I saw another proposal that I can't remember the link to. It was called Attacker, Defender, Goalie.

5 players get picked to attack, and 5 to defend. Each of the 5 gets 30 seconds to score from half against one of the defenders and the goalie. If the ball goes out of play, or the goalie catches it, or time expires, you're done.

As a caveat, if you have a man sent off during the game, there's no replacement in the shootout, so one attacker gets a free go at your goalie.

AussieWhiteCap said: That sounds pretty stupid to be honest.

Which one, or both? I don't personally think changing when the shootout happens would affect much. I'd MUCH rather see soccer players decide the game with something resembling soccer. The level of chance in current PKs is undesirable.

Might mess With the tv partners because of the uncertain game lengths. Otherwise, I like it.

In penalty shootouts all the responsibility rests on one player. ( Chris Waddle 1990 ). With the "Removing players" situation the responsibility is more shared across the team and I would argue that it very much resembles soccer. Moreso than the penalty shootout) (At least until you get to say 5 v 5. By this time its likely that one team would have scored anyway.)
It's not my idea, I heard it suggested years ago. Yes, it's a bit "NASL-style" and I doubt it will ever happen but I'd love to see it tried out somewhere.

Fynnsky said: Golden goal with unlimited extra time 30 minute periods

agreed, with 1 additional substitution every 30 minute period. Get some fresh legs in.

slamo said: Endless extra times is akin to saying the marathon resembles a 5 k. Sure it resembles it but it's a totally different match. Imagine a team like Switzerland putting 11 in the box for 16 hours until Brazil is finally ripe for the picking. b-(

I was thinking this too. Cram it into a tournament when you are playing a game every 3-4 days and it would not be fun to watch. I thought the Arlo White's idea was really interesting. Like going into the away game of a aggregate scoring knowing you already conceded at home.

slamo said: Endless extra times is akin to saying the marathon resembles a 5 k. Sure it resembles it but it's a totally different match. Imagine a team like Switzerland putting 11 in the box for 16 hours until Brazil is finally ripe for the picking. b-(

Except that currently, teams are purposely not attacking in the extra time because they are just holding out until penalty kicks. If they knew that 1 goal would win them the game, they would go for it.

Also, I'd love to see a game where the Swiss make it to extra time against Brazil

I like replays myself. Although knowing with the modern game that is near impossible I'd take a nasal shoot out

Just go to PKs after 90. I also say change the PK rule to "keeper can move any direction as soon as the shooter moves". Enough of these long, drawn out, stagger step run ups that are blatant balks. Enough of the keeper cheating (we all do) and not being called for it.

seathanaich said: The dumbest thing ever is when FIFA, having gone to golden goal, went back to the status quo a few years later. One team finally gets a winning goal, and we give the other team until 120 minutes to equalise again? There is nothing about that that makes any sense. The point of extra time is to try and get a result from an actual footballing format, without having to go to penalties, which is a skills contest.

I think the issue is/was that teams played even more scared in extra time so the Golden Goal actually produced more 0-0 extra time matches than having to play a full 30 minutes.

piltdownman said: I like replays myself. Although knowing with the modern game that is near impossible I'd take a nasal shoot out

I remember an FA cup replay series involving Everton in 1987-ish that involved 5 games or something. It was ridiculous. I even think they got knocked out next round.

Why not just allow 3 new subs in extra time? wouldn't guarantee a win of course, but I'm sure the proportion of games ending in extra time would increase. And combine that with golden goal.

Liverpool - Everton went to two replays in 1991 and Leeds - Arsenal had 3 replays in 1991, they scrapped multiple replays the season after

Chris said:

AussieWhiteCap said: That sounds pretty stupid to be honest.

Which one, or both? I don't personally think changing when the shootout happens would affect much. I'd MUCH rather see soccer players decide the game with something resembling soccer. The level of chance in current PKs is undesirable.

They have 120 minutes to decide the match. The point of the shootout is the soccer players can't decide the game with something resembling soccer.

Live with it.

Lottery takes slolely luck.

You are saying 6 random guys on the street would beat spain in a shootout.

Its not a lottery - it takes skill.

The nasl had it right with the shoot out

Exciting Fair as both keeper and player are on equal terms

OldFan said: The nasl had it right with the shoot out

Exciting Fair as both keeper and player are on equal terms

No No No and not just cause its different. The shoot out was awful. How many times can you watch a keeper charge out to the edge of the penalty area and then every player trying to chip the keeper cause that's just about the only option.

The shoot out, IMO was lame. I like penalties better.

The current system is fine if you ask me.

PDJ said: Half the field, double the size of the nets, and put it on FOX.

With a red superimposed circle around the ball at all times

Would never happen but it would be interesting to see them add another ball. Works for pin ball haha. I would love to see this for fun in a practice, would keep the players on there toes and heighten the decision making aspect.

there was talk a few years ago in the UK of doing penalties before the game (i.e. during the warm up), that way if it was going to a draw the winner would already be known. I don't like it myself but something like that could get peoples butts in seats earlier.