Conference trucks::football;1

    
    One thing is for sure, the penalty shoot-out, or any variation
    thereupon, should be abolished. It reduces the whole game to a lottery
    where the preceding 120 minutes has at best little, or at worst no
    effect on the outcome. A victory in this way becomes a hollow one, and
    defeat the bitterest of pills.
    
    Having said that, I'm not too sure about this "reducing the number of
    players" lark. Is it really necessary when, after 120 minutes, the
    players on the pitch are extremely tired and thus more prone to
    errors ? Whilst it would be better than penalties, wouldn't it lead to
    arguments along the lines of "Football's an eleven a side game - you
    can only beat us when we take players away ..." and such like. Anyone
    who's played 7-a-side on a full size pitch will know that's it's a
    completely different kettle of fish. Why interfere with the rules any
    more than necessary ?
    
    I say (not that it counts for much !) just play what the Americans
    would call "overtime". Keep playing until someone scores - in other
    sports this tends to work perfectly well and surprisingly quickly, as
    both teams know what the score is, if you'll pardon the expression.
    
    I'd be interested to hear what anyone else thinks ...
    
    Adam.

    
    Anything that differs from 11-a-side for 90 minutes football is a
    lottery - yes even extra time, when tiredness takes over and mistakes
    happen not because of players abilities, but because of their level of
    fitness.
    
    As far as I can see, the only real choices are;
    
    1- keep having replays, this is impractical now because of the police
    policy to require at least a weeks notice before a game can be staged.
    
    2- have penalties - both UEFA and FIFA competitions are decided by
    penalties, so why shouldn't English football use them ?
    
    The only other way I could think of to decide games is to award a point
    for a corner and if the teams are level, then the team with the most
    points wins..
    
    Paul
    

    
    Reducing the number of players in a team as time goes on.
    Hmmm, sounds a great idea but is it practicle ??
    
    I've been decorating the new flat since what seems like
    the year dot so I had to make do with Radio 5 last night
    and David Pleat was pissing and moaning about the penalty
    shoot out situation *before* the game had even started.
    
    As the game wore on, his basic comment, which has been echoed
    by other noters today, was simply that it would be a tragedy
    for either Pompey or Liverpool to be knocked out after such
    a great game of football. Just think back to the amount of
    games that were played in order to get to the semis ?? Whether
    its by luck, great team play or just sheer battling, penalties
    are not the way for a team to loose after such a long trudge
    through to this stage of the FA-Cup.
    
    As you may be able to tell I do not agree with penalty shoot outs
    as they are unfair and I for one (as a player) would feel less 
    satisfied with a shoot out victory than winning outright over 90 
    or 120 minutes.
    
    David Pleat suggested the idea of sudden death after 120 minutes.
    This idea appeals to me a great deal. Each team would have nothing
    to gain by sitting back and defending so it would have to be all
    out attack WITHOUT reducing the number of players on the field.
    The first team to score wins. Don't attack then you don't score,
    simple as that.
    
    Reducing the number of players on the pitch may be entertaining for
    us but not for the players involved as the responsibility would be
    huge. It may work if there was a minimum number for each team to 
    reduce to, eight or nine maybe.
    
    Anyone else ??
    
    JN.

    
    In addition to my previous note (I've just read .1 and .2) I
    would add that my feelings about shoot outs are not just for
    UK football but for any nation playing football, whether it
    be domestic, European or any other competition including the
    World Cup.
    
    I don't agree with awarding points for corners and such like
    as thats suggesting that a defending team is at fault for giving
    away the corner. It may be that one of the attacking players
    spooned a shot that took a deflection off a defender or the keeper
    made an outstanding save. Apart from anything else this arrangement
    would complicate matters.
    
    Keep playing until someone scores. Much fairer and not open to loose
    ends.
    
    JN.

    
    re .2 - that's an interesting thought, though I don't know whether it
    would go down too well. Wouldn't be that easy to administer either. As
    has been said it would also "penalise" great saves and the like. Also
    it might change the face of the game a bit in that "dodgy" decisions
    (ie corner/goal-kick) would come into things. Playing for corners
    deliberately off defenders in the dying minutes rather than going for
    goal, perhaps ...
    
