Extra time Scrap it and go straight to penalties - Yes or No?

[Corky]

Also would like Golden goal back. Encourages attacking

 

Wasn't it cancelled because the opposite happened? Too many teams being too cagey for fear of conceding.

[davieG]

Too many negatives,

 

Often very boring

Fairly sure it doesn't produce a result that often

Risks injuries to tired players  

Increases the chance of yellow cards due to tiredness

Creates problems for travelling fans

[Aus Fox]

Keep extra time but every 5 minutes a player from each team is taken off. Great tactitians would have to decide do you sacrifice a goal scorer or defender, one of your midfielders?

By the end of 30 minutes of extra time you have a 5 aside wide open game.

Simple, most games would produce goals at some point during the 30 minutes almost irradiating the need for a penalty shoot out.

[Finnegan]

Also would like Golden goal back. Encourages attacking

Assume sarcasm?

[DB11]

Keep extra time but every 5 minutes a player from each team is taken off. Great tactitians would have to decide do you sacrifice a goal scorer or defender, one of your midfielders?

By the end of 30 minutes of extra time you have a 5 aside wide open game.

Simple, most games would produce goals at some point during the 30 minutes almost irradiating the need for a penalty shoot out.

Doesn't make great use of tactics you'd simply just keep the fittest players on

[Beliall]

What is it with footballers that they can only run for 95 mins? as soon as ET starts they get cramp. Scarp pens and make then play forever.

[Footballwipe]

Yes please. If not, can someone please come up with an idea to make it a bit more entertaining.

 

I'm not sure if it's a trend, but it feels like teams are settling earlier and earlier for penalties. 2006 with Ukraine-Switzerland and 2014 with Costa Rica-Prarguay were terrible, but take the Portugal and Germany games in the QF's. As soon as both games went to 1-1 it fell flat as a pancake, it's like even in normal times they had settled for penalties.

 

I don't get the mentality whereby teams and managers seem to think taking it to penalties is acceptable? A more honourable defeat maybe? Whatever it is it stinks. ET is not worth watching these days, yet you feel you should because you've invested 90 minutes into the game already.

 

Golden goal? I am a big fan of that, but vastly in the minority I know, but at least it would add some jeopardy to games, and there were a fair few golden goals during the time. It might petrify teams even more but at least any 'smaller' nations would know it's all over if they got the goal.

 

Sick of shit ET periods.

[AyewJoking]

keep extra time but bring back the golden goal.

 

if not, only the final of a tournament can go to extra time, every other draw in the knockout phase, straight to penalties.

[reynard]

Personally I'd scrap penalties and just have the golden goal. Sides just play for the chance to win on penalties.

[Captain...]

What is it with footballers that they can only run for 95 mins? as soon as ET starts they get cramp. Scarp pens and make then play forever.

 

Because they train to be at their peak physical fitness for 95 minutes. It's like asking a marathon runner to run an extra 9 miles and then be surprised when they struggle.

 

The only idea on here that I like is giving extra subs for extra time, I would say 2 extra subs could be allowed in extra time, I'm amazed at how many managers keep subs in reserve during 90 minutes for extra time/penalties when their players are clearly knackered. At least this way they could give it their all in normal time, I'm amazed at how many teams just back off and are happy to conserve energy for extra time rather than go for it at the end.

 

Another thing you could introduce in extra time is red cards for professional fouls, it will stop negative tactics of just wiping someone out on the half way line to prevent a goal.

 

EDIT: I wouldn't want to scrap extra time, but in this tournament it has been dire so open to mixing it up a little. 

[Beliall]

Because they train to be at their peak physical fitness for 95 minutes. It's like asking a marathon runner to run an extra 9 miles and then be surprised when they struggle.

 

The only idea on here that I like is giving extra subs for extra time, I would say 2 extra subs could be allowed in extra time, I'm amazed at how many managers keep subs in reserve during 90 minutes for extra time/penalties when their players are clearly knackered. At least this way they could give it their all in normal time, I'm amazed at how many teams just back off and are happy to conserve energy for extra time rather than go for it at the end.

