Sepp's incompetence vol. MXIIV

[langpark]

It seems after 15 years in the job he's only just realised that penalty shootouts deciding matches is something that should be avoided if possible.

Why then (and I've been saying this for years) did they ever scrap GOLDEN GOAL!??!? This was a great way to possibly avoid penalties then they took the backward step of saying that the entire 30 minutes of extra time had to be played out...

Moral of the whinge: BRING BACK GOLDEN GOAL!


http://www.soccerway.com/news/2012/May/25/blatter-seeks-alternative-to-shoot-outs/

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

We still had penalty shoot outs during golden goal era

 

[Big Sam]

Shootouts should only disappear for major finals that players only really get one chance to win I.e. The international tournaments held every four years.

For annual tournaments like UCL a shootout is fine as the finalists usually have another chance the following season to win it.

I think the best method for a WC final is normal ET then after 120 mins play golden goal until there's a winner.

 

[Big Sam]

Also on a bit of a side note but still linked to Sepp and FIFA's corruption/incompetence, I see the IOC rejected Doha's bid for the 2020 Olympics saying that it's too dangerous a destination and too hot even in October (when Qatar wanted to host it).

Isn't it great to see that when an organisation cleans up its act (the IOC was once even more corrupt than FIFA now is), it makes logical decisions?

Instead we still have Blatter, Platini et al. saying that Qatar should still host it in Summer.

 

[langpark]

I'm not saying it gets rid of penalties. I've thought long and hard about this and I can't come up with a better alternative than penalties, so I'm not saying shootouts wouldn't exist if Golden Goal came back, but I've seen many games where a team has scored in extra time then the other team equalises. If everyone is so against penalties and want to avoid it at all costs, why even allow the chance for an equaliser!? It defies logic...

 

[pennywisealfie]

Golden Goal was the best. But I love penalties as well.

 

[Mong]

Penalties are fine by me also. It brings a different element of excitement.

I am sure everyone has awesome penalty shoot out moments watching a team win and vice versa

 

[Eddie.]

The guy is a crook and a stain on the game.

If Munich had won he would have been saying how great penalties are.

 

[Misanthrope]

I enjoy penalties. I love the tension and the theatre of it all.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

IMO losing a final on penalties isn't that heart breaking it's losing games like a semi-final or a world cup qualifier playoff on penalties. I wouldn't have watched the 2006 world cup at all if we'd have lost to Uruguay on penalties.

 

[The Green Mushroom]

I've always hated shootouts. They can be exciting and nerve wracking, but they aren't part of the game.

Golden goal can be exciting but from what I remember from actually watching matches during the golden goal era was that, a lot of the time, teams didn't necessarily want to risk attacking and exposing themselves to giving up the goal. Plus there is the whole thing about players dropping dead when the 200th minute comes up with no scoring.

My idea--and I admit that it is a stupid one and a bad one and will never work--is to borrow an idea from Australian football. Add a set of behind posts a yard or two on each side of the goal. If the ball is kicked between them without a goal being scored, credit the attacker with a behind. If the games ends on equal goals the team with the most behinds wins. 1 goal and 100 behinds always beats 0 goals and 101 behinds and 0 goals and 10 behinds always beats 0 goals and 9 behinds. Its not that different than an idea I've often heard to count corner kicks, but it prevents cheaply earned corners from directly affecting the score line.

 

[Big Sam]

My idea--and I admit that it is a stupid one and a bad one and will never work--is to borrow an idea from Australian football. Add a set of behind posts a yard or two on each side of the goal. If the ball is kicked between them without a goal being scored, credit the attacker with a behind. If the games ends on equal goals the team with the most behinds wins. 1 goal and 100 behinds always beats 0 goals and 101 behinds and 0 goals and 10 behinds always beats 0 goals and 9 behinds. Its not that different than an idea I've often heard to count corner kicks, but it prevents cheaply earned corners from directly affecting the score line.

:crazy: Loony bin time!

And I don't agree that players will drop dead after 200 minutes under golden goal because the golden goal period after regular ET that I suggest will never last that long. Given player fatigue and no substitutions, you'll always get a golden goal before the 150th minute mark.

 

[langpark]

Why are you guys even arguing about that!? Golden Goal didn't even work that way. It was still a maximum 30 minutes of time before going on to penalties, if no-one scored the winner...

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

It's more of a concern in finals because you have no away goals. You need to get a result how else will you do it? Some games will go on forever. Seriously, the 2003 CL final would have never ended even if you took the goalkeepers out that was penalty bound from kick off.

 

[Mong]

English league one play off final was won 8-7 on penalties and went down to the goal keepers having to take shots.

Was great viewing.