The Football Tragic

So much for the "palliatives". Now to the genuine "penalty cures" - alternative means of deciding a cup tie when a replay, for logistical reasons, is not possible.

1. Institute a system whereby individual players attempt to beat the goalkeeper from the halfway line, with unlimited touches

This system has been tried in America, with, apparently, mixed results. Certainly it requires a greater level of individual skill (though, arguably, less mental toughness) than a single kick from twelve yards, but there are several drawbacks to the procedure. Firstly and most obviously, what happens in the case of fouls? If the "penalty"-taker is fouled within the area, one would assume that a penalty would result; but if he is fouled outside the area? Penalty again? More questions begged there.

Secondly, bare one-on-one challenges between attacker and goalkeeper are frequent harbingers of injury for one or the other. One of the few things to recommend the penalty shoot-out is that it scarcely ever results in an injury. In a one-on-one challenge, however, the physical risk should not be underestimated.

And the final objection is simply that one would expect the conversion level to be greater even than from penalties; as a result, the procedure could last an intolerably long time.

2. The team with the better record in the event thus far progresses

This is an obvious and expeditious solution, but an equally obvious drawback is that one side will go into the game knowing that a draw is sufficient for it to progress. Impenetrable defensive solidity and lack of ambition could well be the result. However, in practice this can work either way; in the 1982 World Cup, Poland and Brazil both needed only a draw from their final second-round game to progress to the semi-finals, against opponents with inferior records. Poland did indeed play a plodding, dreary game against Russia which ended 0-0. Brazil's match against Italy, however, was one of the most exciting in the history of the competition.

Another major objection to this method is that "tournament records" cannot fully take account of the respective opposition faced. Manifest injustices could occur, as a result of one team racking up a hatful of goals against inferior opposition, then getting through on "tournament record tie-break" against a side that has faced much sterner tests in the earlier rounds.

3. Result decided by total number of shots at goal during the game

There are a number of suggestions similar to this, including decision by corner count, overall possession, etc. I will deal below with as many as seem vaguely sensible.

We all want to see teams going for goals, but endless hopeful whacks followed by long drawn-out goalkicks would be a spectator's nightmare. An often-suggested refinement to the idea is decision by the number of accurate shots (sometimes referred to as shots on goal), but in my opinion it would change little. A joyful thump as soon as a player finds an inch of space, and endless wasted time.

Corner count is occasionally deceptive, especially since one corner is often followed by a few more for the same team. Some styles tend to produce more corners than others, too, and it seems unfair to punish those teams who prefer the slow build-up through the middle. They are entitled to try to win in the way they deem most effective, without consequent disadvantage.

As for possession, this rather subjective statistic is not always a true reflection of the balance of the play. We regularly see defences lazily passing the ball around as if taking some light exercise at a picnic; the thought of such time-wasting non-football actually being, in effect, rewarded is not a comforting one.

4. Result by means of foul count

My perennial favourite, for a number of reasons.

Number one: it discourages fouls. Wouldn't we all prefer football to have fewer fouls (and stoppages therefrom)?

Number two: it would generally favour the team that has shown the more enterprise; it is rare that a defensive team suffers more fouls than it commits.

Number three: the idea allows for some flexibility, but can remain objective. Particularly violent or cynical offences are punished by yellow or red cards, and such sanctions can be allotted a larger proportion in the "count". But is a yellow worth two fouls? Three? More for simulation? Is a red worth four? Six? Trials could indicate the most appropriate system.

Number four: the count would be easy for the fans to keep track of (unlike, for instance, possession statistics), but in my view, the likelihood is that the players, with their minds firmly on the game, would NOT be able to keep track of it.

There are certainly problems with the idea. The most common objection is that the incidences of simulation would skyrocket. Possibly, but if referees are aware that a decision by foul count is possible in a cup tie, and that successful simulation is therefore more in the players' interest than ever before, would they not be more likely to police it more strictly? In my opinion, simulation should add a red card's worth to the foul count even if it only attracts a yellow. This would surely make it a risky option.

A similar objection is that the foul count method would give ever-fallible referees an even greater influence on the outcome of the game. True enough. But how many matches at the recent World Cup had eventual foul counts that did not reflect the balance of the play? In my opinion, surprisingly few.

The referee would, effectively, only have a decisive influence on a tie were the count to be relatively close.

There you have it, folks. A summary of some ways in which football could rid itself of that hateful procedure, the penalty shootout. Any other suggestions or comments from my fellow tragics would be most welcome.