 

Another thing you could introduce in extra time is red cards for professional fouls, it will stop negative tactics of just wiping someone out on the half way line to prevent a goal.

 

EDIT: I wouldn't want to scrap extra time, but in this tournament it has been dire so open to mixing it up a little. 

 

Ah, that makes sense. You just gave me an idea about extra time though. At the end of 90 mins, bring on the training nets, play widthways on half the pitch, SUBS only

[Kitchandro]

Wasn't it cancelled because the opposite happened? Too many teams being too cagey for fear of conceding.

 

They do that anyway though.

 

At least with the Golden Goal you were guaranteed drama. One goal to win it. No coming back. No scoring a goal thhen the game peterng out for 25 minutes again. Similar to a penalty shoot out with the emotions.

 

I think keep ET but if it's still 0-0 after the first 15 go straight to penalties. A good middle ground.

[Kitchandro]

Also I think it's important to point out that there have been some unreal extra times.

 

Watched that re-run of England v Germany from Euro 96 again the other week. The game was crap but Extra Time was amazing. The best game of 2010 World Cup was Uruguay v Ghana and the drama right at the end of Extra Time was worth the wait.

 

Based on this tournament obviously no one likes Extra Time.

[LanguedocFox]

There was a brilliant suggestion in the Letters section of The Fiver a week or so ago. It was a joke, but it makes sense if you think about it.

 

The idea is that you have the penalty shoot-out at the beginning of extra-time, but it only becomes operative if it's a draw at the end of the added 30 minutes. That would encourage teams (particularly the ones that lost the shoot-out) to try and score during extra time, rather than not taking any risks so they can get to penalties. Well?

[davieG]

Also I think it's important to point out that there have been some unreal extra times.

 

Watched that re-run of England v Germany from Euro 96 again the other week. The game was crap but Extra Time was amazing. The best game of 2010 World Cup was Uruguay v Ghana and the drama right at the end of Extra Time was worth the wait.

 

Based on this tournament obviously no one likes Extra Time.

If they knew there was going to be no extra time maybe the 90 mins would have been played like the extra time in those games.

[Dan]

Absolutely yes for me. You can count the number of good extra time periods on one hand.

[Voll Blau]

Not keen on teams trying to play for penalties after 70-odd minutes which, let's face it, is what would happen. Maybe the golden goal needs looking at again.

[Christoph]

There was a brilliant suggestion in the Letters section of The Fiver a week or so ago. It was a joke, but it makes sense if you think about it.

 

The idea is that you have the penalty shoot-out at the beginning of extra-time, but it only becomes operative if it's a draw at the end of the added 30 minutes. That would encourage teams (particularly the ones that lost the shoot-out) to try and score during extra time, rather than not taking any risks so they can get to penalties. Well?

 

Wouldn't this just encourage the team which has won to play extra defensive though? 

[Captain...]

We can't predict the response of football teams to any changes, the golden goal should have made players attack but it had the opposite effect, the possibility of extra time should make teams want to go for it and win it in 90 minutes, instead games peter out as players conserve their energy for an extra 30 minutes and managers hold back subs.

 

The penalties first option could work, you get a longer break between 90 minutes and extra time so you can go for it a bit more and have more of a break, you don't get managers holding back players for penalties, you get extra time with one team starting out with the advantage forcing the other team to attack and the player that misses the penalty has a chance to redeem himself...

 

But the other team would just defend for 30 minutes, another downside would be that the pressure is off for the penalty shoot out it may take much longer as players are not as tired and more relaxed knowing that a mistake will not mean the end. You could see much longer penalty shoot outs and people losing interest in the spectacle. Penalty shoot outs on their own are not that interesting what makes them interesting is the pressure and tension of one mistake and the game is over. It also just feels wrong.

 

You could have 15 minutes of extra time (allowing one more sub), still all square, then 5 penalties each, still deadlock, 15 minutes of golden goal (allowing one more sub), still no winner then straight to sudden death penalties.