Quick Poll: Extra Time or Straight to PKs?

[Zososoxfan]

After watching the Argentina-Colombia match, I'm still not sure how I feel about going straight to PKs after 90 minutes. Straight to PKs has some real benefits. Not worrying about extra time allows the starters to go all out during the 90. Both teams also know that penalties beckon and last night the last 30 minutes were insanely entertaining. No ET also puts extra emphasis on the XI and substitutions. From a spectator's perspective, no ET means 30-40 minutes shaved off from the entire event.

On the other hand, I would've loved 30 more minutes of that game last night. PKs often feel like a cheap and somewhat arbitrary way to resolve draws, so letting the teams go an extra 30 is a fairer way to proceed. Allowing more subs in ET (a good change IMO) on top of 5 possible changes during regulation means that the team might be comprised of a majority of subs by the end.

Even within ET, there's the question of Golden Goal or not. While it makes a lot of intuitive sense to me that a goal in ET should conclude the match, I think it makes the incentive to be defensive too strong, so if I was ranking the options I'd put ET No Golden over ET With Golden.

Complicating things even more, CONMEBOL/COPA America DO allow for ET in the finals. Not sure if it's GG or not. For purposes of this question though, let's assume the question applies to the knockout rounds of a tournament throughout.

What say you denizens of 'Gazza?

 

[Kliq]

There should be no penalties at all, ET should be the Golden Goal for as long as it takes. Maybe not feasible, but Golden Goal rules.

 

[Catcher Block]

Anything that can recreate a walk-off HR or OT goal will get my vote. Golden goal is awesome. PKs are not.

I also just read about a short-lived "silver goal" rule that gave the win to a team if they led after the first half of extra time. I don't hate that either.

 

[Bozo Texino]

Golden goal, for sure.

 

[swiftaw]

Golden goal was a disaster, it just made teams play even more defensively.

 

[mjs]

I voted for the Golden Goal option -- thinking this might provide more attacking incentive during the overtime period. But as others point out, it may have the opposite effect.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

There has to be another option. Eliminate the Offside rule in OT. 6 on 6 instead of 11s. Shorten the field. Set plays.

I hate PKs

 

[Buck Showalter]

There has to be another option. Eliminate the Offside rule in OT. 6 on 6 instead of 11s. Shorten the field. Set plays.

I hate PKs

These are all ideas to kick-around...but any construct has to include a more liberal-approach to substitutions.

After the 90th minute --- the great majority of those guys are completely spent.

The next goal could take days (exaggeration obviously).

 

[candylandriots]

There has to be another option. Eliminate the Offside rule in OT. 6 on 6 instead of 11s. Shorten the field. Set plays.

I hate PKs

I remember one of David Letterman's Top 10 lists with ways to make soccer more exciting...one of them that if nobody scored within five minutes, to add another ball.

 

[Bergs]

There has to be another option. Eliminate the Offside rule in OT. 6 on 6 instead of 11s. Shorten the field. Set plays.

I hate PKs

I was saying 7-on-7 yesterday to a friend. I like the idea of no offsides as well.

 

[Section30]

How about no golden goal but goalies can't use heir hands in extra time?

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

I feel as though extra time in this tournament has been better than in prior tournaments and there have even been a few goals. I wonder if the extra substitution matters.

On golden goal versus full extra time, I wonder in the bigger tournaments how often it happens that a team scores first in extra time but does not win the game. Has to be pretty rare.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

Do it like Baseball. Play until they drop dead or they score.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

I voted golden goal … probably just a reaction to growing up with OT in hockey. But, IIRC when last they used it it produced some pretty drab footie.

Starting to warm up to the PEN shootouts. They are amazing drama.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Each team takes off a man every five minutes in OT, you play 30 minutes and, if still tied, its golden goal afterward.

 

[Senator Donut]

Replays

 

[OurF'ingCity]

How about no golden goal but goalies can't use heir hands in extra time?

This is my off-the-wall proposal: One “normal” 15-minute extra time period (no golden goal). If still tied after that period, it becomes golden goal and the goalies are removed from the game entirely and the game is played 10v10 (with a rule that no player can stand inside the 6-yard box for more than 30 seconds at a time, and obviously no player can use their hands at any time). The one exception would be if a penalty shot is awarded the goalie gets to go back in just for that shot.

