A possible replacement for penalty shootouts?
Roar Guru By AndyRoo, 10 Mar 2010 AndyRoo is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- football, Mark Schwarzer, penalties, penalty shootouts
Central Coast Mariners goal keeper Mark Bosnich fails to stop a direct penalty in the second half of the Round 3, A-League match between the Central Coast Mariners and the Queensland Roar at Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane, Aug. 31st, 2008. AAP Image/Dave Hunt
Many articles in recent years have spent time trying to come up with a better way to decide a game than by using penalty shootouts.
Less players on the field and counting corner kicks have all been credible suggestions worthy of discussion over the second or third beer at a pub, but not quite credible enough to be brought up before then.
Personally, I have no problem with the drama of a penalty shootout – as long as my team win’s, it’s a fine system!
That bias may, however, be influenced by the fact we have Mark Schwarzer in goals for the Socceroos at the moment. He seems to relish the chance to win a game as opposed to most goalkeeper’s who become the villains by trying not to “stuff up”.
The timing of this article couldn’t be worse, though, as the A-League has just witnessed two dramatic and satisfying penalty shootouts which led to Newcastle playing Wellington in front of a full house.
But as sure as day becomes night, Italy will win another penalty shootout while they bore the neutrals to death, and the calls for a better system will follow.
My proposal is that the goal-line referee (themselves not quite established in the rules yet) keep track of the number of times the goalkeeper handles the ball. This tally would then be used as a tiebreaker if the match is a draw at the conclusion of full-time or extra-time. The side whose keeper handled the ball the most loses. If the tally is tied then the team whose goalkeeper handled the ball last is the loser. Handling would count as a tip over the bar, punching the ball from a cross or a catch.
A goalkeeper touching the ball in the same way an outfielder can would not attract any tally points. The hope (and without seeing a trial it’s very much just a hope) is that it encourages goalkeepers to play more like outfielders, perhaps to the point where they no longer have to spend most of their training in the corner away from the other players.
Would these scores be public? I would expect the goal-line referee to have a clear way of indicating the touch (wave a flag or such) so that a 4th official or the other goal-line ref can also keep track of the tally (and scoreboard attendant, too).
From a theoretical point of view, here is my list of positives and negatives. Feel free to add your own in the comments section.
Negatives:
- Teams playing for the tally could lead to even more aerial balls, defenders camped on the goal-line and such. A change like this influences how the game is played rather than other suggestions that just decide the outcome and don’t effect the 90 minutes proper.
- Could lead to more injuries, especially amongst goalkeepers. There is a certain balance in the battle between the keepers and strikers in that once the keeper picks up the ball they’re safe. If keepers become reluctant to do that angry strikers could run riot.
- The goalkeeper becomes even more important and, perhaps, disproportionately so.
- Another area for officials to make a dud decision on.
- Penalty shootouts are great theatre, and is this tally method any less arbitrary?
- Involves change. Change for change’s sake is a waste of resources so it would have to be carefully investigated whether this system is clearly better.
- The goal-line ref may spend too much time watching the keeper and not whether the ball goes over the line, which is his primary purpose.
- Would create a difference between the amateur level, who would likely continue to play with penalties due to lack of goal-line officials, and the professional level.
- A dubious red card would put you at a massive disadvantage as having fewer players is even worse under this proposal.
Positives:
- Hopefully rewards the quality of shots on goal as a harmless lob from 40m out wouldn’t need to be handled. If your general play results in more clear cut chances on goal, then you will likely force the other team’s goalkeeper to touch the ball. This is generally considered good play and enjoyed by most spectators, so hopefully rewarding this activity leads to more of it in a game.
- Removes playing for penalties as stacking the box isn’t a great ploy to avoid the use of your goalkeeper.
- Encourages goalkeepers to use more outfield skills and makes it a less distinct position.
- Would remove the “I am not going to pick it up come and get it” routine between goalkeeper and opposing striker that takes up a good deal of time in a match.
- Gives the goal-line referee something to do to justify his existence as there are many matches that are decided without the need to decide whether a ball went over the line or not.
- Helps set a more concrete finish time for an event for broadcasters that absolutely can’t delay the start of Today Tonight at any cost.
- May lead to more goalkeepers like René Higuita.
I don’t know if this proposal solves the problem, or even if penalty shootouts are really a problem (I think they are a dud way to decide the World Cup final, though) but I thought it was an idea worthy of debate.
