Sepp Blatter wants penalty alternative

Very good idea .

 

I think people looking for a conspiracy theory are wide of the mark on this occasion. Sepp doesn't hate England and Platini doesn't support Barcelona, honest.

Anyway, a lot of alternatives simply aren't going to work. You can't start removing players because there has to be a minimum number on the pitch, and you can't play without a goalkeeper because you need one of those as well. Counting who has the most shots, corners, possession etc, well I just find those completely wrong. The FA Cup Final replays of old are no good any more, and I don't think we can just go on playing all night until someone scores. So we're left with penalties. Don't really like them, don't really see a credible alternative.

 

I think instead of a penalty shoot out, Blatter should be tied to the goal post and stoned by a fan from each team in turn. The fan who delivers the coup de grace with his/her stone wins the tie for their club. Once Blatter is gone, we move on to Platini, and then after he is gone we revert back to a penalty shoot out.

 

i think 1 sounds pretty decent, but some teams may just go all out defense from the off if they win which can be a bit boring

 

Yes an alternative would be nice but there isn't one. Let's be real here. We've been using shootouts for years. It's the only way to decide a game in the knock outs stages. Haven't replays etc makes it unfair on certain teams and messes up the fixture list. And as for extending extra time..NO... They can't keep playing forever and the more minutes on the pitch the higher the risk of injury 120 m is enough

Perhaps a way to make it less of a lottery would be for the penalties to be out of 11 instead of 5. That way everyone has to take them (or almost everyone)

 

Wasn't there some kind of record set last year for a penalty shoot out...anyone remember...it was 14/13 or something.

 

The only fairer alternatives I can think of are a replay, which would often have scheduling problems and would be really unfair on the fans who showed up to the first one hoping to see a winner, and the more hilarious option of just making the match continue indefinitely until someone scores. But I bet that would break some laws.

 

In tennis the final tie break goes on until it is finished, no matter how long it takes - witness the ridiculous tie break that lasted longer than most 5 set games a few years ago. The only alternative to a penalty shootout, or a running shootout like they used in the MLS some years back is to keep playing the game until someone wins, but of course that would upset the mighty BSkyB who dictate football nowadays. its all about scheduling and adverts so what is best for football is ignored.

 

I love a good shootout when England aren't involved. The drama can't be beaten.

 

Both teams lose.

 

Share the trophy...but how boring would that be. It's a competition and competitions have rules...if you know about the penalty shoot out, I don't see how you can complain about losing it. Even in the 90 min game, there is no guarantee that the 'best' team will win.

 

As harsh as it is on the loser, I don't think there is a better alternative than penalty shoot outs. The only other thing would be a golden goal type, next goal wins but that could go on forever.

The other thing going for penalty shoot outs is that it keeps extra time fiesty because nobody wants that lottery and the fact that as a spectator, you can't beat the drama.

I'd keep them - they are exciting. I know plenty of friends who don't like football but will still sit down and watch a good penalty shoot out.

 

no nothing as silly as sharing the trophy. both teams lose and a monty python foot from out of nowhere crushes the trophy. and John Terry.

 

Settle it with a rousing trivia contest. Who wouldn't want to see John Terry agape as he tried to figure out who is known as the father of the atom bomb, or Arjen Robben struggling to name the location where the peace treaty ending the American Civil War was signed?

 

I like peno's but the suggestion to reduce the amount of players every 5 mins appeals to me. Can you imagine the tactical debate.

I think after 90 mins. You have one 30 minute game. Start with the 11 - after 5 mins it's reduced to 9, a further 5 it's reduced to 8, then a further 5 it's reduced to 6 where the final 15 mins are played out. You get a 1 minute change after every 5 mins change where you grab a drink and pull off the surplus players.

The last 6 would be totally knackered but it would be an absolute quality goal fest and I think the crowd would love it! You can't beat a footie game where you lose your voice through all the cheering and excitement.

If scores are tied still after the 30 mins (unlikely) the managers have to take pens against each other including being the keeper.

Last parts a joke

 

I was reading the an article on the dailymail (not that I ever read that paper), had a number of suggestions on there that could be applied

SO WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES?
The Ice Hockey style
An even more demanding test of nerves than the spot-kick. The player taking the 'penalty' runs with the ball from the half way line, and has to beat the waiting goalkeeper in a one-on-one. Peter Schmeichel's dream scenario.

Play until they drop Type I
They could just drop the idea altogether. In this scenario, extra time carries on until someone scores a winner - regardless of time. With the players dropping like flies, this would surely be the football equivalent of a battle to the death.

Play until they drop Type II
Exactly the same as the first version, yet every five minutes a player from each team is taken off the pitch. So when 125 minutes is on the clock, the sides go to 10 players, at 130, nine players. By 150 minutes we could be watching a very low octane 5-a-side game on an 11-a-side pitch - if it got that far, that is.

Judging panel
A set of judges could - based on the performances over 90 or 120 minutes - decide which team were the worthier to progress, despite the scores being level. Likely to divide opinion, and maybe even start a riot!

Rock, paper, scissors
We could take football out of the equation. 'Bastian Schweinsteiger naively goes scissors, and Steven Gerrard goes rock... England win Euro 2012!' Unfortunately it seems a more likely scenario than beating Germany on penalties.

Call it a draw?
Both sides could just dodge the agony of penalties by accepting the result after extra time. Deciding who progresses to the next round could be a potential pitfall of this alternative.


Options 3 and 4 appear the most appealing for me. I like the idea of more space appearing on the field and the manager deciding a) how to reshape his team with less players and b) who has the legs to keep playing

 

Would he be crying like this if Bayern had won? Well would he....

 

Think the managers should have a talk off.... Saints would win every time

 

Have to admit that after all these years of penalty deciders, I find them very dramatic, but I don't think it's the best way to finish a match. Of course, we can't be allowed the Replay Match anymore, because TV doesn't like them [balls to TV, I say], and they are said to muck up the playing schedules, but actually it's because TV likes to have an ending. So what happened to Golden and Silver goals..? Golden goals I can understand aren't an idea that TV is going to savour because if the TV company has pushed the schedules around and then someone scores in the first 30 seconds, that wouldn't be popular. Silver goals would be better, but then the teams would still have to carry on until one side had more goals at the end of an extra time period. Me..? I prefer the old Replay. For example, the Leeds v Chelsea 1970 FA Cup Final was an OK'ish, if fairly dull match. It went to extra time and still no joy at 2-2. The replay was a brilliant, pulsating 2-1 winning match that anyone would enjoy, even today. TV enjoyed the Replay back then, too.

 

The answer is simple, two straws, one short and one long, you know the rest...