This would end games pretty quickly in most instances (in fact, very likely quicker than the current setup) but would still at least require the teams to play actual soccer to win. Plus, it would be great for drama - defenders giving up their bodies to block shots on the open net, players humiliatingly missing a wide open net, or players scoring from super deep by kicking the ball over the defense line, etc. Imagine the tension if a team was awarded a free kick or corner kick and the other team had to strategize at how to defend that without a goalie.

(By the way, this proposal would also work in hockey as an alternative to the current shootout ending in regular season games - just have the teams play on, but without goalies.)

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Each team takes off a man every five minutes in OT, you play 30 minutes and, if still tied, its golden goal afterward.

If it gets to 0v0 it could take awhile

 

[Ale Xander]

I vote extra time, golden goal, 90 minutes until *forever*. 30 minute periods instead of 15, play up to 6 periods, take one person off every 30 minutes if no score (10v10 max at 120, 9v9 max at 150 etc, if someone redcarded, they still get a man removed of course).

But I know I'm weird like that.

 

[pedro1918]

I have never been a fan of PKs. I realize players get exhausted, but Golden Goal is the way to go. If you want to implement it after the current two ET periods, fine.

PKs are terrible.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

If it gets to 0v0 it could take awhile

Managerial dance off at that point.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Managerial dance off at that point.

Or whichever way the wind’s blowing

 

[snowmanny]

Do it like Baseball. Play until they drop dead or they score.

Well you could do it more like college football or current baseball, and instead of penalty kicks do corner kicks or something. First one to two successful plays off a corner wins or something. At least that’s an actual play involving multiple players.

 

[SocrManiac]

Anything that decides the game with a different rule set is a non-starter for me. This is why penalties are a garbage solution- you’re playing a completely different game. Don’t pull the keepers. The goal is enormous and these guys can hit it from 75 yards. Don’t repeal offside- the spirit of the rule is there for a massive reason and it’s a completely different game without it.

Play 90 minutes, then 30 minute golden goal periods. Switch halves every thirty minutes and get some hydration. Additional set of subs every period. It should be that simple.

 

[bsj]

Sudden death / golden goal. First goal / game over. Dumbest thing ever is seeing tie broken and then re-tied in extra time, resulting in need for another extra time period.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

How about no golden goal but goalies can't use heir hands in extra time?

Someone is going to lose a nose that way

 

[DJnVa]

Sudden death / golden goal. First goal / game over. Dumbest thing ever is seeing tie broken and then re-tied in extra time, resulting in need for another extra time period.

It hamstrings the team that might be against the wind or something. That's what they don't want to happen. That's why they split up the extra time.

I played in a somewhat structured pickup league once where OT in games that could not end in draws did this:

There was one 20 minute OT period, split in halves. If a goal was scored in the first half, it was immediately over and the second half would start with exactly the same amount of time to be played. You give up goal in 2 minutes and you switch sides and you have 2 minutes to tie. Game then proceeded to GG scenario for remaining part of half. Etc. Etc.

If no one scored in first half of OT, second half was golden goal.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

Well you could do it more like college football or current baseball, and instead of penalty kicks do corner kicks or something. First one to two successful plays off a corner wins or something. At least that’s an actual play involving multiple players.

A corner kick ends in a goal 1 in 100+ times or so. It's going to take a while!

 

[Saints Rest]

Unlimited subs, BUT, if you sub a man on, you have to take two off.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

I would add that football might benefit if the whole game was played with 9 or 10 players. I know it's a radical idea, but when football was invented, people couldn't account for the advances in players' stamina and speed that would take a lot of space out of the field.

 

[fletcherpost]

wrong thread

 

[snowmanny]

A corner kick ends in a goal 1 in 100+ times or so. It's going to take a while!

Haha. OK. I was trying to come up with the soccer equivalent of starting extra innings with a runner on second but I know nothing. Something that involved an actual soccer play but with a big advantage to the offense.

 

[steeplechase3k]

I also just read about a short-lived "silver goal" rule that gave the win to a team if they led after the first half of extra time. I don't hate that either.

Since I first heard of it, this has always been what I favor.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

maybe they should start shooting fouls Right outside the penalty box. Everyone gets excited for those! ( don’t know the stats for those though.)

 

[coremiller]

I don't see how the gimmicky solutions like removing players are any better than penalties. Neither has all that much in common with how the game is actually played.

