Well this is kind of topical I suppose after Portugal (deservedly IMHO) beat England in a penalty shoot out.

But anyway, what I would like to suggest is that when a match, from which there has to be a winner, is drawn after 90 minutes, the penalty shoot out should take place then (ie straight after the 90 minutes but before extra time).

One team would win the penalty shoot out in the normal way. But then extra time would be played after the shoot out.

If one team was leading after extra time, that team would go through. However if the teams were drawing, whoever won the penalty shoot out earlier on would go through.

This would mean teams went into extra time knowing exactly what they had to do.

Also, it could be combined with golden goal. The problem with golden goal seemed to be that both teams sat back. But in this system one would have to the attack, and the other team (who'd won the shoot out) would be faced with the dilemma of hanging on and risking being out because they knew their opponents would attack them, or attacking themselves.

What do you think of this suggestion? And do you have any suggestions about how drawn football matches should be decided?

A toss of a coin, just like in the good old days, preferably by a Swiss referee.

Seriously, the system you propose has its obvious advantages, but I guess the penalty series in between would be a bit odd. There you go with a nerve wracking penalty shoot-out and nothing is really decided yet. On the other hand there are no better alternatives.

Seriously, the system you propose has its obvious advantages, but I guess the penalty series in between would be a bit odd. There you go with a nerve wracking penalty shoot-out and nothing is really decided yet. On the other hand there are no better alternatives.

How about after 120 minutes of a tie game, next goal wins (in elimination games only of course). It works in hockey during the playoffs, and if the game lasts past a certain point, the players tire out and are more likely to make a mistake, guarenteeing a goal eventually.

next goal wins

That's what the Golden Goal is/was. You can't play extra time forever though.

I'm happy enough as it is anyway.

after extra time allow teams to make 7 subs for a new period of extra time of an hour then if its still a draw go to another half an hour period of extra time if it is still a draw stop the match for 24 hours and start again

the players tire out and are more likely to make a mistake, guarenteeing a goal eventually.

Which brings it back to deciding the game on the luck that a tired player might make a mistake and lose his team the game...

Learn from Tennis: adopt an Advantage rule, giving an incentive for a duece.

The team with Advantage only needs a draw, to go through.
Teams acquire Advantage from the last time those teams competed.

No! That's a terrible rule...It's not at all fair.

Does anybody really have a serious problem with a penalty shootout? It may not be ideal, and some may call it unfair, but after two hours of play there's little else you can do...

For a neutral, they can make great viewing.

A penalty shootout is the most entertaining way of deciding a football match and if two teams can't be separated after 120 minutes of football then they don't deserve a fair result.

I don't particularily mind penalty shootouts its just that England always seem to lose at them...

I think golden goal was the best system - should be reintroduced. And then the match should continue indefinitely till someone scores...

No! That's a terrible rule...It's not at all fair.
What's not fair about it?

I got a funny one:

When teams draw in a knock-out game, they both progress and have to merge into one team for the next round!! :lol:

Which brings it back to deciding the game on the luck that a tired player might make a mistake and lose his team the game...

In a way, a large chunks of goals (in any sport) are scored by chance, because the other team failed to play as it should...

But from what I'm understanding, this Golden Goal rule is not in effect anymore?

Golden Goal has gone.

Silver Goal is in use. Score in the first half of extra time, and you win -- insane idea.

Next tournament, there will be no comparible rule.

What's not fair about it?

The fact that you give an advantage (and even call it just that) to one team going into the match. I would have thought that is obviously unfair.

The current system is great! :D

Well, when the Silver Goal disappears after this Euro...

Golden goal and silver goal are unnecessary complications to the system similar to practically every rule change FIFA have introduced. A simple half-hour of extra time followed by penalties is sufficient.

Golden goal and silver goal are unnecessary complications to the system similar to practically every rule change FIFA have introduced. A simple half-hour of extra time followed by penalties is sufficient.
Why do you think the penalties should come after extra time not before?

Personally, I think it's preferable to avoid penalties for as long as possible. I think extra time works fine, but I certainly didn't like the Golden Goal. That was entirely unfair. The Silver Goal seems rather pointless. I'd prefer normal extra time. After two hours of play, if there's still no winner, then penalties seem fair enough.

I don't see any benefit in playing on, and I think penalties do the required job.

Penalties would be unfair if a team only had to hold out for 45 minutes, obviously. I'd say the same after 90. After two hours though, I think penalties are perfectly reasonable.

I don't like the idea of any complex systems or pre-determined advantages (which are by definition unfair). Also, let's not ignore the incredible drama of a penalty shootout. I know you were on the losing side, but if you manage to win...

Why do you think the penalties should come after extra time not before?
Tradition, and it increases the excitment. The extra time then penatlies situation worked fine until FIFA came along with their bizarre metal-based rule changes. Life is unfair, why can't football be?

In a way, a large chunks of goals (in any sport) are scored by chance, because the other team failed to play as it should...

