What a crazy idea !!

[Duffman 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6452013.stmWe would never win a penalty shoot out, so on that basis its a stupid idea.

[Evil Monkey 52]

I saw that, totally bonkers! Could you imagine how late some of those games would go on of an evening! Away supporters will be arriving home just in time for lunch the next day! Draws are fun in a strange way, just ask Derby in their Premiership season a few years ago!

[DONT REMEMBER YOUR TENURE AS ENGLAND MANAGER 0]

 

I don''t believe it. Sepp Blatter and Ronald Mcdonald have infiltrated the football league.

At least West Ham will be screwed as you would be guaranteed 5 goals when facing Robert ''when will I ever save a pen'' Green

[Matt Juler 148]

Would also mean we could no longer use the 22:00 train back to London for midweek games and have to drive... think of what that would do to my Carbon Footprint!

[Spacebadger<P> <P><P>The Badger Has Spoken<P> 0]

But as a consolation, West Ham with Greeno in goal wouldn''t either so at least we could laugh at them as well.

[percyvarco 0]

totally yank concept, next we will have "the world series of soccer" where the champions of the whole wide world will be Americans and Beckham as no other country will be allowed to enter.

[BedsCanary 0]

This annoys me because in theory, to be a match winning side, a team need only one player capable of scoring and the rest of the team to make him the chances, defend, hold up the ball and compete in a game of football.Penalties take away that entire ''football'' aspect and base the outcome of the entire game on a team''s ability to shoot from 12 yards.

Plus, with a chance of 3 points for sitting back and not attacking instead of just 1, away teams would nearly allways try and hold out for penalties in every game and free-flowing, exciting attacking football would surely become rarer?

[norfolkchance1 0]

A draw is a draw and it should stay that way. This idea doesn''t make any sense as there are many more burning issues in the game which need to be sorted out such as the video replay''s debate.

Imagine the scenario where you go to a game and you hammer a side for 90 minutes only for them to equalise in the fifth minute of injury time forcing a penalty shoot out, you then lose a game that you didn''t even deserve to draw. This as all the hallmarks of football''s governing bodies tinkering and trying to force the sport in to American conciousness in order to generate more money. The game will grow in America in its present form providing people want it, there is no need to have to bend the rules to make them want it.

Before long we will be digging up other ideas such as the "Make the goals larger debate" and  whether to have "timeouts".

I have never come out of a drawn game thinking "I wish there''d been a penalty shoot out to decide the winner"

I think we would be best to stick to the mantra of "If it aint broke don''t fix it", the only positive I can see out of the scheme is that players will have to practice more penalty''s and in theory they will improve for international tournaments.

[mbncfc 1]

It will never happen. They come up with ideas like this all the time thinking it will make the games in the Football League more interesting and popular, but they never go through.

Which is a good thing, because it is a ridiculous idea...

[Branston Pickle 3,635]

I''ve always thought that football''s charm (as with Cricket) is that it is straightforward - it is a much more natural sort of sport than, for example, Rugby or American Football which seem to have far too many technicalities.  That is with regard to the actual playing of the game, though, rather than the system used to award points and whatever.

This idea does sound daft, but then so did having 3pts for a win when it was suggested way back when by Jimmy Hill - but no one thinks that is daft now. 

I have to say that when I heard this idea, my immediate response was almost to crash my car, but then I had a think and hit on the idea that maybe there could be an idea of "winning" and "losing" draws, the penalty shoot out at the end could carry an extra bonus point so the side winning it would get 2 pts, the side losing would still get their 1 point.  The idea of winning and losing draws works in other sports, so it might be an idea - though can''t really see it as a goer. 

I''ve long thought there ought to be some way of getting ''bonus'' points though - presumably from scoring more (maybe 2 away goals = an extra point, 3 or 4 home goals = an extra point) to try to prevent the sort of thing that Derby et al like to get up to. 

[Syteanric 1]

4-4 vs boro anyone.. that game was maigcal! if we had lost it on some 2 bob shootout id of been gutted.

jas :)

[Karl Pilkington 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6453311.stm

Anyone else seen the idea mentioned that draws would end. If a match ended in a draw they would have a penalty shoot-out to decide the winner!!

Sounds like a sh!te idea to me!

[Hissing Sid 154]

As mentioned above, yet another attempt to "Americanise" our game. Seems to me that most people are against this, and its even got me agreeing with Neil Warnock!!

The Blades boss added: "They have probably got little else to discuss on the agenda if that is the main directive.

"I don''t see anything wrong with the Championship.

"If they want to titivate and mess about they should try to get to Fifa and get the divers and the people who are injured treated while the game is in progress to get the game moving quicker.

"They should try to do constructive things."

Can''t remember the last time I agreed with anything Colin has said!

 

[Syteanric 1]

it would also take the edge out of shootouts....

we have all sat or stood nervously in the stands of a big cup tie hoping that veteran can score, Keeper can save, or 17 year old doesnt shat himself when taking the last penalty to win the shootout in the semi final of the cup! some of us have even been in that situation of taking 1 ourselves.

 having a shootout every week would be boring.. a cup game would go to penalties and we''d think "oh no not another one" thered be no excitement.. no going mental when the keeper saves the final penalty... or sitting dejected when the player who has scored 20 out of 20 penalties in his career decides today would be a good day to baloon one over the bar for his first ever miss.

