Penalty shootouts

 
The penalty shootout has finally managed to blight itself on rugby. Damn.

Last weekend saw one of the (Heineken) European Cup semi-finals decided on a penalty shootout. This was certainly the first time in this has happened in Heineken Cup history and possibly rugby history. I've struggled to find another game that has been decided like this (the 2003 World Cup Final came within seconds of it) and unsurprisingly it's given rise to much discussion & debate.

It is a LOUSY way to decide a game... and I've always thought so.

Penalty shootouts are most commonly seen in football, generally follows a dour period of extra time (which has often itself followed a 90-minute snorefest) where teams have decided to sit back and take their chances with the penalty lottery. FIFA, to their credit, did attempt to experiment with alternatives such as "golden" and "silver" goal: golden was sudden death, i.e. first team to score won, while silver gave the team who conceded until the end of the half to equalize otherwise the game was over. But both concepts failed due to teams more concerned with "not losing" the game rather then winning it. How often do you hear post-match reaction fob off the shootout inferring it's a lottery? The game wasn't really lost and I'm sure that's saved many a coach/manager job in the past.

At least in football all the players are (loosely) doing the same thing - attempting to kick a ball through a target - so it can be argued there isn't much different about what they're trying to accomplish with penalties.

Rugby union is completely different - yes there is kicking involved but it's not the core of the game nor core skill for every player. Rugby union is incredibly specialised - players need have a very different physiology and skill set depending on the position they play. A winger doesn't pack down in the scrum and you don't see a front row forward punt the ball 50 yards down field and chase down the catcher (Keith Wood being the exception). Martyn Williams, one of the greatest back row forwards to ever play the game, missed what turned out to be the decisive kick and I feel for him - he's there to win ball and be creative with it in hand, NOT to kick goals.

Peter Wheeler, Leicester's chief executive, summed it up well: "Let's not get involved in the blame game here because this was unchartered territory for rugby and we are all learning, but I found that very uncomfortable to watch. Just imagine if it had gone on for a couple more kicks. For all I know Martin Castrogiovanni or Gethin Jenkins might be useful goal-kickers, but almost certainly not, and how humiliating and illogical it would have been for two of the best in the world at what they do, having to decide a European Cup semi-final by attempting something that they never do."

Rugby union continues to have an ethos/code of gentlemanship, respect and honour about it. Players will pummel each other on the field and occasionally things flare up but generally once it's all over they will shake hands and say "good fight" regardless of winning or losing. Most if not all post-match reaction from Leicester (who won) conveyed a message of "we didn't want to win it like this." So Wheeler's choice of words - humiliating and illogical - is pretty appropriate.

Solutions? Let's look at some other sports.

In basketball and ice hockey, the concept of a tie game doesn't even exist. Extra time periods are played (as many as are necessary) until the game is decided. In basketball this is determined by the score at the end of each period while in ice hockey it's sudden death, first goal wins.

In the sport of Touch (Touch Rugby / Touch Football) an elimination game is decided by a "drop-off." It's still plain ol' extra time but each side plays with a player less - that is instead of 6 players they play with 5, with a further player from each side dropping every 2 minutes until it's 3-on-3. Meanwhile it's sudden death rules - the first team to score a touchdown wins but both must have had possession before the game can end. (I should probably mention though that in Touch unlimited rolling substitutions are allowed - thus teams can continually get fresh legs on.)

I love the drop-off in Touch and think it's a brilliant way to decide a game. There is no difference between normal and extra time in what a team has to do to win the game, i.e. score touchdowns. It's urgent and exciting: teams know that there is an increasingly higher chance they will concede that sudden death touchdown - fewer players, same size field - so they go out gung-ho to score it themselves. You always know when and where there's a drop-off at a Touch event because spectators and players who've only just finished their own game literally flock to that field - and the atmosphere is always, ALWAYS electric.

I can accept that maybe the drop-off maybe doesn't directly translate to rugby but I can certainly see a variation of it being a viable solution - after all, the Sevens version of the game is established and strong. With football too, there is 5- and 7-a-side, albeit on a smaller playing field. So we're not talking about breaking new ground here, just applying modifications of pre-existing concepts. Drop some players off, say down to 10-a-side, disallow all kicked goals and make teams score a TRY to win.

Ultimately, games should be decided though by playing the core of that game. Anything that gets closer to that - even if it's still imperfect - surely has to be a good thing?