A Better World Cup Mousetrap

[Corndog89]

I'm not a soccer player, coach, official, or dedicated fan. I don't dislike soccer, just never got into it very much. I have played and coached football (American), basketball, baseball, softball, rugby, and numerous individual sports and I recently completed my 6th year as a high school basketball official. Having said all this, I love watching the soccer World Cup. The excitment, intensiity, national hysteria, etc are just compelling.

But apparently like everyone else, I hate the penalty kick process to decide winners...just hate it! And I think I have a decent solution for it. From what I can tell, THE most tense, intense, dramatic moments in soccer matches are corner kicks and/or direct kicks (correct term?) near the opponents goal. After 90 minutes of regulation and 30 minutes of overtime, eliminate penalty kicks and instead give each team 5 corner kicks or direct kicks (their choice) with an extra attacker (in place of the keeper). The defensive team cannot score on the opponents attempts, so once they control the ball or kick it past the dividing line (or some other termination point...again, I'm not soccer-smart), the next attempt would begin. If still tied after 5 attempts, then just like penalty kicks match up until one team scores and the other doesn't. This way soccer is still being played, the players don't have to continue running all over the field, and 120 minutes of hard play isn't devalued by fooling keepers who have little chance to start with.

Thoughts???

I have other ideas on substitution (liberalize it...allows players to stay fresh and makes coaches actually have to coach), offsides (what a maddeningly frustrating rule), and diving (#^%#@*&!).

Thanks for letting me vent...

[Nevadaref]

You pose compelling idea!

(Essentially this is how NCAA football conducts their OTs. They give each team repeated cracks from the red zone until the tie is broken.)

A completely different concept was suggested to me by a friend. You might find it interesting. He advocated reducing the number of players on the field for each team by one for each overtime period played.
For example, each team plays with 10 in the 1st OT, 9 in the 2nd, 8 in the 3rd, and 7 in the 4th. After that something else must be done, since 7 is the minimum. (Or they could just keep playing until they drop.) The idea is to open up the game and create more scoring chances.

I believe that the Laws should simply restrict where the players may go on the field during the overtime periods.
In other words legislate a power play situation for each offense.
Method 1:
"At the beginning of extra time a team must designate five field players who may not enter their defensive half of the field and three who may not leave it." Those eight plus two transition players, who may go whereever they wish, and a goalkeeper make up the full 11. This means that once a team establishes possession in the attacking half they have a 7 v. 5 (plus a keeper) advantage. That should tilt the balance enough in favor of the offense that goals will be scored. (The players will need to wear colored shirts or some other method to indicate to the officicals where they can go.)
The penalty for a player who leaves his designated area is that the opponents receive a direct free kick from the top of the arc above the penalty area.

If that system is too complicated, then...
Method 2:
Two 15 minute periods are played to completion. (or 10 or 5 for youth players)
"At the beginning of extra time the team that wins the coin flip shall choose to field either eleven players or nine players. The opponent shall have the kickoff and choice of which direction to attack. The teams shall reverse directions, kickoff, and number of players for the second extra period."

This way each team gets to play one overtime period with a two man advantage. I guess that if they are still tied after that the process could be repeated with a 4 man advantage!


Diving needs to be dealt with harshly, offside has its pluses and minuses, I don't believe that subs should be altered, except for perhaps one additional per team for games that go to extra time, fitness should be a big part of the contest.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

... snip...
Method 2:
Two 15 minute periods are played to completion. (or 10 or 5 for youth players)
"At the beginning of extra time the team that wins the coin flip shall choose to field either eleven players or nine players. The opponent shall have the kickoff and choice of which direction to attack. The teams shall reverse directions, kickoff, and number of players for the second extra period."

This way each team gets to play one overtime period with a two man advantage. I guess that if they are still tied after that the process could be repeated with a 4 man advantage!

... snip ...

Method 2 probably would work, but there is a real solution:

Continue playing OT.

[Corndog89]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You pose compelling idea!

(Essentially this is how NCAA football conducts their OTs. They give each team repeated cracks from the red zone until the tie is broken.)

A completely different concept was suggested to me by a friend. You might find it interesting. He advocated reducing the number of players on the field for each team by one for each overtime period played.
For example, each team plays with 10 in the 1st OT, 9 in the 2nd, 8 in the 3rd, and 7 in the 4th. After that something else must be done, since 7 is the minimum. (Or they could just keep playing until they drop.) The idea is to open up the game and create more scoring chances.

I believe that the Laws should simply restrict where the players may go on the field during the overtime periods.
In other words legislate a power play situation for each offense.
Method 1:
"At the beginning of extra time a team must designate five field players who may not enter their defensive half of the field and three who may not leave it." Those eight plus two transition players, who may go whereever they wish, and a goalkeeper make up the full 11. This means that once a team establishes possession in the attacking half they have a 7 v. 5 (plus a keeper) advantage. That should tilt the balance enough in favor of the offense that goals will be scored. (The players will need to wear colored shirts or some other method to indicate to the officicals where they can go.)
The penalty for a player who leaves his designated area is that the opponents receive a direct free kick from the top of the arc above the penalty area.

If that system is too complicated, then...
Method 2:
Two 15 minute periods are played to completion. (or 10 or 5 for youth players)
"At the beginning of extra time the team that wins the coin flip shall choose to field either eleven players or nine players. The opponent shall have the kickoff and choice of which direction to attack. The teams shall reverse directions, kickoff, and number of players for the second extra period."

This way each team gets to play one overtime period with a two man advantage. I guess that if they are still tied after that the process could be repeated with a 4 man advantage!


Diving needs to be dealt with harshly, offside has its pluses and minuses, I don't believe that subs should be altered, except for perhaps one additional per team for games that go to extra time, fitness should be a big part of the contest.

