I think one of the arguments against golden goal was that it put too much pressure on match officials in the event of a tight or controversial decision. VAR significantly reduces that risk (in theory at least), but I still can't see it being resurrected.I always liked golden goal, but not many seem to agree. We are seeing more and more games go all the way to pens as teams become risk averse and don't want to overstretch tired legs.
I think going straight to pens Carabao style isn't the fairest system, as it doesn't give enough time for a deserved victor to emerge. But it's also a bit more fun. It's nice knowing you don't have to sit through 30 mins of probably boring football before getting an answer on a winner.
More games seem to have no more goals in ET and then go to pens
I watched a video on this on youtube recently. Suggestion was, if tied at full time, each manager takes off 2 players, so you go 9 vs 9. If still tied after 10 minutes, you go 7 v 7. If tied after another 10 minutes you go 5 v 5. First goal wins. The benefit of this to me is a. It's makes the extra time very exciting and b. it takes away the burden on players on being the culprit of missing a critical pentalty.I hate penalties. Just a terrible way of deciding a match. The fewer games that are decided that way the better for the integrity of the competition so extra time should stay.
Maybe you could just have a sudden death next-goal-wins period after the 90 minutes, but with each team sacrificing a player every 5 minutes.
Take the goalkeepers off first. That should sort things out soon enough.I watched a video on this on youtube recently. Suggestion was, if tied at full time, each manager takes off 2 players, so you go 9 vs 9. If still tied after 10 minutes, you go 7 v 7. If tied after another 10 minutes you go 5 v 5. First goal wins. The benefit of this to me is a. It's makes the extra time very exciting and b. it takes away the burden on players on being the culprit of missing a critical pentalty.
Seems a bit extreme !Maybe you could just have a sudden death next-goal-wins period after the 90 minutes, but with each team sacrificing a player every 5 minutes.
Seems a bit extreme !
Funeral Directors would be rubbing their grubby hands together.![]()
That was good enough for the AztecsWhy not decide a game and appease the Gods at the same time?
Except a team getting a corner with a few minutes left may be tempted just to take it short and bump it off a defender, to get another corner, then rinse and repeat?I played in a tournament years ago where drawn matches were decided by the most corner kicks.
Could that work? Might make for more attacking play?
Me too mate me too. Dirty sh*tty team.I think one of the arguments against golden goal was that it put too much pressure on match officials in the event of a tight or controversial decision. VAR significantly reduces that risk (in theory at least), but I still can't see it being resurrected.
I'd have been happy to watch 15 minutes less of Argentina last night though.
It might not be very exciting. I suspect it would lead to a "cat and mouse" scenario where both sides focused on keeping their defence tight and committing ever fewer to attack.I watched a video on this on youtube recently. Suggestion was, if tied at full time, each manager takes off 2 players, so you go 9 vs 9. If still tied after 10 minutes, you go 7 v 7. If tied after another 10 minutes you go 5 v 5. First goal wins. The benefit of this to me is a. It's makes the extra time very exciting and b. it takes away the burden on players on being the culprit of missing a critical pentalty.
I also think that because there was so much at stake, with teams effectively either progressing or being eliminated based on a single moment, it often had the opposite effect to what was intended. Rather than encouraging attacking football, it incentivised teams to sit back, play cautiously, and hold out for penalties, which ultimately undermined the concept itself.I think one of the arguments against golden goal was that it put too much pressure on match officials in the event of a tight or controversial decision. VAR significantly reduces that risk (in theory at least), but I still can't see it being resurrected.
I'd have been happy to watch 15 minutes less of Argentina last night though.
Yes this was the case made at Euro 96 where five games went to extra time and generated one golden goal in total. England v Germany was a bit of an exception to the rule because both teams did attack in that period.I also think that because there was so much at stake, with teams effectively either progressing or being eliminated based on a single moment, it often had the opposite effect to what was intended. Rather than encouraging attacking football, it incentivised teams to sit back, play cautiously, and hold out for penalties, which ultimately undermined the concept itself.
This seems like an idea Donald Trump would suggest !In ET withdraw a player every three minutes starting with the goalkeepers! The managers pull a numbered ball out of a velvet bag indicating the opposition player to be withdrawn. Simples!
Yeah I'm a bit surprised a few people have suggested this, though this was usually in the late 90s articles with a variety bag of alternatives to penalties.This seems like an idea Donald Trump would suggest !