Yes I realise this but these goals are usually based on some skill plus luck whilst a goal in the 200th minute would tend to be because of a tired player making a mistake, especially if we still have only 3 substitutions. Another problem is that there needs to be a reasonably short resolution to the game. TV companies need a result, they can manage another 30 minutes by dropping a program later but playing till a goal could see a game go on for another hour...

TV companies need a result, they can manage another 30 minutes by dropping a program later but playing till a goal could see a game go on for another hour...

Ain't that the sad and sorry truth...

Forget about TV companies. Fans need a result. You can't ask them to wait indefinitely.

I don't particularily mind penalty shootouts its just that England always seem to lose at them...

I penalty shootout between England and Holland should be awesome :D I like the system as it is, despite the fact that the Dutch are world champion in missing penalties. With 1998 semi-final vs Italy as lowlight.

The current system is great! :D

Well, when the Silver Goal disappears after this Euro...
There's not more to say.

I penalty shootout between England and Holland should be awesome :D

The game would have to be abandoned after each team had missed 20 penalties in a row...

Which brings it back to deciding the game on the luck that a tired player might make a mistake and lose his team the game...

Is it any more lucky than a goalie guessing to which side the penalty kick will be?

I don't like the idea of any complex systems or pre-determined advantages (which are by definition unfair). Also, let's not ignore the incredible drama of a penalty shootout. I know you were on the losing side, but if you manage to win...
For a neutral observer they are great as well. Many historic matches have become that because of the shootout, not despite.

Is it any more lucky than a goalie guessing to which side the penalty kick will be?

They both come down to luck...

Why does everyone say penalties are a lottery? Some teams are good at them, and some are consistently poor (England, and ones managed by Mick McCarthy:().

Whatever else, penalty shootouts are exciting. England have now lost 3 out of 4 but I dont see that as any reason to change them. Maybe we just need to get better at then. I think its a good way to decide. The only change I would make is that there has to be 11 penalties - one by every player on the team. Then its a whole team thing and not just 5 + sudden death.

I like the idea of everyone in the team having to take a penalty, and it's not as if an extra 12 penalties will make the shootout much longer in terms of time.

My favourite idea though is that every team would take 12 penalties. The 11 players on the pitch at the end of the match plus the manager. There's something irresistible about the thought of seeing Sven pop the ball down on the spot and take a penalty wearing brogues :lol:

By the way, when will keepers learn that it's a very viable tactic to just STAND STILL and not sell yourself... David James would have saved one more penalty than he did by just not moving... And Ricardo would have saved about 3...

I'd rather have an attempt at a replay before we go to penalties. I realise that it may well be impractical due to the needs of TV scheduling (oh, and possibly tournament scheduling), but it would seem to offer the likelihood of a fairer outcome. If it means that a team are playing 3 games or so in 7 days, well, it may well force them to use some of their backup players more heavily - not necessarily a bad thing (make them earn their medals...)

No, it won't happen, and no it really isn't practical given the constraints the organisers are under.

In response to the original suggestion (Evertonian's ?) of having the penalty shoot-out before extra time, I think this would cause significant problems well. Firstly, the shoot-out would be somewhat anti-climactic. Secondly, it would change the nature of the extra time period. One team would just be rigorously defending, knowing that they just need to avoid conceding a goal to go through - this would make for pretty awful entertainment, and would reduce the chance of the better footballing team winning by scoring a goal in the 30 minutes extra-time.

What about this: 2x15 minutes extra time and when there's no winner after this: team with the most shots on goal wins.

What about this: 2x15 minutes extra time and when there's no winner after this: team with the most shots on goal wins.

At least, need to make it shots on target, I think. But as soon as you introduce any secondary counting mechanism (whether shots, shots on goal, corners, length of shorts, whatever...), you will find teams starting to play towards that end rather than trying for the harder task of scoring a goal. And once teams are playing just to get shots or corners without really caring about scoring, then you'll end up with a significantly different game.

I'm not sure taking penalties before extra time would work, whoever lost the penalty shoot out would have to score to win the game, the opposition could play defensively with the opportunity to hit them on the break.

11 penalties could be a good idea, but we would be left asking what to do if level after 11, another 11?

My personal preference would be standard extra time, 5 penalties, then game determinded on some "Fair play" scoring mechanism.

Whatever else, penalty shootouts are exciting. England have now lost 3 out of 4 but I dont see that as any reason to change them. Maybe we just need to get better at then. I think its a good way to decide. The only change I would make is that there has to be 11 penalties - one by every player on the team. Then its a whole team thing and not just 5 + sudden death.
A little known rule at the moment is that if one team has a player sent off and their opponent doesn't, if it gets round to the 11th penalty (for that team, not overall) because the teams have been matching each other for scoring and missing, then the team who had a player sent off loses automatically. The idea is they don't have anyone to take the 11th penalty so lose by default.

It only goes back to the starting players again if they have the same number of players who can take penalties.

So what would happen regarding this rule if all the players on a team had to take penalties?

A little known rule at the moment is that if one team has a player sent off and their opponent doesn't, if it gets round to the 11th penalty (for that team, not overall) because the teams have been matching each other for scoring and missing, then the team who had a player sent off loses automatically. The idea is they don't have anyone to take the 11th penalty so lose by default.

