PK's to decide "knockout" games

K

kickingandscreaming

PREMIER
This is my take on removing my least favorite part of soccer - PKs at the end of a game to decide a winner. I’ll use the current NCAA model, but it is generally applicable.

In the NCAA, ties in the regular season are allowed, and the game does not have overtime or go to PKs. A win gets you 3 points, and a tie gets you 1. Personally, I like this approach and wouldn’t change a thing. It takes 3 ties to get as many points as a win giving a greater incentive to play for the win than if a win is worth 2 points. Also, the seasons are compact, and injuries are common. A 90-minute game is long enough. So, no change in the regular season.

My idea is that a game that must end with a winner is never “tied”. In-game ties in goals are broken in the following way.
  • Before the game, a higher “ranked” team is determined. All teams are uniquely “ranked” before the tournament for NCAA tournaments, 1 to 64. For conference tournaments, ties in conference points from teams that play each other are broken with the following priority
    • Most wins
    • Most seconds with a lead (cumulative)
    • Fewest seconds behind (cumulative)
    • PKs BEFORE the game (highly unlikely to be used)
  • Breaking in-game ties:
    • At 0-0, the higher-ranked team is ahead. If the game ends 0-0, the highest rank team is the winner
    • In all other ties in goals, the team that first arrived at that score is ahead
That’s it. In addition to removing PKs at the end of a game to decide a winner, I like the other incentives/benefits this provides.
  1. Scoring the first goal is highly incented in “knock-out” games and also, to a lesser extent, in the regular season where that is part of the tiebreaker.
  2. In the regular season, there is no incentive to run up the score, but there is an incentive to hold the lead.
  3. At no time in knock-out games will both teams just sit back and play it safe to go to PKs. One team is always behind.
  4. No game is ever more than 90 minutes.
  5. The game ends with both teams playing on the field, not a single shooter and single goalie.
If you still like the PKs, how about this? In any knockout game, have PKs before the game so that both teams know who will win a tie going in, and the game will end in 90 minutes with all players on the field.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
This is my take on removing my least favorite part of soccer - PKs at the end of a game to decide a winner. I’ll use the current NCAA model, but it is generally applicable.

In the NCAA, ties in the regular season are allowed, and the game does not have overtime or go to PKs. A win gets you 3 points, and a tie gets you 1. Personally, I like this approach and wouldn’t change a thing. It takes 3 ties to get as many points as a win giving a greater incentive to play for the win than if a win is worth 2 points. Also, the seasons are compact, and injuries are common. A 90-minute game is long enough. So, no change in the regular season.

My idea is that a game that must end with a winner is never “tied”. In-game ties in goals are broken in the following way.
  • Before the game, a higher “ranked” team is determined. All teams are uniquely “ranked” before the tournament for NCAA tournaments, 1 to 64. For conference tournaments, ties in conference points from teams that play each other are broken with the following priority
    • Most wins
    • Most seconds with a lead (cumulative)
    • Fewest seconds behind (cumulative)
    • PKs BEFORE the game (highly unlikely to be used)
  • Breaking in-game ties:
    • At 0-0, the higher-ranked team is ahead. If the game ends 0-0, the highest rank team is the winner
    • In all other ties in goals, the team that first arrived at that score is ahead
That’s it. In addition to removing PKs at the end of a game to decide a winner, I like the other incentives/benefits this provides.
  1. Scoring the first goal is highly incented in “knock-out” games and also, to a lesser extent, in the regular season where that is part of the tiebreaker.
  2. In the regular season, there is no incentive to run up the score, but there is an incentive to hold the lead.
  3. At no time in knock-out games will both teams just sit back and play it safe to go to PKs. One team is always behind.
  4. No game is ever more than 90 minutes.
  5. The game ends with both teams playing on the field, not a single shooter and single goalie.
If you still like the PKs, how about this? In any knockout game, have PKs before the game so that both teams know who will win a tie going in, and the game will end in 90 minutes with all players on the field.
Click to expand...

The issue is once the other team is ahead, they'll pull back to a defensive posture. It's a common tactic already, especially in the boys game as they get older (which is why they use the GF standard as one of the tie breakers...to disincentivize this tactic). You switch to a 5 man defensive line. I even once saw a team lower rank pull up 1-0 against the league leader. They parked everyone back on defense including putting 4 defenders on the line as additional goalkeepers. The strategy only failed because the ref called a handball for an arm in an unnaturally bigger position.

