Based in London and writing for a global audience our aim is to produce EliteFootballTalk. Enjoy the site and feel welcome to join in our discussion on the beautiful game.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

A viable replacement for the farce of the penalty shoot-out?

If you are a supporter of Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United, Spurs, Newcastle, Everton, Manchester City, Leeds, etc. you have suffered by it. If you are an England supporter you would have seen your national team depart five times out of the last seven major tournaments because of it. And if you are a supporter of any other international side it is highly likely that you have also seen disappointing exits due to it. Maybe only Liverpool fans have been untouched by its fickle fate. Of course I'm talking about the contentious lottery of the penalty shoot-out.

Gunnerpete recently emailed EFT with a proposal for replacing the penalty shoot-out, and which has had support from a good professional footballer of the past. He would like to open up his proposal for debate among football supporters. Here it is….


Way back in 1980, I had the worst of all weeks when recovering from an operation, I lay there listening to AFC lose a European Cup Winner Cup Final by penalties. I vowed to help get rid of this farce, and set out to design a new answer. When I had a new answer ready, I contacted the FA ( is there better initials for a know nothing group) the League, FIFA, & of course my Arsenal.

Only one replied, the great Bob Wilson. He supported my plan and passed a copy to Jimmy Hill, who also liked it but had reservations. They both suggested that I get in touch with, Guess who?, The FA, FIFA etc. etc. etc. You know the rest.

A few years later, I tried again, but through the press. I know its like selling my soul, but it seemed the only way ahead. It wasn't! I sent a short copy of my plan to The Mirror, The Express, The Guardian, for a trial run. I never received one reply. I assumed it was my plan that was at fault, so I decided, enough is enough. BUT, here comes the Good / Bad part. 18 months after my letters to the press an article appears in the Express to say that one of the lower cups was to be experimenting with a 'NEW' idea of THEIRS ! It was 99% identical to my plan.

Naturally I called them immediately, and was told "the journalist responsible was away". I left my complaint with them. I called again a week later, to be told the journalist had left for another paper in the USA. Once again I was being shown how powerless we have all become. The outcome of their little test was failure, because they altered my plan just enough to call it their own, but that change ruined the whole idea.

My Replacement for the Penalty Shootout Farce

In 1980, I called it the 'Player Reduction Method'. A very reduced version is as follows.

AFTER 90 MINUTES IS DRAWN

1) Before commencing extra time, the manager / coach, HAS to take off 3 players. Who and why is his problem. There are 2 periods of extra time ( 20 minutes each way).

2) After the first period of extra time, the manager / coach, has to reduce the team by another two players.

3) If after the second period of extra time is played, it is still a draw, the manager / coach, has to take off his goalkeeper, and the first team to score is the winner.

Very Simple, and I know its works because my brother is Australia coaches a small local side and it worked every time he tried it. He also said it is fun to watch!

My theory & aim was one to rid us of this non football end to important competitions. Also to get rid of the appalling stigma that is attached to the poor devil who misses the penalty that sends his team into despair. This has always disgusted me, that one person is help responsible for failure. The supporters never forget this one moment, or the poor bloke who was the patsy.

The other benefits of my plan were ( a) The manager has the responsibility, that's what he is paid for ( b) You can only imagine the planning needed when making that decision, who comes off.......' do I go for a strong defence and one forward ( as George Graham would have)' or ' do I go for broke before the sudden death comes in after extra time 40 minutes ( this time can vary if required ). My feeling is that certain teams ( like AFC) would go for broke, and take off defenders? Who knows?

I think the subs bench would be involved in a big way too.......speed and lung power would be the order of the day. AND, if after extra normal time it was still a draw ( and my brother's games never came to this point) I can only imagine the fantastic amount of shots raining on the Goal from any angle by both teams. It is important to note that I feel that the players left on the field after the goalie has been taken off, should be allowed to use their hands to stop shots in the penalty area only. Just a thought!

Anyway there it is.......what do you think?

GunnerPete

52 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Urrmmm no .. sounds like it would become a farce.

3/15/2006 12:29 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you must be an american!! awful idea

3/15/2006 12:37 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you take off the 'keeper, teams would just position a defender there anyway.
I don't like this 'penalties are a lottery' stuff. Hit the ball hard into ANY corner and you will score, simple. If you're not accurate enough, you may miss. It's all about technique and pressure; you have to handle both.

