Fifa have been conspiring again behind close doors to change how games are resolved after 90 minutes. Some members want to eliminate the shootout, while others want to bring back the golden goal, and some nuts want games to be decided by arbitrary things like number of corners or most shots.
What you make of it all should they change the system? and if so, how?
FIFA can't technically change the rules that easily. Rules are determined by theInternational Football Association Board (IFAB) which is made up of a representative from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and four from FIFA. And any rule has to have six votes to be passed.
Corners would be the most stupid of all their ideas as winning a corner doesn't neccessarily determine that you are a better or more attacking team.
I think they should just continue playing until someone breaks the deadlock. Penalties are wrong, as is the idea of the golden/silver goal.
I dunno i am a big fan of the golden goal rule, and penalties are a desciplin of the game. I thing they add extra excitment to the game. I mean sure loseing one is hard but winning a game on penalties is euphoric.
Yeah, but it's not right that the entire 120 minutes of the preceding match would be decided on one penalty kick.
Oh, and my idea is just a slightly reformed golden goal, with added substitutes as time goes on.
I like the idea of added substitutes after so many minutes. It tests the depth and quality of the squad, which determines a real means of finding a deserved winner rather than 'can they hack kicking a ball at the goal without the rhythm of the game and everybody watching'. Deciding it by corners? Can you imagine a bigger anticlimax to a World Cup final other than deciding it on the amount of bookings a team got?
I dont want to see penalties removed. It really tests the composure and mental strength of the player (also accuracy). I would like to see the Golden Goal rule back too (well...my France won Euro '00 thanks to it, didnt they, so of course I'd want it back =P).
1 thing that annoys me about penalties is the tension.actually could kill me,even if im watching a game between 2 teams i dont care about
lol yea that's true. I got goosebumps when I last watched the United-Chelsea Champions League final (about a month ago). Still I jumped of the sofa and celebrated when VDS saved Anelka's spot kick. 
Liversea I understand what you're saying that penalties don't always represent the balance of the game, but penalties are just as much a discipline of the game as corners or free kicks.
But i think the best thing about penalties is it tests the mental strength of a team. and if physically and technically they are equal, well then a mental test is the way to go
I want the away goals rule and pk's disbanded....after 90...if we are deadlocked a golden goal should decide it.
Haha rhian just because we lost on away goals rule? I think it's unfair, yes, but IDK if it should be outlawed.
rhianjoseph - 20 hours ago »
I want the away goals rule and pk's disbanded....after 90...if we are deadlocked a golden goal should decide it.
Agree with rhian..
why we doesn't make like to decide based on previous meetings or something?
We can reference it in their previous results, 90 minutes after the transfusion and win, it is difficult to decide 
Ghostwriter - 1 week ago » Some members want to eliminate the shootout, while others want to bring back the golden goal, and some nuts want games to be decided by arbitrary things like number of corners or most shots.
I completely agree. The shoot-out in sports is one thing that has got to go.
Football, by its very essence, is a team sport (the same is true for hockey). If two teams are working against each other during the first 90 minutes to try to get a ball into a goal, then the two teams are playing football. If two teams are working against each other during extra time to try to get a ball into a goal, then the two teams are still playing football (just as they did during the first 90 minutes).
If two teams are competing in a shoot-out, however, then I do not believe that they are actually playing football. In other words, the shoot-out is not really football (I have the same belief about the shoot-out in the National Hockey League).
The shoot-out is not two groups of people going up against each other. The shoot-out is little more than the shooter going up against the goalkeeper. Rather than having the game be decided by everything that football entails (such as passing, corner kicks, goal kicks, etcetera), the result of the game comes down to just shooting and goaltending. The shoot-out is little more than a glorified skills competition. It is the equivalent of deciding the result of a North American football game by way of a field-goal kicking contest, deciding the result of a baseball game with a home run contest (the pitcher going up against the batter), and deciding the result of a basketball game by way of a free throw shooting contest or some other type of practice drill.
Jim Rome expounds upon the unfairness of penalty kicks.