I do wonder how tactics would change if there were no penalties. We often see weaker teams playing extremely defensively because they know if they can get to penalties they have a 50% shot, which is way better than whatever their odds are in normal play. If there were no penalties, would we see weaker teams take more risks, knowing they can't count on penalties to bail out their negative tactics and they'd have to score to go through?

OTOH, scoring just takes too long to play unlimited overtime. It's just not feasible to play for hours and hours unless you vastly expand the substitution rules. Hockey can go on forever because it has free substitutions.

Golden goal and silver goal for the 30 minutes of extra time have both been tried and abandoned. They don't work any better than regular extra time at resolving draws without penalties.

 

[dirtynine]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRITqS6WEn0


In all seriousness... golden goal doesn't work. It makes teams play ultra defensively and most of the rest of the world think it's too cruel (read: American) a way to end a game.

I am ok with 30' extra time as is. In a great game, one that you are invested in, it's the best way to enjoy the entire experience of taking in the match. You can breathe for a split second after regular time and at the AET half. There is still anxiety even in exultation, and still a little hope in the darkest of corners. I wouldn't want to snuff that out instantly, not in this particular sport anyway. The journey is the destination, you know?

I opened with the MLS shootout as a joke, but there's something to the idea of modified "live" play. When I have thought about it, I always come back to something like,
• alternating rounds
• 3 offensive players vs. 2 defensive and a goalie
• 90 seconds to score (soccer-style timekeeping, so this means natural play stoppages / ref's judgment)
• a clean save stops the round
• a clearance past the half stops the round
• a goal stops the round
• penalties / free kicks / yellow/red cards can be awarded if warranted, just like the normal run of play

Basically, like a series of mini-games. Best of 5 or something like that, after that, first to go ahead and hold serve (like PKs) wins. Players would have to rotate in (except the goalie) so you can't just use your best players every time. Tweak the rules however you need to make it a decent balance between the sides. I'd think something where the offense scores, say, 40% of the time would be ideal.

 

[OCST]

Alternating corners.

An attempt ends with a defensive clearance past the half, the attackers putting the ball out of touch or surrendering a goal kick, the attackers committing a foul, or a keeper save. The attackers keep going until then.

 

[luckiestman]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRITqS6WEn0


In all seriousness... golden goal doesn't work. It makes teams play ultra defensively and most of the rest of the world think it's too cruel (read: American) a way to end a game.

Has it been tried with no penalties? Golden goal but of tied penalties seems different than golden goal and that’s it.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

In all seriousness... golden goal doesn't work. It makes teams play ultra defensively and most of the rest of the world think it's too cruel (read: American) a way to end a game.

It's not just that a golden goal doesn't work - which it mostly didn't, for the reasons you've mentioned. It's that (penalty shootouts notwithstanding) football matches ALWAYS end with the referee blowing his whistle at a suitable moment when neither team is attacking and potentially in a position to score in the next few seconds. Go back and watch the golden goals scored by Oliver Bierhoff and David Trezeguet to win the Euro 96 and Euro 2000 finals: they and their teammates were obviously delighted, but both endings also felt awkward and un-football-like. When an OT Stanley Cup Finals game ends with a goal, everyone storms the ice in a natural way. Football/soccer just isn't like that, and forcing the golden goal solution feels just as awkward as old-style soccer matches in the USA being played with a ticking clock and the match ending at 0:00. It's just not how it's done. And I know you can say that one doesn't need to be hidebound to tradition, but the way that football matches end now just feels right to everyone, and trying to force a golden goal celebration goes against everyone's muscle memory.

I'm all in favor of the "silver goal" idea, FWIW. Heck, I'd be fine with the "silver goal" idea spread out over four 7.5-minute or 10-minute OT periods instead. (Which of course is actually pretty close to how basketball ends its tied games - it isn't as though all American team sports have to end in sudden death.) And I'm cool with rethinking the shootout itself, whether along the old MLS shootout lines or something more radical but still feeling football-like. But no golden goals, please.

 

[dirtynine]

Has it been tried with no penalties? Golden goal but of tied penalties seems different than golden goal and that’s it.

The problem then becomes players risking serious health issues (and, sadly, Christian Eriksson type situations) from exhaustion. Even elite, athletic human bodies can’t go too much past what they’re put through over 120 minutes of top-level soccer. And even if they tried, you wouldn’t be enjoying the product on the field very much.

