Do it like boxing, a points system, 5 refs judge both teams put up the name of the best team and a camera shows each one and the most voted wins the match, and after 90 mins no extra time, because nobody wants to go through that again. That is one idea any better ones ?.
Who would be awarded the game on merit? Italy for the better football England due to Chiellini's assault on Saka Damn it's a draw again.
If we were good at the penalty shhot outs we wouldn't want to change it. However,as an alternative,I wonder what it would look like if,at the end of the 90 mins,both teams took two players off and extra time began.After 10 mins,another two come off,5 mins later half time,change ends,and 10 mins later another two come off to leave us looking for a golden goal from two 5 a side teams. No subs allowed during extra time.
there is no real alternative, flipping a coin has been tried, golden goal has been tried...at least penalties keeps the 'football' element, requires skill and concentration and allows teams a mistake or two...yep, it is a horrible way to lose or even decide a game but i think it is the best and fairest way.
Years ago a supporter came up with this idea, put it to the football authorities but they all ignored him . Personally I think it would be better than what we have now. If level at 90 , immediately take the penalty shoot out. Whoever wins it gets awarded half a goal . Then play 30 mins , guaranteeing that someone wins by a “ goal” score rather than a penalty count
Sounds convoluted to me. Really don't like the idea of a half goal. Just a bit weird. I'm not sure what's wrong with penalties. It's heartbreaking, but that's losing a game of football.
For me , I’d just prefer the feel of it being decided in the end by actually playing, with all players being involved. Probably only perfect solution is to have replays - which of course cannot happen in tournaments
I don’t think there’s a credible alternative. Replays are out of the question because players play too much football as it is.
I know what you're saying but at a certain point it's time to pack the game in, and you just can't force a result in open play. I think penalties work. They're entirely skill, this whole penalty lottery thing is nonsense. The team with the best takers and keeper on the night wins. The ball goes where you put it, and the keeper goes where he dives. They make for great drama. Unfortunately, we are just ****ing horrible at them.
iirc instead of having two teams going for it to get that golden goal it ended up with both teams ****ting themselves in case they made a mistake leading to a goal and the extra time became a stalemate.
That's a canny idea. How about if you have the shootout after full time (and get it done a bit quicker because there's less drama), then play the 30 minutes and only fall back on the penalty winners to decide it if nobody scores in extra time. If they do then the penalty results are void.
Does that not also create a bizarre dynamic encouraging a team to play anti football knowing they have already won on penalties? Just doesn't sound like football to me.
If one team tries to sit back for thirty minutes and let the other team attack them at will it'd most likely end badly for them, seen it happen often enough in the regular 90. I take your point but imo a penalty shootout is also a bit of an unnatural and bizarre way to decide a tournament and heaps blame and, unfortunately, hate on individuals who should be getting praised for having the balls to step up. If there was a way to end it by playing football it'd be better.
What about awarding points for shots on target, if still level on goals after extra time then add on the shots on target. If that is still deadlocked then have all 11 onfield players in each team take penalties.
I think realistically it's golden goal or penalties. Either of those things put a full stop at the end of the game in a way regulation rules football just can't.
