Should be no Penalty Kicks for World Cup Final

[X-Files]

Hockey players play a shift then hit the bench for two or three shifts; soccer players play constantly. Big difference.

But soccer players, when not sitting on the sidelines with martini in hand
watching their team play, spend at least half the game doing little of
anything but walking around or some light jogging for a few yards that
my great grandmother could do.

I've played the game in Canada since i was 6 years old when at 2
recesses and a lunch hour every day at school that was our sport.
Besides non school leaques.

I've seen NHL and NBA players drenched with water dripping off them,
but do futbolers ever even break a sweat.

 

[Wrigley]

Bottom line is that the inability to settle ties on the field competitively is a major flaw in "The Beautiful Game" itself. The showcase of the sport is the World Cup played every four years only to be determined by which team can score more free kicks out of five attemps from point blank range than it's opponet can. 25 games a century and the big shots who control the sport cannot come up with something better than this to decide the winner of it's premier event.

Most RX posters would convert 70% of their penalty kicks against a WC goalie still agree with those that say stupid way to decide a game.

Be like the Lakers and celtics playing in game 7 of the NBA finals and they decide the game with 5 different players shooting 1 free throw each. whatever team has the most after 5 attempts wins the NBA championship

 

[DrunkenHorseplayer]

On a Sunday afternoon in the park with three people watching, sure. On the WC stage with millions tuned in, make that about 1%.

 

[alense]

Most RX posters would convert 70% of their penalty kicks against a WC goalie still agree with those that say stupid way to decide a game.

Be like the Lakers and celtics playing in game 7 of the NBA finals and they decide the game with 5 different players shooting 1 free throw each. whatever team has the most after 5 attempts wins the NBA championship

Not the same thing. Every NBA player takes free throws multiple times every game. Penalty kicks are fairly rare and most guys who take them in a penalty shoot out do not take them regularly in competitive situations. Its not an ideal way to decide a winner, but I can think of worst ways. For example in overtime in the NFL it is more or less decided by a toss of a coin. At least in a penalty shoot out both teams have an equal chance.

 

[seanjohn007]

But soccer players, when not sitting on the sidelines with martini in hand
watching their team play, spend at least half the game doing little of
anything but walking around or some light jogging for a few yards that
my great grandmother could do.

I've played the game in Canada since i was 6 years old when at 2
recesses and a lunch hour every day at school that was our sport.
Besides non school leaques.

I've seen NHL and NBA players drenched with water dripping off them,
but do futbolers ever even break a sweat.

you obviously have never played a real soccer match

 

[X-Files]

i obviously have never played a real soccer match

Obviously.

LA kids don't grow up playing the game.

Even if you spend half the time kicking the hoops ball,
it doesn't count.

 

[Avon_Barksdale]

Most RX posters would convert 70% of their penalty kicks against a WC goalie still agree with those that say stupid way to decide a game.

Even after 120 minutes? Players give tells a world class goalie would stuff average joe's so hard

 

[Soriano12]

First of all, it was only the last world cup, which was decided by a penalty shootout. In 2002 Germany was overmatched and lost 0:2 in regular time against Brazil.

Penalty kicks might not be the best way, but everybody is used to it. Van Gaals suggestion with removing players might be interesting on first site and might even work, but many people would oppose such a change because it completely changes the game since a 7on7 or 8on8 is way different from a 11on11 soccer match.
This solution should favor teams with great technical skills like Brazil and would put defensive minded teams, whose strength is shortening spaces for opposing teams, in a disadvantage. The game would somehow be moved into the direction of beach soccer so to speak.
If you don't have a problem with time constraints, you could let them play 11on11 until someone scores: Yes, players would get tired, but stamina is a big part in soccer anyway and teams who get tired would have to do more running in practice, so that they are fit enough to play 140-150min or longer.
But this might not be the way, TV wants to go ;-)

And honestly, I would miss penalty shootouts: No more teasing of England (Southgate, Beckham...) and other countries, who just can't win a shootout
(Although I had a hard time back in 2000, when the Dutch dominated Italy and were eliminated because of missing 5(?) penalty kicks...)

And I also would doubt, that most RXers convert 70% of their penalty kicks against a world cup goalie.

 

[alense]

First of all, it was only the last world cup, which was decided by a penalty shootout. In 2002 Germany was overmatched and lost 0:2 in regular time against Brazil.

Penalty kicks might not be the best way, but everybody is used to it. Van Gaals suggestion with removing players might be interesting on first site and might even work, but many people would oppose such a change because it completely changes the game since a 7on7 or 8on8 is way different from a 11on11 soccer match.
This solution should favor teams with great technical skills like Brazil and would put defensive minded teams, whose strength is shortening spaces for opposing teams, in a disadvantage. The game would somehow be moved into the direction of beach soccer so to speak.
If you don't have a problem with time constraints, you could let them play 11on11 until someone scores: Yes, players would get tired, but stamina is a big part in soccer anyway and teams who get tired would have to do more running in practice, so that they are fit enough to play 140-150min or longer.
But this might not be the way, TV wants to go ;-)

And honestly, I would miss penalty shootouts: No more teasing of England (Southgate, Beckham...) and other countries, who just can't win a shootout
(Although I had a hard time back in 2000, when the Dutch dominated Italy and were eliminated because of missing 5(?) penalty kicks...)

And I also would doubt, that most RXers convert 70% of their penalty kicks against a world cup goalie.

Agree with everything except that I loved the Holland Italy match. Semi-final, playing in their country, down to 10 men after 30mins, 2 penalties awarded against us and both missed, and then winning on penalties. An unforgettable match for an Italian......and then we lose the final in the worst way possible. Thats football for you.

 

[sean1]

I've always thought all knock out games should be settled on the field. Either let the game keep going, or play again the next day - playing again would reward teams that are deep and push teams to actually try to win.

 

[skrtelfan]

Even if the game continued indefinitely, it still might never end. The o/u of the Stanley Cup finals games this year has been 5.5 and 6. The o/u of the last WC final was around 1.5. (May have been shaded higher so 1.75 may have been more accurate.) They could well have a full 120 minute replay and even that mightn't decide it.

Allowing extra subs after extra time is a lot more reasonable than removing players but again, the game could still last many hours without a goal. People bitch about baseball being too slow when games can go many extra innings but soccer is resolved in about 1h 50m in non-cup ties, perhaps 2h 40m in cup ties with extra time and penalties, and they say that's boring. You can't please everybody.

 

[TheComputerGroup]

I love watching the world cup but I hate betting on it because of the draw.