    Now, if you're going to change people's attitudes to the game at all,
    wouldn't it be better to award the match to the team who'd committed
    the least fouls (although this could also leads to complaints of being
    "robbed" by erratic refereeing decisions) ? It would though, in all
    probability, make for a better spectacle and encourage fair play, which
    wouldn't be a bad thing.
    
    I'm not convinced, however. I still reckon overtime's the best solution
    out opf a bad crop. Gives the punters value for money too !
    
    Adam.
                     

    
    I've got it........
    
    what about a team of respected judges, Jimmy Hill, Mike Channon, George
    Best, Ron Atkinson, Alan Hanson, Jimmy Greaves, Ron Noades, David
    Evans, Maggie Thatcher, Atilla the Hun etc etc - who could give a
    'points decision' and award the match to their choice of winner,
    similar to boxing....
    
    
    
    At least it would make penalties seem fair....
    
    :-)Paul:-)           

    I don't think the corners idea is too hot. It changes the complexity of
    the game, and before long, someone will figure out a way to get more
    corners without it actually being indicative of which team had the
    better of the play. In American sports, they use "sudden-death"
    overtime, and in the case of ice hockey, games have occasionally gone 
    on forever. More often than not, a goal comes within the first 20 minute
    period.
    
    Teams will HAVE to play more of an attacking style in Overtime. If you
    don't score, you won't win, period. Players will end up taking ore
    chances, and this also means giving up potential chances to the
    opponents. Something has to give.
    
    As for shootouts, it is tough to lose that way. However, with my team 
    having won a shootout last week (and I made the winning kick!) I can't 
    say it was any less sweet than winning the regular way :-)
    
    Tom
    was  

	This I'm sure you'll all find amusing......

	I remember hearing from some source that the Americans
	have proposed some of the following for the 1994 W.C. 
	instead of penalty shoot out's:-

	o Extra time...
	o Sudden death, i.e. first team to score wins...
	o Here it is....
	  Automatically widening the goals throughout the duration
	  of the extra-time..??????!?!?!?!?!
	  Both goal-post's would be attached to an automatic conveyor
	  belt, which gradually widens the target area as the play commences,
	  e.g. yard a minute..  This continues for a set period of time,
	  or a sudden death arrangement of first goal wins...

	I heard this two weeks ago, and I ADMIT it was around April Fools
	day, I may have been suckered well and truely, but it would seem
	as if this principal will be used in the W.C.

	Can anyone put me out of my misery....???  Everyone I've told
	this to thinks I'm taking the pi**...    I'm convinced I'd heard
	it on the Channel 4 daily........Please be gentle with me....*8]

			Cheers Alboy..

    I don't know!!!!! But it's the best solution from all other
    suggestions. And, leave it to the Americans to come up with something
    like that. The point is, Will the FIFA go for it. We'll see if $ talks.
    
    Nick

   Along the same idea, why not throw another ball on to the pitch
   every five minutes of overtime.  One of them's got to get in a
   net eventually.

   Dave

	re .12

>   Along the same idea, why not throw another ball on to the pitch
>   every five minutes of overtime.  One of them's got to get in a
>   net eventually.

	And if balls get into both nets at the same time ?????

	Tony

    That MUST have been an April Fool's joke. Can you imagine you're the
    goalkeeper, and you've got the fat post covered, so that shot is going
    wide for a goal kick....but NO! that was in regulation time, now, in
    extra time we widened the net, so, tough luck, you could have won the
    world cup....
    
    Tom

    
    Why not make the finals a two-legged affair, as per some already
    existing competitions. One could be played at Wembley(or one of the
    teams ground) and the second at Hampden(or the second teams ground).
    If the matches results add up to the same, then they share the Cup, 6
    months each.
    
    Just my 0.02's worth
    
    mac

    
    I accept that sudden death overtime would be the best solution, IF it
    worked. However, what I suspect would happen is that teams would become
    even more defensive since conceding a goal would mean immediate
    elimination; in a situation where knowing that a goal for the
    opposition would mean instant defeat, I think players would be even
    more cagey and frightened of taking risks than they are at present.
    
    BUT, why not give it a try, in next years FA cup? If it does work, then
    fine, lobby FIFA for it's use worldwide; if it doesn't, then try
    something else. It's difficult to judge the impact of new rules until
    they are actually put into effect, so a trial period for solutions to
    the penalty shoot-out problem, seems the logical answer. Major problem
    here is that when have the football authorities ever done anything
    logical?
    
    jeff

    
    re .16 Think about it. In sudden death overtime, are you more likely to
    go through by
    
    a) cagily "defending" your goalmouth
    b) attacking the opposition's  ?
    