Its a stupid idear! sometimes neither side deserves to win and a draw is about all they get!

jas :)

[7rew 0]

I can see why they want to change the system, its to try and stop teams playing for a 0-0.

Maybe they should go over to a 6-2-1-0 points system: 6 for a win, 2 for a score draw, 1 for a 0-0 and none if you lose.

More radical:  6-5-2-1-1-0 for win(to nil)-6pts,

win(other)-5pts,  draw(score)-2pts, draw(0-0)-1pt,  loss(you score)-1pt,

loss(you don''t score)-no pts.

Slight alteration:  6-6-2-1-1-0 for win(to nil)-6pts,

win(other)-6pts,  draw(score)-2pts, draw(0-0)-1pt,  loss(you

score)-1pt,

loss(you don''t score)-no pts.

I prefer the second way, as getting a goal guarentees you something,

yet there is still a tangible bonus from having a good defense and

winning 3-0 rather than 3-1 (stop teams conceeding on purpose when 3 or

4 up to "help out" the other team)

I like all systems due to Norwich''s tendancy not to have 0-0 draws very often in the league - 4 in 3 seasons.

[First Jedi 0]

[quote user="7rew"]I can see why they want to change the system, its to try and stop teams playing for a 0-0.

Maybe they should go over to a 6-2-1-0 points system: 6 for a win, 2 for a score draw, 1 for a 0-0 and none if you lose.
More radical:  6-5-2-1-1-0 for win(to nil)-6pts, win(other)-5pts,  draw(score)-2pts, draw(0-0)-1pt,  loss(you score)-1pt, loss(you don''t score)-no pts.
Slight alteration:  6-6-2-1-1-0 for win(to nil)-6pts, win(other)-6pts,  draw(score)-2pts, draw(0-0)-1pt,  loss(you score)-1pt, loss(you don''t score)-no pts.

I prefer the second way, as getting a goal guarentees you something, yet there is still a tangible bonus from having a good defense and winning 3-0 rather than 3-1 (stop teams conceeding on purpose when 3 or 4 up to "help out" the other team)

I like all systems due to Norwich''s tendancy not to have 0-0 draws very often in the league - 4 in 3 seasons.

[/quote]

Think you probably need to have a bit more of a think about a system that suggests a draw (0-0) is a good as a  loss (you score)

[norfolkchance1 0]

[quote user="7rew"]I can see why they want to change the system, its to try and stop teams playing for a 0-0.

Maybe they should go over to a 6-2-1-0 points system: 6 for a win, 2 for a score draw, 1 for a 0-0 and none if you lose.
More radical:  6-5-2-1-1-0 for win(to nil)-6pts, win(other)-5pts,  draw(score)-2pts, draw(0-0)-1pt,  loss(you score)-1pt, loss(you don''t score)-no pts.
Slight alteration:  6-6-2-1-1-0 for win(to nil)-6pts, win(other)-6pts,  draw(score)-2pts, draw(0-0)-1pt,  loss(you score)-1pt, loss(you don''t score)-no pts.

I prefer the second way, as getting a goal guarentees you something, yet there is still a tangible bonus from having a good defense and winning 3-0 rather than 3-1 (stop teams conceeding on purpose when 3 or 4 up to "help out" the other team)

I like all systems due to Norwich''s tendancy not to have 0-0 draws very often in the league - 4 in 3 seasons.

[/quote]

The only problem I can see with this is if two sides decide to cut a deal, for example game petering out at 0-0 with 10 minutes to go, one manager says to other "do you fancy an extra point, we''ll score in your goal and you can score in ours", this would mean that both sides would gain in relation to the other sides in the league. The idea in theory is good but I can see it being abused much in the way that some other results designed to improve attacking football have been (multiball system when more than one ball thrown on when winning)

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="ob1"]

[quote user="7rew"]I can see why they want to change the system, its to try and stop teams playing for a 0-0.

Maybe they should go over to a 6-2-1-0 points system: 6 for a win, 2 for a score draw, 1 for a 0-0 and none if you lose.
More radical:  6-5-2-1-1-0 for win(to nil)-6pts, win(other)-5pts,  draw(score)-2pts, draw(0-0)-1pt,  loss(you score)-1pt, loss(you don''t score)-no pts.
Slight alteration:  6-6-2-1-1-0 for win(to nil)-6pts, win(other)-6pts,  draw(score)-2pts, draw(0-0)-1pt,  loss(you score)-1pt, loss(you don''t score)-no pts.

I prefer the second way, as getting a goal guarentees you something, yet there is still a tangible bonus from having a good defense and winning 3-0 rather than 3-1 (stop teams conceeding on purpose when 3 or 4 up to "help out" the other team)

I like all systems due to Norwich''s tendancy not to have 0-0 draws very often in the league - 4 in 3 seasons.

[/quote]

Think you probably need to have a bit more of a think about a system that suggests a draw (0-0) is a good as a  loss (you score)

[/quote]

Far too complicated 7rew.

Lets just stick with what we''ve got.

Doing away with draws will never happen.

[huck tastic<IMG src="http:new.pinkun.comforumsimagesline.gif"><BR><FONT face="Comic Sans MS">Bryan Hamilton could turn this around...<BR><FONT> 0]

All draws to be settled by Valencia-Inter Milan style mass brawl...first to break a nose takes all 3 points...(away noses count double)...