Malcolm Merlyn Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 I know the rule.I am asking why they scrapped it Strange things happened.A third grade South Korea reached WC semis by winning matches on golden goals.Basically it didnt allow the other team any chance to reply back.Ofcourse there were other issues in that world cup with South Korean wins.Basically it was the most farcial WC in recent memory. Silver goal also had similar problems with Greece winning the Euro 2004. Basically it made knock out games defensive lottery like games.
urbestfriend Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 Strange things happened.A third grade South Korea reached WC semis by winning matches on golden goals.Basically it didnt allow the other team any chance to reply back.Ofcourse there were other issues in that world cup with South Korean wins.Basically it was the most farcial WC in recent memory. Silver goal also had similar problems with Greece winning the Euro 2004. Basically it made knock out games defensive lottery like games. Dont understand this! If Korea was a third grade team, why not score against them in full time? Why hold it against them for scoring in ET? I think the golden goal rule was fine , but it made the team extra defensive instead of going for scoring goals thus many matches ended up in penalty shootout.
Lord Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 Strange things happened.A third grade South Korea reached WC semis by winning matches on golden goals.Basically it didnt allow the other team any chance to reply back.Ofcourse there were other issues in that world cup with South Korean wins.Basically it was the most farcial WC in recent memory. Silver goal also had similar problems with Greece winning the Euro 2004. Basically it made knock out games defensive lottery like games. But that can happen in penalties too,no?Infact higher chance imo Atleast you have equal chance to score golden goal and it is based more on skill than luck
adi B Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 PS is a must especially when 2 teams are ultra defensive and dont attack just because of the fear that they might concede in the process.yesterday's game was a prime example and have seen so many matches over the years inthe KOs being played like that. golden goal rule was good but many had disagreed,i think 30 mins ET is too much.it should be reduced to 10 mins per half. players cant go onto play for hours with considerations that KOs are played with just 3 days rest,players will get tired
Malcolm Merlyn Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 Dont understand this! If Korea was a third grade team' date=' why not score against them in full time? Why hold it against them for scoring in ET? I think the golden goal rule was fine , but it made the team extra defensive instead of going for scoring goals thus many matches ended up in penalty shootout.[/quote'] Opposition players got red cards had goals disallowed.As i said it was the most farcial WC in recent history. You must read the statements made by Spanish/Italian/Portugese teams said about it.
Crookbond Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 Strange things happened.A third grade South Korea reached WC semis by winning matches on golden goals.Basically it didnt allow the other team any chance to reply back.Ofcourse there were other issues in that world cup with South Korean wins.Basically it was the most farcial WC in recent memory. Silver goal also had similar problems with Greece winning the Euro 2004. Basically it made knock out games defensive lottery like games. By that yardstick, I can pick up "luck" moments for all World Cup winners including Italy 2006 - controversial penalty, Brazil 2002 - Rivaldo dive against Turkey or Spain 2010 - Offside goal, Du Jong kung fu kick. You basically are talking about the quality of refereeing in football. This has got nothing to do with 2002 WC in South Korea & Japan. IMO, there is one man who made the difference for South Korea who wasn't on the field - Guus Hiddink. It's no surprise that he was the main force behind Netherlands 1998 (they weren't a great team back then) or Australia 2006 (done due to a wrong penalty in ET against Italy the eventual WC winners). We need to be careful before we start calling out causations on correlations.
akshayxyz Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 It is.too much of a lottery to add to OP's suggestion,the players taken out should be defenders first so that it increases chances of a goal No. It is even more unfair. The choice should be left with the team. I do not follow football outside worldcup, and have been proposing something similar to friends, since the world cup began. But when you think about it, even though it is slightly better than penalty shootout - still football is defined as 11 men vs 11. You change the number of players, the game changes. And if you want to change it, why not just go shoot-out. Shooting is also part of football, and as everyone say - it is more about nerves. Good keepers do not just guess, they look for subtle clues. and good strikers always have advantage at faking such signs and reading goalies.
yoda Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 They can change Penalty shootout by having two defenders in addition to the goal keeper and allow the offensive player to start from outside the box. Will be like regular goal scoring opportunity with higher chance of scoring.
vvvslaxman Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 PK is an accepted procedure across the world. Every one is happy with that. Yes Nerves play a part. Big part. As someone who missed the goal by some distance in PK shootout i can say it is nerve wracking. But they practice a lot.
coffee_rules Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 If they are allowed in the middle of a game, why not at the end to decide the game?
Silva Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 By that yardstick, I can pick up "luck" moments for all World Cup winners including Italy 2006 - controversial penalty, Brazil 2002 - Rivaldo dive against Turkey or Spain 2010 - Offside goal, Du Jong kung fu kick. You basically are talking about the quality of refereeing in football. This has got nothing to do with 2002 WC in South Korea & Japan. IMO, there is one man who made the difference for South Korea who wasn't on the field - Guus Hiddink. It's no surprise that he was the main force behind Netherlands 1998 (they weren't a great team back then) or Australia 2006 (done due to a wrong penalty in ET against Italy the eventual WC winners). We need to be careful before we start calling out causations on correlations. But the ref of that Italy Korea game had underworld connections. Later on he got arrested for smuggling drugs. Plus he officiated a lot of controversial games in domestic matches. The amount of calls south Korea got in that world cup was ridiculous. It's not like it was just a few bad calls.
Alchemist Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 I don't see PS any different than a fluke goal by some one in 91st minute. If teams tout themselves to be good and First Grade, the score the damn goal in given time. If you have to go till PS, your we not as good as you thought you were.
maniac Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 Why is it unfair.....you are trying to out smart the goalie and the goalie is trying to outthink the striker? Nothing unfair about it.it is probably the biggest strength of both mental ability as well as skill....I mean the likes of baggio have missed penalties under extreme pressure.
Texan Posted July 17, 2014 Author Posted July 17, 2014 to add to OP's suggestion,the players taken out should be defenders first so that it increases chances of a goal You cannot really determine that. Other than the goalkeeper who has different privileges, all other players are deemed equal. So, the team should be able to decide who they want to leave out. On a side note, I'm glad we didn't have to witness this farce in the World Cup final.
Precambrian Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Superover is more unfair. Because all you need is one killer bowler in your team or beastly striker. In a team game like cricket individual brillance might vary.. There is some lottery involved. But in a penalty shootout anybody can score against any goal keeper. Individual talent means nothing. It is all down to temperament both for Goal keeper and players. It is fair. I have caused a loss to my team in my college. I kicked out of bounds :giggle: Not once we felt unfair. Because penalty kick is something part of actual football. Even inside a game you can get a penalty kick. But inside a cricket game you don't get a super over. That is designed just for result. Full of contradictions, penalty shootouts are in effect 5 strikers vs one goalie, how is individual performance not a factor? Similarly super over is 3 strikers vs one bowler. There is no big difference I agree partially with the suggestion in opening post, but another 100 minutes to original 90 minutes playing time would result in players dropping dead on the ground. Not ideal. Also 5 on 5 on such a big field might make it a bit boring given the open fields and reduce it to kind of a farce.
Lord Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 You cannot really determine that. Other than the goalkeeper who has different privileges, all other players are deemed equal. So, the team should be able to decide who they want to leave out. On a side note, I'm glad we didn't have to witness this farce in the World Cup final. I mean they should start from one less defending position.obviously you can place defenders in attacking position but that'll mean one less attacking player
Recommended Posts