    Now I know that the majority of pro footballers may not be THAT
    intelligent, but give them a bit of credit, eh ?
    
    As for the rest of your note re the FA and giving it a try, I totally
    agree ...
    
    Adam.

	Personally, I'm in favour of penalty shoot-outs in knockout
        competitions, for the following reasons..

	-  No matter what scheme you come up with, there are going
	   to be occasions where two teams are so well matched that
	   neither one truly deserves to win.

	-  Despite this fact, in knockout competitions there has to be
	   a loser (obviously).

	-  In many competitions (esp. the world cup) replays are not
	   possible as fixture build ups are too disruptive. In any
           case many supporters would rather the match was settled on
           the day. (In domestic cup competition, I still think one 
           replay should still be allowed where home advantage is an issue)

	-  Penalty kicks are a footballing skill. 

	-  It satisfies TV coverage to know when the match will end.
	
	-  Penalty kick situations are exciting, lets face it. Great
           entertainment value.

	Dave

    
    Penalties are decisive and ensure a winner even if they go to
    10 or 11 all like in the African nations cup. BUT I firmly
    believe that they are not the answer if two teams cannot
    be seperated by a solitary goal.
    
    If you really think about the sudden death senario then its
    perfect for the purpose of achieving a result. Both teams
    continue to play which in my book is more entertaining than
    watching penalties. The fans are happier because the game continues
    and a fairer result is achieved. 
    
    Don't worry about the teams being cagey and defending as it won't
    happen. In order to defend there must be an attacker. Someone will
    make a mistake and the ball will be in the back of the net. All over.
    
    JN.

    re .19. Spot-on, (if you'll excuse the terrible pun...)
    
    
    Adam.

                 <<< Note 170.18 by XSTACY::PATTISON "Tree!" >>>
                         -< Why penalty kicks are ok >-

	-  It satisfies TV coverage to know when the match will end.
	
I don't agree with penalties, but this, I think, is the main reason we're 
stuck with them, and why open-ended extra time won't be tried. Remember the 
Cricket World Cup??!!

Perhaps the least-bad option is the way the Americans used to settle it - by 
giving each 'attacker' a few seconds to score from 35 yards out. The keeper 
can move - it simulates real football much more closely. (I wonder how Geoff 
Thomas would do?!)

grahame

    
    	I think after 90 minutes, you just play on until someone scores.
    Apart from the obvious reasons consider this; In the world cup
    Argentina got through 2 penalty shoot outs in games where they were
    outclassed, it wasn't difficult, they just indulged in every bit of
    gamesmanship to waste time they could think of. They knew they were
    inferior and PLAYED for penalties. They aren't the only ones. There
    would be no reward for playing out a draw with the above solution,
    because sooner or later they HAVE to score to go through.
    
    
    		Steve	

    
    good point Steve, the Argentinians did manage to scrape through at the
    expense of teams who would feel that justice wasnt done.
    There seems to be a great deal of both divided and strong feeling about 
    this issue though i personally cant give an alternative, and i cannot
    myself decide which solution would be best.
    
    Ian.
    

    After 21 notes on the subject.... why not have both teams take shots
    from the penelty area alternatively..... untill one team has a two goal
    margin (after five tries) and say...... call it a SHOOT OUT! Its fair
    to both teams......... Ho! you've heard of that one! Ho well! Back to
    the drawing board..... You could argue the point forever... It'll still
    come down to one team winning and one team loosing.
    
    Nick

    
    Grobblar already has a large piece of elastic tied to him. If
    you notice he always returns to his goal mouth quicker than
    the speed with which he departs.
    
    JN.
    
    

    
    actually, what about the subbuteo version of a penalty shootout where
    shots are taken from different places around the penalty box and an 
    imaginary line about half way to the centre line?!?!?
    The goalkeeper could be attached to a large bit of plastic too...
    
    Ian.
    :-)
    

    
    sorry john, i withdrew the note and re-entered minus spelling mistake.
    
