I am not a football fan but follow the game in a casual manner and so learned that Italy beat England in the European Cup yesterday. The score was 1-1 at the end of regulation time.
I did not watch the game and my opinion on it would be worthless anyway but what I want to discuss is the way that the game was decided, by means of a penalty shootout that Italy won 3-2. Whether a goal is scored or not depends a lot on whether the goal keeper manages to guess correctly the intentions of the penalty kicker as to where in the goal the ball is being targeted.
While I understand the need to find a way to quickly end a game when the scores are tied, this seems to me to be a particularly bad method. Given the difficulty of scoring goals which makes ties likely, this form of the tiebreaker has been used in many high-profile games, even deciding Olympic gold medals.
There are so many different football skills, such as dribbling, passing, heading, teamwork, shooting at goal, and goal tending. There may be more that football aficionados can list. The penalty shoot out only requires the last two and thus is not reflective of the game as a whole. A team can win on a shootout despite having been generally outplayed by their opponents during the regulation period.
I would much rather have tiebreakers consist of a short period of extra time but with each side’s numbers greatly reduced, say to five (or even to three) plus the goal keeper. This would make the scoring of goals more likely but still require all the skills that football requires. I think a result produced by that method would be less likely to leave the players and fans of the losing side feel frustrated that they deserved to win but that it was bad luck that cost them. The opinions on the game that I read say that Italy in general played better, at least as measured in terms of time of possession and attempts at goal, and was probably the best team in the tournament but they could very easily have lost the tiebreaker.
The system that I am suggesting seems to me too obvious to have been overlooked by football’s governing bodies. I suspect that there is some fatal flaw in it that I cannot see that prevents it being adopted and I am curious as to what it might be. I know that there are serious football fans among this blog’s readership and if they can tell me, I would appreciate it.
The tiebreaker system that tennis uses seems to me to be one of the best methods. It consists of a single game with the service switching after every two serves, and a margin of just two points required to win. It is the same basic idea of scoring as regular tennis but simpler. It almost always results in a quick decision but still requires all the player’s tennis skills. The tennis equivalent of the football tiebreaker would be to have players just serve and count the number of aces to decide the game. That would be just awful.
One thing I was thinking about was that a yellow card can mean nothing. Italy had something like 5 (maybe even 6?) players get yellow cards. AFAIK, England didn’t have any at the end of regulation, and racked up 1, total.
So here’s an idea: for any first period of extra time, you get the standard number of players MINUS the number of yellow cards you received during regulation. For the second period of extra time, you lose another player for each yellow card in the first period of regulation. Each subsequent 15 minute period, you lose a number of players equal to the yellow cards received in the last. After the first or second period (whatever soccer fans believe is just), you’re no longer **necessarily** playing full periods of 15 minutes, it’s just sudden death, with no chance to tie the game back up in the remaining time. Rest between 15 minute periods is limited to 3 to 5 min, whatever is best according to experts (read: not me).
Teams that flagrantly disobey the rules get no more disadvantage in regulation than teams that don’t: just the free kicks they give up for any minor rule violation. But if you choose to play like Italy, you’re taking the risk that if you don’t win outright during regulation you have sacrificed your chances in overtime. It would have been very interesting to see a game like that play out yesterday.
Yes, the shootout idea is stupid. At the very least they should move the ball back further, so it is really a true competition between the goalkeeper and the shooter. It looks so absurd when you see the goalkeeper diving the wrong way. And to decide a game or championship on that basis? Why not just do a dice toss??
1. Two-on-two (two offensive players vs. a defender and goalie) from midfield for two minutes. Clock stops when the ball goes out, for fouls, etc.
2. Some formula which considers time of possession and shots on goal, as Mano mentions. Maybe factor in red/yellow cards (per Crip Dyke).
I’ve long thought that the best idea is to award the match, if it’s still tied after extra time, to the side that won the most corner kicks. Winning a corner is an indication of attacking intent with partial success; you have forced the opposition to put the ball out of play over their goal line.
As the game wears on, this would encourage the teams to attack rather than ‘play for penalties’ by just passing it around in the middle of the pitch.
BTW, shots on target is not a good metric. With a good defence, you can reduce the opposition to taking speculative shots from distance, which are usually easily saved by the goalie, but still count.
rojmiller @2:
In the Euros final, each goalie saved two of the five shots they faced (one English player hit the post), and that’s not so rare, so I’d say it’s a good competition. It’s just not football.
Matt G @3:
Aaargh, no! That would just encourage teams to play keepy bally and take the odd pot shot from distance. And please keep ‘formulas’ out of it. Simple is always best.
