I wonder why south carolina is the only state that goes into extra time after a tie and I want to know what youll think about this subject? I personally am not always in favor of it because of the different things that could happen in the two 5 minute periods and pk's, more injuries, cards, etc.
i agree with the current system. Ties would further complicate determining a region champion
Ties are part of the game. We're a 3rd World Country when it comes to soccer. Might as well do away with goals, assists and corner kicks while we're at it!
if teams were tied at points and if they split games why not just use the goal differential or have a playoff game?
what if the playoff game comes as a tie, eventually extra time and PK's will be needed so why not just do it the first time aroung
drogbablues21, I agree with you and I think most schools would also be in favor. There's no issue on regular season games and most schools already use that system for their tournaments. If the region games are an issue, you could continue do those the same way...But when you already have over 50% of the teams going to region playoffs (Region VII will only have 1 team that doesn't go), it doesn't really matter.
Has any school made a formal recommendation to change the rule?
For those that love overtime, you could play two 30 minute half's with two 10 minute overtimes at the end of each
most people only love overtime because of getting to score more goals during the shootout
but if at team has played hard for 80 minutes and down a man or two it'd be very difficult for them to overcome that advantage even longer
Before I write this, I want to say that I am completely for changing the way the professional and semi-pro leagues are run to match that of the rest of the world.
The United States may be different from other countries in the way that we have standings, determine outcomes, etc., but think about this. In high school sports in this country, especially in the playoffs, the crowd and the players show up to determine a winner on that night. I don't think that after years and years of this method, many people would be keen to change the playoff system to have a replay (like the FA Cup) at the opponent (who has a worse seed)'s stadium. If you changed the way we end games in high school soccer, you would have to completely re-do the entire way that soccer is played in this state and at the high school level I do not think that that is a good idea at all.
i agree that the fans come to see a winner but ive been told by credible sources that sc is the only state that does overtime after regular time ends in a tie.
I personally have no problem with overtime. I do, however, have a problem with PK's. PK's do not test how good a team is in the least. If a defensive team goes to a shootout against an offensive team, and neither team has a stellar keeper then the offensive team gains a huge advantage. I always thought "defense wins chapionships," so why allow the game to be decided by nothing but a few wide-open self-paced shots. I've always been told to keep the ball moving while doing shooting drills because it's not gamelike. Then why do we settle the games in such a manner. I do like to have a winner at the end of the night though. In my opinion the best option is to let the players settle the game by playing soccer. Do two 5 or 10 minute OT's like we do already, but if it remains tied then go to golden goal until it is over. It may take a while, but at least you have a better shot of the best team being triumphant. That's just the take of a pro-win/lose anti-PK fan and player.
we want to play soccer not marathons if the game cant be decided in OT then PK's are legit
Rarely if you are playing golden goal would you have 10-15 minutes. Between the picking of the players, the shots, the long fateful walks back and forth, and the possible sudden death PK's- PK's can easily reach 5 and approach 10 minutes. Granted there will be a few games that won't be decided in those 10-15 minutes, but the cast majority will not be "marathon games." If you must, at least increase the overtime length because two 5's does not give a team much time at all to make something happen.
Take a look at how many games are decided 1-0, 2-0, or 2-1 and the like...when well-matched teams are averaging 40 to 80 minutes per goal, why expect the "golden goal" to take less than 10-15 to occur?
Just as a heads up, IL does overtime after a tie in regulation. 2 X 10 minutes, but they don't do PK's. That only happens in tournaments and the state tournament. In the state tourny, they do 2 X 10 twice for 40 more minutes of play, not golden goal. Then if there is still a tie, it goes to PK's.
I would personally like to see a change in the system. Ties are not a problem at all for regular season matches. Since you play all region teams twice, just take the aggregate score to decide the placement of teams in the region. This is the same way that the UEFA Champions League is done.
The only time that I agree to have overtime is in tournaments and post-season matches, where you need to have a winner in order to declare a "champion." Even then, overtime should be extended to at least 2 x 10 minutes.
Post-season (playoff) matches do use 2 x 10-minute OT periods, followed by 2 x 5-minute "golden goal" periods. PKs are a last resort after these.