It would be great if the stats man kept track of it so we could see what percentage of games were won by a team whose goalkeeper handled the ball more than the opposition, or if any teams generated more shots on target but lost the tally count.
The later is certainly important because if there is a correlation between shots on goal and winning, I would be confident in the concept’s success.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- football, Mark Schwarzer, penalties, penalty shootouts
March 10th 2010 @ 11:25am
Aka said | March 10th 2010 @ 11:25am | Report comment
The alternative that Johnny Warren often mentioned is the best I’ve heard and that was to reduce the number of players on each team during extra time. So for example you might have teams reduced to 10 men for the first period of extra time and then 9 for the second period, to open the game up and create greater opportunities to get a result.
Having said that I’m not against the penalties. They are very dramatic. And I don’t think the losing team can complain too much, If you can’t beat the opposition over 120 mins.
March 10th 2010 @ 11:50am
con said | March 10th 2010 @ 11:50am | Report comment
why on earth would you want to replace the penalty shootout. as a neutral i lvoe watching it and if its my team then if we win its pure ecstasy. considering its used and loved by all 218 fifa countries it doesnt really matter what anybody here thinks
March 10th 2010 @ 11:53am
dasilva said | March 10th 2010 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Penalty shootout is great when you just witness a great attacking game and the penalty shootout is a nice way to cap it off
However when both sides are playing for penalties especially in the world cup final. Well, that’s why the penalty shootout is rather controversial.
March 10th 2010 @ 11:58am
Savvas Tzionis said | March 10th 2010 @ 11:58am | Report comment
Interesting point.
Imagine if, in 1990, Argentina managed to hold on for a draw after Extra Time in the Final agaisnt Germany? And then won the Penalty Shoot out?
Not only would the back pass rule have been introduced but some other rule change may have transpired.
Take it from me, nothing will change until a team wins the World Cup by playing for a penalty shoot out (like Red Star Belgrade did in 1991 European Cup Final against Marseiile).
March 10th 2010 @ 12:01pm
aubgraham said | March 10th 2010 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
“used and loved by all 218 fifa countries”. Not sure a lot of English or Dutch fans would agree with you.
“it doesnt really matter what anybody here thinks” – geez, don’t destroy the dream.
March 10th 2010 @ 12:22pm
Tom said | March 10th 2010 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Long time reader, first time blogger
And here we have the whole issue with football, “everyone loves it so theres nothing wrong with it”
It’s this attitude that is preventing sensible changes being made that would improve the game, just because it’s the most popular game in the world doesn’t mean it can’t be improved.
Penalty shootouts are the worst way to decide a game, might as well toss a coin. Yes, of course they are dramatic and exciting and drama-filled, but so is extra time in any code, especially when a world cup is on the line. For knock out games in the World Cup and other tournaments, you could employ the Gaelic football-style goal and scoring system, say 3 points for a goal and 1 point for over the bar. You could do this for the whole game or possibly just extra time. In extra time you could play 30 minutes, then if scores are still level play golden goal for a period, then if scores are still level go to golden point until somebody scores. I like this idea because it means that a team would have to attack to win the game, and they would be using the same rules and skills as for regular time
March 10th 2010 @ 2:17pm
Dogz R Barkn said | March 10th 2010 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Tom
Virtually anything is better than a pen shoot out, and yet most soccer fans actually defend the use of pens – it’s crazy!
Also people talk about tradition, but the first ever pen shoot out in a WC was as recent as 1982.
And here’ another juicy morsel for everyone to chew on – Americans absolutely loved the whole concept of pen shoot outs in the 1994 WC – yep – that’s right – pens have become imbedded in the game because Americans enjoyed them!!
So please, people – don’t try and tell me there is anything traditional about pen shoot outs – it’s absolute nonsense!!