I like any of these solutions better than the current PK system (...okay, I'm back, just thinking about PKs made me throw up again ) All of these ideas keep the integrity of the game intact. I just like the corner kick idea because it is normal play (with the exception of the one extra attacker) and it is typically the most exciting moment in any normal 90-120 minute soccer match. But I like your ideas too.

As for what CecilOne said, "play on", I like that idea too except that some games may never end.

But in that line of thinking, I like the liberalized substitution rule because it would give players opportunity to rest during games and still be fresh at the end. Did anyone operate under any disillusion that the Italians spent the last 15-20 minutes of regulation and all of OT playing nothing but defense and waiting for PKs, assuming that was their best chance to win? That tactic, which I fully understand under the current system, nonetheless made me start pulling for France (I still feel a little dirty ). One of the things I like about European and Latin American soccer I manage to see on TV is that it is attack oriented...it's fun to watch. One of the drags watching WC is that it is far too often clog-em-up defense oriented...not as fun to watch. Love watching Brazil because they attack. If players can be subbed in-and-out, they can stay fresher and we could then go full OT until someone scores...teams would be forced to attack and play offense from time-to-time instead of the "safer" Italian approach. This concept would also reward the fitter and better coached teams because the best, fittest players would need to be there at the end.

As for offsides (and again, I'm not a soccer guy and therefore don't have loyalty to or understanding of longstanding rules), how many times during the WC, on what to me amounted to a "fast break", did the attacker get whistled because he was a step or two beyond the last line of defense. That needs to be addressed to add more tactical opportunity to the game. That's like saying if a wide receiver blows past a cornerback and gets behind the defense before the QB releases the pass, it's illegal because that would be a soccer-equivalent offsides. Just nuts...but then I played rugby so how many brain cells could I have left??

[refnrev]

Originally Posted by Corndog89

I'm not a soccer player, coach, official, or dedicated fan. I don't dislike soccer, just never got into it very much. I have played and coached football (American), basketball, baseball, softball, rugby, and numerous individual sports and I recently completed my 6th year as a high school basketball official. Having said all this, I love watching the soccer World Cup. The excitment, intensiity, national hysteria, etc are just compelling.

But apparently like everyone else, I hate the penalty kick process to decide winners...just hate it! And I think I have a decent solution for it. From what I can tell, THE most tense, intense, dramatic moments in soccer matches are corner kicks and/or direct kicks (correct term?) near the opponents goal. After 90 minutes of regulation and 30 minutes of overtime, eliminate penalty kicks and instead give each team 5 corner kicks or direct kicks (their choice) with an extra attacker (in place of the keeper). The defensive team cannot score on the opponents attempts, so once they control the ball or kick it past the dividing line (or some other termination point...again, I'm not soccer-smart), the next attempt would begin. If still tied after 5 attempts, then just like penalty kicks match up until one team scores and the other doesn't. This way soccer is still being played, the players don't have to continue running all over the field, and 120 minutes of hard play isn't devalued by fooling keepers who have little chance to start with.

Thoughts???

I have other ideas on substitution (liberalize it...allows players to stay fresh and makes coaches actually have to coach), offsides (what a maddeningly frustrating rule), and diving (#^%#@*&!).

Thanks for letting me vent...

______________________________________________
Corn Dog,
You asked for thoughts....
Here are mine.
1. Unlike your statement, not EVERYONE dislikes penalty kicks. I like them. Having officiated games that have gone to PK's you will realize that by the end of the 2nd overtime both teams and the officaiting crew are so tired that they can barely move. IMHO there is a huge amount of drama in the conclusion of a match that ends that way!
2. As for your later post -- comparing offsides to a "fast break" isn't quite accurate. It's not a small cylinder on a 94' court -- it's a 24' wide goal with a huge field. Without it a a player could just sit and "cherry pick" and the keeper would be helpless to do anything about it. The offside rule requires much anticipation and strategy on both team's parts.
3. I hope you'll keep watching and learning the game. It's a tremendous sport to play, coach, or officiate.

[Corndog89]

Originally Posted by refnrev

______________________________________________
Corn Dog,
You asked for thoughts....
Here are mine.
1. Unlike your statement, not EVERYONE dislikes penalty kicks. I like them. Having officiated games that have gone to PK's you will realize that by the end of the 2nd overtime both teams and the officaiting crew are so tired that they can barely move. IMHO there is a huge amount of drama in the conclusion of a match that ends that way!
2. As for your later post -- comparing offsides to a "fast break" isn't quite accurate. It's not a small cylinder on a 94' court -- it's a 24' wide goal with a huge field. Without it a a player could just sit and "cherry pick" and the keeper would be helpless to do anything about it. The offside rule requires much anticipation and strategy on both team's parts.
3. I hope you'll keep watching and learning the game. It's a tremendous sport to play, coach, or officiate.

Refnrev

Excellent response...I appreciate the differing opinion on PKs, but I'm not sure I'll ever like a game that is allowed to end without the game actually being played. Of course, you could respond that a basketball game could end on a foul shot after time has expired, sooooo.....

Do you ever foresee big-time soccer having more liberalized substitution rules? It makes sense to me that if players were allowed opportunity to rest during matches they would be fresher later in the match and then we wouldn't have the extreme fatigue argument. Plus, it would give more good players greater opportunity to play (Brazil??) and allow (force?) coaches to coach. I played, coached, and refereed rugby which has similar substitution rules (which I also would like to see liberalized); once the match begins, coaches don't get to do much actual coaching. But then come to think of it, maybe that's not such a bad idea

I am watching soccer more the last few years; I would love to go to Europe to see some professional and local soccer matches. Any tips on what to watch for during matches? Thanks...