Best ways to decide games

[Mark2010]

So two of the elimination games thus far at the World Cup have been decided on penalty kicks. Exciting, dramatic finishes, to be sure. Also, a terrible way to lose an elimination game.

So the debate ensues: when a game is tied and cannot end in a tie (because one team has to advance), what is the best way to break the tie? Should it be penalty kicks/shots, such as is used in the World Cup or Olympics? Or should the teams continue to play for however long necessary until one team scores, such as the Stanley Cup Playoffs?

Are different methods better for different sports and, if so, why?

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Different sports, different solutions.

 

[Starman]

Soccer obviously has a particular problem because scoring in itself is so rare and ties so much more common.

Maybe they should play 20 minutes overtime with no offsides rules, then 20 minutes with unlimited subsititution, then go to PKs.

 

[Big Circus]

 

[Captain_Kirk]

Would prefer to see the elimination rounds of the World Cup be sudden death after regulation and not go to PKs.

At the very least, make the final that way.

PKs certainly offer great drama and tension, but would rather see the winner settled in the standard course of play.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Would prefer to see the elimination rounds of the World Cup be sudden death after regulation and not go to PKs.

At the very least, make the final that way.

PKs certainly offer great drama and tension, but would rather see the winner settled in the standard course of play.

We'd all prefer games to be decided in the run of play, rather than PKs. But fatigue is a huge factor in extra time. I couldn't imagine quality soccer being played in a second extra time session.

 

[RecoveringJournalist]

Mixed feelings on this one.

There's part of me that says just play until someone wins. I don't know if that's fair or realistic though, especially with hockey and soccer. I also remember how exciting the 1994 WC final, the 1999 Women's WC Final and the US-Russia hockey game this year were while going to penalty kicks/shots.

With the limited substitutions in soccer, I think that would make it especially difficult to do.

 

[User 11148]

Channeling Ann Coulter ...

I couldn't imagine quality soccer being played.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Would prefer to see the elimination rounds of the World Cup be sudden death after regulation and not go to PKs.

At the very least, make the final that way.

PKs certainly offer great drama and tension, but would rather see the winner settled in the standard course of play.

Games would go 300 minutes and still no goals. Maybe they could do "first player to die, his team loses."

I've always hoped for an extra two substitutions at the start of overtime. But other than that, I don't think there's anything to be done.

 

[old_tony]

Soccer obviously has a particular problem because scoring in itself is so rare and ties so much more common.

Maybe they should play 20 minutes overtime with no offsides rules, then 20 minutes with unlimited subsititution, then go to PKs.

I like both of your suggestions. I would also submit this: Play the normal 11-on-11 with one change -- goalie can't use his hands. If he does (and it would have to be confirmed by replay) it's a goal and game over.

 

[User 11148]

Have special, wider and taller overtime goals. Play 10-minute overtime periods, and as they go by without a winner the goals get bigger and bigger.

Or how about this? As we go further into overtime, the teams play with fewer and fewer players. Allow substitutions between periods (that get shorter as we go on and on), but eventually we wind up with three (two and a goalie) on three.

 

[JC]

Soccer obviously has a particular problem because scoring in itself is so rare and ties so much more common.

Maybe they should play 20 minutes overtime with no offsides rules, then 20 minutes with unlimited subsititution, then go to PKs.

I like both of your suggestions. I would also submit this: Play the normal 11-on-11 with one change -- goalie can't use his hands. If he does (and it would have to be confirmed by replay) it's a goal and game over.

That is one of the most ridiculous suggestions I have ever seen.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Soccer obviously has a particular problem because scoring in itself is so rare and ties so much more common.

Maybe they should play 20 minutes overtime with no offsides rules, then 20 minutes with unlimited subsititution, then go to PKs.

I like both of your suggestions. I would also submit this: Play the normal 11-on-11 with one change -- goalie can't use his hands. If he does (and it would have to be confirmed by replay) it's a goal and game over.

The subs thing would be fine, but how would any of those suggestions be less of a bastardization of the game than PKs?

