Sepp Blatter attacks: no more extra time
By Graham Dunbar, 10 Sep 2010 Graham Dunbar is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- 2014 World Cup, FIFA president, football, Sepp Blatter, World Football
Related coverage
FIFA president Sepp Blatter wants the governing body to consider scrapping extra-time at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil to encourage attacking ambition after seeing too many defensive tactics in South Africa.
Blatter wants to stop teams being defensive when they are tied after 90 minutes in a knockout match “in an attempt to avoid conceding a goal at all costs.”
“To prevent this, we could go directly to a penalty shootout at full time, or reintroduce the golden goal rule,” Blatter said in an interview published on FIFA’s website.
Blatter also is unhappy with some teams’ negative approach in their first group matches at the recent World Cup.
“We witnessed some teams that went out to avoid defeat, that were playing for a draw from the outset,” Blatter said.
“We have to try to find a way to encourage free-flowing football in tournaments like the World Cup, with teams playing to win.”
FIFA’s Football and Technical and Development committees will study the issues when they both meet on October 18.
The panels will report to FIFA’s executive committee which meets at the end of October in Zurich.
The football committee is chaired by Franz Beckenbauer, who captained and coached West Germany to win World Cups and now sits on FIFA’s 24-man executive committee. Other members include playing greats Pele, Bobby Charlton and Roger Milla.
The technical panel is chaired by Oceania confederation president Reynald Temarii, a former professional player in France. It includes Carlos Bilardo, who coached Argentina to win the 1986 World Cup, and former players Romario of Brazil and South Africa’s Jomo Sono.
© AAP 2013
Passionate about your football? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily football email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
The Crowd Says (8) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- 2014 World Cup, FIFA president, football, Sepp Blatter, World Football
September 10th 2010 @ 6:57am
Breen said | September 10th 2010 @ 6:57am | Report comment
I suggest more points awarded for goals from open play. eg: if a match is drawn at 1:1 but 1 team has scored from a set piece and the other from open play, the open play goal is regarded as 2 ‘points’ and that team wins. Much like the away goal rule which has been widely accepted for many years now. No more teams playing park the bus and hope for a set piece goal.
September 10th 2010 @ 8:54am
Derby County FC said | September 10th 2010 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Breen
Good idea but personally i think it complicates things a little bit, points for goals scored might be an idea or how about a bonus point if three or more are scored… just a thought.
September 10th 2010 @ 1:10pm
phil said | September 10th 2010 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
The world Cup was supposed to be a showcase for football but most of the games I saw would send you to sleep. There are so many ideas out there to make football more exiting but FIFA and IFAB are like dinasaurs, unable to make any decisions. Here are just a few:
1 enlarge the goals.
2 corners could be counted to ensure a winner.
3 four points for a win
4 change the offside rule
5 goal line technology
6 video ref with teams able to contest 3 decisions.
Most importantly we need our media people from fox and SBS to drive the changes otherwise our A-league is doomed.
September 10th 2010 @ 1:48pm
Mister Football said | September 10th 2010 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
It’s interesting that Sepp and FIFA are even considering such things. The trend of fewer goals per game, and improved defensive tactics and structures has been ongoing since the late 1950s, and generally speaking, both fans and the governing bodies have not been overly concenred about that trend.
In the 1950s, the average goals per WC game was around the 5.75 mark. That dropped with each successive decade, and over the last two decades, it has hovered around the 2.3 mark.
It doesn’t take a genius to work out that if you’re only averaging a touch above two goals per game, that the likelihood of nil-all and 1-1 scorelines is quite high.
That’s fine for a season long championship where up to 38 games are played, but it’s not ideal for a tournament that has to be decided within 7 games (the final four being all knock out games).
To expand on some of Phil’s ideas:
1. Enlarging goals. This idea has been kicking around for decades. Even the great Johnny Warren was in favour of it – not too sure why it has never gained traction. The current dimensions were determined in the 1870s when people were 5ft nothing, and now most keepers are well over 6ft and far more athletic than at any time in the history of the game – so viewed from the perspective, there is a lot to be said in favour of enlarging goals.
2. Corners. The main problem with counting corners is that we don’t want to encouraage boring tactics like making a bee-line to the flag in the hope of winning a corner. But the line of thinking is a legitimate one, and I would favour a concept of a “short corner”, and counting those. A short corner would be earned from a goal keeper’s save, and maybe even from the ball going out after snicking the goal frame (aferall, the goals are owned by the defending team). In other words, you are getting a just reward for forcing the save, or almost beating the keeper, which seems fair enough to my eyes. The short corner would be taken from the intersection of the penalty box and by-line, and would be added as a secondary score, e.g. 1.3 (being one goal, three short corners), would defeat 1.2 (being one goal and two short corners), the former winning because of its just reward for greater attacking play.
3. Perhaps four points for a win, two for a score draw, and only 1 for a nil-all draw. Afterall, why should anyone get more if they can’t even get on the scoresheet? The possibility of adding bonus points having scored 2, 3 or 4 goals is also a good option.
4. There is nothing wrong with the offside rule in theory, except for the fact that it is humanly impossible to adjudicate (as has been shown with a few studies), and as such, I would estimate that about one third of all off-side calls are incorrect – which is infuriating for fans. The option of checking the video anytime a goal has been disallowed after an offside call is possible (only takes 15 seconds), alternatively, we somehow re-define the offside rule such that it is within a range that allows for accurate human adjudication, as one example: the pass must eventuate from within the opposition half, or something similar.
September 10th 2010 @ 5:55pm
Andyroo said | September 10th 2010 @ 5:55pm | Report comment
I remember someone suggesting to count hitting the woodwork in case of a tie before the world cup started. I kept a note of that and it actually happens fairly often. If you enlarge the goals by just enough so that any ball that would currently hit the post now would actually go in then at the last world cup both games that were decided by penalty shootouts (Ghana vs Uruguay and Japan vs Paraguay) would have been decided without the need for penalties.
September 10th 2010 @ 5:23pm
Victer said | September 10th 2010 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
The only way I can think of doing this is by attaching the points system to goal difference.
i.e
goal difference of one = 1 point
goal difference of two = 2 points
goal difference of three = 3 points
no points for draws. This will incentivise teams to constantly go looking for more goals. Better for everyone i say
September 11th 2010 @ 7:02am
Maryn said | September 11th 2010 @ 7:02am | Report comment
Enlarging the goal is the simplest and easiest to implement. Should have been done years ago. Instead they change the ball, the pitch, the rules – and get nowhere. The other ideas are just yet more stirring of an already thick soup.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
September 14th 2010 @ 12:14pm
Mr said | September 14th 2010 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Maybe change the rules so that a goal in the net is worth 5, a miss to the side worth 1 and a miss over the top worth 2.