March 10th 2010 @ 2:28pm
Rob said | March 10th 2010 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
To be fair, Dogz, there were penalty shoot-out variations being used as far back as 1952, as the ever-reliable Wikipedia observes:
Shootouts were not endorsed by UEFA or FIFA until 1970. However, variants of the modern shootout were used before then in several domestic competitions and minor tournaments. Domestic examples include the Yugoslav Cup from 1952,[7] the Coppa Italia from 1958–59,[8] and the Swiss inter-regional Youth Cup from 1959–60.[9] International examples include the final of the 1962 Ramón de Carranza Trophy[10] (at the suggestion of journalist Rafael Ballester[11]), and a silver medal playoff match between amateur teams representing Venezuela and Bolivia in the 1965 Bolivarian Games.[12]
In major competitions, when a replay or playoff was not possible, ties were previously decided by drawing of lots. Examples include Italy’s win over the USSR in the semi-final of the 1968 European Championship (the final, also drawn, went to a replay).[13]
Israeli Yosef Dagan is claimed by some to have invented the shootout,[14] after watching the Israeli team lose a 1968 Olympic quarter-final by drawing of lots. Michael Almog, later president of the Israel FA, described the proposal in a letter published in FIFA News in August 1969.[15] Koe Ewe Teik, the Malaysian FA’s member of the referee’s committee, led the move for its adoption by FIFA.[15] FIFA’s proposal was discussed on 20 February 1970 by a working party of the International Football Association Board (IFAB), which recommended its acceptance, although “not entirely satisfied” with it.[16] It was adopted by the IFAB’s annual general meeting on 27 June 1970.[17]
The penalty shootout is also credited as the invention of former referee Karl Wald, from Frankfurt am Main. When proposed in 1970, the Bavarian football association attempted to block the suggestion, and it was only when the majority of delegates said they were in favour that the officials gave their backing. Shortly afterwards, the German Football Association followed suit.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_shootout_%28association_football%29#Origins)
So the talk about tradition perhaps has at least SOME merit, since it was adpted by FIFA om 1970…
March 10th 2010 @ 3:14pm
Tom said | March 10th 2010 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
Americans of course can’t understand draws. Baseball is a 162 game season and none of the games can be draws, which of course is taking the whole ‘must have a result’ thing too far the other way!
March 10th 2010 @ 3:18pm
AndyRoo said | March 10th 2010 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
In the J league I think they initially had penalty shoot outs to decide every game (I remember at least one season of that in the NSL too) because they didn’t think the fans would accept a draw as the result.
They soon got over that and scrapped the shoot outs.
March 10th 2010 @ 11:55am
GrahamH said | March 10th 2010 @ 11:55am | Report comment
I think the position of the penalty spot is the problem. During normal play, it’s designed to give the offensive team a high percentage opportunity of scoring, in compensation of being denied a goal due to a foul. However, to resolve a tied final it’s inappropriate, because it relies on a player’s ‘mistake’, or a ‘keeper’s good luck, to force a result.
I think the concept’s OK, but I’d like to see it taken from further back, (say, outside the penalty area, and the ‘D’), to put more emphasis on the skill of the players, as in normal play.
March 10th 2010 @ 12:19pm
Dogz R Barkn said | March 10th 2010 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
That would probably reduce the “lottery” effect of the pen shoot out, but we would stlll be in the same space of having a little post-game activity deciding silverware.
March 10th 2010 @ 12:55pm
GrahamH said | March 10th 2010 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
I agree. I’d rather have the game decided on a countback of previous performance stats, as in the league table. That way, both teams would know that a draw will produce a known outcome. I’m happy with extra time being played, although the way the players fall down through fatigue, it can devalue the whole game.
March 10th 2010 @ 2:21pm
Rob said | March 10th 2010 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
Graham,
I disagree. I think that the penalty taking thing still relies on the player’s skill, because taking penalties is a skill required for the normal game, as is saving penalties.
And I take issue with the notion of a “Keeper’s good luck” with regards to penalties. Sure, there is an element of that, but it takes great skill to determine where a player is going to hit a penalty – body shape when about to hit the ball (esp. position of hips and front foot placement), anticipation, and an ability to “read” the player as he moves in. Do you think Schwarzer’s penalty saves are all luck? I would say 8 times out of 10 he goes the right way, because of a combination of all those things mentioned above.
And while I’m on my “goalkeeper high horse”, andyroo, your comment about “as opposed to most goalkeeper’s who become the villains by trying not to “stuff up”.” is a bit unfair, I think. Basically, goalkeepers in a shootout situation tend to have no fear of “stuffing up” for the simple fact that they are not expected to save penalties. They don’t become villians for not saving penalties, because there is no expectation that they will. The pressure is all on those taking the penalties, and therefore goalkeepers are basically just heroes in waiting, because if they can pull off a save and the team wins the shootout, because they have outperformed expectations, they are heroes.
Let me put it another way: How many times have you heard of a keeper being blamed (“a villian”) for the team not winning a shootout? Conversely, how many times have you heard a keeper praised as the “hero” because he saved one or two spot kicks? Hmm…
March 10th 2010 @ 2:31pm
Dogz R Barkn said | March 10th 2010 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
It’s about one of 25+ skills you need to play soccer.
