Time for alternatives to penalty shoot-outs

I hear you Apaway. I'm no fan of Golden Point in the NRL either for the same reason. My team's record is pretty appalling. Look I'm just saying Golden Goal to bring a long game to an end. If we were 9 a side then perhaps that end would come naturally anyway. Either way we ought to explore avenues to remove the shootout... but perhaps not so far as a replay.

First this will not be the catalyst for a Liverpool revival - they beat a Championship side on penalties and are no where near the 2 Manchester clubs at the moment. On the issue itself the shoot out adds drama, remeber 05 against Uruguay. The only 2 good alternates which they should try are taking players off and having the shoot-out before the extra time. Certainly for teams like England or Netherlands who always seem to lose shoot outs this would give them a more just way of combating that weakness.

"In light of Liverpool’s Carling Cup triumph over championship big guns Cardiff City, their first trophy since that legendary night in Istanbul". What about Liverpool's FA cup victory over West Ham in 2006? But it must be said they also won this match through a penalty shoot out.

Drew As one who both profited and suffered from it, can I say that I find any kind of golden goal rule unfair, in that it takes away the essential element of the game, that being that it is a time-limited game. I lost a Super League Grand Final due to a golden goal and later video revealed the goal should not have been allowed. I know that is not an uncommon occurrence, but the point is that the team I played for were denied the chance to try and equalise in what should have been the last 12 minutes of the extra time period.

The Cattery I know there have been occasions when this has happened but it certainly wasn't the case in last weekend's League Cup final. Both teams attacked in extra time, and both scored. One of the things that might help is if teams are allowed another one or two subs in extra time, or even if an interchange rule could come into play. However, if teams go all the way through 120 minutes and can't be split, the penalty shootout to me still seems to be the only option.

I'm all for deviation away from the shootout to an extent (for an example, we once played drop offs in a Bill Turner Cup game in high school) but for anyone suggesting that using the number of corners won to determine a winner has clearly never lost a junior finals game because of that rule. It's hollow and much more irritating than losing on penalties. There are times when a shootout makes sense - for example, it would've been grossly unfair for Ghana and Uruguay to continue playing until there was a scorer, with the winner backing up against a Netherlands team that won in regular time and was given the same amount of rest. In a game such as the final, I'm all for it. They do it in the Stanley Cup and it is incredibly exciting. I'm not as much of a hater on a PSO as most people are - I mean, there are times when a smaller club holds on against a much more fancied opponent (Cardiff for example) and is rewarded with what is for all intensive purposes, a coin flip for the victory. The longer a game continues, the more it favours the superior side. Whilst I guess a PSO is not ideal, it's definitely more practical than just making teams keep playing, and certainly more balanced than any count back system like corners, ladder position etc..

Totally agree - I hate the penalty shoot-out lottery and I would love to get rid of them completely. Rather, in knock-out games I would propose the following: 1. First goal rule - Just like "away goals" count for double over 2-legs, I would make "first goal" count for double in knock-out ties - this also gives both teams huge incentive to attack from kick-off, knowing that the 1st is so precious - And, immediately, we have eliminated the need for penalties in all situations, other than 0-0 draws. 2. If the score is 0-0 after 90' - we have 2 x 15 minutes of ET and remove 1 player from each team and a further player is removed from each team every 5 minutes during ET - By the end of the 30 min. ET there will be maximum of 4 outfield players on each team - again, the "first goal rule" applies - in the event that it is still 0-0 after 30' ET ... well, then go for penalties - if a team can't score under these circumstances they cannot feel aggrieved losing a penalty shoot-out

That's not a bad approach. In the modern age, all too often, we see both teams happy to play out the 30 min and just hand it all over to lady luck in the form of the PSO. Johnny Warren advocated for a long time that there should be a reduction of players for extra time. Another possibility is to combine that approach with being allowed to use up the rest of your bench, and all of a sudden, you don't have players going down with cramp going through the motions, but you might have players willing to go for the win. Ultimately, that's what I dislike most about the concept of the PSO, teams not going after the win, but settling for pot luck.

