Penalty Kicks Suck

[ali_asghar]

Just keep going till someone scores a goal and they need a 5 or 7 second rule in the box like in basketball. France was dominating that game at the end and looked threatening to score a goal even with 10 men. What do penalty kicks prove??????? Also instant replay to stop the diving. If u think it will slow down the game, think about this, after a half year or year, the players will realize they cant dive anymore and stop.

[Darvish11]

penalty kicks are fun to watch from a neutral perspective, but in an important game it is a really bad way to decide a winner. It is mostly luck.

[Rooz]

teh test of ultimate nerve.

[ShahHouman]

i say they should play sudden death, the team that wants it more will score...

[gol_kuchik]

All great suggestions. I hate penalty kicks, unless of course Iran wins . But seriously
sudden deatch after 30 minutes of overtime sounds good. Play 15 minutes increment
until last man standing or a score.

[kamyargb]

All great suggestions. I hate penalty kicks, unless of course Iran wins . But seriously
sudden deatch after 30 minutes of overtime sounds good. Play 15 minutes increment
until last man standing or a score.

I don't think that's practical, especially in a tournament where these guys have to play seven games in a month. Some games would go on forever, especially if everyone is getting more and more tired. It would turn the sport into baseball. It would cause injury to the players and lower the standard of play all around because the best players would get tired and injured.

Like the above post says, penalty shoot-outs test the kicker's nerve and psychology, and it's nerve-racking for the fans too. Having said that, I think PKs are good in moderation, a few per tournament is fun but too many ruin the game.

[ShahHouman]

i say allow a certain number of substituions as the game goes on, again the team that wants it more will score, and yah if a team plays long then they'll be tired but look at the nba playoffs, that was a factor as well, that's y a team who's a tru champ will go thru their opponents quickly and will be rested enough, if not then again the fatigue questions how mcuh they want it....

[ShahHouman]

allowing extra substitutions might make it interesting.
but the nba rarely goes into overtime compared to tournaments like the world cup. 4 out of 16 (i.e., 25%) of the games went into PKs. plus i imagine that nba players get less tired than soccer players because they can rest and come back on the court.
i don't know, i just imagine a game going on for 6 hours and the players all passing out on the field...plus I think I would miss PKs if they totally got rid of them, although 4 out of 16 is a little too much.

when i mention the nba i wasnt clear, im sorry, i meant for example look at the pistons and heat series, the heat was done early and waited for the pistons and when the pistons showed they were tired, who eventually won the championship? the team who got rid of their team early and waited for their next victim....i dunno, i just dont like pks because in the end i dont feel justice has been served, sure it tests nerve and there's a lot of technique and skill involved, bt i as a fan and even as a player do not feel as tho the winner won, i think w/ allowing more substitutions one of the teams would eventually win, and i really doubt a game would last 6 hrs lol, i kno wut u mean and i think it's kinda wack that for example switzerland and ukraine played 2 hrs of football and not 1 goal was scored, but i think the match would be exciting and tthe team w/ the least amount of passed out players would prevail lol

[KasraKhan]

The game might go on forever if there is no PK

[ShahHouman]

technically yes.....the game could also technically go on forever w/ PK

[milad]

bring back golden goal! teams will try harder to score in extra time because they know if they score they will automatically win. plus, it makes the game more exciting.

[gol_kuchik]

4 out of 16 (i.e., 25%) of the games went into PKs. plus i imagine that nba players get less tired than soccer players because they can rest and come back on the court.
i don't know, i just imagine a game going on for 6 hours and the players all passing out on the field...plus I think I would miss PKs if they totally got rid of them, although 4 out of 16 is a little too much.

Well the ratio is actually worse than 25% depending on how you view it
Out of 16 games in the finals, 6 went to overtime. Of these only 2 ended in a goal scored and the remaining 4 were decided on PK. Effectively, 67% of
overtime games were decided on penalty kicks. My question then would be why not go to penalty kicks directly if 2/3 of the games in overtime go to PK
anyways? But I hope everone agrees that would be lame.

Going back to golden goal would be a good compromise. Just play 15
minutes intervals until someone scores. Knowing that a goal will terminate
the game after the regulation, may create more incentive to finish the game
in the first 90 minutes.

[babak_australia]

Golden goal is definitely a neccessity in my eyes.
I cant remember y thay got rid of them, anyone have any ideas??

I like the idea of giving the team an extra sub for each half of extra time and as much as i hate PK's there is just no other feasible option to replace them

Its the ultimate worst wen u lose and the greatest joy wen u win.

I was with 20,000 ppl wen Australia beat Uruaguy and i have not felt that kind of emotion ever, it was amazing. I have also been on the end of my team losing and it is the same emtional reollercoaster but with an opposite ending.

P.S Iran beating Australia was better though

[ShahHouman]

Well the ratio is actually worse than 25% depending on how you view it
Out of 16 games in the finals, 6 went to overtime. Of these only 2 ended in a goal scored and the remaining 4 were decided on PK. Effectively, 67% of
overtime games were decided on penalty kicks. My question then would be why not go to penalty kicks directly if 2/3 of the games in overtime go to PK
anyways? But I hope everone agrees that would be lame.

Going back to golden goal would be a good compromise. Just play 15
minutes intervals until someone scores. Knowing that a goal will terminate
the game after the regulation, may create more incentive to finish the game
in the first 90 minutes.

i also dont like how teams, like germany, can play FOR PKs rather than trying to score, it's a strategy but it's not playing if u kno wut i mean

[gol_kuchik]

Another problem with this WC was that teams played very defensively so there seemed to be more PKs than normal...but I don't have any statistics on that so I could be wrong. It was a shame that many of the creative players and strikers in this WC didn't play very well and/or the defensive strategies seems to have shut them down. I think if they could have overcome the defensive tactics or just played better, we would've seen a lot more goals and less PKs, which would have been nice.

Well, I don't think playing defense this time around was an exception. For the longest
time the trend has been to have a defensive posture, even in the first stage. In a way,
the only team truly trying to break the trend was Brasil among the elites. (ofcourse
some Afrianc teams did too but got no where). Brazil is the team that tried
all the new combinations including the 4-2-4 before WC and in my view that's what makes them interesting, but that's only because they have so much talent. Still we all saw the outcome.

In a way all the teams incluing Germany and Argentina, tried to emulate what Italy has
been doing for a long time. D.D.D and counter attack and D.D.D till the game dies.
With Italies latest achivement, this trend will only get strenghtend.

After all, everyone cares about winning first, and how they won or the beauty of the
game they played second (except of course for Iranian soccer fans).

Going back to the topic though, how about this:
Maximum 3 15 minutes over time with golden goal for WC/Tournement finals and
2 15 minutes overtime with golden goal for all other occasion when a winner is needed?
(Penalty kicks after that).