3/15/2006 12:41 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There have been too many changes to the "Beautiful Game" already - bigger nets, lighter ball, off-side (don't get me started with that), keepers being treated like pansies, Champions League for non champions! - leave it alone, it's worked well for well over 100 years, stop tinkering with it.

3/15/2006 12:50 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think those previous comments are lazy .
Anything is better than the penalty shootout.I have often thought along similar lines.
Another possibility could be to award points for fouls and you mightn't need the extra time then.
Or even the 2 teams could agree to bid for the victory (the money could go to charity!)I know thats not a runner!

3/15/2006 12:52 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After 90 minutes the team who has had the most shots on or then off target is the winner, if still a draw the team who had the most corners. This would mean the team who attacks most would always win.

3/15/2006 12:55 pm

 
Blogger T said...

The good thing about your plan, GunnerPete, is that the game is won during play on the pitch... which for me is how it should be and automatically gives it better merit than the penalty shoot-out!

The main niggle I have is with the idea of the keeper going off if things aren't decided at the end of extra time... football without a keeper is a big culture shock.

Alternatively, (and I have though this for a long time) at the end of the alloted extra time I think it should simply be 'next goal wins'. The incentive to score should be overwhelming because it would go against the interests of either team to play on indefinitely in the wider context of a season/tournament, and of course the match will be decided in open play.

Penalty shoot-outs may be great drama for the neutral but IMO it is an artifical method to resolve a match, so kudos for the proposal....

3/15/2006 12:57 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Awarding points for fouls would then leave the decision with the referee - look at the farse at the weekend during the Arsenal v Liverpool match, with Alonso being sent off when the ref clearly didn't see the incident!

And as for auctioning the result...... :)

3/15/2006 12:57 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would be interesting, not saying it would work tho.

3/15/2006 12:57 pm

 
Blogger goonhater said...

what happens if you get a serious injury to one of your players when youve taken 5 off already? i remember that game in which his team lost(LOL) and i quite enjoyed it, they havent had much european "luck" since

3/15/2006 12:59 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i would like to see it given a try...

i never got over Dennis Bergkamp missing his penalty against Utd.

3/15/2006 1:00 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about the ball starting at the half way line, and the player going one-on-one with the keeper, who is allowed to come of his line.

3/15/2006 1:00 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Penaltys shootouts are a farce and knobody like them but they are an institution that should be left alone.

Stupot

3/15/2006 1:00 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoever said

After 90 minutes the team who has had the most shots on or then off target is the winner, if still a draw the team who had the most corners. This would mean the team who attacks most would always win.

has a perfectly satisfactory solution.

3/15/2006 1:02 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting idea but I fail to see how this will make things fairer. Especially when the goalkeepers are removed. The team with initial possession from kick off will undoubtedly have a huge advantage.

3/15/2006 1:08 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't like the sound of the keeper coming off. But next goal is the winner sounds like a good one.

3/15/2006 1:13 pm

 
Anonymous Ole said...

It sounds ludicrous.

3/15/2006 1:24 pm

 
Blogger gazzap said...

its a good idea in principle and I really like the idea of not being able to blame a single player for a defeat (it is a team game).

If this was introduced I would never remove a goalkeeper.

But I cant see the football world embracing this idea. people have a love/hate feeling towards penalties. they are bl**dy exciting and so nerve racking. It hurts when you lose and its great when you win, thats penalties.

But they are most importantly an institution and a tradition. If you were inventing football today I bet this idea would be embraced instead of penalties but you have the power of history to deal with.

3/15/2006 1:25 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

May sound like fun, but football is a serious game with major (financial) implications. Why not award the game to the team that scored first, and in a no score draw to the team with the most corners? That will promote attacking footbal and make the game even more interesting.

3/15/2006 1:25 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent idea.. Come on nobody likes penalties as it gives us little to talk about !
Any alternative has got to be worth serious consideration.
Don't like the thought that when the Goalkeeper has left the pitch that someone else can handle the ball. That would be in breach of rules and the rules should remain unchanged, if this idea were to be given consideration by the governing bodies.

3/15/2006 1:33 pm

 
Blogger RedsMan said...

Thanks, GunnerPete, for an alternative method to penalty shoot-outs. T should have mentioned in the introduction that Arsenal benefitted from the shoot-out as recently as Liverpool did, in last year's FA Cup final. Your proposal was something I had similar experience of during football training, where it was aimed to encourage passing as one by one a player was withdrawn and space opened up gradually. It was fun at the same time.

