Originally Posted by orangebird (Post 34125455)

I like golden goal. That's how it should end. :tu:

Originally Posted by gazzae (Post 34125465)

Penalties are the best way to settle a game.

Originally Posted by orangebird (Post 34125455)

I like golden goal. That's how it should end. :tu:

Originally Posted by gazzae (Post 34125465)

Yep, but there has to be a limit. If a game is nil-nil after 120 minutes who's to say we won't be sat there for another 120 minutes waiting for someone to score.

Penalties are the best way to settle a game.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34125468)

Why does there have to be a time limit, to keep tv happy I suppose, well its's to bad really imo why should the best football events be finished with this lottery.

Originally Posted by gazzae (Post 34125470)

To keep TV happy?

You want to be sat there till 2am until someone scores?

This happened in the NHL. A normal NHL game lasts for 3 Periods of 20 minutes. They played 6 overtime periods. In total that's equivalant to 3 games! When someone finally scored, not because of skill but because of a mistake due to tiredness the stadium was half empty.

Why are penalties a lottery? It takes still to place the ball where the keeper can't get it.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34125475)

Its a lottery because any player that calls himself professional can score from twelve yards out, problems arise in a match situation because even the best are effected by the crowd and the occasion, I

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34125475)

wouldn't mind if the match went on until late as the fittest and most prepared would win through and if people have something better to do than watch the World Cup final because it over runs a couple of hours perhaps they should not have been there in the first place

Originally Posted by gazzae (Post 34125482)

If that makes it a lottery then surely the whole game is a lottery? Someone gets a one on one and misses because of the crowd and occasion, how is that any different than someone missing a penalty?
Even if the football is terrible?
.

Originally Posted by sherer (Post 34125479)

surely the whole point of being the better team is that you have achieved a higher level of skill and fitness.. if you can't be fit for a reply a few days later or go into extra time them you didn't deserve to win.. remember when Stauea Bucharest won the European Cup against Barca.. they played for a 0-0 to win it on pens.. not the sort of thing the fans want to see and not a good for the globl TV audience

Originally Posted by sherer (Post 34125479)

if a reply is a draw then have another one.. it happened in the past where teams had to play each other a few times.. the stronger team will win it in the end where as on pens the best team can end up losing.. it takes the skill out of the game

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34125492)

Because of the build up I have never seen someone get a one on one where they walk slowly from the half way line with every one in the stadium watching them, a tv audience of billions, the hopes of a nation and a snide goalkeeper (Bartez aside of course) trying to put them of.

Look at previous World Cups Baggio missed in a final, ordinarily you would put your house on him to score and look at 1990 Argentina played for penalties all the way through to the final, I would never want to see a team use such tactics to get to a final again, let alone be in with a chance of winning it.

Originally Posted by gazzae (Post 34125494)

Thats life, we were all over Arsenal in the FA Cup final. We weren't good/lucky enough to score they won on pens. So be it.



What happens if the seasons starts and we are still replaying the World Cup final? ;)

---------- Post added at 10:58 ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 ----------



So what you would rather have a winner scored because someone doesn't have any energy to stop it?

How that is any less of a lottery I don't know.

Originally Posted by gazzae (Post 34125494)

Thats life, we were all over Arsenal in the FA Cup final. We weren't good/lucky enough to score they won on pens. So be it.

Originally Posted by gazzae (Post 34125494)

What happens if the seasons starts and we are still replaying the World Cup final? ;)

Originally Posted by gazzae (Post 34125494)

So what you would rather have a winner scored because someone doesn't have any energy to stop it?

How that is any less of a lottery I don't know.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34125475)

Its a lottery because any player that calls himself professional can score from twelve yards out, problems arise in a match situation because even the best are effected by the crowd and the occasion, I wouldn't mind if the match went on until late as the fittest and most prepared would win through and if people have something better to do than watch the World Cup final because it over runs a couple of hours perhaps they should not have been there in the first place

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34125500)

Because it would come down to fitness, determination, skill and will to win rather than coping with pressure, you might be happy with seeing dull matches with ten men behind the ball, everyone to scared to try anything in case it results in disaster, safe in the knowledge that they have penalties to fall back on, the goalden goal way is a lottery but imo it is a fairer way to settle things and no team will ever be accused of playing for a goalden.

Originally Posted by sherer (Post 34125502)

that shows how unfair it is.. if we had replayed the match and lost it would have been fair.. to lose on pens to a side that hadn't been as good shows the system doesn't work

Originally Posted by sherer (Post 34125502)

i don't that that's very likely to happen do you ?

Originally Posted by sherer (Post 34125502)

the fittest and strongest team would then win the match.. being fit and strong is all part of sport at least that would be fairer than just hitting a ball from 12 yards

Originally Posted by punky (Post 34125503)

In domestic matches, possibly. However we are talking about World Cup matches. Playing for long periods will always favour the home team, or teams that have been aclimatised. Skill of football aside, do you honestly think England, or any European team could play 4 hours of football in Rio against Brazil or Venezuela? Therefore, that itself is even more of a lottery, as it depends on the climate of the match would clearly boast local teams.

And anyway, even for domestic matches it won't help. Fitness doesn't very much between teams in a similar league. They will tire together, meaning most willbe unable to string passes together and with a lack of running the game will develop into a snail's pace. The strikers will get weaker, but the goalkeeper won't. All this isn't conducive to a good football match.

Also are people forgetting the serious impact this can have on a footballer's health? And can players really recooperate in 4 days after playing a 4 hour match?

Originally Posted by gazzae (Post 34125505)

Not down to which team used its subs latest then?

---------- Post added at 11:14 ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 ----------
The fittest and strongest team suffer two injuries in the first half. They make two subs. The weaker team don't make any subs till the 70th minute. Who is going to be fitter in extra time?