Should track flip a coin if all races aren't clearly decided with 100 meters left to make it popular like the World Cup?

Pk's are a skill not luck, most of the time. I don't think they are a bad thing though I think they could go back to golden goal to reduce the amount of shootouts. I've also seen youth tournaments where in overtime one player from each team gets taken off the field every few minutes, interesting idea but not sure I'd wanna see that in the world cup

rojo wrote:

I love the drama of the World Cup but what a joke PKs are.

I've been saying this for years and I'll say it again.

World Cup games - particularly the final - should not be decided by PK. End of story.

Soccer has modernized with VAR. The need to modernize with the end of the game as well. I don't want to hear that it's dangerous to let them to continue to play. Guess what? Someone would score. If you want to make it a little easier, make the goal 1 foot bigger ever 10 minutes in overtime. It's 2018. I think designing an expanding goal is something Elon Musk could handle in about 5 minutes.

Why shouldn't they be decided by PK? You haven't given any story. Why are they not an effective method to decide the better team when the teams are matched to the 99.9th percentile?

(Also curious, do you say the same thing for hockey?)

Probability people, how often would we expect a 5 on 5 coin flip to end in a draw, (requiring a 6th round?) The World cup has only had 2 (out of 29 [since 1982]) that weren't decided in 5 rounds. Both only needed a 6th.

rojo wrote:

I love the drama of the World Cup but what a joke PKs are.

I've been saying this for years and I'll say it again.

World Cup games - particularly the final - should not be decided by PK. End of story.

Soccer has modernized with VAR. The need to modernize with the end of the game as well. I don't want to hear that it's dangerous to let them to continue to play. Guess what? Someone would score. If you want to make it a little easier, make the goal 1 foot bigger ever 10 minutes in overtime. It's 2018. I think designing an expanding goal is something Elon Musk could handle in about 5 minutes.

You say it every 4 years when you suddenly become an expert on the sport again.

The game can't last forever, there needs to be at least a reasonable estimate of when the match will end. If a match is goalless in 120 minutes, what makes you think another hour or more is going to settle it. Expanding goal is just stupid, would end up being just as arbitrary as penalties.

There has to be a better way. How about 2 on 2, or even 1 on 2, with 1 on offense? Something that involves a goalie being outguessed by the kicker. Just something more like the game itself.

That doesn't involve...

Actually, more often than not the better quality team tends to win the penalty shoot out. It's certainly not the equivalent of tossing a coin.

A better analogy would be getting Olympic 5K finalists to run off in a 100m sprint if there wasn't a clear winner with 100m left. But hey, that's kind of what happens already, especially when Mo Farah is in the race.

Room for improvementer wrote:

There has to be a better way. How about 2 on 2, or even 1 on 2, with 1 on offense? Something that involves a goalie being outguessed by the kicker. Just something more like the game itself.

I believe an former pro league in the USA tried 1 on 1s in replace of penalties.

Extra time should be golden goal and each team has to play with three men down, eight per side. Maybe that makes it a bit more wide open, less congestion in the box maybe? Allows to get shots off just outside of the box? I don’t know if it would work, but I think it might.

With current rules it’s hard if a team parks the bus. Extremely hard to get any direct shot on goal if an organized defense basically has 11 guys in their own box.

I also think the goal should be 15 to 25 % larger to encourage more shooting. Right now longer range shots have to be basically perfect to get in the back of the bet.

Keep increasing goal size until average scores get to be about 5-4, then stop.

trollism wrote:

You say it every 4 years when you suddenly become an expert on the sport again.

The game can't last forever, there needs to be at least a reasonable estimate of when the match will end. If a match is goalless in 120 minutes, what makes you think another hour or more is going to settle it. Expanding goal is just stupid, would end up being just as arbitrary as penalties.

1) It's not 1985. Iget back in the day you had to block off the satellites for the broadcast. I think if the game lasted for four hours, it wouldn't be too hard in the year 2018 to broadcast it.

2) It wouldn't take that long to score if they knew they had to score and

2) Making the goal wouldn't make it arbitrary. The team getting the most chances would get the most goals, more often than not. If you dont like that idea, then take a player off the field. Or just keep playing. I'd rather have the reserves play a game. Anything other than a penalty.

It just blows my mind. I get tradition. But VAR shows people are willing to put tradition aside - and even stop a game for a few minutes - to get things right. Do people realize they literally used to flip a coin at the World Cup?

3) Penalties may be a skill but there is more than enough variance in that that luck is the #1 determinant by far. I mean look at the leagues. They all convert in the 75-80% range.

If skill is so important, then please tell me the career PK rates for the world's two best players.

Neymar is 38 for 47 (80%). Ronald is 104/125 (83%). But they are only getting 1 kick. It's not like we are having them take 10 kicks from the spot.

Idontreallyknow wrote:

Room for improvementer wrote:

There has to be a better way. How about 2 on 2, or even 1 on 2, with 1 on offense? Something that involves a goalie being outguessed by the kicker. Just something more like the game itself.

I believe an former pro league in the USA tried 1 on 1s in replace of penalties.

Yup. From 35 yards out. 4 (5?) seconds to score. Keepers kept taking attackers and hurting them, lol

I would love to see a keeper and 1 defender vs 2 attackers from 35 yards out, 10 seconds...

I also actually like the idea of pulling off a player from each side every 5 minutes... hockey plays a man down in OT, right?

The best idea is to just take players off in extra time. Opens things up.

Works great in field hockey.

Yeah, it prioritizes conditioning, but that's better than a 50/50 chance of guessing which way the keeper dives, etc.

rojo wrote:

I love the drama of the World Cup but what a joke PKs are.

I've been saying this for years and I'll say it again.

World Cup games - particularly the final - should not be decided by PK. End of story.

Soccer has modernized with VAR. The need to modernize with the end of the game as well. I don't want to hear that it's dangerous to let them to continue to play. Guess what? Someone would score. If you want to make it a little easier, make the goal 1 foot bigger ever 10 minutes in overtime. It's 2018. I think designing an expanding goal is something Elon Musk could handle in about 5 minutes.

PKs are not a coin flip, they are a skill. And the most awesome thing to watch as a neutral.

No don’t flip a coin. Just arbitrarily estimate how much additional time is added to the event and have them keep running.

Remember the Felix / Tarmoh tie? That should've been decided by penalty kicks.

Please don't ever speak about soccer ever again, your logic is flawed entirely and you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's incredibly exhausting to play 120 minutes of soccer at that high of a level and continuously adding time is unsafe whether you want to acknowledge that or not. Penalties aren't a coin flip, they're a skill and as the top keepers have proven it isn't a guaranteed conversion. (see Subasic and Schmeichel in the Denmark and Croatia game)

Or make hitting your opponent on purpose legal, like in basketball. There are lots of angles to pursue here.

Coevett wrote:

Actually, more often than not the better quality team tends to win the penalty shoot out. It's certainly not the equivalent of tossing a coin.

A better analogy would be getting Olympic 5K finalists to run off in a 100m sprint if there wasn't a clear winner with 100m left. But hey, that's kind of what happens already, especially when Mo Farah is in the race.

Ehh, 100m isn't very analogies with 5k ability if we're keeping the consistency that the better team is better at PK's most of the time anyway.

I would say it's about equivalent to having them take a 10min break, then run a mile