There's no doubt PKs are broken in the game. There's also an easy fix....allow the GK to move on the whistle....yeah I know the fear is the GKs will rush up MLS old school style....that won't happen because the strikers will be forced to take a quicker shot instead of the long ridiculous run ups.

The other proposal that's been floated is diversifying the point system (which is almost is inevitable IF they ban headers). 1 for a goal off a header or unintentional handball, 2 for everything else, 3 for a ball far away. The system you propose will lead to a much greater clarify in the rules and standings and will make sure deserving teams get the slots. It will also make for much more boring soccer. The system I mentioned is a bit convoluted (but so is gridiron football) but it will make for exciting soccer with players desperately trying to ping it from distance for the win at the final moments.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
This is my take on removing my least favorite part of soccer - PKs at the end of a game to decide a winner. I’ll use the current NCAA model, but it is generally applicable.

In the NCAA, ties in the regular season are allowed, and the game does not have overtime or go to PKs. A win gets you 3 points, and a tie gets you 1. Personally, I like this approach and wouldn’t change a thing. It takes 3 ties to get as many points as a win giving a greater incentive to play for the win than if a win is worth 2 points. Also, the seasons are compact, and injuries are common. A 90-minute game is long enough. So, no change in the regular season.

My idea is that a game that must end with a winner is never “tied”. In-game ties in goals are broken in the following way.
  • Before the game, a higher “ranked” team is determined. All teams are uniquely “ranked” before the tournament for NCAA tournaments, 1 to 64. For conference tournaments, ties in conference points from teams that play each other are broken with the following priority
    • Most wins
    • Most seconds with a lead (cumulative)
    • Fewest seconds behind (cumulative)
    • PKs BEFORE the game (highly unlikely to be used)
  • Breaking in-game ties:
    • At 0-0, the higher-ranked team is ahead. If the game ends 0-0, the highest rank team is the winner
    • In all other ties in goals, the team that first arrived at that score is ahead
That’s it. In addition to removing PKs at the end of a game to decide a winner, I like the other incentives/benefits this provides.
  1. Scoring the first goal is highly incented in “knock-out” games and also, to a lesser extent, in the regular season where that is part of the tiebreaker.
  2. In the regular season, there is no incentive to run up the score, but there is an incentive to hold the lead.
  3. At no time in knock-out games will both teams just sit back and play it safe to go to PKs. One team is always behind.
  4. No game is ever more than 90 minutes.
  5. The game ends with both teams playing on the field, not a single shooter and single goalie.
If you still like the PKs, how about this? In any knockout game, have PKs before the game so that both teams know who will win a tie going in, and the game will end in 90 minutes with all players on the field.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't the higher ranked team just play defense the whole game pushing for a 0-0 tie?

Personally I think PKs at the end of the game is one of the most "exciting" parts of Soccer. Nobody wants to tie when they know a shootout is going to happen if they do.
 
I don't think there is any way I would agree that a ranking system of any sort should be used to determine a winner. If we go down that road we could argue for skipping the entire 90 min. game and eliminate all risk of injury by just using rankings to determine who the winner is for all match-ups. The incentive to score and avoid going to PK's is already there. If the stronger team doesn't want to be knocked out by PKs at the end of the game, they had better prove they are the stonger team and put some goals into the net. If they hold back, they risk a loss by PKs. If they can't out score the other team, then reality is they are not the "stronger team" regardless of what some rankings say. I very much agree that the GK should be able to move off the line on the whistle. It is an unfair rule against the GK to keep them on the line.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
  • Before the game, a higher “ranked” team is determined.
Click to expand...
Nope. Sports are supposed to be about even playing fields... Everyone starts with the same chance to win.

  • At 0-0, the higher-ranked team is ahead. If the game ends 0-0, the highest rank team is the winner
Click to expand...
I thought you were going to go the other way with this. It's a greater achievement for the lower-ranked team to tie than the higher. The problem with this is it incentives the higher-ranked team to park the bus. If you flip it, at least now the "better" teams has to work to win.

  • In all other ties in goals, the team that first arrived at that score is ahead
Click to expand...
Oofff... So no dramatic comeback-to-ties? Sounds like this will make games _less_ exciting. You're down by a goal with 15 mins left. What's the point of giving full effort. You have to score 2 to win anyway...

One thing I like from Hockey is that they go to 3v3 for overtime. We could try that it soccer, go to 9v9 or even lower, but to do this right, we'd have to reduce the field size as well... Go back to U10s and play small sided 7v7. Keep removing players until there's only a king and a single pawn on the board.
 
