# FIFA considering shootout instead of PKs after draws



## espola (Jan 19, 2017)

http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2017/01/18/fifa-shootouts-penalty-kicks-mls-van-basten-world-cup-2026

The players for each team have a given amount of seconds to run up from a set distance and try to beat an onrushing goalkeeper, instead of just shooting from 12 yards out.

FIFA was already considering have group-stage matches go to penalties to avoid draws in the three-team groups and prevent teams from settling for mutually beneficial draws in the final game of the stage. This change would take it a step further, and would conjure up some decades-old memories from American soccer.​


----------



## outside! (Jan 19, 2017)

I wouldn't want to see this implemented at the youth level. Teams that have already played 120 minutes of soccer need the game to end with minimal chance for injuries.

The article also mentions eliminating offside. That sounds like a terrible idea.


----------



## Kicknit22 (Jan 19, 2017)

outside! said:


> I wouldn't want to see this implemented at the youth level. Teams that have already played 120 minutes of soccer need the game to end with minimal chance for injuries.
> 
> The article also mentions eliminating offside. That sounds like a terrible idea.


Why not just let the freaking goalie come off his/her line as soon as the shooter makes a move?  Why such a drastic change? Such idiots!! But, it is FIFA we are talking about.


----------



## espola (Jan 19, 2017)

Kicknit22 said:


> Why not just let the freaking goalie come off his/her line as soon as the shooter makes a move?  Why such a drastic change? Such idiots!! But, it is FIFA we are talking about.


Kicks from the mark to create a winner after a drawn match were not used in FIFA World Cup play until the 1980's, after some lower-level experiments in the 1970's.  Before that, drawn games were replayed, or, if a winner was needed immediately (COUGH-television-COUGH), lots were drawn.  I will always watch them with great interest, but they're not much like soccer.


----------



## Erika Taylor (Jan 20, 2017)

Terrible idea. And unnecessary. I mean, penalty kicks are the best adrenaline kicks for all participants. Why change it?


----------



## Kicknit22 (Jan 20, 2017)

I'm never amazed or even impressed with a successful PK.  I am, however, amazed and impressed when a goalie makes a save.  PK, while nerve wracking, favor the shooter by a large margin.  I think it would add more excitement to it, if they even it up by freeing up goalie movement.


----------



## younothat (Jan 21, 2017)

MLS used to do this, as a spectator makes for more action,  works for hockey so why not for soccer?


----------



## Kicknit22 (Jan 21, 2017)

younothat said:


> MLS used to do this, as a spectator makes for more action,  works for hockey so why not for soccer?


See.  Exciting!  Although, in my opinion, don't need to start from so far away on the dribble.  A shortened distance for both would be just as effective and less time consuming, thus making for a viable use for a means to end.


----------



## 3thatplay (Jan 21, 2017)

I grew up with this rule.  I liked it.  we had ~9 or so seconds from the kick off spot.  Sometimes you had to chip a goalie or make a good move.  After 3 to 5 of these then it went to PK.  It was fun and the goalies liked it.


----------



## espola (Jan 21, 2017)

Kicknit22 said:


> See.  Exciting!  Although, in my opinion, don't need to start from so far away on the dribble.  A shortened distance for both would be just as effective and less time consuming, thus making for a viable use for a means to end.


The referee would have to use a mark already on the field, like the closest point of the center circle or the farthest point of the penalty spot "D", or FIFA would have to direct another spot be marked.  When NASL was using shootouts, they started from a line 35 yards from the goal line which was already marked because of the NASL offside experiment.


----------



## Kicknit22 (Jan 21, 2017)

espola said:


> The referee would have to use a mark already on the field, like the closest point of the center circle or the farthest point of the penalty spot "D", or FIFA would have to direct another spot be marked.  When NASL was using shootouts, they started from a line 35 yards from the goal line which was already marked because of the NASL offside experiment.


Honestly, I don't think the current spot needs to change.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jan 23, 2017)

espola said:


> The referee would have to use a mark already on the field, like the closest point of the center circle or the farthest point of the penalty spot "D", or FIFA would have to direct another spot be marked.  When NASL was using shootouts, they started from a line 35 yards from the goal line which was already marked because of the NASL offside experiment.


I hated it then, and will hate it again. I always prayed I didn't have to do it.