It only goes back to the starting players again if they have the same number of players who can take penalties.

So what would happen regarding this rule if all the players on a team had to take penalties?

I don't think that's right.

The team that still has 11 players gets to nominate a player who doesn't have to take a penalty, IIRC.

I'm sure this happened in a Leage Cup tie a year or two ago.

I have an idea. :D

If there's a deuce after 90 minutes. Then the team which have played the longest time with ALL its field player in the opponent side will win.

This way, we promote attacking football against defending football. As the hard stuff in footie is exactly to attack, I think such a system would be fair. :)

There would be problems in actually recording the amount of time each player had actually stayed in a particular half since you would have to take into account stoppages, if a player was injured and what happens if they run off the ptich briefly? Also it may just encourage holding the ball in the opponents half rather than taking shots.

Football is about scoring goals (except when Italy play). Things like number of fouls, offsides, corners, minutes spent scratching nose, whatever, are not relevant for deciding a drawn match.
Sticking the ball in the back of the net from 12 yards is a good surrogate.
It's not a lottery, it's a test of skill and nerve. One that our overpaid idols turn out to be staggeringly bad at.
Penalty shootouts are perfect.

There would be problems in actually recording the amount of time each player had actually stayed in a particular half since you would have to take into account stoppages, if a player was injured and what happens if they run off the ptich briefly? Also it may just encourage holding the ball in the opponents half rather than taking shots.Yeah you're right.

Actually, I think the main problem in football is about teams playing too much defensively. I don't know if there's a way to change that... maybe we should make a limit on the amount of players in the penalty area or something...

In this euro, the amount of teams which have played with 8 players in their penalty area during half of the game is quite insane.

I did notice that some of the best games were the final group ones, where in most cases one team had to win. Perhaps teams that win their group in the group phases should get a 1-goal lead in the next round. That would lead to more intense competition to top the group, and more attacking football in the first knockout round.

I did notice that some of the best games were the final group ones, where in most cases one team had to win. Perhaps teams that win their group in the group phases should get a 1-goal lead in the next round. That would lead to more intense competition to top the group, and more attacking football in the first knockout round.Maybe not one goal but at least an advantage in case of deuce. I like that idea. :)

Unfortunately, it solves the issue only for Euro quarters and World Cup 1/8 finals... not for the games after.

It would be difficult to add new rules as they would need to be clarified, having to have a paricular number of players in or out of an area would be difficult to referee as it would be hard to monitor exactly where every player is...

Giving a team a one goal lead is a little extreme and probably unfair when you consider that they are playing the runner up of an unrelated group. It might work if the group winner played the runner up of the same group however does winning the group really deserve a goal advantage when the Czechs were the only group winning team to go through.

It might work if the group winner played the runner up of the same group however does winning the group really deserve a goal advantage when the Czechs were the only group winning team to go through.Portugal have won its group too. It remains only teams from group A and D.

Penalty shoot outs are the way to go. You cannae beat them for sheer excitement and drama!! I just wish that Scotland would go far enough so I could experience one fully!

If you gave a team a 1-0 lead for topping their group, they's just sit back and defend it ;)

Oh, and believe me that experiencing a penalty shoot out "fully" is excruciating, and not anyone's idea of fun.

Good drama, but best for neutrals

I don't think that's right.

The team that still has 11 players gets to nominate a player who doesn't have to take a penalty, IIRC.

I'm sure this happened in a Leage Cup tie a year or two ago.
I looked this up, and it turns out you are right phoenix_night, so my bad :blush:
Apologies for misleading everyone, not quite sure where i got the idea they automatically lost if it got to the 11th penalty.

I feel particularly ashamed because I admonished Mr President in the 'English football'.. thread for not checking facts before posting. :blush: :blush:

Portugal have won its group too. It remains only teams from group A and D.

Missed that... I think I was excluding them because they lost their opening game, also they went through on a reasonably low amount of points for a group winner.

no golden goal, no silver goal, just 2x 15 minutes and a penalty shoot-out after that.

How about bare knuckle boxing between the two captains. Old Navy rules first one to die loses.

Isn't that unfair, basing the result on one fight? Surely all the players should be involved...

Unlimited extratime with golden goal. To be sure to have a golden goal, just take two players ( one in each team of course ) out every 5 minutes. So, you create spaces the forwards need. At 8 against 8, you're quite sure to have a goal in just a few seconds :D

This way, you also promote fair-play because it's much harder to play 8 against 9 than 10 against 11;)

With the same principle, there would be a yet more extreme solution. We could exclude for the extra-time every players with a yellow card ! So, it would be very difficult for agressive teams to win.

Isn't that unfair, basing the result on one fight? Surely all the players should be involved...
A no-holds barred royal rumble? Last man standing wins.

A no-holds barred royal rumble? Last man standing wins.

Last team standing wins ;)

Last team standing wins ;)

This certainly would explain Arsenal's approach at Old Trafford last season....