I've thought about this over years and years of watching undeserving teams win games in shootouts. Here's my solution...in overtime, remove the goals that are used throughout regulation and replace them with larger "jumbo" goals. Maybe 8ft wider and 1-2 feet taller? Play overtime for 20 minutes and see if a winner emerges. If still tied, then go to golden goal...next goal wins (with the larger goals still in place). Encourages aggressive play both in regulation (no team is gonna want to risk going to overtime with larger goals) and in overtime (scoring on larger goals much easier). I'm sure the goal manufacturers would be in favor too :)
 
Thanks for the responses so far. It's good to hear differing perspectives. I have a few more comments based on the responses. I'll combine a few here and address others separately.

Yes, my least favorite part of soccer will be "one of the most exciting parts" for others. I can understand that perspective. My primary criticism of ending games with PKs is that it only involves 2 of the 22 players. In a team game, I think this should be avoided. But soccer is unique in the difficulty of scoring so ties will be common, and breaking them as hockey does in playoffs - play until you score - is not a good option. I like the home-and-home playoffs using aggregate scoring to break the "each team wins 1 game" tie and away goals. The fact that such a system exists does indicate there is a significant desire to avoid PKs. When possible, I prefer this to my suggestion. This is likely not an option in college and youth soccer tournaments.

Also, yes, I believe the PKs themselves should be changed. The judgment as to whether a goalie moved early needs to be eliminated in some way. I'd be happy with the old MLS method @lafalafa. Also, I laugh every time I see overtime in a soccer game that isn't Golden Goal. Wasn't the whole objective to break the tie - on the field? If you play over 90 minutes of soccer and the other team is ahead, you lose. Period. No chance to catch up. PK lovers are free to disagree.
 
There are several interesting suggestions about changes to the game - different types of goals count differently, enlarging the nets in overtime, etc. I thought about those changes as well. I'd call those structural changes. I'm not against them in general, but I believe they will be harder to agree on than changes that only affect how the team ahead in a game is determined.
 
Code said:
I don't think there is any way I would agree that a ranking system of any sort should be used to determine a winner.
Click to expand...

focomoso said:
Nope. Sports are supposed to be about even playing fields... Everyone starts with the same chance to win.
Click to expand...
In boxing and Ryder Cup golf, a tie goes to the "reigning" champ. So, no, it's not always that everyone starts with the same chance to win. I can understand desiring that, but it's not always set up that way. Even in the second game of a home-and-home soccer playoff, the second game often starts with one team having an advantage that was earned in the first game. I don't see much difference between an advantage earned based on regular season performance, versus an advantage earned in the first game of a home-and-home playoff.
 
focomoso said:
Oofff... So no dramatic comeback-to-ties? Sounds like this will make games _less_ exciting. You're down by a goal with 15 mins left. What's the point of giving full effort. You have to score 2 to win anyway...
Click to expand...
Nope. But when you're behind, 2-2 late, you can go from behind to ahead with a single goal. That's more dramatic.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
Why wouldn't the higher ranked team just play defense the whole game pushing for a 0-0 tie?
Click to expand...

focomoso said:
I thought you were going to go the other way with this. It's a greater achievement for the lower-ranked team to tie than the higher. The problem with this is it incentives the higher-ranked team to park the bus. If you flip it, at least now the "better" teams has to work to win.
Click to expand...
I'm not too concerned about the advantage at 0-0. In the home-and-home playoff, if one team wins the first game, they have a greater advantage than this tiebreaker system gives them. At the very least, a game-one winner can lose the second game 1-0 and at least get PKs. Honestly, I don't know how many second games of home-and-home playoffs end 0-0 after one team wins the first game. That would be a reasonable proxy for how often you expect it to happen. My guess is not very often, but that's a guess.
 
Grace T. said:
The issue is once the other team is ahead, they'll pull back to a defensive posture. It's a common tactic already, especially in the boys game as they get older (which is why they use the GF standard as one of the tie breakers...to disincentivize this tactic). You switch to a 5 man defensive line. I even once saw a team lower rank pull up 1-0 against the league leader. They parked everyone back on defense including putting 4 defenders on the line as additional goalkeepers. The strategy only failed because the ref called a handball for an arm in an unnaturally bigger position.
Click to expand...
Yes, the 1-0 score is the one that concerns me most about this tiebreaker method. A 1-0 score may encourage a more defensive posture than is typical after a 1-0 lead. You can still win outright by giving up a goal. While the objective is to determine a winner during the 11v11 play, in my mind, it is not worth it if it is at the expense of overall scoring.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
This is my take on removing my least favorite part of soccer - PKs at the end of a game to decide a winner. I’ll use the current NCAA model, but it is generally applicable.