 

[luckiestman]

The problem then becomes players risking serious health issues (and, sadly, Christian Eriksson type situations) from exhaustion. Even elite, athletic human bodies can’t go too much past what they’re put through over 120 minutes of top-level soccer. And even if they tried, you wouldn’t be enjoying the product on the field very much.

Then I change my vote to flipping a coin at the end of 90. PKs gotta go.

 

[FenwayFrenzy]

I voted for extra time/golden goal, but would allow several additional substitutions in extra time to improve the quality of play.

My alternate solution is to replace PKs with a series of five free kicks for each team at spots outside of the box that the offensive team can choose. Each kick would be allowed one minute to play out, and defensive teams can counter attack during that time.

The strategy for each side would be fascinating (for me, at least). Where do you place the ball? Do you bring your big CBs up in offensive positions or drop them back? Do you change your substitution strategy? Do you shoot directly at goal or cross in? Creativity with set pieces would skyrocket and I think it would be incredibly entertaining for the average viewer.

 

[reggiecleveland]

I voted for extra time/golden goal, but would allow several additional substitutions in extra time to improve the quality of play.

My alternate solution is to replace PKs with a series of five free kicks for each team at spots outside of the box that the offensive team can choose. Each kick would be allowed one minute to play out, and defensive teams can counter attack during that time.

The strategy for each side would be fascinating (for me, at least). Where do you place the ball? Do you bring your big CBs up in offensive positions or drop them back? Do you change your substitution strategy? Do you shoot directly at goal or cross in? Creativity with set pieces would skyrocket and I think it would be incredibly entertaining for the average viewer.

I coached in a summer hoops tournament where each team got sideline, then baseline OOB plays until an advantage. First time one of my guys stole the pass when coast to coast, game over.

 

[Ale Xander]

Increase rosters and substitutions if worries about exhaustion

 

[Tangled Up In Red]

My alternate solution is to replace PKs with a series of five free kicks for each team at spots outside of the box that the offensive team can choose. Each kick would be allowed one minute to play out, and defensive teams can counter attack during that time.

I've thought about similar. Allow single striker to ball anywhere along the penalty box line (incl the D) or further back. Allow keeper to move freely in the 6 yd box. Could be interesting.

 

[dirtynine]

Increase rosters and substitutions if worries about exhaustion

Not that kind of game.

 

[mauf]

What are we trying to achieve? I think we’re trying to (1) preserve the basic integrity of the game, (2) provide a mechanism to bring protracted games to a conclusion so that victory isn’t pyrrhic, and (3) try to use the aforementioned mechanism as infrequently as possible. The current system accomplishes (1) and (2), but there’s room for improvement on (3).

I think golden goal is a no-brainer — it helps with (3) without hurting (1) or (2). But I’d need to better understand how it worked in the limited instances where it was put in practice, as many who have watched more soccer than me think golden goal doesn’t work, and not just for the aesthetic reasons @Conigliaro’s Potential cites.

As a relatively casual fan, I think the extra subs during COVID have been good for the game, allowing for tactical moves and more speed on the pitch in the closing minutes of the match. Maybe allowing two or even three extra subs instead of one during extra time would increase the likelihood of a goal.

I’d like to see penalty shootouts eliminated in the final, because the “pyrrhic victory” concern isn’t present there, but I’m sure at some point you run into health risks for the players, no matter how liberal you make the substitution rules and how many water breaks you provide. But I’m not sure 120 minutes is the breaking point, especially with extra subs.

 

[speedracer]

Start the match with the penalty shootout

 

[NoXInNixon]

If any game ends in a tie, it counts as a loss for both teams. If it's the knockout phase, both teams are eliminated and some team gets a bye. If it's the finals, the winner of the third place game is the champion. If the third place game ended in a tie, whichever team most recently won a game wins.

 

[67YAZ]

If any game ends in a tie, it counts as a loss for both teams. If it's the knockout phase, both teams are eliminated and some team gets a bye. If it's the finals, the winner of the third place game is the champion. If the third place game ended in a tie, whichever team most recently won a game wins.

Harsh, but I love the image of the 3rd place waiting in the stands and hoping a draw. They burst on the the pitch as the two losing sides slink off in defeat at the final whistle…