The possible line-ups in reducing three outfield players for the 1st extra-time period is 3-3-1. Before the 2nd period, it can be 2-2-1 and after that strictly 2-2-1 minus the keeper. On a full size pitch, fitness would be key, and an open goal.

However, how long will this third period go on for, if a goal isn't scored? What if players decide to wait on the goal line, particularly if there is more than one player of the defending side in the area, and they all are allowed to handle or gather the ball?

Personally I feel it would kill the excitement for me, when I love to watch a number of players playing throughout the game, subject to injury or being substituted. With the proposal, it eliminates substitutions, and therefore substitutes, meaning 11 at the most will get to play and no opportunities for subs to come on and perhaps make a difference, and the subs themselves get to play. This is a big risk for managers like David O'Leary to have to face, after the away defeat to Blackburn where they should have scored and possibly won, going into an important match with considerations of having to pull off players who may win the match if they had stayed on.

With the current system of penalty shoot-outs, it ensues 30mins extra play and provides a more probable conclusion, that calls for nerves more from the penalty taker than the goalie. Fans accept that in such circumstances, a player in their side may well be the one to miss, or players even. Noted that T's introduction mentioned England have suffered from them. Yet where players fail to make a good account of their skills and playability by not scoring, or scoring enough, then they should immediately ponder over the probable consequences of being required to run around for 30mins more and risk cramp, fatigue or conceding, or worse in having to face up to taking penalties that are not as straighforward as we use to believe.

I prefer for the penalty shoot-outs to remain.


RedsMan.

3/15/2006 1:34 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The idea would make a farce of the beautiful game. Penalty shoot-outs are a lottery, but they offer excitement and culmination at the end of a match between two evenly matched teams. They are an institution and must stay (even if England have to suffer 100 more times at their hands).
One idea is to have the penalty shoot out at the beginning of the match (creating a spectacle for the fans) removing much of the stigma attached to the player who misses and giving an attacking incentive to the team that loses it (i.e they know what they have to do).
However, it could be argued that conversely the team that wins it could try and hold out for the 0-0 draw?

3/15/2006 1:35 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am all removing the farce that is penalties and also the naff away goal rule. Your idea has been banded around before and generally I am in agreement apart from the keeper aspect, i do think by removing players you would get a winner inside the thirty but if not, keep removing and after thirty golden goal. I cannot see it lasting much longer, but I feel for the last few players they will be knackered!!

3/15/2006 1:35 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Penalty shootouts aren't a great idea, but this is terrible.

There would be so many more injuries as a result of this, plus the play would be boring.

3/15/2006 1:40 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the idea sucks. its unfair to decide who kicks off after injury time. its got to be a very high chance the team kicking off wins.
i dont see whats wrong with this simple idea off the top of head:
2 (20 yard?) freekicks
2 corner kicks
1 penalty
then sudden death following the same pattern.

3/15/2006 1:50 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good idea except for the fact that the FIFA rules state that there has to be at least 7 player on either side. I think possibly reducing to 7 a side in extra time & the ability to use the 4 withdrawn players as rolling substitutes might open up the game & make things exciting!

3/15/2006 1:52 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some other suggestions:
1) Make the shoot-out best of 10 ie all 10 outfield players have to take penalty kick. That way it's less likely that ONE player will take the blame for a miss. (And if you have one or more red cards - tough!)

2) Suspend the offside rule during extra time.

3/15/2006 1:54 pm

 
Anonymous Barry Evans said...

Penalties are a crap way to lose....... but this idea stinks... i've never heard such a load of twoddle in all my life.
Goalden goal then silver goal we're a complete flop it's safe to say the best way is the old way...
if it's a draw play another 30 minutes if someone scores, maybe they deserve to win but if in the time left the other team equalise. it's clear that both equally deserve to go through to the next round, in as far as neither could win and neither lost. How to settle it. a simple penalty shoot out. It's harsh but FAIR!!!!!

3/15/2006 1:57 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One v one from the half way line.....works like a treat in Ice Hockey and I don't see why it wouldn't work in footie!

3/15/2006 1:59 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i quite enjoy penalties. i think most people do actually. I also enjoy the inevitable moaning from the commentators about the injustice of the whole system!

