MLS playoffs format changes

[Joseph Bianco]

I would like to see a change in penalty shootouts from the ABAB method to the ABBA method as in the former the A team wins 60% of the time.

i love dancing queen

 

[sbrylski]

y'all got some crazy ass ideas.

If Team A was fouled in the box in the 90+2' and made the PK, then Team B was fouled in the box in the 90+4' and missed the PK, you wouldn't say it's unfair. It's the exact same thing but after extra time.

 

[Joseph Bianco]

If Team A was fouled in the box in the 90+2' and made the PK, then Team B was fouled in the box in the 90+4' and missed the PK, you wouldn't say it's unfair. It's the exact same thing but after extra time.

i never said it was unfair to begin with.

 

[sbrylski]

i never said it was unfair to begin with.

Then why is it crazy?

For the record, I'm just spitballin' here for discussion, I don't really have an issue with the current setup.

 

[Joseph Bianco]

Then why is it crazy?

For the record, I'm just spitballin' here for discussion, I don't really have an issue with the current setup.

if we do the penalties first you arent really playing extra time to find a fair winner because someone already goes into the extra time down a goal and would have to score at least 2 in actual field play to get the win.

 

[sbrylski]

i never said it was unfair to begin with.

if we do the penalties first you arent really playing extra time to find a fair winner because someone already goes into the extra time down a goal and would have to score at least 2 in actual field play to get the win.

I guess I just needed to give you another five minutes, lol.

 

[LeeNYCFC]

if we do the penalties first you arent really playing extra time to find a fair winner because someone already goes into the extra time down a goal and would have to score at least 2 in actual field play to get the win.

I think the implication was that they would be the pending winner but it doesn't put them up a goal. Any actual goals scored will rule.

 

[Ulrich]

I think the implication was that they would be the pending winner but it doesn't put them up a goal. Any actual goals scored will rule.

I think it's an intriguing idea, because it keeps both sides from playing not to lose in a standard OT, but it definitely will create a situation where one team is forced to be the aggressor while the other is allowed to sit and bunker. In the end, I'm not sure it truly changes anything because a dedicated bunker against tired legs is pretty tough to crack.

 

[Taurus]

Just bring back Golden Goal. That was awesome

 

[Joseph Bianco]

I guess I just needed to give you another five minutes, lol.

its fair because its equal opportunity for both... its unfair for regular play on the field... lmao whatever, you got me

 

[Fantazma]

I actually never get this in soccer. Its a completely spherical ball, there is no such thing as a lucky bounce, unless you're talking about some collision in the middle of the field where the ball ricochets off of multiple players. Now in American football? Lucky bounces are definitely a thing as the ball is not spherical.

And to further clarify, I don't mind the more general statements in regards to teams "getting lucky" or "unlucky" when they put a bunch of shots on frame but don't finish for whatever reason. I'm just saying that with a spherical ball, there is no such thing as a lucky bounce, or even the goalposts/crossbar made the save or were the keeper's friend. Its a matter of the shot was good enough or not good enough.

Apologies for the unnecessary rant.

sure, i didnt say it wasnt ..... just there are those that say X team got lucky with bounce etc or hit the post etc during the game and then there is a tie and if it leads to penalties there should not be any complaints. opportunities were there and if it didnt happen the shootout is fine to me

i just dont see the penalty shootout as something based on "luck"

 

[Midas Mulligan]

An idea that I saw somewhere else I thought was very interesting (it may have been on this forum, but I can't recall).

After regulation time is ended and its at a draw. Have PKs until someone "wins" PKs. Then play your added time up to 120'. This way if added time ends and its still even, we have a winner "decided" by added time. Additionally, it forces added time to have a bigger purpose, as nobody will hold out for PKs.

If you win PKs, then won't you just PTB?

 

[SoupInNYC]

If you win PKs, then won't you just PTB?

PTB = Play to Bunker?

ETA: The way I see it, I'd rather watch two teams play extra time knowing that the game will be decided once extra time ends, instead of watching two teams play extra time just wasting time to get to PKs.

ETA2: I'm not certain that this would be the best option, but its definitely something that I would like to see tried.

 

[sbrylski]

PTB = Play to Bunker?

ETA: The way I see it, I'd rather watch two teams play extra time knowing that the game will be decided once extra time ends, instead of watching two teams play extra time just wasting time to get to PKs.

Agreed. One team parking the bus is better than two teams parking the bus.

 

[413Blue]

Also, parking the bus almost always fails when done for more than 15 minutes, especially if the teams are relatively evenly matched.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Im all for adding an extra sub and think it'll help the game a lot.

But what if in Bizarro World, the opposite took place..... in OT, each team had to remove one player from the field ?!? That could really open up the game with the same tired players and more open space, thus possibly fewer games going to penalty shootouts. Hell, could still give one more sub while removing a player - but the idea of 10v10, or whatever the number of somebody was already ejected, is kinda neat.

This is exactly right, and something I have long advocated. Penalties are horrible. They decide important games with a brand new contest that has almost nothing to do with how the game is played. Might as well put them each in dresses and high heels and see who can run the full length of the pitch the fastest. Penalties are nothing short of an abomination.

If you get through the full 120' and people are tired, then take some players off, open up space, and the goals will come, and they will come from clever runs, great passing and on the ball skill.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

PTB = Play to Bunker?

ETA: The way I see it, I'd rather watch two teams play extra time knowing that the game will be decided once extra time ends, instead of watching two teams play extra time just wasting time to get to PKs.

ETA2: I'm not certain that this would be the best option, but its definitely something that I would like to see tried.

Park the bus.

 

[FredMertz]

An idea that I saw somewhere else I thought was very interesting (it may have been on this forum, but I can't recall).

After regulation time is ended and its at a draw. Have PKs until someone "wins" PKs. Then play your added time up to 120'. This way if added time ends and its still even, we have a winner "decided" by added time. Additionally, it forces added time to have a bigger purpose, as nobody will hold out for PKs.

30 minutes of guaranteed Park the bus does not solve any problem I am aware of.

 

[Falastur]

This is why penalty shoot-outs are a necessary thing in football:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/nov/21/oxford-city-alvechurch-longest-fa-cup

 

[LionNYC]

This is why penalty shoot-outs are a necessary thing in football:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/nov/21/oxford-city-alvechurch-longest-fa-cup

Reminds me of the lack of a tiebreaker in the fifth set at Wimbledon.

Match took three days...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isner–Mahut_match_at_the_2010_Wimbledon_Championships