A tragedy, if not a heartbreaking farce. That’s the message now coming from FIFA President Sepp Blatter on the use of penalties to decide the outcome of football matches.
Members of the FIFA Congress in Budapest heard how football could be “a tragedy when you go to penalty kicks. Football should not go to one to one, when it goes to penalty kicks football loses its essence.”
The person commissioned with the task of ending the 42-year-old tradition is the formidable Franz Beckenbauer, who heads a FIFA taskforce on improving football ahead of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.
This is a curious choice in itself, given that Beckenbauer is on record as favouring the use of penalties over previous experiments such as the golden or silver goal.
Such processes of elimination do offer a degree of fairness, though again, opinion is divided on the subject. Just a day after Blatter’s announcement, the German paper Bild reported that the former West German and Bayern Munich captain saw no alternative to shootouts.
Some followers of the game would like to see the abolition of the penalty shootout. England would be at the forefront. Four of the last eight tournaments those unfortunates have participated in have resulted in elimination by penalty shootout.
It is, however, arguable whether the same sentiment would be felt had they won through with the same number.
The curious laws of redistribution work in different ways. Bayern Munich lost to Chelsea in this year’s European Champions League final by means of a shootout. In 2001, they won it the very same way they lost it in 2012.
While the penalty shootout is an act of forced constipation between goal keeper and kicker, it can, on its own, make for absorbing viewing. Other variables come into play, requiring a different set of skills to master.
The free flowing side suddenly finds fluency irrelevant before the mechanics of the goal post. Lumbering, aesthetically dull sides may thrive in that context, though this is hardly a set rule. Stress levels jump. A ruthless accounting system is enforced.
Nor is Blatter consistent on this score. Penalty shootouts have been reluctantly favoured in his analysis before. How to break deadlocks remains the mystery and challenge of any confrontation between opponents. Points of resolution are always sought. It’s often a question of degree: do you kick a ball past a goal keeper, draw lots, or play till you drop?
The ‘tiebreaker’ is a fundamental aspect of many a decision making process. Lawyers and lawmakers have pondered the issue for millennia. Sporting administrators regularly chew over the ideal way of forcing a result that might, at least on the surface, seem just.
Take the following observation by a somewhat verbose legal eagle, Fleming James, Jr. In an article for the Virginia Law Review from 1961, he suggest that, “If, now, the trier is operating under a system which requires him to decide the question one way or the other, then to avoid caprice that system must furnish him with a rule for deciding the question when he finds his mind in this kind of doubt or equipoise.”
The principle might well have been said in one line, but the law is a long, muddied ass.
The appearance of fairness is football’s greatest conceit: assuming its existence even when found to be lacking. In fact, the mystical ‘essence’ of football the FIFA president is ruffled about lies in its inherent inequalities.
Football, in short, harnesses tragedy. The shootout is simply another feature of it, the signature of doom or triumph depending on where the ball goes and how the players stand up on the day. Blatter’s efforts are bound to fail, and one can’t help but think his motivations lie elsewhere.
Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.
Javier Donoso
Guest
If after the first ten kicks (five per side), the teams are still tied, the shootout should proceed to sudden death, meaning that the team that scores a goal will be immediately the winner.
J
Guest
Everyone . I have read the article , read all your comments and the you arguments made . Although valid arguments I have to go with the elimination of penalty kick shootouts. Although it provides a quick way of ending and it provides a great suspense, it digresses from what Football is ;A game played in teams. Penalty kick shootouts reduces football into a contest of individual skills. This contradicts what football is. A full match should be played in teams from beginning to end no matter how long it takes. For me, I think that Blatter should make "play till you drop" as an alternative where there is endless amounts of extra time (consisting 15 minute periods) where the game winner is determined by the team scoring first. (Yes I do think Sepp Blatter should bring back the golden goal rule.) This would test the endurance of a team. It also pushes teams to play at there best knowing that they wont't have energy if they play any longer. I like to see football games where teams are pushed to their breaking point to win a game.That to me is a true test of nerves and skill; to see if players in a team can stay strong together without any one losing it. Call my idea simple minded but I believe that football is a "TEAM" game. There should very little individualty involved in winnining. Oh and eliminating PKs would make sure that when a team loses then everyone in that team shares the blame not " five people." Remember those good world cup teams that lost because of Penalty kick shootouts: FRANCE 1982 and 2006 BRAZIL 1986 ITALY 1994 SPAIN 2002
Steve
Guest
Personally I'd go straight to penalties if no-one can score in regulation, but I appreciate that might be a little too abrupt for some. I think a period or periods of extra time, first goal wins, and then penalties after that makes as much sense as anything. Penalties are, after all, part of the game, as are corners, free kicks and many other miscellaneous set pieces- you need to be good at all these things to win matches, so it's a little disingenuous of old Sepp to speak of penalties as being somehow 'outside' the essence of football. If the players have been unable to differentiate their teams through team play, then it gets boiled down to a test of nerve and skill (which sound pretty 'essential' to me); the 'team' are still a team, but they show their mettle as individual components. Heartbreaking, yes, if you lose, but not unfair, random or outside the spirit and skills of the game.