In the NCAA, ties in the regular season are allowed, and the game does not have overtime or go to PKs. A win gets you 3 points, and a tie gets you 1. Personally, I like this approach and wouldn’t change a thing. It takes 3 ties to get as many points as a win giving a greater incentive to play for the win than if a win is worth 2 points. Also, the seasons are compact, and injuries are common. A 90-minute game is long enough. So, no change in the regular season.

My idea is that a game that must end with a winner is never “tied”. In-game ties in goals are broken in the following way.
  • Before the game, a higher “ranked” team is determined. All teams are uniquely “ranked” before the tournament for NCAA tournaments, 1 to 64. For conference tournaments, ties in conference points from teams that play each other are broken with the following priority
    • Most wins
    • Most seconds with a lead (cumulative)
    • Fewest seconds behind (cumulative)
    • PKs BEFORE the game (highly unlikely to be used)
  • Breaking in-game ties:
    • At 0-0, the higher-ranked team is ahead. If the game ends 0-0, the highest rank team is the winner
    • In all other ties in goals, the team that first arrived at that score is ahead
That’s it. In addition to removing PKs at the end of a game to decide a winner, I like the other incentives/benefits this provides.
  1. Scoring the first goal is highly incented in “knock-out” games and also, to a lesser extent, in the regular season where that is part of the tiebreaker.
  2. In the regular season, there is no incentive to run up the score, but there is an incentive to hold the lead.
  3. At no time in knock-out games will both teams just sit back and play it safe to go to PKs. One team is always behind.
  4. No game is ever more than 90 minutes.
  5. The game ends with both teams playing on the field, not a single shooter and single goalie.
If you still like the PKs, how about this? In any knockout game, have PKs before the game so that both teams know who will win a tie going in, and the game will end in 90 minutes with all players on the field.
Click to expand...
I like the first to score option. Then you don't need anything else except in 0-0 games. The higher rnaked option would be of some value if that ranking were decided on some objective basis, but there is much evidence in NCAA tournament rankings in the recent past that it is not.
 
I'm not suggesting anything just pointing out that if you hate shootouts so much why not just have the ref flip a coin a 2nd time at the beginning of the game + the winner wins the game in the event of a tie. Why go through all the crazy calculations, increasing/decreasing players, and/or making goals shot from different locations worth more or less.

Again personally I think shootouts are one of the most exciting aspects of soccer.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
I'm not suggesting anything just pointing out that if you hate shootouts so much why not just have the ref flip a coin a 2nd time at the beginning of the game + the winner wins the game in the event of a tie. Why go through all the crazy calculations, increasing/decreasing players, and/or making goals shot from different locations worth more or less.

Again personally I think shootouts are one of the most exciting aspects of soccer.
Click to expand...
How about a shootout to start every game, or before the start of the second half, purely as an exhibition unless needed? Both teams will know what they are playing for.
 
espola said:
How about a shootout to start every game, or before the start of the second half, purely as an exhibition unless needed? Both teams will know what they are playing for.
Click to expand...
So every game would start with a 10-15 minute shootout? Seems like a huge waste of time.

Not that I'm advocating it but a 2nd coin flip would take 30 seconds.

Again again... I like shootouts at the end of a game to determine the winner.
 
Parent of a college keeper here:

I can’t stand golden goal - to me, the worst of all ways of determining a winner and I’m glad the trend is away from it. I have no problem with the system of normal OT and then PKs if still tied. PKs are a gimmick but you can’t have the players play forever or the game will slow down to a painful pace OR the risk fo injury rises. I do think that sub rules should reset in OT (not as applicable in college as in the pro/international settings). Changing the rules so that it is less like soccer - bigger goal, different scoring - seems off to me.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
So every game would start with a 10-15 minute shootout? Seems like a huge waste of time.

Not that I'm advocating it but a 2nd coin flip would take 30 seconds.

Again again... I like shootouts at the end of a game to determine the winner.
Click to expand...
Shootouts, but not PKs. How about the old MLS 35-yard shootout? Or give each team three corner kick tries, with each try ending when a goal is scored or the ball leaves the field of play or crosses the midfield line.

I think FIFA/IFAB instituted the PK shootout because players and referees knew already what PKs were.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top