There are some who have argued that the shootout is necessary (in the World Cup and other single elimination tournaments) in order to protect the health and safety of the players. This is a legitimate concern.
While these men are athletes, they are also human beings. As human beings, they have a finite amount of chemical energy stored in their bodies. For this reason, there is only so much running back and forth that they can physically handle before they run the risk of collapsing from exhaustion (or worse, dropping dead). In light of these facts, the argument has been made that 120 minutes is the upper limit of how much running back and forth they can safely do.
These men are not machines. Unlike trucks, these men cannot travel from coast to coast without refuelling.
The solution to this problem, however, is not to resort to a glorified skills competition to determine who wins the World Cup. The solution to this problem is to change the substitution rules after so many minutes of overtime (by either giving both teams a certain number of substitutions, or else by allowing an unlimited number of substitutions, and possibly allowing players who have exited the game to re-enter the game). This would ensure that the result of the game is decided in overtime (not in a shoot-out), while simultaneously protecting the health and safety of those players who cannot safely run back and forth for more than 120 minutes.
but my argument is that penalties are a disciplin of the game just like throw in's or corners, so i think its fair to test players on thier nerve and ability from 12 yards out. And i agree with your point that you can't play forever we need a sure fire way of setteling a match.
and using previous meetings will destroy the game because only one side has incentive to go for the win in extra time.
Have to admit that something is depends on luck?
God help some people who Inputs play?
I like the penalty shootout
Valuable information.
John Flushing - 3 weeks ago »
Ghostwriter - 1 week ago » Some members want to eliminate the shootout, while others want to bring back the golden goal, and some nuts want games to be decided by arbitrary things like number of corners or most shots.
I completely agree. The shoot-out in sports is one thing that has got to go.
Football, by its very essence, is a team sport (the same is true for hockey). If two teams are working against each other during the first 90 minutes to try to get a ball into a goal, then the two teams are playing football. If two teams are working against each other during extra time to try to get a ball into a goal, then the two teams are still playing football (just as they did during the first 90 minutes).
If two teams are competing in a shoot-out, however, then I do not believe that they are actually playing football. In other words, the shoot-out is not really football (I have the same belief about the shoot-out in the National Hockey League).
The shoot-out is not two groups of people going up against each other. The shoot-out is little more than the shooter going up against the goalkeeper. Rather than having the game be decided by everything that football entails (such as passing, corner kicks, goal kicks, etcetera), the result of the game comes down to just shooting and goaltending. The shoot-out is little more than a glorified skills competition. It is the equivalent of deciding the result of a North American football game by way of a field-goal kicking contest, deciding the result of a baseball game with a home run contest (the pitcher going up against the batter), and deciding the result of a basketball game by way of a free throw shooting contest or some other type of practice drill.
Jim Rome expounds upon the unfairness of penalty kicks.
There are some who have argued that the shootout is necessary (in the World Cup and other single elimination tournaments) in order to protect the health and safety of the players. This is a legitimate concern.
While these men are athletes, they are also human beings. As human beings, they have a finite amount of chemical energy stored in their bodies. For this reason, there is only so much running back and forth that they can physically handle before they run the risk of collapsing from exhaustion (or worse, dropping dead). In light of these facts, the argument has been made that 120 minutes is the upper limit of how much running back and forth they can safely do.
These men are not machines. Unlike trucks, these men cannot travel from coast to coast without refuelling.
The solution to this problem, however, is not to resort to a glorified skills competition to determine who wins the World Cup. The solution to this problem is to change the substitution rules after so many minutes of overtime (by either giving both teams a certain number of substitutions, or else by allowing an unlimited number of substitutions, and possibly allowing players who have exited the game to re-enter the game). This would ensure that the result of the game is decided in overtime (not in a shoot-out), while simultaneously protecting the health and safety of those players who cannot safely run back and forth for more than 120 minutes.
Great post, and I completely agree, especially with the very last part.
what he said is good
___________________________________
Michael Jackson jordan shoes
You must log in to post.
