I think its ridiculous to put penalty kicks after ot in WC.I always taught winning the wc means that u r the best of the world ,but when u win in penalty kicks means that your team was lucky enough to go through .What they should do is continu OT until someone score .After every period you can substitute 3 players .

I agree with you. A match WC match, or any other match, should never come down to penalty kicks. Maybe each side could play with less players, or even have it so there are no offside calls in OT, just to create more scoring chances. Anything is better than penalty kicks.

Without off sides it would be like a ping pong game and do want players to run themselves into the ground and dehydrate themselves and not be able to play in the tournament any further?, then play with 7 a side or someting on a field 60m by 100m, you try doing that. Penalties might be a lottery, but it's the best possible solution, my nation went out of WC 98 and Euro 96 though penalties, and I still think theyr'e the best match decider.

The problem with extra time and/or 'golden goal' is that both teams often choose not to score. Maybe they try at the start of the extra time, but mostly they're afraid for a counter. So they practically always choose not to go for it.

Well what they cand do is they can substitude any player any time after 2 ot .I find it ridiculous ,the worst example ever ,the wc final in 94 ,Brazil did win cause of penalty shootouts but if the game would of continued I dont think they would of scored cause the italian defense was too strong and of course anything could of happened.

Italy82 your last arguement is why penalty kicks have to stay. Imagine that teams could play for 4 or 5 hours or maybe could never score, do you want to see that? I don't want to see someone dropping out there from a heart attack...

Penalties are a bad way for any team to go out of any competition but in agreement with Polish Power they are the lesser of all evils! I can't see any other sensible option.

Maybe Italy should practice their penalties so they could win some once in a while. How are Penalties a bad way to decide a game, it is not luck, you must have a good goalkeeper and guys who wont lose their nerves in the spotlight and make perfect kicks, that sounds like it fits right in with the game. I love the tense moments of penalty kicks, it's everything the world cup is about. My team has lost on them in the last couple tournaments but it's jsut part of the game as much as the grass being green. Plus you just had 120 minutes to win the game, if you didn't you probably won't with more time.

I agree with most of you, Penalties is a harsh way and you gotta have a bit of luck, but there really isn't a more sensible option other then that. Becuase for instance you can't let players run around a huge field all day until someone scores, even with a handful of subs, and abondoning the off-side rule, then you'll get a total defensive approach of course from both teams.
Penalties, cruel, but decisive.

The way they used to do it in the old days is that if the game was still tied after overtime, they would have a replay.

Makes sense in a lot of ways, but commercially it would be difficult in this era of the "event."

Penalties are the best way to end a game, but some changes could be made. What if they
increased the two overtime periods from two 15 minute halves to two 30 minute halves. Plus both teams get to start fresh by being able to change thier lineups (i.e. the ability to put players back in who were previously substituted during the first 90). Also they should be allowed three new substitutions during extra time. Then if the game is still tied we could have penalties. Sure the game may still end with penalties, but more games could end in extra time (Golden Goal of course).
Just a thought.

I personnaly dont like penalty kicks, I would prefer a solution that was being discussed that consisted on putting the ball on middle on the field, then the taker could drible it and tryed to score; He could try to pass the keeper or shoot from anywhere (whithin a time limit, of course).
I think it would be a just and pleasant way to decide a match...

you keep saying about how how your team was eliminated in Penalty kicks ,what about Italy,its 4 straight world cup they got eliminated ,not because theylost in regulation time but cause of the penalty kicks and i find that frustrating.

Sergio,
Your proposal is close to what the MLS Shootout was. Needless to say, it has not gone over well with the fans or players.

I'd prefer to win the game by tossing a coin rather than by doing the "penalty shot" thing.

Penalty kicks are the best way to decide a match. Italy82, you are just angry about WC 94. Perhaps you should be mad at Baggio, who cannot kick. When two teams square off on the pitch, they put their finest players forth for 90 minutes. In those 90 minutes, each player gives the game everything he has. To put any of these players on after the 90 minutes is not fair, and if substitutions are put in, the best team is not put forward. If penalty kicks are played only after extra time, I think that it should be two five minute halves of extra time, and then two five minute halves of sudden death (then PKs).

The best solution is to have the penalty kicks first and then play two fiteen minute halves of extra time. The team that wins the penalties gets the equivalent of half a goal, if the game is tied at the end of the extra time then the team who won the penalties is the winner. If a team wins in extra time then they are the winner. This way if you lost the PK you have 30 minutes to attack and try to win or lose the match in regular game play. Even if you won the PK you still could not just sit back and defend because if the other team scores you have to score to go back ahead.

A lot of people have proposed this but we all know how slow FIFA is in implementing new rules so maybe it will be the rule by 2006.

Hey, penalty is not only luck, it requires experience and skill, I think that's a good way to decide a match.