pioneer98 wrote:The penalty shot is too close. Move it back to where the goalie actually has more of a chance. Right now it is just luck if the goalie guesses to dive the right direction.
Did you watch yesterday's shootout?
I watched both of them. The first one they did struggle to score, mainly because they missed the goal entirely, not because goalies made that many more saves. In the 2nd shootout, only 1 time did a ball not go in the net out of 10 shots, on a great save.
Nate Silver says the average for making a penalty shot is 72.5%. All I'm saying is: would it be bonkers to do something to make the average closer to 50%? A 50% shot to make a goal would mean the goalie and shooter are on more of a level playing field. If you want to give them the same 72.5% penalty shot for fouls during a game, fine. But we are talking about the penalty shots to decide a game, not free kicks after a foul occurred.
For some perspective, in the NHL, the Blues led the entire NHL in shootout goal percentage at 48.8% last year. The average team shot around 33% in the shootout. Even with that low percentage, a penalty shot in the NHL is a big deal when awarded. And I don't like shootouts to decide hockey games, either. But I still love hockey.
The keeper and the shooter are not supposed to be on a level playing field, even in a shootout.
Think of it this way, as a means of deciding the game, the biggest (and really, only) criticism of PKs is that they're a warped simulation of the actual game. It's entirely fair and terribly exciting, but it's very different than deciding a game through the run of play. Making PKs(or only PKs in shootouts) more fair to goalkeepers just puts more importance on that singular position to win a game. You're moving further into that warped simulation, it doesn't solve a problem, and it makes the only 'problem' worse.
I wonder what the odds were that Greece would have won yesterday had they just kept playing and not determined it with PKs? 80%? I don't care, just curious. I love PKs. If after 2+ hours of playing, the score is still tied, go ahead and do something to end it.
I haven't watched but a few minutes of the WC, but I did happen to catch the Brazil vs Chile OT and shootout & I have to admit that was pretty exciting. Of course I wanted to see Chile win it, although if that would've happened there probably would've been a riot. That shot that Chile had in the OT that went off the crossbar was a missle....Brazil lucked out (even though they looked like the better team).
pioneer98 wrote:The penalty shot is too close. Move it back to where the goalie actually has more of a chance. Right now it is just luck if the goalie guesses to dive the right direction.
That's the point. Don't foul in the box.
What if there was a distinction between in-game PKs and shootouts? You could either move back the kicker in OT or maybe even make it like hockey where the kicker starts up the field and moves in on the goal.
Please don't blast me if this is a stupid idea. It just seemed logical to this soccer neophyte that there could be a difference in how the 2 situations are handled.
(Neophyte = Had to google offside and still not 100% sure I understand it)
pioneer98 wrote:The penalty shot is too close. Move it back to where the goalie actually has more of a chance. Right now it is just luck if the goalie guesses to dive the right direction.
Like trill inferred, if you make the PK shot too hard, then more incentive on defense to foul away on all obvious scoring attempts. If they could devise a way to make a harder PK shot, say like indirect free kick, for the foul such as Robben's when he wasn't in a scoring position. But then even more gray areas, making more need for a replay system.
I was poking around the FIFA rule book, and see a section on indirect free kicks. Humh - I didn't know the goalie was restricted from using his hands when a teammate passes it to him. Seems like more teams should make a brief challenge to that pass back. I haven't watched all the games (wow, the beer I would drink if I did) but the team I notice that challenges it is the US.
MrSaigon wrote:I do hate the PK shootout as a way to decide games. But everyone does. I suppose they have to do it in the knockout rounds. I'd rather see a game decided by cramped and fatigued zombies than a coin flip.
I would rather not see PK shootouts decide games, but am coming around to it the more I see it. Granted, as TT mentions, it's nothing like the game play itself - similar to foul shots in basketball - but it's not arbitrary and takes a hell of a lot to get it to that point in the game. I didn't think there was a chance that Costa Rica could hold out until a shootout.
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:The keeper and the shooter are not supposed to be on a level playing field, even in a shootout.
Think of it this way, as a means of deciding the game, the biggest (and really, only) criticism of PKs is that they're a warped simulation of the actual game. It's entirely fair and terribly exciting, but it's very different than deciding a game through the run of play. Making PKs(or only PKs in shootouts) more fair to goalkeepers just puts more importance on that singular position to win a game. You're moving further into that warped simulation, it doesn't solve a problem, and it makes the only 'problem' worse.
Yes and no. I recognize a need for another way to end a game than just playing forever. By the end of 120 minutes the players were worn out. I'm just really struggling to see right now how the skill of the goalie comes into shootouts much. Whether they make a save is probably 80% just about whether he got lucky and guessed the right direction to dive.
