New penalty shootout system?

Spurger King

can't smile without glue
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
40,910
Thread starter #1
UEFA trialing a new shootout system known as ABBA, even though currently the winner takes it all already.

To be fair, it sounds reasonable. It's called ABBA as it represents the order in which players from team A and B take their penalties. Not the worst idea. What do you make of it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39798344
 

Marty

Throbbing member
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
16,910
#2
It's far from the most mental thing UEFA or FIFA have suggested recently. Not sure it really makes much difference to the contest though.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Flaccid Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,391
#5
I detest penalty shoot-outs, but since we seem to be stuck with them because the authorities believe we are too infantile to accept a more sensible and constructive but less dramatic way of settling drawn ties, (like awarding victory to the team that's committed fewest fouls) they may as well try to make them as fair as they can.

So, with huge reservations, I approve, which I'm sure UEFA will be enormously grateful and relieved to hear.
 

aliyid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
3,035
#6
Makes sense as it gives both teams a fair share of going first & going last. Same format they use for tie-breaks in tennis
 

scat1620

L'espion mal fait
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
5,514
#7
I detest penalty shoot-outs, but since we seem to be stuck with them because the authorities believe we are too infantile to accept a more sensible and constructive but less dramatic way of settling drawn ties, (like awarding victory to the team that's committed fewest fouls) they may as well try to make them as fair as they can.
Couldn't agree less with this, I love a good penalty shoot out. (Obviously, except when Spurs are taking part in one, because we've been rubbish at them for what feels like forever.)

Fewer fouls committed = win? Not for me, Clive.

Yours,

An infantile football fan.
 

stevenurse

Palacios' neck fat
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
5,245
#8
If its been statistically "proven" that going second, or "playing catch up" is detrimental and an unfair advantage to the team that goes first...why the fuck did we play all those Monday games last season! Pricks.



*not bitter at all



p.s. the system wont change anything will it? there will always be at least one player that has to score and the nature of it means someone will always be trailing, be it by 1 goal or 3, there will always be a team that is technically coming from behind unless they take them in sync at opposite ends of the ground.

Maybe I misunderstand but seems pointless to me. Plus, the mental part of the game is an interesting one too.
 

Spurger King

can't smile without glue
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
40,910
Thread starter #9
If its been statistically "proven" that going second, or "playing catch up" is detrimental and an unfair advantage to the team that goes first...why the fuck did we play all those Monday games last season! Pricks.



*not bitter at all



p.s. the system wont change anything will it? there will always be at least one player that has to score and the nature of it means someone will always be trailing, be it by 1 goal or 3, there will always be a team that is technically coming from behind unless they take them in sync at opposite ends of the ground.

Maybe I misunderstand but seems pointless to me. Plus, the mental part of the game is an interesting one too.
It's designed to spread the pressure more fairly. Currently it's possible for Team A to keep scoring, and for Team B to always be playing catchup until one team misses. This system would mean that both teams would take it in turn having to level the score and go one up (or two up if the previous team misses one).

If anything I think it would make the mental part of penalties even more interesting.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Flaccid Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,391
#10
Couldn't agree less with this, I love a good penalty shoot out. (Obviously, except when Spurs are taking part in one, because we've been rubbish at them for what feels like forever.)

Fewer fouls committed = win? Not for me, Clive.

Yours,

An infantile football fan.

I've always hated the travesty of shoot-outs.

They have nothing to do with the game. They are a playground cartoon version of real football that create a lasting impression in the records books and people's too-easily manipulated memories that one team beat another in an important match, whereas in truth they did nothing of the sort. They drew. They were equal.

So making the shoot-out "fairer" is OK but simply further confirms the idea that if you can't settle a football match by playing a game of football, you may as well do something else altogether as long as you can end the whole party-game by shooting sparkly paper at one set of players to the sound of some ropy old Queen or Status Quo dirge while spraying pomagne at the semi-dilirious faux-victors who don't get time to work out that they haven't actually won a football match.

It's a typically football-bureaucracy accountant's approach to tidying up and sanitising the inconvenience of the game itself. No tackles, no emotions, no challenging the hierarchy of money, no touching, no swearing, no awkward results. No football, preferably, but they haven't quite got there yet.

I like it when we win though.
 

scat1620

L'espion mal fait
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
5,514
#11
I've always hated the travesty of shoot-outs.

They have nothing to do with the game. They are a playground cartoon version of real football that create a lasting impression in the records books and people's too-easily manipulated memories that one team beat another in an important match, whereas in truth they did nothing of the sort. They drew. They were equal.

So making the shoot-out "fairer" is OK but simply further confirms the idea that if you can't settle a football match by playing a game of football, you may as well do something else altogether as long as you can end the whole party-game by shooting sparkly paper at one set of players to the sound of some ropy old Queen or Status Quo dirge while spraying pomagne at the semi-dilirious faux-victors who don't get time to work out that they haven't actually won a football match.