----------



## Kicknit22 (Jan 25, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> I hated it then, and will hate it again. I always prayed I didn't have to do it.


Think about it.  No change to current spot.  Only change is to free up the goalie.  Whistle blows,.......action.  There would be a lot more saves (Exciting!), and the shooter would have to think and react quickly.  Personally, I think it would add some fun to the process.  I don't have goalies among my DD's, BTW.  But, I think the current PK set up is skewed and can, at times, drag out round after round. Just saying


----------



## Just a Parent (Jan 25, 2017)

Kicknit22 said:


> Think about it.  No change to current spot.  Only change is to free up the goalie.  Whistle blows,.......action.  There would be a lot more saves (Exciting!), and the shooter would have to think and react quickly.  Personally, I think it would add some fun to the process.  I don't have goalies among my DD's, BTW.  But, I think the current PK set up is skewed and can, at times, drag out round after round. Just saying


I did think about it and for a brief period we had to do this for every drawn game. Thank god the thing ended before there was a general riot.


----------



## Kicknit22 (Jan 25, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> I did think about it and for a brief period we had to do this for every drawn game. Thank god the thing ended before there was a general riot.


Why, JaP?  What's the problem with it.  When did They do this?  Were the goalies making too many stops, so they made them stay the line? Please, do inform.


----------



## socalkdg (Jan 26, 2017)

Never a fan of penalty shots.  Allowing the keeper to come off his line at whistle would help a bit.   I had heard that some tourney's reduce the number of players on the field for each OT until the game is done?    9 players for first 5 minute OT,   7 for next,   5 for next?    First to score wins?


----------



## Kicknit22 (Jan 26, 2017)

socalkdg said:


> Never a fan of penalty shots.  Allowing the keeper to come off his line at whistle would help a bit.   I had heard that some tourney's reduce the number of players on the field for each OT until the game is done?    9 players for first 5 minute OT,   7 for next,   5 for next?    First to score wins?


Yeah, played in one of those.  It was a joke.  Barons tournament did this.  Hope to never have to experience that ever again.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jan 26, 2017)

Kicknit22 said:


> Why, JaP?  What's the problem with it.  When did They do this?  Were the goalies making too many stops, so they made them stay the line? Please, do inform.


They did this if the game was tied in the pro league(MLS, A league, etc.) Players hated it. Most fans hated it. One team from Arizona (I forget the name) always tried to play for a tie against California teams, (they were not in the same class), hoping to secure a win through this shootout. One game I refereed this team against LA Fireballs, they were on the receiving end for 90 minutes and what do you know? They win on shootout, (or whatever this was called). Mid 90's.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jan 27, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> They did this if the game was tied in the pro league(MLS, A league, etc.) Players hated it. Most fans hated it. One team from Arizona (I forget the name) always tried to play for a tie against California teams, (they were not in the same class), hoping to secure a win through this shootout. One game I refereed this team against LA Fireballs, they were on the receiving end for 90 minutes and what do you know? They win on shootout, (or whatever this was called). Mid 90's.


In short, they get an undeserved 1 on 1 chance with the goalkeeper that they were unable to create during the actual game. Is that deserved?


----------



## Kicknit22 (Jan 27, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> They did this if the game was tied in the pro league(MLS, A league, etc.) Players hated it. Most fans hated it. One team from Arizona (I forget the name) always tried to play for a tie against California teams, (they were not in the same class), hoping to secure a win through this shootout. One game I refereed this team against LA Fireballs, they were on the receiving end for 90 minutes and what do you know? They win on shootout, (or whatever this was called). Mid 90's.


Oh, you're talking about the PK from a distance running up like the video, right?  No, I wouldn't be in favor of that either.  I'm talking about making just a slight change to the current PK approach, where instead of the goalie having to stay his/her line, they are freed up at the whistle.  Simple adjustment.  I've seen too many shootouts gon2-3 rounds with the current. Boring!!


----------



## Kicknit22 (Jan 27, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> In short, they get an undeserved 1 on 1 chance with the goalkeeper that they were unable to create during the actual game. Is that deserved?