Instead of a static shot, why not simulate a breakaway in soccer (like they do in hockey)? Let the goalie move around in the box, but also let the shooter dribble in and and put a move on. It would at least be more game-like, and both the shooter and goalie would get to use more of their athleticism and skills than they do with a static shot. I don't know, maybe this is a terrible idea, but I'm just looking for something that is more reliant on skill (of both shooter AND goalie) and less on guessing which way to shoot, or which way to dive.
Sort of related...The rule about the goalie needing to keep their feet on the goal line until the shot is underway is really tough. The announcers commented on it after a save about how the goalie may have left the line a bit early. After they said that, I was looking for it, and to me it looked like they left a little early almost every time. They probably have to in order to have a chance. I'll be interested to see if this gets called at all.
Radbird wrote:
What if there was a distinction between in-game PKs and shootouts? You could either move back the kicker in OT or maybe even make it like hockey where the kicker starts up the field and moves in on the goal.
This has happened.
First, bear in mind that shootouts to end games are only a thing in knockout round of tournaments. You don't get shootouts in league play. Champions League, World Cup, Euros, Copa America, African Cup of Nations, Gold Cup, Asia Cup etc, various league cups, etc have shootouts in knock out rounds after extra time, so shootouts aren't going to factor into the majority of soccer competitions.
This strange compulsion by Americans to "fix" soccer is not new. In the 70's, the NASL tried to Americanize soccer. They had a clock that counted up, they had cheeleaders and they abolished the tie. To finish a game, they had a shootout where the player took the ball from 35 yards out and had 5 seconds to shoot. A lot like hockey, it forced the player to be in movement and gave the goalkeeper the option to stay on their line or come out to cut down angles.
A lot of the legends of that era made a final stop in NASL to get a big paycheck past their prime like Pele, Beckenbauer, Carlos Alberto, George Best etc. Most of them liked the shootout better than pk's as a way to end a tie. That league didn't work for a lot of reasons, and even though the players claimed to be ok with the shootout, NASL's long-term viability was affected negatively by the way it separated itself from the larger soccer landscape. Player movement, credibility and foreign investment were hampered by their American Exceptionalist approach.
Personally, I don't understand the desire to "fix" a sport that's hundreds of years old and is loved by billions. Seems to be working just fine. If you'd rather change a sport to fit more neatly into your your frame of sports reference rather than put in the effort to understand the sport within it's own historical and sporting context, then maybe the sport isn't for you. I don't see how anyone watching the sport could view how penalties are taken as any kind of impediment to enjoying themselves. This immediate compulsion to change something you don't understand is not something I share I guess.
MLS added the one thing that American sports do right, playoffs. That said, I don't want the EPL to start doing playoffs, not that they'd ever consider it. I like that MLS does it and don't have a problem with MLS being unique. Conversely, MLS will never institute promotion and relegation, which is the soul of European club soccer and one of the greatest concepts in pro sports.
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:The keeper and the shooter are not supposed to be on a level playing field, even in a shootout.
Think of it this way, as a means of deciding the game, the biggest (and really, only) criticism of PKs is that they're a warped simulation of the actual game. It's entirely fair and terribly exciting, but it's very different than deciding a game through the run of play. Making PKs(or only PKs in shootouts) more fair to goalkeepers just puts more importance on that singular position to win a game. You're moving further into that warped simulation, it doesn't solve a problem, and it makes the only 'problem' worse.
Yes and no. I recognize a need for another way to end a game than just playing forever. By the end of 120 minutes the players were worn out. I'm just really struggling to see right now how the skill of the goalie comes into shootouts much. Whether they make a save is probably 80% just about whether he got lucky and guessed the right direction to dive.
You're basically describing why the position of goalkeeper is not as important in soccer as it is in hockey. It's not as important and in my opinion, that's a good thing. Let hockey be hockey. Let soccer be soccer. In hockey, the goalie can win it in a shootout. In soccer, the pressure is on the more skilled, field players to win it.
Then when you get a crazy shootout where the goalie just guesses correctly a bunch, it's really exciting.
trill wrote:MLS added the one thing that American sports do right, playoffs. That said, I don't want the EPL to start doing playoffs, not that they'd ever consider it. I like that MLS does it and don't have a problem with MLS being unique. Conversely, MLS will never institute promotion and relegation, which is the soul of European club soccer and one of the greatest concepts in pro sports.
My favorite thing about the EPL is that it's literally impossible to win a championship by being hot for three weeks at the end of a year in which you were just a B+ team. You have to play the full 9 months well, and it's more likely that a 3-week run of bad form costs you a trophy than a good 3 weeks wins you one.
