redm Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 http://sport.scotsman.com/sport/Englishman-bids-to-end-shootouts.3742491.jp Not sure what I think of this idea at all, it seems a bit strange although I can see why it might make games a little more exciting to watch. It would certainly increase the pressure on players.... I think I'd miss the excitement of shootouts though. That's about as 'end to end' as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Terrible idea. Typically coming from England. One of the few things almost as good as sex and watching Hearts win is watching England lose on penalties. I would be totally against losing that. Also, penalties are as you say, the 'end to an end' they are alredy the last resort after all other options have been given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwull22 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Stupid idea, then who ever has won the penaties would immediately go on the defensive during extra time, its a bottle test at the end of the game if needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 The idea isn't necessarily to remove the tedium of one or both teams actually playing for penalties but to remove the stigma attached to one poor bloke who is only remembered for the 'missed' penalty eg Stuart Pearce (OK, he got a Pizza Hut ad from it) amd Baggio. At least that's what I remember Blatter saying a while ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo66 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 The idea isn't necessarily to remove the tedium of one or both teams actually playing for penalties but to remove the stigma attached to one poor bloke who is only remembered for the 'missed' penalty eg Stuart Pearce (OK, he got a Pizza Hut ad from it) amd Baggio. At least that's what I remember Blatter saying a while ago. "One poor bloke" who these days is on ?100,000 a week. My heart bleeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 The idea isn't necessarily to remove the tedium of one or both teams actually playing for penalties but to remove the stigma attached to one poor bloke who is only remembered for the 'missed' penalty eg Stuart Pearce (OK, he got a Pizza Hut ad from it) amd Baggio. At least that's what I remember Blatter saying a while ago. I dont get where protection needs to come in for individuals. Football has become a nanny sport. With crazy money. These people dont need protection, in fact they should be made to work harder for thier millions. Pressure...what pressure? To look good for a Gillette ad? My god. In any other sport the individual can cost themselves everything... In other team sports, the same can happen...the quarter back...the kicker....the pitcher.....etc etc. What a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 "One poor bloke" who these days is on ?100,000 a week. My heart bleeds. I didn't mean it literally , of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I dont get where protection needs to come in for individuals. Football has become a nanny sport. With crazy money. These people dont need protection, in fact they should be made to work harder for thier millions. Pressure...what pressure? To look good for a Gillette ad? My god. In any other sport the individual can cost themselves everything... In other team sports, the same can happen...the quarter back...the kicker....the pitcher.....etc etc. What a joke. I didn't say I agreed with the idea , I was just trying to explain Blatter's reasoning behind the idea (if that isn't an oxymoron). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I didn't say I agreed with the idea , I was just trying to explain Blatter's reasoning behind the idea (if that isn't an oxymoron). Yes, i wasnt disagreeing with you, just the notion within the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 The idea isn't necessarily to remove the tedium of one or both teams actually playing for penalties but to remove the stigma attached to one poor bloke who is only remembered for the 'missed' penalty eg Stuart Pearce (OK, he got a Pizza Hut ad from it) amd Baggio. At least that's what I remember Blatter saying a while ago. Might save a few lives in South America but the worst that happens here is that you're the subject of spoof comedy for years to follow. Hehe. As others have said, they're paid handsomely for the privilege. Maybe I have an evil streak but I really quite enjoy the misery that missed penalties bestows on teams/players that I don't like. Mind you, penalty shootouts might be a whole different ball game for us now that we don't have CG between the sticks. I never used to worry about them too much...but now? Oh jings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_ Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 It's simple. Have the half-hour extra time, then go onto golden goal after that. Or "next goal's the winner" as we called it in Primary School! But of course these overpaid pansies that call themselves footballers would never go for that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 It's simple. Have the half-hour extra time, then go onto golden goal after that. Or "next goal's the winner" as we called it in Primary School! But of course these overpaid pansies that call themselves footballers would never go for that... Don't know about the players but I'm not sure if the supporters' nerves could stand that either. Plus, some games could literally drag on forever.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Looks daft at first glance and it would only work if teams were separated by maybe just the one goal and both 'entered into the spirit of it' in the period of ET following. However I can't see a team pulling back a -3 or even -2 deficit over 30 mins and that against a team who will in reality just hold what the have TBH, I think there will ultimately come a time when, in these stalemate situations, the winners will have to be decided on 'artistic merit' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blairdin Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 It's simple. Have the half-hour extra time, then go onto golden goal after that. Or "next goal's the winner" as we called it in Primary School! But of course these overpaid pansies that call themselves footballers would never go for that... This fan wouldn't go for it either. If we had golden goal instead of penalty shoot I think I'd still be at Hampdump now, having arrived there one Wednesday night in 1994 to watch us play Airdrie in a cup replay.... Some games need penalty shoot outs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Alexander Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Looks daft at first glance and it would only work if teams were separated by maybe just the one goal and both 'entered into the spirit of it' in the period of ET following. However I can't see a team pulling back a -3 or even -2 deficit over 30 mins and that against a team who will in reality just hold what the have TBH, I think there will ultimately come a time when, in these stalemate situations, the winners will have to be decided on 'artistic merit' Did you read the article? The result of the penalty shoot out would only come into affect after the 30 minutes extra time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambojim52 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Why not take it a stage further, with the players staying out at half time and taking penalties. This is as bad as the origional idea, stupid at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambojim52 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Did you read the article? The result of the penalty shoot out would only come into affect after the 30 minutes extra time. I couldn't handle hibs winning the league and all the cups. Sorry used the wrong quote: the winners will have to be decided on 'artistic merit' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 I couldn't handle hibs winning the league and all the cups. Sorry used the wrong quote: