WC Play So Far

If they scored it as you suggest, there would be more points awarded to the two teams for a PK win than for a legitimate win. That seems wrong.

Two points for a PK winner, maybe..

Geezaldinho wrote:If they scored it as you suggest, there would be more points awarded to the two teams for a PK win than for a legitimate win. That seems wrong.

Well, not really, because in that instance the team that loses in PKs is more deserving than the team that just simply loses.

Then again, I think it's also true that a team winning in PKs is less deserving than a team that just simply wins. So, two points for the winner would be fine by me.

If nothing else, it would help eliminate the arbitrary tie-breakers of goal differential and goals scored and coin flips and all that.

The other issue I see with awarding points for a pk loss is that it encourages conservative play. That's the same problem we have now with draws.

I thought the whole idea was to open the games up and make for better viewing.

I think another issue you might run in to by allowing for PKs and potentially OT is the relative indefinite time this would add. As of now the games all stay within that 2 hour range pretty nicely which makes for easy viewing and TV scheduling... That indefinite time could make it difficult to schedule while still allowing viewing of as many games as possible.

I guess it could be worked around, but I mean I adore watching soccer, but I also like that the game is all done under 2 hours.

Maybe they need to raise the mound for the forwards...

DaTruRochin wrote:

Maybe they need to raise the mound for the forwards...

..or give them frilly skirts to wear like they do for Football quarterbacks..

Stonehouse wrote:I could see that, though I would maybe prefer it if they did it hockey-style in that the team that loses a PK would still get a point but the winning team gets the full three. Seems kind of silly to punish a team so harshly in the group stage for playing even soccer for 120 minutes and then losing in what amounts to a crap shoot.

I disagree that a shootout is a crap shoot. There's a lot of skill involved...and some nerves as well. But, the best teams consistently have the most skill players who convert the most often. If players can't make PKs, their teams don't deserve to advance anyway...

Back in the day, after 90 minutes, two 15 minute overtimes, and two more 5 minute overtimes (all played to completion), the game was decided based on which team had the most corner kicks. The system rewarded the team that had been the most aggressive. I have no idea what happened if the corner kicks were tied. I played in games that went both ways on corners.

UPSoccerFanatic wrote:Back in the day, after 90 minutes, two 15 minute overtimes, and two more 5 minute overtimes (all played to completion), the game was decided based on which team had the most corner kicks. The system rewarded the team that had been the most aggressive. I have no idea what happened if the corner kicks were tied. I played in games that went both ways on corners.

I remember those days. it was stupid. I played wing and was expected to get to the end line and walk in towards the goal without trying to cross, just waiting for a player to come out and meet me so I could kick the ball off his shins. I actually got yelled at for crossing to a wide open forward at the spot because we were one down on corners.