Extra time with reducing numbers (a player every five minutes perhaps) is a good idea -- penalties are stupid and FIFA really ought be embarrassed for relying on them so much. Maybe it’s just because England keeps getting screwed over by them?.
But as a New Zealander and how the last World One Day Cricket Cup was decided, yah boo sucks.
Rob Grigjanis @4
Each goalie saved 2 of 5, and one hit the post? So 5 out of 10 were goals? That’s not a reflection of good competition, but random chance!!! 50% of the time the goalie chose wrong.
Oh, and if the teams have the same number of corners, just toss a fucking coin.
I forgot how easy it is to waste time in soccer.
If goalie saves are considered, then GOOD shots on goal can be isolated.
They way I see it, the penalties they are more a contest of mental strength than technique. Focusing and gathering strength for this one shot after running around for around 90-120min, and where any failure probably means loosing the match? Quite a nice built up of psychological pressure.
However, the main reason they have them (and will keep them) is that shootouts are exciting. Or at least more exciting than extra time (they had several failures of making those dragging 2x15minutes somewhat bearable) and in imho the whole game. I’m not a soccer fan, but I usually like the final matches in a tournament.
And excitement (and failures during penalties count there) keeps people watching the game which generates money and that is all UEFA/FIFA (and all the other soccer associations) are carrying about. Fairness of the game is only mentioned if it fits their agenda, human rights are of course ignored (see World Cup in Qatar).
Have fun,
nastes
fentex @6:
Dunno about “keeps getting screwed over”. Before Southgate, their record was dismal, but since he took over, England have won two out of three penalty shootouts (against Colombia and Switzerland).
AFAIK the TV networks want a shootout, because then they will know in advance how long time is needed for the game. Unpredictable extra time will mess up their scheduling.
Only if they can be “outplayed” but score just as many goals as their opponents… which by any sensible measure means they weren’t outplayed. This is one of the reasons I hate football. “We outplayed them” is the cry of someone who doesn’t like or understand the rules of the game. If you outplayed as you claim, then the score will reflect that. Possession, “shots on target”, number of successful accurate passes -- all irrelevant nonsense. How many GOALS did you score? This is the one and only metric.
I watched the last 15 minutes of extra time in my bed on my phone. When it went, as it felt like it was always going to, to penalties, I did briefly think “can’t we just declare it a draw at this point and share the trophy?”. The rules of the tournament demand a result, but frankly if Italy can’t beat England by a margin of a single goal on the field of play over 90 minutes and then 30 minutes of extra time, then they don’t really deserve a win… and obviously neither do England. The fans would be furious, of course, which is why it’ll never happen. It’s the sort of solution that could only be suggested by someone who doesn’t really give a monkey’s about the game, e.g. me.
Re: the actual penalties: the blame, if there is any, goes IMO to two people.
First: the manager, Southgate, fielding a team of wet-behind-the-ears youngsters when he had seasoned players available.
Second: Rashford. If ever there was a case of “you had ONE job”, this was it. Brought on with two minutes of extra time left to go, he was clearly only there to take a penalty -- the one job. And what did he do? He messed and ponced about on his run up, which in fairness did send the keeper the wrong way, but then he fluffed the strike so badly he missed the goal. In literally any other profession that combination of arrogant showiness and abject, heartbreaking, maddening failure would result in instant dismissal, probably the end of a career. He’ll have the sympathy of Southgate though, because not only did that man do something very similar 25 years ago, he was arrogant and thoughtless enough to make MORE money making fun of his failure taking money from Pizza Hut. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWqmqGsTTBI
I need to stop ranting about this because I may be mistaken for someone who gives a shit, rather than someone who wishes the entire damn sport and the (mainly) anti-social millionaires who play it would just do one.
“my opinion on it would be worthless anyway”
Don’t worry, that applies to almost all fans of the sport (including me).
“Whether a goal is scored or not depends a lot on whether the goal keeper ….”
English player Maguire demonstrated the opposite. It’s impossible to stop such a penalty (high in the corner). However the risk of the shot going wide is bigger, but of course that doesn’t depend on the keeper at all.
“Given the difficulty of scoring goals which makes ties likely”
Not that likely. 53 matches have been played; 12 ended with ties. In the knock out part -- when penalties shoot outs are possible -- 3 out of 15 matches were tied. This year was the first time in history a final at the EUch needed one.
“even deciding Olympic gold medals”
Ah, in male football the Olympics are hardly important. Only few fans care; I certainly don’t. I intend to watch the women though.
“A team can win on a shootout despite having been generally outplayed by their opponents.”