    Ian.
    :-)
    

    Re -1
    
    Looks like that is the ideal solution. Of course you might get 1 team
    actually playing for the penalty shoot out, but they dont have the
    'buffer' of having time to get an equaliser should they lose a goal.
    Paul

   After 90 minutes play the two 15 minutes halves. If still tied go to a 
   modified shootout whereby the ball is placed on a spot 35 yards out from
   goal. Shooter vs. keeper - shooter can dribble in, can go forward but not
   backward, towards net - even at angles but cannot go square to touchline.
   Keeper can come out once ball is put into play thus allowing him a fair 
   chance to attack ball or cut down angle. Shooter is allowed only one kick
   at net. 

   We used this in our high school playoffs last year. 5 players from each
   team were selected just as a regular shoot out and they alternated. This
   gave the goalies a chance at being in the play. No one likes a shootout
   (or do they?) but this method would add more excitement and equality to
   to the outcome............


   Jerry

   RE.30
    what do you do if the keeper brings down the player @:^)) 
    
    
                                                        SCott

    For me the best solution so far is:
    
    After normal time and it's still a draw then 2x15 minute halves
    of sudden death.
    
    If its still even after that then penalties.
    
    Its best 'cause it doesn't alter the actual game too much, as
    points for corners will lead to players trying to deflect passes
    off defenders for corners etc. 
    
    As far 0-0 draws go, I know what you mean, but there have been quite
    a few very good 0-0 games too!
    
    -Dom
    
    -Dom

Well call me old-fashioned but...

There is no substitute for the replays. Anybody remember an epic Arsenal V
Sheffield Wednesday FA Cup tie a few years ago? Great stuff!

The idea that the police need a week's warning is merely an excuse. Chief
constables can make decisions about whether matches can or cannot go ahead at
their discretion at any time they like. Anyway, we have always had the replay
contingency plan since the competition started, ie "if this game is drawn there
will be a replay next...".

As usual the FA and the League want it both ways, they are quite happy to
disrupt their precious schedule if it means putting a game on live TV, oh no
problem; but at the same time we can't have replays because it would cause "too
much disruption to the fixture list...". Eh? If they really wanted to stop the
fixture pile-up, cut out the 2-legged League Cup games for a start...

From a practical point of view it is very important to allow replays. In
reality though, the more competitive matches a club plays the better. Most
clubs don't have a lot of money, and extra unforeseen cup game revenues can
help the smaller (and indeed bigger) clubs enormously.

But at the end of the day Liverpool had a team which was better at taking
penalties under pressure than Portsmouth.

Tarik

    
    
    I agree with JN (.35) Sudden death with no time limit. Next Goal Wins.
    Sure We'll See more defending, but the pace and action when the ball
    gets moving into someone's area would be brilliant. If that's too
    boring for some, then give the idea about standing 35 yards out then
    dribbling it around a bit and letting the 'keeper come out is a good
    idea as well.
    
    Just my two penneth worth. (I know that's not much;-))
    
    
    Greg...

    
    "Six-o-six" on Saturday night was presented by Mr Personality himself,
    Jimmy Hill (bit like getting Jack the Ripper to present Crimewatch)
    and he claimed that the TV companies would never accept sudden death
    with no time limit on the grounds that it would muck their schedules up
    too much. Given the amount of say TV has in running football these days
    I would say that would put the kibosh on this, and any similar plans,
    to replace the penalty shoot-out.
    
    After all, we couldn't have "Eastenders" delayed just 'cos of some
    crummy FA cup semi-final now, could we?
    
    jeff

    
    re .38
    
    I listened to a bit of 'The chin' on saturday - but his boring drivel
    made me switch back to the happier Joy Division tape I had on
    previously....
    
    Anyway, how could he say TV wouldn't accept sudden-death because it
    would muck up their schedules ? - this is what happens already with
    extra-time and penalties/ golf/ snooker/ any boring old charity concert
    at Wembley etc etc etc
    
     - ignore him, he's just an idiot.
    
    Paul

    
    	I didn't hear Chinny Hill on the radio, but if he *did* cite
    	TV as one of the reasons for rejecting "unlimited sudden-death"
    	then that says it all about him...
    
    	...totally irreverent to the needs of Football, and totally 
    	dictated to by TV revenue and ratings. The man's a disgrace.
    	His opinion on many points is bewildering, but on this topic
    	he reveals his true colours. And they don't belong to the sport
    	of Football - just the Jimmy Hill Advancement School. He leaves
    	me speechless.... 