3/15/2006 2:03 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

change codes competely.Have a sort of kick (or throw) the ball nearest to the opponents'penalty spot from your own goal line

3/15/2006 2:06 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The answer seems obvious- the team that's committed the fewer offences during the game wins. Simple and effective no?

3/15/2006 2:11 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anything would be better than the penaly shoot out but it seems some people actually like it!

3/15/2006 2:22 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a great idea, and as for those who say penalties are an institution,are either too young to remember real football, or are brainwashed by that horrible idea.

I for one like the idea that footballers decide the outcome not Refs or bad luck. Am I correct in thinking thsi is an idea for us all to debate ? If so, perhaps the moaners should read it again.

I agree with 't' that the goalkeeper off idea, may not work, but on the other hand if it produces a winning goal, who cares!

I would love to see the 3-3-1 sides put out by Aladyce or Wenger or Maurihno. This could be the most exiting innovation yet!

3/15/2006 2:47 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good idea and I can see the exitement it could cause, but who will listen. The answer no-one !

3/15/2006 2:49 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would love to see this tried. Anything to get rid of Penalty Shootouts. What idiot thought that up anyway.

What those above on about. Penalties are not, and never have been, a UK football institution. In fact they are a typical men in suits, idea. Especially bad if you are the away side & the poor bloke who misses one.

The only bit id change is taking off the goalie, perhaps you could instead make the goalie play outfield and another player go in goal.

This has got me thinking about what a lousy system the penalties are.

By the way mate....Bergy missed in a normal time, not in a shootout.

3/15/2006 3:01 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Player Reduction? I love it, but could see Arsene playing 1-2-4, and Alladyce playing 5-2-0, and all giants with extra pointed elbows.

I really think this willneed the Admin men like the FA & League to be pushed into reading it. No chance there then.

3/15/2006 3:31 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i have to say,
i really hope the beautiful game is never reduced to this kind of farce. six-a-side like
some kind of charity match? and 40 minutes of extra time? and maybe next goal wins AFTER that? are you having a laugh? during a world cup where you might play 7 matches in 4 weeks? and its not automatic that it will be easier to score because there are less players. teams could still play with four defenders and you wonthave enough attackers to break them down.
and if penalties are such a lottery why is it some teams (grermany, brazil) have great records while others like england, holland and italy, almost always lose? penalty shoot outs are one of the biggest tests of nerve and character in sport. i feel sorry for the guy who misses too but sometimes to create heros you need villans.penalties provide great drama and tension, this would provide nothing memorable whatsoever.


with regard to the suggestion that the team with more shots on goal wins...how do you define exactly
a shot on goal, as opposed to a stray cross or an overhit pass? and the last 10mins would be full of guys shooting every time they cross the halfway line. as for "most corners" or "least fouls", neither of these prove anything. one team could play far better but end up with less corners, less shots on goal and more fouls.
the reason the panalty shoot out has never been replaced is because no one has come up with a better idea.

3/15/2006 5:38 pm

 
Anonymous Ged Maxwell said...

My suggestion is that after extra time if the scores are still level then a football is placed on each goal line.

One player from each side then has to race from the half way line and the player who kicks the ball over the line first wins the game for his team.

It sounds ridiculous but Gunner Pete started it!!!!

3/15/2006 8:00 pm

 
Blogger RedsMan said...

Ged Maxwell, interesting comment, but where Arsenal play another and the player chosen to run for the Gooners is Henry, and the other side is a lower division side who haven't a player of capable pace to match, it would be something of a foregone conclusion. You would need to have a fast running player or almost immediately rule your chances out.


RedsMan.

3/15/2006 11:06 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who's going to pay legals when 3 or 4 players die from exhaustion. Great idea but needs some fine tuning.

3/16/2006 2:51 am

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A group of us talked this thru and come to the conclusion that this scheme is the best so far. Anything that rids us of using Penalties to decide who wins a trophy. Whoever thought that out need stuffing.

As fot the people above who say no change to our beautiful game, must be kids, because our beautiful game was murdered by the idiot in recent history who gave us 'the shootout'.

As a geordie I want a players way to end a big game, not a farce. With this reduction idea all the players will be resposible for the win or the loss, not some poor berk who will get slaughtered for ever.

The only thing is leave the goalkeeper alone. The only change I would make to the whole idea is at 90 minutes, abolish the offside rule. Added to gunner Pete's idea this would be a great end to a big match.

3/16/2006 10:15 am

 
Blogger T said...