As one who can remember the days before penalty shoot outs the old way(replays) was indeed the fairest ,most exact method of determining a winner. So from a purist point of view a PS is an anathema. It bears no resemblance to the endeavours of the previous 120 minutes. Purely a modern day quick fix to determine an outcome, in an era of congested fixtures,television schedules & so on. Of course all that can be forgotten in the drama of the same PS if you are not a neutral. This was the case for me in 2005 when the Socceroos qualified for the World Cup & in 2011 when the Roar won that dramatic ending Grand Final. So indeed PSO's are on one hand anti-football but on the other provide great theatre as noted. Can both sides of the equation be balanced so we have a result achieved in a manner that satisfies purists , but also provides great theatre? Well since they began I've seen debate after debate on the subject & here we are still talking about it with no change to the status quo. Whatever alternative it can never beat a replay. Or indeed replay, after replay, a true test of a teams mettle. The FA cup served up multiple replays at times with 6(if I remember correctly) the most. Heres an interesting article on classic FA cup replays:- http://soccerlens.com/fa-cup-replays-are-great-no-matter-what-fergie-rafa-and-harry-think/21031/ You cannot beat the replay. There is no alternative to playing a match for its duration & if necessary repeating the process over & over again until there is a result. Therefore may as well stick with the theatre of the penalty shoot out.

So, effectively the penalty shoot-out counts for half a goal? That's a very interesting idea.

I read a suggestion ages ago regarding this, and will repeat it as best I can. Stick with the penalty shoot-out but have it BEFORE extra time. The winner of the shoot-out only comes into affect AFTER extra time has been played and the scores are still level. For example. Scores are 1-1 after full time. Penalty shoot out is taken and Team A wins 5-4. Now, extra time is played. Team B knows that they have to be winning on the scoreboard at the end to win the game - therefore they must attack (in theory). Team A, will also know that Team B will be attacking, and can either defend like crazy and hope to hold out Team B or snatch a counter attack goal to win, or try to score a goal or two to make it even harder for Team B to beat them - knowing that a draw will still give Team A victory (based on the penalty shoot-our result). Either way, extra-time should not end up as a drab affair with both team playing for the shoot-out and hope for pot luck.

I do like the drama of the PSO but I agree it is a poor way to decide a tournament. Fortunately I've never seen my team lose one but it's not a great way to win either. Perhaps football could use golden goal but with a difference... First extra time - 15 mins. If goal is scored play continues. If scores are no longer level game over. Second extra time - Golden Goal time. Swap ends but there is no end to play until a goal is scored. This could be potentially a pretty long overtime period so in addition you could at the start of extra time take 1-2 players off per side. Obviously still going to be hard on weary bodies but at least it's open play and the almost toss of a coin which the PSO can be.

I find PSOs exceedingly tiresome. They exist for the theatre goer and for convenience - I can't imagine that any soccer fan would see any merit in a PSO as a way of deciding a champion.

Does anyone remember the A-League final? Leave the shoot out alone. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.

I don't mind the penalty shoot-out. If there's no seperating the teams after 90 minutes, and then again after 120, the shoot-out is a good option. The replay would be ideal, but with the modern day football calendar, and more powerful player unions, this option has seen its time.

alternative one - scoring system amendments. A. variety of points for the various 'goals'. Make a penalty only worth 1 pt vs 2 for a 'field goal'. Or something like that. B. count back system. Tally the 'short corners', i.e. corners generated within the kick-off box (erect a couple of posts if need be.) - and if and ONLY if goals are level - give the win to the team that generated the most 'short' corners. All the other football codes have moved on from 1 pt for every goal and no other scoring options - so, it'd be a big call to lose the 'point of distinction'. But, gee, in a tournament in particular there should be a better way.