It's a typically football-bureaucracy accountant's approach to tidying up and sanitising the inconvenience of the game itself. No tackles, no emotions, no challenging the hierarchy of money, no touching, no swearing, no awkward results. No football, preferably, but they haven't quite got there yet.

I like it when we win though.
My considered response to that: "nope". :)
 

WalkerboyUK

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
14,883
#13
Don't see the point in the change really.
The pressure remains the same - you have to score, so it makes no difference whether you go first or second.
And isn't the a coin toss to decide who goes first? Pretty sure some teams choose to go second as well.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
17,790
#15
It sounds like an improvement on the current system to me.

Lots of people seem to hate the penalty system, but I haven't heard of a better alternative yet. I quite like the idea of playing Extra time with a different set of players than the starting elevens, but obviously that would be difficult to implement in a tournament when you pick up injuries and suspensions.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Flaccid Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,391
#16
It sounds like an improvement on the current system to me.

Lots of people seem to hate the penalty system, but I haven't heard of a better alternative yet. I quite like the idea of playing Extra time with a different set of players than the starting elevens, but obviously that would be difficult to implement in a tournament when you pick up injuries and suspensions.
I seriously don't understand this need to create a winner, no matter how artificially, from two teams who quite patently weren't able to win.

Ok, in a knockout competition someone has to go through, so do what you like, toss a coin, play draughts, measure willies, take a few penalties; none of it is actually the team game of football we're supposed to be interested in.

But in a final, artificially manufacturing a winner by doing something other than playing a game of football is pure nonsense. It may be exciting but so is free-fall bungee jumping. But it's emphatically not football.

(And a footnote: it's the same principle objection I have to Chelsea buying trophies: it measures something, in this case the owner's bank balance, but it has only a very tenuous relationship with the idea of the sport of football. I appreciate that football is big business, but anything that deliberately and gratuitously allows commerce to interfere with the structure of game itself should be resisted. )
 
Last edited:

Archibald&Crooks

Aegina Expat
Admin
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
44,900
#17
Don't see the point in the change really.
The pressure remains the same - you have to score, so it makes no difference whether you go first or second.
And isn't the a coin toss to decide who goes first? Pretty sure some teams choose to go second as well.
Here's the blurb....

The idea is to stop the team going second having to always, potentially, play catch-up. The sport's rule-making body, Ifab, approved the trial after looking at research it says proves the team taking the first penalty have an unfair advantage as they win 60% of shootouts.

"The hypothesis is that the player taking the second kick in the pair is under greater mental pressure," said Uefa.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Flaccid Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,391
#18
Here's the blurb....

The idea is to stop the team going second having to always, potentially, play catch-up. The sport's rule-making body, Ifab, approved the trial after looking at research it says proves the team taking the first penalty have an unfair advantage as they win 60% of shootouts.

"The hypothesis is that the player taking the second kick in the pair is under greater mental pressure," said Uefa.
Wow.

I wonder who the tyro was who plucked up the courage to introduce the radical concept of fairness to the football authorities. He won't last.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
17,790
#19
I seriously don't understand this need to create a winner, no matter how artificially, from two teams who quite patently weren't able to win.

Ok, in a knockout competition someone has to go through, so do what you like, toss a coin, play draughts, measure willies, take a few penalties; none of it is actually the team game of football we're supposed to be interested in.

But in a final, artificially manufacturing a winner by doing something other than playing a game of football is pure nonsense. It may be exciting but so is free-fall bungee jumping. But it's emphatically not football.

(And a footnote: it's the same principle objection I have to Chelsea buying trophies: it measures something, in this case the owner's bank balance, but it has only a very tenuous relationship with the idea of the sport of football. I appreciate that football is big business, but anything that deliberately and gratuitously allows commerce to interfere with the structure of game itself should be resisted. )
What would you suggest as a serious alternative? As you say you need a winner when playing tournament football, so what's the solution? Penalties aren't perfect, but at least they are a part of the game. Using some random statistic to determine the outcome would be awful. If you did it on shots you'd just get a ton of shots from distance each game, if you did it on fouls the ref has a massive influence and is under huge pressure.
 

Spurger King

can't smile without glue
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
40,910
Thread starter #20
What would you suggest as a serious alternative? As you say you need a winner when playing tournament football, so what's the solution? Penalties aren't perfect, but at least they are a part of the game. Using some random statistic to determine the outcome would be awful. If you did it on shots you'd just get a ton of shots from distance each game, if you did it on fouls the ref has a massive influence and is under huge pressure.
Yep. Shots on goal would be meaningless, fouls would just lead to more diving, and possession would just lead to AVB crab football.

Golden goals didn't work as they were too sudden. I don't particularly like penalties but at least it comes down to the main aim of football, which is the ability to put the ball in the back of the net. You could replace them with free kicks or 2 v 2, but they could conceivably go on forever.
 
Top