 

[old_tony]

Here's another thought: Why do game-ending PKs have to come from the 11-yard spot? How about they come from 25 yards when a game comes down to them? Gives the goalie a much better chance, makes it much more of a challenge to the kicker.

The problem with the current system is that the PK is so close to automatic that when one does get stopped, it's much more of a fluke (or lucky guess by the keeper) than anything. One-man free kicks from 25 yards would be a lot less of a fluke to be saved and would put more of the onus on the kicker than the keeper. Both scoring and saving would be much more interesting.

 

[RecoveringJournalist]

Soccer obviously has a particular problem because scoring in itself is so rare and ties so much more common.

Maybe they should play 20 minutes overtime with no offsides rules, then 20 minutes with unlimited subsititution, then go to PKs.

I like both of your suggestions. I would also submit this: Play the normal 11-on-11 with one change -- goalie can't use his hands. If he does (and it would have to be confirmed by replay) it's a goal and game over.

That is one of the most ridiculous suggestions I have ever seen.

At the end of each overtime period, the goalie will have an arm or a leg shackled to the goalpost. After the fourth overtime, they will play rock-paper-scissors to determine the World Cup winner.

 

[93Devil]

Would taking players off the field make a difference?

Make them go 7-on-7 and see what happens. You have more space.

 

[Big Circus]

Here's another thought: Why do game-ending PKs have to come from the 11-yard spot? How about they come from 25 yards when a game comes down to them? Gives the goalie a much better chance, makes it much more of a challenge to the kicker.

The problem with the current system is that the PK is so close to automatic that when one does get stopped, it's much more of a fluke (or lucky guess by the keeper) than anything. One-man free kicks from 25 yards would be a lot less of a fluke to be saved and would put more of the onus on the kicker than the keeper. Both scoring and saving would be much more interesting.

Grantland actually published a piece on that today. (Well, it's about all PKs, but bear with me.)

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/crime-and-punishment-should-the-penalty-kick-spot-be-moved-back/

 

[old_tony]

Soccer obviously has a particular problem because scoring in itself is so rare and ties so much more common.

Maybe they should play 20 minutes overtime with no offsides rules, then 20 minutes with unlimited subsititution, then go to PKs.

I like both of your suggestions. I would also submit this: Play the normal 11-on-11 with one change -- goalie can't use his hands. If he does (and it would have to be confirmed by replay) it's a goal and game over.

The subs thing would be fine, but how would any of those suggestions be less of a bastardization of the game than PKs?

It would be different, but does that mean it would be a "bastardization?" I don't think so. The NBA added the 3-point shot and that made the game better. Hockey made changes to its two-line pass rule and opened up the game and made it more interesting. Soccer could use some updates, too, to open the game up. It it's left as is, we'll continue to have the biggest games on the game's biggest stage decided by penalty kicks.

 

[poindexter]

Here's another thought: Why do game-ending PKs have to come from the 11-yard spot? How about they come from 25 yards when a game comes down to them? Gives the goalie a much better chance, makes it much more of a challenge to the kicker.

The problem with the current system is that the PK is so close to automatic that when one does get stopped, it's much more of a fluke (or lucky guess by the keeper) than anything. One-man free kicks from 25 yards would be a lot less of a fluke to be saved and would put more of the onus on the kicker than the keeper. Both scoring and saving would be much more interesting.

Continue to have the PKs from 12 yards out. But the shooter has to EITHER shoot the goal blindfolded. Or turn around, and heel-kick it in.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Here's another thought: Why do game-ending PKs have to come from the 11-yard spot? How about they come from 25 yards when a game comes down to them? Gives the goalie a much better chance, makes it much more of a challenge to the kicker.

The problem with the current system is that the PK is so close to automatic that when one does get stopped, it's much more of a fluke (or lucky guess by the keeper) than anything. One-man free kicks from 25 yards would be a lot less of a fluke to be saved and would put more of the onus on the kicker than the keeper. Both scoring and saving would be much more interesting.

Somebody should tell the players it's automatic. Through two matches the conversion rate in shootouts is 68 percent.

It's pretty rare that a side nails all five.