Save The Shoot Out?

When it comes to sport the rest of the world knows that America stands alone. They have named their national champions, World Champions and frequently make adaptions to the rules by which the rest of the world competes.

In the 1970’s when they tried to seriously introduce football and created the North American Soccer League in the United States; little did they know that it would take 50 years and Americans buying up European clubs to see the game gain a hold within the nation.

It was during that first attempt that the Americans opted to have no games end in a draw. They believed that the American audience would never accept a game going 90 minutes and there being no winner. So they came up with the shoot-out.

For the game’s purists it was a bastardization of the world game. It was seen as breaking with the traditions of the game. After all, sometimes a draw is a huge result for an underdog against a superior team. To many this innovation was seen as being tacky, and undermined the credibility of the league.

The rules of the shootout were very simple. An attacking player stood 35 yards from goal and had five seconds to beat the goalkeeper in a one-on-one battle. This was a test of a player’s dribbling ability, as well as their shooting ability. While for the goalkeeper it was a case of opting whether to come and and try and close the angle, or stay back and encourage the outfield player to shoot, it was a battle of wits and nerve.

While some never liked it, there were some who did, namely one of the greats of the game, dutch maestro the late Johann Cruyff, who urged Europe to adopt the shoot-out. They didn’t. In 2017 it raised its head again when another Dutch superstar Marco Van Basten once again suggested that football re-introduce the shoot out. Former US National Men’s team coach Bruce Arena is another who would like to see it come back, believing that it is far more entertaining than a simple penalty shoot out. He may well have a point there!

The 1981 Soccer Bowl final between the Chicago Sting and the New York Cosmos was decided by a shoot out. However, by 1984 the NASL was out of business, and the shoot out had become a thing of the past.

Field Hockey introduced the Shoot out to decide drawn matches in knock out competitions in 2011. This, and other methods of deciding drawn games in knockout competitions had been trialled in Australia and other nations The 2004 Olympic Games final had been decided by a “golden goal” in extra time.

The International Hockey Federation (FIH) said at the time of the change that shoot-outs “better replicate real game situations and tend to require more skill” and that was why they were the preferred option when it came to a tie-breaker.

The first major tournament to feature this format for deciding the outcome of a match was the 2011 Women’s Hockey Champion’s Challenge II; and this occurred in the 3rd place match with Belarus defeating Chile 3–1; definitely one for the trivia buffs.

Since then we have seen the Hockey One League in Australia introduce a shoot out during a game by way of giving a player the chance of obtaining a bonus point after they score a field goal. As with the US back in the 1970’s some like it, some absolutely hate it.

The FIH in their Pro League competition, and the Hockey India League have the shoot out to give teams a bonus point if there is a draw. There have been communication issues with this, as many in the media see the shoot out as deciding the outcome of the match, so announce the winner of the bonus point as the winner of the match, rather than the winner simply obtaining a bonus point. This certainly hasn’t helped its acceptance with the purists.

During the Hockey India League there was much discussion around the shoot out, and it’s place in such a competition, and even in the Pro League. In other words do you need to have a shoot out in a League competition? Is it relevant?

If one looks at the last edition of the Men’s FIH Pro League table for 2023/24 the shoot out scenario made little or no difference to the final standings. Had the deciding factor for teams on the same points been goal difference, as is the norm in most league competitions, there would have been no change to the final standings. As the FIH makes the deciding factor wins, Great Britain would have moved ahead of the Netherlands without the shoot out bonus points.

With India and Germany, both would have finished on the same points and had the same number of wins, so goal difference would have come into play, and so their positions would not have changed. Note the order that teams are listed in the order they finished in the Pro League.

In The Hockey India League there were 12 shoot outs in 44 matches. That is almost 30 percent of matches. Is that too many? Does the thrill for the fans become diluted?

More importantly how did this affect the finals standings on the league table?

Again teams are listed how they finished on the HIL ladder. Once again wins are a determining factor if teams are level on points, and then goal difference. Without the bonus points from the shoot out it would have meant that UP Rudras, who missed out on the semi-finals would in fact have come second. The next three teams, Toofans, Dragons and JSW Soorma all had the same number of wins so goal difference would have come into play and Dragons would have missed out on a semi-final.

One of the interesting factors of the HIL and the Pro League is making wins the determining factor over goal difference which is often the preferred determining factor when teams are level on points. There is a great deal of merit in this as it encourages teams to push for a win towards the end of a league season as it could have a bearing on where they finish, and whether they make the knockout stage. It also rewards attacking play, which is ultimately what fans want to see. They watch because they want to be entertained.

As the North American Soccer League is credited as being the first competition to incorporate a shoot out it is worth mentioning that they also had a very different points system in their league.Teams were awarded six points for a win, and three points for a draw. However they also earned one bonus point for each goal scored in a game up to a maximum of three per game.

In discussions during the HIL a similar idea was put forward but that teams receive a bonus point for every goal once they score four or more.

This would have changed the final standings again. This time the UP Rudras would have missed out on a semi-final as they were the only team not to score four goals in a game. They did score three in four matches. Would they have pushed for a fourth had this rule been in place?

The standings – without the shoot out points – would have still seen Bengal Tigers on top with 22 pts, Three teams would have finished on 19, JSW Soorma, Tamil Nadu Dragons and Hyderabad Toofans. So the four who played in the semi-finals would not have changed. Kalinga Lancers would have moved up to fifth with 18 points, UP Rudras would have slipped to sixth while Gonasika and Delhi SG Pipers would have remained where they were.

There was a belief that In a league competition with a shoot out the final league standings could be manipulated. In other words a team may opt to lose the shoot out rather than play one team based on the final league standings. The same argument could be made with the bonus point for four goals or more. However, as was pointed out they would still need to score goals, and if the opposition happened to score four and they need a draw to qualify they will have to score four to make the knockout stage, so manipulation would be harder.

If the shoot out is to stay, one suggestion was that more players be involved. Make it more game related, and umpired as if in the game. Have three attackers take on two defenders and a goalkeeper from the 23 metre line within a set time.

The over-riding feeling was that the shoot out should be reserved for knock out matches, and not be used when there is a draw in a league competition.

There is reasoning behind this. With the equalising team winning eight of the 12 shoot outs at the event which backed up “The Price of Conceding Late,” many felt that extra time golden goal would be the preferred way of deciding a match, and a shoot out a last resort. The feeling being that this would easily match the excitment on offer from a shoot-out.

Once again various suggestions were put forward with regards to extra time golden goal, such as a reduction of players. Another was that once a substitution is made in this period the player coming off can no longer return to the field of play.

There was certainly plenty of healthy discussion, and some very sound reasoning. One wonders if there really is a benefit having a shoot-out in a league match. Is it in fact adding another complication to a game that is already struggling to be understood by many?

As was clear at the HIL 12 in 44 games meant that there were more shoot outs than people would have liked, and therefore the excitment they are supposed to generate became a little muted. So should the shoot out be saved and used only in knockout games?

What do you think?