Mark Roth
Guest
I never liked penalties deciding a drawn match, in any sport that uses them. Over the years, I've had the following ideas about how to deal with draws: 1) Replays--especially in a home and away series a third game is not that much more complex. Wouldn't work in major cup tournaments 2) Higher Placed Team Wins--In Mexico, if a home and away tie ends in a draw after 180, the team finishing higher on the table goes through. I've always been surprised that it hasn't been used in more places. 3) The Bronze Goal--or in other words, the team that scores the first goal (either of the match or extra time) wins if there's a draw after extra time. 4) The Corner Kick Shootout--the two teams take turns taking corners. a corner ends when a goal is scored, when a goal kick or a defending throw in is awarded or the defending team clears the ball a certain distance away from the goal line 5) The Behind--add a second set of posts a la Australian Football and if, and only if, the two teams score an equal number of goals, the team that kicks the most balls through the behind posts is awarded the match
Cugel
Roar Rookie
It's not new, I played a couple of touch footy GFs (late 80s I think) under the drop off rule, even got the "Golden Try" in one of them. There's a bit of awkwardness, as who gets dropped off first is deemed to be the worst player.
Brick Tamlin of the Pants Party
Guest
Keep penalties and please put Sepp Blatter in a rocket and fire him into space and off our planet.
pgedeon89
Roar Rookie
I dont know if this has been mentioned yet, because i havent read most replies but here is how i feel it should work. 90 minutes draw extra time still played 30 minutes after that - every 3 minutes one player from each team will have to be sacrificed until we are left with 6 on 6 (5 players and a goalie) Then golden goal That has been my idea for years! since 2000! when France played Italy in the Euro's
phutbol
Guest
I'm undecided on this one. I've often heard it said football is a metaphor for life... Well life isnt always fair, and the most deserving dont always win in life... sometimes life can be a bit of a penalty shoot out :) Having said that. I favour the idea of removing a player per team every 5 mins or so. would still require team work, and tactical thinking on the part of the managers. also every likelihood that the game would be over in 30 mins or so of ET as once down to 8 or 7, the spaces would surely open up. Although, I've not heard the suggestion re doing to shootout after normal time and the winner only needs a draw before... has merit too.
Stevo
Guest
Plenty of alternatives here to keep the discussion going http://www.penaltyshootouts.co.uk/alternatives.html
mds1970
Roar Guru
A replay may be workable for a final. But in a knockout stage of a World Cup, where there's already only a few days between games, it would be a logistical nightmare to schedule a round-of-16 replay. In some ways, the solution I'd most favour is to keep playing until a golden goal is scored - but potentially that could be hours; which would create a fatigue factor when the next game's only a few days away. And if a team has has a player red-carded, is it fair for them to keep playing a man short after 90 or 120 minutes or should the sent-off player be allowed to return for the golden goal period?
mds1970
Roar Guru
It would be an even greater punishment for a team that had a player red-carded. 10 men can defend against 11; but 7 against 8 would be a proportionally tougher proposition.
Peter Care
Guest
The solution is simple. At the end of full-time, have 2, 15 minute periods of extra time' only prior to extra time get rid of one player each; the keeper. If a defensive player commits a foul such as deliberate hand ball in the box, s/he is sent off and a penalty given. A defender can go on the line whilst the penalty is taken, but they cannot use their hands. Should solve the problem of lack of goals and would be better than a penalty shootout as it requires a team to create goals.
UK Steve
Guest
It would be a shame to get rid of the penalty shootout, as it is the only time (almost) that a players nerve is tested. Everything else is done on pure instinct.
whiskeymac
Guest
yes but Fuss you can distinguish a two legged game where there is a home advantage (and hence the away game goal incentive/reward) with a one off game in a (normally) neutral venue. You cld extend your logic to saying Chelsea were playing in Allianz Arena and scored and arguably did better to get the draw in the first place?
Jacques
Guest
Leave the game and the shoot out alone. Provides great theatre and drama. Otherwise it tould turn into AFL where there are rules changes weekly
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Lucan If a team had a player sent off, they're disadvantaged during the game & they should continue to be disadvantaged during the shoot-out - i.e. they will have 1 less penalty kick but, they can still win the penalty shot out, just as teams with fewer men win games in normal time.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
"To claw a goal back is therefore meaningless (or next to) in that scenario" But, this is EXACTLY what happens with application of "The Away Goals Rule". If the first leg ends 0-0 and, in the 2nd leg, the Away team scores 1 goal then the Home team has to score 2 goals to win the tie. This is no different except we are saying the 1st goal has greater value than other goals - just as "the Away Goals" have greater value than home goals .. IF the game ends in a tie.
Lucan
I'm actually an advocate of the shoot-out. ;)
whiskeymac
Guest
Fuss that is a horrid rule. To claw a goal back is therefore meaningless (or next to) in that scenario. The other team wld "park the proverbial". May aswell watch Arsenal under George Graham again (although we did win some silverware...). Would it also mean that if it goes 1-0,1-1,1-2,2-2 this rule stands? Yuk! About as much sense as saying it is to be decided by the mascots joining in on the pitch after extra time.
Lucan
In the case of a send off, should the team with 10 men choose someone to take two shots, or should the opposition choose for them? Or would the team only get to take 10 penalties? :) Not a big fan of the "first goal". Once that first goal is scored what's to stop the team with the virtual 2-0 lead shutting up shop?