Each team has one or two players that generally take them.
I honestly think your argument in favour of pens is overstated.
We still get back to the point that silverware is often handed out on the premise of doing a little side activity AFTER the game has finished, which quite simply, isn’t good enough.
March 10th 2010 @ 2:46pm
Rob said | March 10th 2010 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
Yeah, which is why in an earlier post I declared myself in favour of replays. If after a replay there is no result, I say penalties.
In that same earlier post (response to Michael C), I said that doing a count-back such as that you suggested MAY reward attacking play, but it is still rewarding a team for NOT scoring, which is, in my view, ludicrous. Sure, it may provide some justice if one team is purely defending all game and the other is always attacking, but the tactical battle is part of football. Play a replay to sort out the mess of the first game, and if that doesn’t work, lottery it up with penalties. Surely over 2 games a team will score, and if they don’t, well, the deadlock must be broken. Don’t reward teams for not scoring, by letting them win with some wierd countback system, or by making our game more like AFL, or, more to the point, like football was in the 1860s with “rogues”.
March 10th 2010 @ 4:34pm
aubgraham said | March 10th 2010 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
I guess some may like the simplicity of scoring in futbol, that is, there is only one way to score (put the ball in the back of the net, obviously many different methods to do it). While simplicity in games is generally a strength, in this case it leads to the issue of drawn games. In league play, this is not an issue (for most) but in a tournament you need a decision. There is nothing sacred about the scoring system – most games (including futbol) have changed their systems over the years.
If you decide that hitting the bar is worth a score, then you can view it as rewarding a miss, or you can view it as rewarding a hit. Just like in darts or archery, the better your aim, the higher your reward.
“Surely over 2 games a team will score, and if they don’t, well, the deadlock must be broken. Don’t reward teams for not scoring, by letting them win with some weird count-back system,”
I fail to see how hitting the post more than the other team is a weird count-back system. Easily incorporated into the existing rules, rewards somewhat successful game play, does little to change the existing tactics.
It would lead to small differences in tactics at tournament play – after all, if you have the edge in this variable then you might sit back and defend. But defending a 1-0 lead in woodwork hits is much more dangerous than a 1-0 lead in goals. The general point though is that less of the game would sit in stalemate. For more of the game there would be onerous on at least one team to attack.
“lottery it up with penalties”
How much of a lottery is penalties? How much of a lottery is hitting the woodwork? How much of a lottery is drawing lots? I think that if definitive result is desired then most people want a method that reflects the ‘better’ team on the day. I think woodwork does that better than penalties.
March 10th 2010 @ 4:57pm
Dogz R Barkn said | March 10th 2010 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
I agree with that last sentence – it should be all about determining the better team on the day.
March 10th 2010 @ 3:14pm
AndyRoo said | March 10th 2010 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
And while I’m on my “goalkeeper high horse”, andyroo, your comment about “as opposed to most goalkeeper’s who become the villains by trying not to “stuff up”
Poorly written on my behalf. I feel exactly the same in regards to the goal keepers role in a penalty. It is one of the rare times when they can win the game. Outside of saving penalties their largely trying to not lose it… though of course they can be man of the match for heroics in general play.
The way I wrote it made it sound like I was comparing Schwarzer to other keepers but I was really comparing Schwarzer in penalty mode to general play mode.
As someone who never played keeper (apart from perhaps a few halfs a an under 6 or 7 and more recently in indoor football) I thought I was beeing very generous by not putting the “increased chance of goal keeper injuries” in the plus side…… joking.
March 11th 2010 @ 8:56am
Rob said | March 11th 2010 @ 8:56am | Report comment
All is forgiven, AndyRoo.
And on your joke about “increased chances of goalkeeper injuries”, we keepers frequently give as good as we get on those high balls into the box. Certainly I do. My theory is to “get them back first” because we keepers all know that strikers will hit a keeper early if given the opportunity – try to scare them into not coming for the next cross, etc. I work on the same theory, but in reverse, and after a good hit on a striker I have sometimes seen them back off the very moment I call “Keeper!”. Of course, the good strikers aren’t afraid, and look for a square up later on, but it keeps them on their toes!
March 10th 2010 @ 1:57pm
Rob said | March 10th 2010 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
As an ex striker it still bugs me that refs are incapable/unwilling to make sure the keeper stays behind the line.
Beyond that i think the system is fine as it is.
