Blatter wants to get rid of penalty shootouts

Van Gaal's idea 2 years back -

If extra-time is required following a draw, it should consist of two 15-minute periods with each team losing a man every five minutes. After 95 minutes ten would play against ten, after 100 minutes nine on nine. From the 115th minute it would only be six on six.

"Then only the best team would secure the win – and not just a single player through a penalty.”

If there is still no result after 120 minutes, a golden goal would decide the game.

Golden goals were so epic. Football died a little the day they were abolished

Golden goal made teams like Greece champions.

Golden goal made the game so intense but it hurts when the best team loses because they have tall people and scores from a corner-kick or a free-kick

<but the intensity , you barely sit down

Lex wrote:Golden goals were so epic. Football died a little the day they were abolished

You were never on the other end of a golden goal though so you're opinion is biased lol

I'm 50-50 on golden goals. I don't think they're the best solution. But Blatter later today tweeted in clarification that he'd just like the game to be decided 11 v 11 rather than 1 v 1, which is understandable. But players cannot be made to play for more than 120 minutes - already that time is a little too long perhaps since it's clear the guys are running on empty and some have cramps or throw up and stuff.

How about instead of penalties you'd have free-kicks with a 3-man wall (plus the keeper)? ^^

Golden goal in the CL would be awesome but I don't think you can abolish penalties alltogether.

Van Gaal's idea of removing players is kinda stupid and amateur-ish to be honest. I would love to see football played in open spaces like that but players would collapse.

The addition of the golden goal rule + 1 substitution for each half of extra time could reduce the amount of games that go into penalty shootouts.

Have to say though that the level of ANTI-British sentiment that runs across FIFA and UEFA is just appaling. If Chelsea had lost this match on penalties, not only would Sepp Bladder be smilling like an evil grin, he would also NEVER have brought up this topic.

But the Germans lose to the English on penalties and all hell breaks lose! And then he asks his German buddy(surprise, surprise) Beckenbauer to come up with a new idea. How this schmuck is still presiding over the greatest sport in the world is beyond me.

Keep it the way it is, simple as that. Penalties is the few moments that adds a dramatic scene in the game, something most sports do not have.
You want to see 6v6? Then watch indoor football or street.

Kingofeverythingclassy wrote:Van Gaal's idea 2 years back -

If extra-time is required following a draw, it should consist of two 15-minute periods with each team losing a man every five minutes. After 95 minutes ten would play against ten, after 100 minutes nine on nine. From the 115th minute it would only be six on six.

"Then only the best team would secure the win – and not just a single player through a penalty.”

If there is still no result after 120 minutes, a golden goal would decide the game.

I was thinking about this, now I know Van Gaal thought it..I dont like it as much lol

I think your more likely to find the "best team" with this method, coaching would be heavily involved, decision making. It would be intresting in that sense.

How do you decide which players go though?

Lex wrote:How do you decide which players go though?

Coaches decision most likely. Like a substitution except no one is replacing the player coming off.

Golden Goal Rule was By far the crappiest rule ever in Footballing history IMO. I hope that shit is never introduced. Its like Goal Posts changing every second. They is no proper time frame.

Someone scores a goal & its over. What rubbish is this. You should atleast give the opposition a fixed pre-determined time to equalize. Just in the name of avoiding penalties you cant finish a game anyway you want.

I am torn on Van Gaal's idea too. I would like 1 of 2 more substitutions because in event of less players on the field,it would take tremendous amount of energy from this exhausted players to cover up so much free space on the field.

It would add to the spectable though but 6 vs 6 is sounding like a neighbour-hood comical game. Maybe 9 vs 9 with 1 player coming off every 10 minutes to end it at best. Anything less than would probably become too childish

the idea with losing players is dumb, they're already tired as it is without taking one third of all players off the pitch... all it would result in is shockingly boring overtime since everyone on the pitch is barely moving...

Well !1st of all We MUST get rid of Platini in fact ! It's personal lads !lol

btw , i guess Blatter trying to save keepers from ...! in a way, even thought i like penalties

After 90 minutes, I suggest Mortal Kombat; a fight to the death.

Stoke City!

I wouldnt like 6 v 6 or anything like that, its just stupid. But if it could be timed so that its goes to say 8 v 8..the game would be considerably slower as there is more space to cover..but on the other hand, there is more space so there would probably be more goal chances for whoever has the energy left to make it.

Im not overly fond of the idea, but I do think its more likely to produce the "best team going through" than penalty kicks.

The only other solution is... MORE MATCHES :dance: :dance: :dance:

Multiple extra times, cricket style. No matter how long it takes, that match is going to be won by playing football. Every time an extra time ends, another is added, with 2 times 15 minutes, and a 5 minute break in between.

If this is implemented, I predect Felix Magath to win the Champion's League

Well, Mr Blatter, you like this better?

In England's League One playoff final we just saw a 22-kick penalty shoot-out, both teams having to take 11 penalties.

Huddersfield one 8-7 and got promoted to the Championship

The last penalty takers were the keepers, Huddersfield's keeper scored, Sheffield United's keeper missed.

Well, Blatter asked Beckenbauer to come up with something, but from what I remember, Beckenbauer's first reply was something around "Why fix something that isn't broken". So hopefully Blatter gets pelted with bazillions of footballs from 12 yards for his silly idea.

Art Morte wrote:Well, Mr Blatter, you like this better?

In England's League One playoff final we just saw a 22-kick penalty shoot-out, both teams having to take 11 penalties.

Huddersfield one 8-7 and got promoted to the Championship

The last penalty takers were the keepers, Huddersfield's keeper scored, Sheffield United's keeper missed.

I'm curious as to what would have happened if they both scored?

Also holy s*** that an EPL play-ff ended that.

Not winning the CL at home due to penalties is one thing - losing 30+ mil pounds that way is harsh.

League One, not PL.

If both keepers had scored/missed the line ups would have re-cycled.

football shouldnt be about one on ones ? im sure im not the only one when who thinks thats the best part of the game !

VivaStPauli wrote:Multiple extra times, cricket style. No matter how long it takes, that match is going to be won by playing football. Every time an extra time ends, another is added, with 2 times 15 minutes, and a 5 minute break in between.

If this is implemented, I predect Felix Magath to win the Champion's League

This sounds like a good idea, but if a game has reached a stalemate after 120 mins. (as it usually always does, but not always) I think the major factor is fatigue. Playing the game until "team football" decides it does sound good on paper and I don't know exactly how I feel about getting rid of penalties altogether but I think 120 mins. is enough time. If they do play on it's only going to be laggy, fatigued football until someone just flat out gives up do due to fatigue and thats how the match would be decided. Pretty much the opposite of the presumably good football that it took just for the teams to get to that point.

And I think that fatigue would also be an issue as far as players' fitness. If matches were played until there was a winner no matter what I think we'd see a bit more injuries. This really is a topic that I would like to hear the players themselves discuss and give us feedback on. To see how the players who actually play would feel about these scenarios and hear their preferences.

Love them or hate them, I've just seen too many classic moments from PK shootouts so I think that I would miss them if they were gone. Blatter however......

How about just making penalty shoot-outs 11 v 11?

The idea of a shoot-out is to end a game that has already gone on too long relatively quickly. 11 v 11 would lead to games being that much longer. Can't see how that's a good thing.