Two articles for your perusal:
I'm still super sad that there's no footage of Barbados valiantly defending both goals against Grenada
My thought from yesterday is whether they should have different rules for the final. You can't have indefinite or longer extra time in the earlier rounds because the winner has to play again in 3-4 days and anything over 120 minutes will disadvantage them too much for the next round. But for the final, that's obviously not a concern. And deciding a champion on penalties is just so suboptimal. I think I'd favor playing 60 minutes of extra time in the final before going to penalties, with one extra sub at the start of extra time (like now) and another after 30 minutes (so seven total).
Aren’t we going back to three subs after this year (provided no future pandemics)?
This is my answer as well. Extra time is usually dull, but imagine how much better it would be if a team knew that they had to push for a goal in those last 30 minutes.
Modification: do the PK after 90 minutes, then play the extra time. That way every single game doesn't have to have the PKs. Plus then the team winning the PKs won't try to just play for a 0-0 draw.
I love this. If it's the finals, give both teams a silver medal. I hope you're happy.
This part I don't understand. Wouldn't the team winning the PKs want a 0-0 draw (if not an outright win?)?
That's what I am saying - they would want a 0-0 draw, but would you want to watch a team try to park the bus for 120 minutes in a knockout game?
Ahh, I see, you mean after the 90 rather than before the match. 30 minutes of bus parking vs 120. Got it.
I actually really like this. The best argument I can give in favor of it, is that the team who wins the shootout would be psyched big-time, but then would have to settle down and focus on how to play in ET. Conversely, the team that loses the PKs would be down but with a chance to re-focus, and say to themselves--alright, let's go win this friggin match. And frankly, that just sounds like a more appropriate response to a PK outcome than the suddenness of a match being over due to a spot kick. IOW, it's an appropriate way to provide an impetus to ET.
So are you saying that the winner of penalties gets a goal? So if it's a 1-1 game at the end of 90 minutes, and Team 1 wins penalties 3-0, do they have a 1 goal lead or a 3 goal lead going into extra time?
No. You get nothing for it. It’s still 1-1. But if extra time ends 1-1… the team that won PKs wins.
You’d get bus parking, but the other side would have to be hyper aggressive knowing they HAVE to score or else they lose. If nothing else it would be super compelling.
Got it - that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification. I really like the idea.
Very true, but we’re (I think) only talking about using this approach when you absolutely need to declare a winner. Draws remain on the table for tourney group stages, club regular season, etc. If a very small club or country makes a run deep enough into a tournament, that could be a factor - but I think the sub issue (as you rightly point out) impacts the regular season grind much more.
I would say golden goal, because then a team that wins the PK and tries to park the bus doesn't get another chance if the other team scores. You want to park the bus, you pay the price if you give up a goal. You lose immediately.
I don't think you can park the bus for 120 minutes - especially in the knockout rounds of a tournament where presumably all sides just survived a group stage so are at least nominally competitive.