March 10th 2010 @ 2:12pm
Rob said | March 10th 2010 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
Heh, Rob, as a keeper it bugs me that you strikers are given all the advantages in penalties. the moment a keeper improvises to give himself better odds, strikers complain!
March 10th 2010 @ 3:53pm
AndyRoo said | March 10th 2010 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
This is getting a bit confusing as we also have Robbo and Robbos that post on the Roar too…… I don’t think I have ever seen a Robert though
March 10th 2010 @ 4:17pm
Axel V said | March 10th 2010 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
either that or Rob has a dual personality
March 11th 2010 @ 8:51am
Rob said | March 11th 2010 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Axel, no, we are two different people, these Robs. I am a Rob from Brisbane (the one who complained to AndyRoo about the keeper business), and I can assure you that my striker alter-ego is someone else…
er, unless you talk to my team mates who have to hear me demand opportunities to play up front if we are winning a game easily (as you know, all keepers are frustrated strikers, so maybe the “ex striker” really is me…). Incidentally, I have a pretty good record when I am put up front (or so I tell myself and my team mates!
March 10th 2010 @ 3:16pm
Axel V said | March 10th 2010 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
There is no solution, it’s fine how it is. The game must end and penalty shoot outs are great specatacles, if one of the teams were could enough, they’d have put more goals in the back of the net by 120 minutes, simple.
May 19th 2010 @ 1:41am
Patrick said | May 19th 2010 @ 1:41am | Report comment
Yes. I think the panalty can not be replaced. Anyway, we get to find a way to end the game and pick the winners. Panalty may not be the best solution. But it seems it works well so far.
March 10th 2010 @ 3:45pm
Mick said | March 10th 2010 @ 3:45pm | Report comment
The only thing wrong with penalties is the refs do not make the keeper stay on the line enough & some keepers end up 2 metres forward of the line.
Sometimes the best team does not win but that is life
With Italy knowing how to defend is alot of times called being defensive
I thought Germany v Italy was 1 of the best games I saw at the last world cup
March 10th 2010 @ 4:24pm
Midfielder said | March 10th 2010 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
Andy
They are OK… part of the problem of games being broadcast all over the world… I actually like replays but in todays modern world such things no longer exist.. so my answer is
March 10th 2010 @ 4:35pm
albatross said | March 10th 2010 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
After extra time why not count corners like in field hockey? If they are equal then count penalties and freekicks. Tjat should be enough to separate tteams.
March 10th 2010 @ 4:59pm
Dogz R Barkn said | March 10th 2010 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
Counting corners will induce a change in gameplan – it’s actually very easy to get corners if that’s all you want to do – and we’d see more of that dribbling the ball to the corner flag garbage and I think we’d all rather see less of that!!
March 10th 2010 @ 5:00pm
Dogz R Barkn said | March 10th 2010 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
However, having said that, counting corners that come about directly from a goalkeeper’s touch is a different story (turning the ball round the post or over the bar, etc) – I reckon that would be worth counting as a means of breaking deadlocks.
Once again, it has the added advantage of not changing the game at all, and providing a minor reward (potentially) for a good effort on goal.
March 10th 2010 @ 5:48pm
aubgraham said | March 10th 2010 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
Also potentially easier to count than hitting the post – after all, the referee makes a clear decision then and there – award or corner or not (some small grey area when the second last person to touch it was a defender)
March 10th 2010 @ 8:06pm
whiskeymac said | March 10th 2010 @ 8:06pm | Report comment
firstly…nice one Adelaide
secondly, shame fifa dropped the technology issue so badly…
what about playing after extra time without goalkeepers. or take into account cards/ fouls.
tbh every system is flawed – penalties provides definite drama and closure which tv paymasters/ratings ultimately must love.
March 11th 2010 @ 9:00am
Dogz R Barkn said | March 11th 2010 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Whiskey
you’ve probably raised the most crucial point of all – pens are TV friendly, and can be completed with a given time frame (ordinarily, there probably are cases where the pen count has ballooned past the 11th player, not sure)
That alone is probably the key, overriding consideration – but to be honest, it’s actually an argument against when considering the game itself.
March 11th 2010 @ 12:35pm
Infarction said | March 11th 2010 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Amount of times the keeper touches the ball, amount of times balls hit the cross bar.
Definately some of the dumbest ideas i have ever heard as suggestions on this topic. It’s actually mind boggling that anyone would consider these to be anything but completely ridiculous.