Penalties

[Kryten]

http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/39798344

In a nutshell with penalties going ABAB...B is always under pressure when stepping up to stick one in the onion bag! But under ABBA this will apparently eradicate this making the shot taking fairer and with less pressure.

However what happens if B and B both step up and fluff it? Won't this give A a massive boost to their psyche leaving B even more at a disadvantage when having to step back up to the spot after both A's smash it in the back of the net...please discuss!

Also there's and ABBA joke here but I'm fucked if I'm looking for it!

 

[stringjunior]

Eh?

 

[stringjunior]

I've now read the article and understand

 

[JordoBlade]

The winner takes it all is the name of the game. Money, money, money....

 

[ItzBlades8]

It's impossible for team B to be under any pressure now because if A score then B score both suddenly A are playing catch up, which I thought was the whole thing they were trying to stop

 

[Kenilworth]

What a load of BABBAA

 

[Kryten]

What a load of BABBAA

Sir, if I had a cap I'd doff it in your direction!

 

[MobileBlade]

If we had had this against Huddersfield, would Simonsens penalty only landed on Mars instead of Jupiter?

 

[knowsnowt]

God they must be bored at footy central. Someone lob em another bottle of brandy.

 

[BigBed]

Why do people have to fuck about with stuff that's doesn't need fucking about with??
Their like paedophiles for rules!!
Just leave stuff alone!!

 

[Yoonited]

The winner takes it all is the name of the game. Money, money, money....

So at Wembley do you reckon Simmo said Take a Chance on Me. That went well

Sorry Mobile din't see your post.No attempt to usurp you mate.

 

[BerksBlade]

How have they determined that the proposed new system is fairer?
If A1 scores and B1 misses, then there's even more pressure on B2 - by the time B3 gets a go they could be 0-3 behind.

 

[Torrix1889]

If it aint broke don't fix it.....to much faffing about in football for faffing's sake..

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

I began reading this thinking 'end-of-season waste of time', but having looked at the link, it looks like a small change worth considering. As we know, play-offs and penalty shootouts are a lottery, and anything which levels the playing field is to the good. I assume the idea comes from the tennis tie-break, which uses exactly the same sequence. We would soon understand it.

 

[elgoog44]

if a + b = B + A plus ABBA surely the answer is play this during penalties, to relax the player or anger if he hates ABBA...

 

[Roygbiv]

If you read your opening post without looking at the link Kryten then you sound completely mad. Unfortunately this is what I did

 

[ucandomagic]

Penalties in playoffs is what really infuriate me.

If you beat a team by 10 points over 46 games it should be up to them to beat you in the playoffs. If scores are level after 120 minutes the team that finished higher in the league should go through.

It is a nonsense having a whole season decided on whether a tired centre back or goalkeeper (!) can score a penalty under pressure and over-ride the results of a 46 game season. It would also mean that one team had to really go for it right to the end of extra time.

I guess that in 1-off cup games it's all part of the fun.

If I was from Udders I would probably have a different view!

UTB

 

[coaxingstar71]

How have they determined that the proposed new system is fairer?
If A1 scores and B1 misses, then there's even more pressure on B2 - by the time B3 gets a go they could be 0-3 behind.

They still would be under the current system presuming A goes first...

A1 scores = 1-0
B1 misses = 1-0
A2 scores = 2-0
B2 misses = 2-0
A3 scores = 3-0
B3.....................

Anyway, I think it's a complete waste of time, if all players score then whoever is taking the '2nd' penalty is playing catch up. If one player misses, it still puts the same pressure on the team-mates following to score. They've obviously not got anything better to do.

Speaking of play-offs, the rule I don't understand is how away goals don't count after 90 minutes but then they do after extra time. I think that is really unfair although the Blades have benefited (fleetingly) from this rule twice, in 1997 v Ipswich and 2003 v Forest. The first Ipswich game finished 1-1 at the Lane and then after 90 mins away it was 1-1 and 2-2 on aggregate, both sides scored in extra-time and it finished 2-2 on the night and therefore we went through 2-1 on away goals. In 2003, the first game at Forest finished 1-1 and then after 90 mins at the Lane it was 2-2, 3-3 on aggregate (with Forest theoretically leading 2-1 on away goals) but it went to extra time and I think we all know the rest!

 

[snootyfenooty]

If it gets me a night in the sack with the blond one I'm all for it.

 

[scouseblade]

My understanding it was going to be like a tie break in tennis - so its not best of 5 its first to 5? or by two clear goals. So it goes A BB AA BB AA BB AA etc until some reaches 5 or 7 - suppose it will be authorites that will decide it.

 

[Yoonited]

Penalties in playoffs is what really infuriate me.

If you beat a team by 10 points over 46 games it should be up to them to beat you in the playoffs. If scores are level after 120 minutes the team that finished higher in the league should go through.

It is a nonsense having a whole season decided on whether a tired centre back or goalkeeper (!) can score a penalty under pressure and over-ride the results of a 46 game season. It would also mean that one team had to really go for it right to the end of extra time.

I guess that in 1-off cup games it's all part of the fun.

If I was from Udders I would probably have a different view!

UTB

You present a very sensible argument which many of us may not have considered. The season is a marathon and ought not be decided perhaps by a quick dash at the end.

 

[BushBlade]

Penalties in playoffs is what really infuriate me.

If you beat a team by 10 points over 46 games it should be up to them to beat you in the playoffs. If scores are level after 120 minutes the team that finished higher in the league should go through.

It is a nonsense having a whole season decided on whether a tired centre back or goalkeeper (!) can score a penalty under pressure and over-ride the results of a 46 game season. It would also mean that one team had to really go for it right to the end of extra time.

I guess that in 1-off cup games it's all part of the fun.

If I was from Udders I would probably have a different view!

UTB

It's fairer IMO but there's a potential for the games to be dull as ditchwater when the higher placed team just sits back and defends and looks to hit on the break. Imagine a POF with two teams managed by Clough and Parky, one 'starting with a win' and the other just launching balls into the box and hoping to pick up the second ball.

The sponsors and Sky would soon get fed up with it.

 

[blade too long]

ABBA penalties

If you change your mind
your going to miss this time

the winner takes it all,
and in the CL its all money money money

 

[I should coco]

If you change your mind
your going to miss this time

the winner takes it all,
and in the CL its all money money money

I think you took a chance and met your Waterloo - mamma mia!

 

[Bladesman]

If you read your opening post without looking at the link Kryten then you sound completely mad. Unfortunately this is what I did

You have to remember he is just a mechanoid.

 

[blade too long]

I think you took a chance and met your Waterloo - mamma mia!

have you took a pen Fernadinho
you can win it all on a night like this

gimme gimme gimme a pen after full time

 

[BladeFisher]

I began reading this thinking 'end-of-season waste of time', but having looked at the link, it looks like a small change worth considering. As we know, play-offs and penalty shootouts are a lottery, and anything which levels the playing field is to the good. I assume the idea comes from the tennis tie-break, which uses exactly the same sequence. We would soon understand it.

There is an easier way.

Have the penalty shoot out before the game. Then both teams have 120 mins of football to effect the result.

 

[Bladebri]

There is an easier way.

Have the penalty shoot out before the game. Then both teams have 120 mins of football to effect the result.

Or get rid of penalties all together, both teams go out and the team you would have played get a buy

 

[BerksBlade]

If we had had this against Huddersfield, would Simonsens penalty only landed on Mars instead of Jupiter?

If Williamson, Lowton & Taylor had done their jobs from 12 yards it would never have got to sudden death....