On behalf of GunnerPete I'll say thanks for the big response.

Understandably there are those who are against what looks to be radical change... while there are also those who support a lot of the elements of GP's player reduction proposal. This split indicates that the penalty shoot-out method of finalising matches is by no means universally favoured by genuine football fans, and once again I say kudos to GP for putting forward an alternative that has generated a solid debate.

Its down to GunnerPete what he does from here with his proposal... and I'm sure he'll keep EFT posted on his plans.

This debate is not closed so continue to feel free to make your own contribution.

3/16/2006 11:54 am

 
Anonymous FootyFan said...

What a crappy idea. Just because your Arsenal can't score in penalties, so you change the rules and make Liverpool look lucky in winning a penalty shoot-out? Anyway, if you have more than a selective memory, you would remember that your team won last years FA Cup through a penalty shoot-out against MU EVEN THOUGH YOU NEVER HAD A SHOT ON GOAL FOR 120 MINUTES! Call that fate or luck?

3/16/2006 1:40 pm

 
Blogger RedsMan said...

FootyFan, already mentioned in my first comment above.


RedsMan.

3/16/2006 3:10 pm

 
Anonymous FootyFan said...

Oh Redsman, thank you SO MUCH for reminding me. Where would the world be without "geniuses" like you?

Well for a note smarty pants, I DID NOT READ YOUR POST and commented directly after I read the blog. Enough of smart allecks in this world. We don't need another one!

3/17/2006 7:24 am

 
Blogger T said...

Footyfan, I can assure you that Redsman was not being sarcastic so I hope you apologise.

Further, I can assure you too that there was no intention to be anti-Liverpool when mentioning that they seem to be unique - based on my recollection - out of the top clubs in England not to have suffered a penalty shoout out defeat. The point I was trying to emphasise is that a lot of English football supporters have tasted defeat by means of the pen-shoot method... which I thought was a suitable way of introducing GP's proposal.

3/17/2006 12:33 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GunnerPete says.....

Well the response to the article about my dream of ridding all real football supporters of the hated penalty shootouts, seems to have encouraged some of you to have your say, albeit not always with good manners. I have decided to try to answer the genuine doubters but some for obvious reasons are best ignored.

To the first ANON...to suggest Im from America because I want a footballers answer to this hated farce is daft. I was born near Highbury and proud of it.I think all the soppy ideas the yanks tried when promoting 'soccer' have been dropped,thank heavens.

ANON again suggested that we have bigger nets etc. Before this stupid unfair system was hoicked on us in the '70's, we used to replay every cup game until a winner was found....i would go back to that any day rather than keep 'The Farce'.

Goonhater....Of course you have enjoyed watching us lose by penalties, thats what being a non Gunner is all about. My answer to your worry is that, with my idea, ALL players can be subbed at any time, so avoiding exhaustion (even players subbed in the first 90 minutes can be called back)

ANON ...Using the team with the most shots on / off as the winner would not work at all. Imagine about 75th minute, suddenly every player will be hoofing the ball into the crowd behind the goal to increase their shots on / off record.

ANON..who said he had seen this tried before.....I say that I put this forward in 1980, and the only trial I know of was approx three years later (with subtle alterations that killed it)

I do however concede that the idea of abadoning the offside law for the whole of extra time along with my player reduction, would be a winner...thanks.

GAZZAP...There is no real reason to take off the Goalie, it was just a suggestion to be analysed. BUT PLEASE GET THIS CLEAR EVERYONE.PENALTIES HAVE NEVER BEEN AND WILL NEVER BE, A FOOTBALL INSTITUTION!!! They are nothing but a admin mans cop out.

OLE..thank you for your support.

ANON....re: AFC have just won the FA cup so......??
As 't' will know, I am an old school Gunner, and I hated the fact that we were outplayed by Manure, but won using this farce. I would exchange that any day for my system to be used to get a well derserved result in every competition. As for Liverpool winning by penalties....they derserved to win that game anyway and with my system, they would have gone on to win the trophy, and get the praise they deserved.

ANON...Most corners etc..well it is similar to the most shots senario. Managers & players will start playing for rebounds off defenders, more than trying to win the game.NO it has to be a footballers ending to any game.

ANON....who kicks off decide the game??? sorry I dont understand this at all. anyway they will toss up for a kick off anyway.