I agree JaP.  Not deserved. Particularly in that PK setup.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jan 27, 2017)

Kicknit22 said:


> Oh, you're talking about the PK from a distance running up like the video, right?  No, I wouldn't be in favor of that either.  I'm talking about making just a slight change to the current PK approach, where instead of the goalie having to stay his/her line, they are freed up at the whistle.  Simple adjustment.  I've seen too manyt shootouts gon2-3 rounds with the current. Boring!!


Actually they did make adjustments to this. Previously they were not allowed to move at all before the kick. Now they can move side to side at any time before the kick.


----------



## Cleansheets (Jan 29, 2017)

As the the parent of a keeper I am torn on this idea. I am a firm believer of, "If it ain't broke don't fix it". However with that being said, in PKs the advantage overwhelmingly goes to the shooter. This change would even the odds up a bit and make for a more exciting finish. 
The only drawback I see would be for an increase in injuries to both players.
A previous poster mentioned a compromise. Do not move the ball so far back but at the very least let the keeper come off their line as soon as the whistle is blown.


----------



## espola (Jan 29, 2017)

Cleansheets said:


> As the the parent of a keeper I am torn on this idea. I am a firm believer of, "If it ain't broke don't fix it". However with that being said, in PKs the advantage overwhelmingly goes to the shooter. This change would even the odds up a bit and make for a more exciting finish.
> The only drawback I see would be for an increase in injuries to both players.
> A previous poster mentioned a compromise. Do not move the ball so far back but at the very least let the keeper come off their line as soon as the whistle is blown.


It's broke.


----------



## Cleansheets (Jan 29, 2017)

espola said:


> It's broke.


I find myself leaning towards that direction.


----------



## Kicknit22 (Jan 29, 2017)

Cleansheets said:


> As the the parent of a keeper I am torn on this idea. I am a firm believer of, "If it ain't broke don't fix it". However with that being said, in PKs the advantage overwhelmingly goes to the shooter. This change would even the odds up a bit and make for a more exciting finish.
> The only drawback I see would be for an increase in injuries to both players.
> A previous poster mentioned a compromise. Do not move the ball so far back but at the very least let the keeper come off their line as soon as the whistle is blown.


kicking from existing spot while freeing up goalie would not increase chance of injury IMO.  The shooter would have a situation similar to a field goal kicker in football.  Step up and shoot.


----------



## TangoCity (Jan 29, 2017)

Kicknit22 said:


> Think about it.  No change to current spot.  Only change is to free up the goalie.  Whistle blows,.......action.  There would be a lot more saves (Exciting!), and the shooter would have to think and react quickly.  Personally, I think it would add some fun to the process.  I don't have goalies among my DD's, BTW.  But, I think the current PK set up is skewed and can, at times, drag out round after round. Just saying


Just have one kick decide the game.  Away team chooses location of kick and home team chooses if they want to take the kick or let the other team take it.  Game is over quickly and will be as close to a 50/50 kick as you can get.


----------



## Cleansheets (Jan 29, 2017)

Kicknit22 said:


> kicking from existing spot while freeing up goalie would not increase chance of injury IMO.  The shooter would have a situation similar to a field goal kicker in football.  Step up and shoot.


I was refering to the proposed run up shoot out. I can see a lot of 1 on 1 collisions. I know that can happen anytime in regulation play also.


----------



## espola (Jan 29, 2017)

Cleansheets said:


> I was refering to the proposed run up shoot out. I can see a lot of 1 on 1 collisions. I know that can happen anytime in regulation play also.


If the shooter is smart, he will take his shot before any collision.  In a one-on-one situation like that, keepers are trained to close the gap and cover more of the shooter's angles, meeting just within the PA boundary so he can still use his hands and arms (assuming the handling rules are not modified as part of the change).  A clever shooter facing that charge will chip the keeper when he gets halfway out.   If the keeper stays home, the shooter just has to get close enough to beat the time limit.


----------



## Cleansheets (Jan 29, 2017)

I agree.


----------



## socalkdg (Feb 2, 2017)

Keep the shot where it is, but allow the keeper to come off their line on the whistle.  Once less thing for the AR to worry about as some keepers come off the line already.


----------



## Kicknit22 (Feb 2, 2017)

socalkdg said:


> Keep the shot where it is, but allow the keeper to come off their line on the whistle.  Once less thing for the AR to worry about as some keepers come off the line already.


This is precisely what I have been suggesting.


----------

