It is a changing
world and sports, in particular football, cannot be left out of the
evolution game. There are a few things I feel should change in
football, prominent amongst which is the offside rule but since I don’t
have any idea for an alternative, I will hold my peace on that
particular issue for now. There is however another football rule which
I believe should be reconsidered by the football authorities and that
is the penalty shoot-out.
Shoot-outs were not
endorsed by UEFA or FIFA until the 1970’s and apparently, the FIFA
committee that reviewed and accepted it then “was not entirely
satisfied” with the process.
How many times have
we in knock out games sat at the edge of our seats, praying desperately
for a goal because we knew that if there was no goal from either team,
the ultimate end would be a penalty shoot-out? Why the desperation? I
want to make a guess and state that it’s because we realised this was a
very unfair way to determine the winner. A penalty shoot-out is more a
matter of chance rather than a reflection of the hard work or skills of
the players. Rotarians cannot be too happy with the penalty shoot-out
as in my opinion, it fails one of their cardinal 4-way test questions –
is it fair to all concerned? The English national team would, I
believe, also welcome the idea of change as they are one of the
national teams known not to have enjoyed much luck during penalty
shoot-outs.
Not down to skill
Defending against
or playing a penalty in a shoot-out is quite frankly difficult – no
matter how well prepared the goalkeeper and the players are. No keeper
(again presumably), wants to be in a situation where he is left facing
the opponent alone so to speak. It goes against every rule of warfare
that when it is possible for you to face the opponent together – you
send out alone the one person who may not necessarily be the ablest
member of the team – in fact sometimes, he may be the weakest link!
Football after all is a team game.
My grouse against
the penalty shoot-out is its unfairness when used as a decider for a
match. Where both teams have played their hearts out trying to score
through the normal 90 minutes and they are then requested to play extra
time, and then penalties – the likelihood in my opinion is that you
would not get a ‘real’ winner. The physical condition of the players at
this stage invariably means they are not in peak condition. To ask even
the best striker in the world to shoot and score a goal (even if
one-on-one with the keeper), is asking a bit too much.
The adrenaline
is pumping and as the international bestselling author Malcom Gladwell
stated in his book Blink, “most of us, under pressure, get too aroused
and past a certain point, our bodies begin shutting down so many
sources of information that we start to become useless”. Actions taken
under such conditions are typically not the best. Considering the fact
that only players on the pitch at the end of play time are allowed to
take part in the penalty shoot-out, it means that if all substitutions
were made by the end of full time or during extra time there are no
fresh legs on the pitch. The referee and the other match officials
though not ‘active’ participants on the pitch during the penalty
shoot-out are also at this point tired.
Letting fair play decide
So, these are my
suggestions – laughable but plausible? Why can’t the winner of a match
be determined by the team with the least yellow cards i.e. fair play?
Or the team with the best statistics in terms of ball possession,
attempts at goal et al? Are these more subjective than the penalty
shot-out? No, considering that everyone can see and count how many
yellow cards each team has received during the match and in the case of
the stats, these are hard facts. Will either of these in any way hamper
the competitiveness of the game? Again the answer would be no. I rest
my case and await a call from FIFA.
Leave a Reply