PK's or Play Until it's Over?
 

Which do you prefer?

PK's, no question.

The later a tie game gets, the more cautious teams tend to be. PK's are a disincentive to playing for a tie. If you're willing to play for a coin flip, you better be prepared to lose by one.

What's not in the question is the better idea -- two-legged, aggregate-goal knockout matches (played on different days, of course). Playing 180 minutes takes a lot of the luck out of the equation, reduces the likelihood of a tie game, and allows teams to be more open early on since they have plenty of time to recover from a mistake.

And if you can't outscore a team in 210 minutes, you deserve whatever fate you get.

I have another alternative: Borrow a page from other sports, and open up the field in over/extra time.

At the beginning of overtime, start with 11 players per side. Every five minutes (or at the first stoppage every five minutes), remove one player from each side. Repeat until golden goal.

As entertaining as PK shootouts can be, they're like settling a basketball game with a free throw contest.

I've never been in favor of playing one sport for an hour or two, and then when you can't resolve things that way, playing a different sport. The hockey shootout is stupid. Soccer penalty kicks - just the same. Like said above - it'd be like doing NBA overtime with a free-throw shooting contest, or baseball with a homerun derby.

I like the suggestion above - every 5 minutes or so, remove a player. I'd add this ... if you get down to 5 on 5, the next player to go is the goalie.

No, it wouldn't. There's no defense on free throws, and home run derby hitters aren't facing real pitching.

You don't like KFTM (kicks from the mark) being used to decide matches? Fine. But please stop with the inaccurate analogies.

I'm not sure why you're going way out of your way to miss my point. I'm not saying it would be identical to those ... my analogy is that it is taking only a small part of the game, making a mini-game out of it, and determining a winner from it. I think that's bad in ANY sport. (And to be completely honest ... just like hockey's shootout - the KFTM is even worse in the sense that it takes a huge percentage of the skill required to play the game and removes it. A KFTM is essentially luck of the guess by the goalie, and rarely involves a lack of ability in the shooter. Might as well flip coins.

I disagree with your suggestion that the outcomes are random when decided by kicks, but I appreciate the more expansive argument.

Nothing's perfect, not even continuing to play soccer when things are tied after 120 minutes. Beyond that, it ceases to be so much a soccer contest as a pure endurance match.

What I like the most about deciding by kicks is not the kicks themselves, but the fact that both teams know that kicks are lurking 'round the corner. Teams thus have a decision to make: do we want to press for a goal and avoid kicks, or do we fancy our chances in a more random situation than we do during the normal run of play? When it really gets interesting is when a side (say, oh, I dunno, England?) have an actual history with kicks that plays into the tactical decision-making during the first 90-120 minutes.

One last note: if you had unlimited overtimes such as in hoops or baseball, the play would get increasingly less exciting. Because with additional time not only come more tired legs (remember, only three substitutions are allowed in a FIFA match), but also an increasing aversion to losing. In other words, tired legs will make it more difficult to play attacking soccer, and the possibility of a crushing loss via counter-attack will make it less attractive to even try to play attacking soccer.

Given the reasons behind the wrinkles, I prefer the potential for kicks any day. The prospect of Paraguay and Japan playing for another hour or two to decide that match is far worse to me than any injustice there may be in deciding the game by imperfect means.

Tim Calishaw (sp) on Around the Horn (ESPN) yesterday basically said - look, after 120 minutes of 0-0, no one wants to see the game go on...... good point?

As a former H.S. (13 yrs) soccer official, and a H.S. (39 years) and college (36 yrs) basketball officials I would love to see offsides removed from the rule book. Offsides only protects teams who play poor defense and penalizes teams who play good offense.

MTD, Sr.

I disagree. It is not good offense when you are guilty of offside infractions.

And it would make playing defense, and even offense, incredibly difficult. One thing I enjoy about soccer is the methodical attack where the 10 field players work together and move the ball up as a unit, backs make runs into the attacking third, and the defense becomes a part of a potent attack. I now question how this would work if, after one mistaken touch by the attacking team, the defending team can clear a ball to the cherry-picking striker hanging out on the opposite 18 yard line. This would make a team much less likely to attack with defenders -- something that I see as good soccer.

Now there's an interesting idea.

On the one hand, you would get a more open, end-to-end game, with players having more space to work with.

On the other hand, attacking teams would be considerably outnumbered if their defenders are holding back in fear of a long ball. It's hard enough to score 10-on-10. Remove the back line support and I suspect fewer attacks would result in shots on net.

Then again, you would likely get more attacks and less possession passing in the midfield.

You may be onto something. I'm just not quite sure.

Update - Duh!?
 

Making the problem worse?

Heck, I think they should re-introduce ties in the final game. Since nobody advances from there, no need to play that one off.

Another idea for all the previous rounds: call a tie a double loss. If you're already in knockouts, that means you both forfeit the next round.

Wow. The only thing worse than making a mini-game out of a real game to determine the winner is the idea that you should end the final in a tie. Related to Bud Selig, Robert?

MTD,
No offense intended, but your ideas on the basketball forum carry much more weight -- and generally make more sense. While there may be arguments as to why offside (please note, no "s" -- not dealing with the pointy sport here) should be eliminated, "playing poor defense" is not a good reason. I would argue that by having the offside line, there can be more chances for scoring because if a team is pushing up, it can give the attacking team more space behind the defense for a through ball that can result in 1v1 opportunities. Offside is an extremely integral part of the game in which defenders only need to worry about "what they can see" (in front of them) so long as they are behind the ball.

If you want to change something, consider changing the size of the goal. Over the past 100 years, the size, strength, jumping ability, etc. of the players has increased incredibly. By making the goal 9 or 10 feet by 27 or 30 feet, you would make the keepers job much more challenging (if a keeper is 10 to 15% faster, stronger, better jumper, taller, etc., then adding 12 - 25% to the width and 11 - 22% to the width should put the game on par with the game in its earlier years.

By only changing the size of the goal, the game would be fundamentally the same. Teams would have more of a tendency to takes shots on a larger goal. Some spectacular shots from good distance would be more common (ESPN highlight worthy). Teams would be less apt to bunker in because a 0-0 result would be much less likely. Once a game becomes 1-0, it tends to open up much more because the opponents now need an equalizer.

Just a thought....