Please add this site to your bookmarks or sign up for e-mail alerts below and come back to visit every day! New posts added daily, all for your enjoyment. Happy Soaping.

Monday 28 May 2012

Should we get rid of the penalty shoot out?

Wembley Stadium. 3pm. Hot day. I was there to see my team, Crewe Alexandra, go on to defeat Cheltenham Town in order to be promoted to League One! Throughout the match, one thought dominated my mind; please no penalties! The penalty debate has been prevalent for a long time. The main question is are they fair? They normally take place after 120 minutes (90 minutes in some competitions, namely the Football League trophy). At this point, players are tired, mentally and physically. A lot of it is down to luck and it is often the case that the better team loses. However, is this reason enough to claim that they are unjust? More so, should they stay in the game?

No fan of the game likes to see their team in a penalty shootout. Especially people like myself who know their club is almost guaranteed failure if it got to this stage. So if it isn't for the fans, what is it for? One argument is that it is great for neutrals. As I was watching the Chelsea v Bayern game, I loved the tension and the atmosphere knowing that whatever the outcome of the game I could go home happy. However, this surely isn't enough to keep them in the game?

Fans have come up with ideas in order to try and replace the PK. One that seems to be popular is the idea of taking them before the game begins. However, for me this completely changes the dynamics of a game. If a team goes into a game having won the PK, they know that a draw will see them lift whatever trophy they are battling for. It will act as a one-goal advantage and both teams will change their tactics respectively. It is difficult to argue for one team having an effective one goal advantage before the game has even started.

Secondly, another argument that seems to be gaining ground is that football shouldn't just be linked to goals. Some argue that stats such as shots on target, corners and possession should take account. However, whilst this may make it fairer, we wouldn't be watching the same game any more. Part of the beauty of its game is its seeming simplicity. Whilst one may not be able to recite the laws of the game and understand every decision, everybody can understand the most important rule; the team with the most goals wins! This would also change the dynamics. Depending on weightings, we could get teams playing keep-ball, going for corners rather than goals or shooting long shots at the keeper rather than risk them going over the bar. Also, how would this be for the fans? The easiest options would be stadiums operating scoreboards so people could keep up with the score. But who wants this? Honestly?

If you thought those were crazy, listen to these.Some suggest that every player who gets a yellow card in the 90 minutes doesn't get to play in ET. However, how much more pressure would this put on refs to get a decision right? Others say that extra time should be 7 a side. All I can ask is why? Just why? To add this, I have seen that people want the ref removed, a player taken off the pitch every five minutes in NORMAL time or removing the keeper in second half of extra time.

In my opinion, we should be adding to football, not removing. Although some aspects of the game may not seem fair, they are what we buy into and every player, manager and fan knows the score (which they might not if crazy rules were brought in!). Simplicity is the key to footballs success. Many things aren't fair about the game. Referees make mistakes, balloons get assists and a team in 7th place get promotion over the teams in 4th, 5th and 6th. Ignoring the fact this last fact is relevant to my Wembley visit, would I have it any other way? Of course I wouldn't. I like football for what it is, and don't criticise it for what it isn't. Perhaps some things could be changed. Only one man in Europe seems to argue against goal-line technology and racism and sexism are issues that need to change. But when it comes to the game itself, let's keep it the way it is. It is called the beautiful game for a reason...

What are you thoughts? Should we replace the PK? If we do what would we replace it with?

Comment below or tweet me @pablakeman


3 comments:

  1. First to score a goal in extra time, wins.
    End of.
    If they faff about, the longer it goes on. So both sides are therefore encouraged to play good, quick football, to score and get it over with.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like this idea and from a neutral point of view would love golden goal to come back. The argument is that it could go on for a very long time, but realistically as tiredness goes on, how much longer could it possibly go on? I feel if a match goes to ET one more substitute should be allowed. This is disregarding the whole penalties thing. Crewe waited until 30 seconds before the end to use their final sub on Sunday. We could have done with him on the pitch earlier in all honesty, but we were waiting incase of ET I assume.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The prospect of a long ET should concentrate attention as the aim is to win ASAP. If they drag it out, the fear for one side would be that if they let up, the other might score.

    A fairer system than penalty shoot outs. If you have a system of penalty shoot outs, why not just have a game of penalty shoot outs.

    Fans go to see 2 teams playing, so a golden goal keeps that idea going. Play on until one team scores.

    ReplyDelete