ANON...as for more injuries...sorry wrong again. Basically, with all the players made available at any time during the extra time, injuries will be about the same as now. Remember my scheme allows the manager to use as subs any players he has subbed during the first 90 mins too.

Barry Evans..I never mentioned the golden goal etc. Mainly because it would not be necessary as someone will score in extra time.
As for calling it twaddle...what is wrong with me trying to allow players to decide who wins a cup, rather than some fluke or attack of nerves? My way means the manager has the responsibilty in deciding who stays or who goes. Can you not see the combinations that different managers will use ie; George Graham would almost certainly have used Wrighty only up front, with our famous five at the back and probably Keowne in midfield. I would say that Arsene would be almost the opposite, and use Henry & Reyes, upfront, with two midfeilders, plus a goalie & pacy defenders who will attack continously.

ANON...FIFA rules are there to be changed, but I do like your idea of re-using players withdrawn in the 90 mins, as sudden subs. I had covered that earlier too.

Maxwell...sorry we play football not athletics.

ANON...the reason Penalties have not been replaced is (a) because the men in suits are /and always have been lazy (b) because until my system was offered in 1980, no other idea was tried.

ANON....fewer offences to win..well I for one do not trust many refs to get things right now. So how would we feel if it was down to their interpretion of an offence, to settle game? No sorry, just think back to the sendings off Viera suffered, that were due to reputation rather than actual offending?

FOOTYFAN....sorry mate, but fans should not over react to any suggestions made in the interest of the game. I have also said before and I mean it, I do not want to lose (again) or win (again) by this method. I want to be proud that my team outplayed the opposition, not see the crowd turn on some poor soul who happens to miss.


Well 't' thats most of it. I would like to also state that I am also against Penalties being in favour of the home side. If that rotten system was to be kept, then away side should insist on their penalties being taken st the end where their supporters are gathered.

3/18/2006 12:03 pm

 
Anonymous Nturtle said...

Thanks for generating some interesting discussion Gunnerpete (& t)! For me....player reduction might be the key thing, and I think the only thing is the moneymen as mentioned by Redsman...and a set time to finish. 23 Penalties by Ivory Coast v Senegal took long enough though...

Gunnerpete... extra credit for answering all comments - everybody is allowed to have their say, but as you point out we really should not allow our allegience to any club to alter our viewpoint on the basis of the GAME of football.

I sincerely hope that readers of the articles respond AFTER reading comments as people have put in some effort to come up with ideas and thoughts, as opposed to a forum where a single word answer is sufficient!

The idea born at EFT is to put forward ideas different to what you read elsewhere perhaps - otherwise what is the point of Gunnerpete coming up with ideas and T reposting them?!

Cheers.

3/19/2006 1:23 am

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I used to play for Barnet in the '70s, and think this idea is excellent. I do like the idea of the "Reduction" coupled with the extra time without the offside rule. It not only could work but would be very entertaining. Funny things happen in extra time dont they? Gunner pete says he did not want to beat Man U, by penalties, but you have to take whats on offer at the time.

3/19/2006 10:31 am

 
Blogger RedsMan said...

GunnerPete's proposal made for a good debating topic, certainly an interesting idea notably from the reaction to it here but also for it's enterprise.

We are attempting to form a forum to which anyone can respond to that submitted, only wish they would do so with more comprehension and more thought, even with good humour, than with a little spite and even less wording, like nturtle said.

Like the chap in the Barclays ad stated in one office meeting, "RememBurrr, there is no such thing as a bad idea..." Number of times an idea has been utilised only to eventually flop. Other times it is discarded before even been discussed, let alone put into practice, and may well have gone on to provide a more suitable solution to an issue. GunnerPete has heard of his proposal having worked elsewhere, so it may have an equal effect in the English league. It isn't one I would be keen to see but were it to be temporarily implemented then perhaps a clearer picture could emerge of its possible usefulness or failures.


RedsMan.

3/19/2006 12:18 pm

 
Blogger T said...

GunnerPete, your responses to the comments are well appreciated, and I thank you again for your proposal which I'm proud to have published on EFT. Once the World Cup begins this debate over the most appropriate method for deciding matches will come into much sharper focus... and come the end of the tournament may be the optimum time to resubmit your player reduction method to the authorities. As mentioned in my previous comments, it definitely has my backing over the current pen-shoot-out method.

I'll also echo Nturtle and Redsman regarding their words... not a word out of place.

3/21/2006 11:52 pm

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Locations of visitors to this page