Questionable. Given that scoring is ultimately what’s football is about one could easily argue that a team that doesn’t score more than it’s opponent hasn’t outplayed it. I’m neutral on this one.
“The opinions on the game that I read say that Italy in general played better.”
I dispute this. I think England was better the first half hour and during the extra time.
“to have been overlooked by football’s governing bodies”
I remember that your proposal has been suggested before, but afaIk it never has been tried.
Your biggest mistake is that you neglect the most important point. Having a fair result is only the second most important aspect. The most important one is tension and excitement. Nothing in any sports is as tense and exciting as a penalty shoot out.
Major league baseball games never end in ties. If a game is tied at the end of the regulation nine innings, the game continues in extra innings until one team has scored more runs than the other. Extra innings are complete innings in which each team has a turn at both offense and defense.
I remember one St. Louis Cardinals game that took 21 innings to play, but that’s extremely unusual. On a day when fifteen games are being played (there are thirty major-league teams), it’s not unusual for one or two games to require ten or eleven innings; but more than that is rare.
Games can end after some number of complete innings not less than five because of rain, but only if one team is unambiguously the winner.
There are a couple of new rules that got their start in last year’s COVID-shortened season and were extended to this year in the interesting of shortening the game.
-- A team on offense gets to begin an extra inning with a runner on second base.
-- If two teams are playing a “double header” (two games on the same day), each game can end after seven innings; but there will still be extra innings until there’s a winner. (It’s not unusual for one game of a double header to go eight or nine innings.)
@2 RojM: “At the very least they should move the ball back further, so it is really a true competition between the goalkeeper and the shooter.”
Eeeehhhhh -- in the shoot out of yesterday half of the penalties were missed …..
@7 RojM: “That’s not a reflection of good competition, but random chance!!!”
Brilliant logic. 50% isn’t true competition. 90% isn’t true competition. When is it?
Never of course.
Thanks for giving a perfect example of an ad hoc argument.
@10 Nastes: “Or at least more exciting than extra time”
The South American Confederation Cup saw penalty shoot outs after 90 minutes.
@12 LassiH: “AFAIK the TV networks want a shootout …..”
Probably, However shoutouts were introduced long before the TV networks got a say.
“because then they will know in advance how long time is needed for the gam”
But not for this reason. A match can last 90 minutes, 120 minutes (a team scores in extra time) or 150+ minutes (penalty shoot out).
@13 Sonof ….: “I watched the last 15 minutes of extra time”
Pity, this was the worst part of the match.
“someone who doesn’t really give a monkey’s about the game”
I like this, given your analysis that immediately follows ….. such is the charm of football.
“I need to stop ranting about this because I may be mistaken for someone who gives a shit”
You clearly give enough shits to have some strong opinions ….. Someone who doesn’t give a shit at all is my son, who probably doesn’t even know who has won the title.
@BillS: “If a game is tied at the end of the regulation nine innings, the game continues”
Good for baseball, but that won’t work well in football due to fear of losing.
Me @15: “in the interest”, not “in the interesting”.
Until 1990 games in the English FA cup were replayed until one side won.
In the 1978/79 season Arsenal and Sheffield Wednesday played 5 times before the game was finally decided. 3 of the games went to extra time, before Arsenal finally won 2-0 in the fifth game.
I think league football is more satisfying than cup competitions, because a goalless draw can still be a fascinating game of football.
@13 sonofrojblake
I think he was trying to emulate the penalty taking technique of Bayern striker Robert Lewandowski.
Unfortunately this method only works if you are Robert Lewandowski
Regarding the penalty shootout in the Euro final, the most outrageous aspect is the racist abuse that was directed at the three English players who failed to score. Gary Neville offers some thoughts.
Lassi@12- Sometime along those lines happened to volleyball. Traditionally, you could score only when your team served, and games ended at 15 (with the caveat that you must win by two). “Rally scoring” was used to speed things up when needed: every volley ended with a point scored and games ended at 21 (but with the same caveat). Things switched to all rally scoring to make it fit better into a given time slot.
Don’t get me started on the rule for women’s beach volleyball which required that bikini bottoms be shorter (i.e., skimpier) than a certain length.
Test cricket has it right — sometimes, neither team wins. It’s a draw or even a tie.
(However, the lesser forms of cricket also force a decision by artificial means)
In English cricket (unless it changed when I wasn’t looking) the County Championship also allows draws and ties.
sonof
You sure fooled me!
Random suggestion from someone with only a passing familiarity with football. Sudden death overtime with no keepers. Go until the first score.