot-Out. But how does he want to replace it and why?

I found this article a giggle... http://sport.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=6000aa35-aa00-4553-a6ce-b69599f0be73

Ok, penalties is a bit rubbish sometimes to decide the winner of a major tournament but at the end of the day (literally) we all have to get home to our wives. PLus you really can't beat the drama of a shoot-out. And it is actually a great way to separate two teams who are otherwise equally matched on the pitch? What other way is there?

So the alternatives?

Endless replays until someone finally wins over 90 mins or extra time?

Next goal wins? So basically extra time which carries on forever?

Or, and possibly the craziest idea, each team removes 1 player every 5 mins so it drops down to 10 v 10, then 9 v 9, and so on until it's 5 v 5 and next goal wins...

What would you do to replace 'pennys'?

I'd have NBA style best of 7 style series.

Then i'd take the nets away replace them with baskets and rename it basketball.

Sorted.

Sepp Blatter is an imbecile.

He said after the 2006 world cup final that penalties were terrible and they need to find an alternative.

Four years later he said all group matches resulting in draws should be decided by penalties..

Now, when an English underdog win the Champions League he says this...

Hes a fool, and I take nothing he spouts out with an inch of honesty.

Penalties are a great spectacle. Riveting entertainment. Anyone who wants to take that away can do one.

They should have the penalty shoot out at the end of 90 minutes, then have half an hour extra time. If it's a draw after extra time then the team that won the penalty shoot out wins. Gives the player who missed a penalty a chance for redemption and would make extra time more exciting.

Surprise surprise, an English team has just won a penalty shoot out and Sepp Blatter wants penalties scrapped. That guy HATES England/English football.

I've written many times over many years what I would do instead of penalties, it's not too dis-similar to OOiC's suggestion above.

Take the penalties before kick-off.

Then whoever won the penalty shoot-out wins the match if the teams are level after FT and ET.

No 'heroes and villains' in the penalty shootout, the losing team in the penalties have 120 minutes to win playing football, no more 'playing for penalties' etc etc, less pressure on the players so they take better penalties, and extra entertainment for the fans and viewers.

Good idea that with the penalties before hand.

largehat wrote:

Take the penalties before kick-off.

Ha ha, I trust you are joking. If you took penalties before kick-off a lot of teams would just shut up shop for the entire game.

If you must do away with penalties go back to the golden goal where the next goal is the winner, but also remove 3 players from each team for extra time, and then an extra player after every 10 minutes.

No, I am not joking.

Teams shut up shop from late into the second half until the end of extra time as it is, if the scores are drawn and they are the underdogs.

It's possible a team winning the penalties before kick-off could shut up shop for 120 minutes. If the other team fail to score in 120 minutes, then they don't deserve to win, do they? Nobody ever won a game of football by scoring no goals.

I say nobody, maybe it happened in imaginary womens' football in the 1990s, in which case, I am sure you will tell us all about it.

The only sensible way if they were to be scrapped would be to play golden goal.

I don't see how it makes much difference when the penelities are played, the whole point is meant to be that penalties are an unfair way to decide a game so how does that change if the penalties are taken before the game, after 90 mins or after ET?

Saying that im in no way for the scrapping of penalties, as Keegan said they are a great spectacle. And its not as if there is no skill in taking a penalty/saving one.

Lofty_Love wrote:
I don't see how it makes much difference when the penelities are played, the whole point is meant to be that penalties are an unfair way to decide a game so how does that change if the penalties are taken before the game, after 90 mins or after ET?

I think I covered my theory on this in my original post.

You can't play golden goal with an unlimited time limit.

largehat wrote:

Lofty_Love wrote:
I don't see how it makes much difference when the penelities are played, the whole point is meant to be that penalties are an unfair way to decide a game so how does that change if the penalties are taken before the game, after 90 mins or after ET?

I think I covered my theory on this in my original post.

You can't play golden goal with an unlimited time limit.

As Nat said teams would just hold out for 120 mins, and they can, were taking about the best teams in the world here, Chelsea are the prefect example, add the total mins played against Barca, both legs, and Bayern, thats some holding out.

How would Chelsea have changed their game plan if they had won the penalties before the match? they wouldn't, and Blatter would still say they won unfairly.

If the whole point is that penalties are unfair, then when they take place makes very little difference.

I also agree that golden goal isn't the best idea, penalties at the end of the match is the best idea.

Just saying golden goal is second best, but Blatter doesn't mean most of the bullshit he says so it wont change anyway

largehat wrote:

You can't play golden goal with an unlimited time limit.

You can if you take players away. There would soon be a goal in a 5-a-side game on a full size pitch.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

largehat wrote:

You can't play golden goal with an unlimited time limit.

You can if you take players away. There would soon be a goal in a 5-a-side game on a full size pitch.

An interesting idea that one. I shall ruminate on it.

Extra Time MUL-TI BALL!

Just watched Huddersfield/Sheffield United take penalties - how anyone would want to stop using it as a way to settle games is crazy. Football is in the entertainment business after all.

I don't give a shite if the players feel under pressure, what profession doesn't have pressure at the top?

Penalties is the only way to resolve a football match.

If it had to be changed I'd have the 10 outfield players from both sides having one leg tied to a team mate, like in a threelegged race.

You could have Stuart Hall take over the commentary as well.

Competition is good, pressure is good.. Keep the penalties. Whats the alternative really? Pulling names out of a hat?

Natasha Whittam wrote:Just watched Huddersfield/Sheffield United take penalties - how anyone would want to stop using it as a way to settle games is crazy. Football is in the entertainment business after all.

I don't give a shite if the players feel under pressure, what profession doesn't have pressure at the top?

Well said, an aweful 120 minutes but the penalty shoot out was great.

Sepp blater is a fucking tosser and his face when he had to give the runners up medals to Bayern and the Winners ones to Chelsea was like he had just smelt gone off milk.