the winners will have to be decided on 'artistic merit' If there are no goals, each team resorts to the medium of expressive dance? Like a Haka, but with more flair I'd presume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoked-Glass Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 could somebody paste the link in cause bbc is blocked where i am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Gosling Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Only the inglish could come up with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 http://sport.scotsman.com/sport/Englishman-bids-to-end-shootouts.3742491.jp Englishman bids to end shoot-outs By Steven Saunders AN AMBITIOUS attempt has been launched from the home of penalty heartbreak ? England ? to replace decisive shoot-outs with a process dubbed 'The Advantage', which has an abbreviated spot-kick contest prior to extra-time. Englishman Henry Birtles, negotiator of broadcast rights for a TV production company, submitted his proposal to Fifa early in the new year and it is believed that world football's governing body is warming to the idea. The process would work thus. A cup tie is tied at the end of 90 minutes, so each team takes three penalties apiece ? sudden death is also an option ? and the winner of that contest would take 'The Advantage' into extra-time. If no goals are scored in the additional 30 minutes, then the team with 'The Advantage' goes through. It would seem a preposterous idea, stripping away the drama and pressure of a decisive penalty shoot-out with a token gesture devoid of meaning for fully half an hour. And that 30 minutes would in all likelihood see the team with 'The Advantage' park themselves on the edge of their own area to defend like dervishes. Hardly a recipe to enliven extra-time ? when was the last time you heard anybody say 'I really enjoyed extra time, thoroughly entertaining'? Yet it seems the corridors of power are quite receptive to the proposal. Sepp Blatter, the Fifa president, was deeply dissatisfied with the fact that the last World Cup final was decided on penalties. "When it comes to World Cup finals it is passion and when it goes to extra time it is drama, but when it comes to penalty kicks it is tragedy," he said. "Football is a team sport and penalties in not about a team, it is about the individual." However, penalties have produced some of the most memorable episodes of footballing theatre in recent years. Who can forget Chris Waddle's wild slash over the bar against West Germany that sealed England's World Cup fate in 1990? Or Gareth Southgate's feebleness compared to Andreas Moller's triumphant blast when the two sides met again in the Euro 96 semi-finals? Or David Beckham's re-enactment of Waddle's ineptitude against Portugal in Euro 2004? The list goes on. Some truly great players have missed penalties ? Roberto Baggio and Franco Baresi when Italy lost the World Cup final to Brazil in 1994, Marco Van Basten when Denmark knocked the Netherlands out in Euro 92. It does not make them tragic figures, merely mortal, someone that fans can identify with. Birtles claims 'The Advantage' is "clearly a fairer way of deciding the outcome of a match. It will increase the game as a spectacle." Perhaps, but only because it would be fascinating to watch players who have botched their penalties attempt to redeem themselves or, alternatively, collapse in a distraught mess in extra time. That does not erase the sense of cruelty to the individual that Blatter insists upon. Birtles continues that 'The Advantage' "will mean the re-birth of extra-time because this phase of play has largely become seen as non-competitive. Now extra time will become the highlight." Similar claims were made of golden and then silver goals, but they have since fallen by the wayside, never fully recovering from the fatal blow dealt by Oliver Bierhoff's weak winner for Germany in the final of Euro 96 against the Czech Republic. It will take more than a rejig of a game's order to make extra time exciting again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sked21 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Deary deary me. What will they come up with next. So what happens if the game finishes 0-0 in 90 minutes then for example Germany beat England on the penalties. Do England have to score 2 or do they win by just winning 1-0 in extra time? I don't really see the problem with the way it is now but would consider shortening the extra time to 20 minutes as it does get really boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KisLas Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Bad idea. Would miss the exitement. Plus it's great fun for all when England get penalties at WC and EC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossi_1983 Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Rubbish idea It will totally remove any excitement from extra time, as the team that won the shootout would just go all out defence. It would prove just as rubbish as their golden and silver goal debacles Penalties add huge excitement to the end of games, and make even the most turgid game memorable. It is the only sure fire way to provide an outright winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Ross Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Hate when people say that penalties are a lottery. The old tossing a coin was a lottery but penalties require skill and bottle last time I checked. Mad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoked-Glass Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Keep it the way it is ffs! I hope Scotland one day beat England on penalites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest S.U.S.S. Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 http://sport.scotsman.com/sport/Englishman-bids-to-end-shootouts.3742491.jp Not sure what I think of this idea at all, it seems a bit strange although I can see why it might make games a little more exciting to watch. It would certainly increase the pressure on players.... I think I'd miss the excitement of shootouts though. That's about as 'end to end' as it gets. Not sure about this one, but, great to see they are considering something. Hate a shoot out! terrible way to end something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interista Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 A non starter of an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Did you read the article? The result of the penalty shoot out would only come into affect after the 30 minutes extra time. Obviously not very well Think I'd misinterpreted 'taking the advantage into extra time' Think I've got it now though :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Horrific idea. Would encourage one team to go 11 men behind the balll. If it aint broke dont fix it- the current system us fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Deary deary me. What will they come up with next. So what happens if the game finishes 0-0 in 90 minutes then for example Germany beat England on the penalties. Do England have to score 2 or do they win by just winning 1-0 in extra time? I don't really see the problem with the way it is now but would consider shortening the extra time to 20 minutes as it does get really boring. I'm actually warming to this idea.......that's provided I've got it sussed now Yeh if either team wins by any score in ET then the earlier penalty result is just discarded It might make the penalty losers go all out for goals, although it could also make the penalty victors 'shut up shop' ...........but what's new about that ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I listened to Mr Birtles attempt to explain this proposal this morning on the radio. It sounded utterly ridiculous then and having read it, it still sounds ridiculous. Leave it the way it is. BTW, I wonder if an Englishmen would have attempted this rule change if they'd won all those shoot-outs in recent years ? Probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.