PK's or Play Until it's Over?

[grunewar]

Which do you prefer?

[DadofTwins]

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.

[bainsey]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jbduke

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.