    > His opinion on many points is bewildering.
    
    Andy! What do you mean?!?! He loves Peter Beardsley doesnt he!???!
    
    :-)
    
    Ian.
    

    
    	Ian, Q.E.D. 8-)

    To throw my hat into the ring, I also believe that playing till a result is
    the right way to proceed. I also feel that this could be developed with
    say the offside rule for etra time being changed to something like the 
    old American soccer's 35 yard line being employed to open games up. I 
    sometimes think this could be useful throughout normal time never mind 
    extra time.
    
    Another suggestion could be to abolish passing the ball back to
    goalie's or at least to say thay cannot pick the ball up from a pass
    back in xtra time. If defenders were pressured then throw in's near 
    opposition goals and corners could result leading to more chance of a 
    result. Generally the time wasting that goes on in the game but is not 
    really punished at present should be applied more stringently could 
    result in the speeding the game up. 
    
    This all leads to the question of the ref's ability to keep up, and is
    the first step to professional ref's who are younger and fitter than
    today's refs.
    
    antony 
    
      

The no pass-backs idea is really not on. It's too difficult to define. What
exactly constitutes a pass-back? 

eg: If an attacker shoots, the shot rebounds off a defender is the goalkeeper
then prohibited from catching or playing the ball until it either goes out of
play or played by another attacker? It doesn't become any easier even if you
limit pass-backs to not inside or even only inside the penalty area.

To introduce this law you fundamentally change the nature of the game which (as
I see it) is making the cure worse than the disease!

Tarik

How about, instead of penalty kicks, have a football trivia quiz in the
center circle. Giles Brandreth could ask the questions.

Dave

    
    That's the best idea yet. Better make the questions easy though,
    otherwise they could be out there all night.
    
    BTW, that's Giles Brandreth MP.
    
    jeff

    
    Hey! Why stop there? The two teams just pick two players, the slip the
    'ol gloves on and do a bit 'o boxing. Last man left standing wins his
    team the game..... or they could set up a wrestling ring and have all
    the players AND the managers in there fighting it out. as before, last
    man left standing wins his team the game.
    	....and it would be a lot more exciting than boring old football.
    
    Greg...

>    Hey! Why stop there? The two teams just pick two players, the slip the
>   'ol gloves on and do a bit 'o boxing. Last man left standing wins his
>   team the game 

Instead of two players, why not the managers ;-)

Although I do fell that Jim Smith would have had a slight advantage over Souness
last monday :-)

Al

    The boxing gloves idea is not fair..it favours Arsenal, MUFC and
    Southampton.
    
    The managers is a good one though..Id love to see Fergie v
    Atkinson...can we make it 'to the death' ??
    
    Paul 

    While watching Denmark v Holland, it occured to me why "overtime" (ie
    playing indefinitely till somebody scores) would be very unfair in 
    tournaments such as the euro championships... as it is, Germany have had 
    an extra day to recover for the final. If Denmark had been forced to 
    play on after 120 minutes, the players injury list would be quite likely 
    have risen even further, giving an unfair advantage to Germany.

    I noticed Gary Lineker shared my opinion that penalty-shootouts were
    good entertainment value, though he suggested that the whole team be
    made to take one.

    Dave

    
    I have a great idea!! In games like quarterfinal, semis and finals,
    have a penalty shoot-out before the game starts. The team who wins it 
    is to be declared winners if it is a draw after 90 minutes.
    
    Brilliant, isn't it?  :-)
    
    Mats

    They could have a modified 1 on 1, where the attacker starts at
    midfield, and takes on a defender 1 on 1. This would require a lot more
    pure football skill to beat a man like this, then beat the goalie.
    Penalty shootouts have too much luck involved. The keeper is a hero if
    he guesses right, a goat if not. This would take only a little longer
    to settle than a conventional shooutout, so it wouldn't drag on
    forever.
    
    Tom

    Mats,
    
    I think the team that won the pre-game penalty shoot out would be even
    more likely to play for a draw.
    
    The best variation on the the penalty shoot-out that I heard was from
    Gary Lineker who said that as football is a team game, everyone should
    have to take a penalty ( not just 5 players).  This puts less pressure
    on any one individual player because one miss is unlikely to mean the
    difference between winning and losing.  (Chris Waddle would approve I
    think!!)
    
    PJ
    

Let them play 5-a-side until they score!