Saturday, May 25, 2013

Tuesday, 17 July 2012 13:25

World first for Bayside cup tournaments

Written by  Craig MacKenzie
  • 7 comments
  • Rate this item
    (0 votes)
    Bayside FA president Wayne Brown. Photo: DARRYL KENNEDY. Bayside FA president Wayne Brown. Photo: DARRYL KENNEDY.

    Believe it or not the eyes of world soccer will gaze intently upon Melbourne’s Bayside Football Association for the next few weeks.

    The independent body is trialling a radical game format for its annual cup tournaments in a world first for the sport and has caught the attention of FIFA, the sport’s governing organisation.

    The format is the brainchild of former Preston Lions goalkeeper Phil Traianedes and Irishman Robert Hallinan, both based in WA where Traianedes is a well-known referee.

    They have contacted FIFA, FFA and the English FA with their plan to do away with matches being decided by penalty shootouts.

    After 90 minutes if the game is a draw the teams proceed to Kicks from the Penalty Mark (KFPM) and the winner of this shootout will be deemed the winner of the game only if scores are tied at the end of extra time.

    In other words, extra time is played after penalties are taken and it is feasible that a team can lose the penalty shootout but go on to win the game as the result of the shootout is only used to break a scoreline deadlock.

    The rationale behind the radical format is that teams will go into extra time with a purpose, either to defend or to attack, but one team cannot play for a draw thus creating a positive dynamic rather than both teams playing for a draw then having their fate decided from the penalty spot.

    Traianedes and Bayside FA president Wayne Brown played junior football together and when Traianedes phoned his former teammate and told him about his idea Brown was immediately interested.

    “We put the concept to our club delegates and the response was overwhelmingly positive,” said Brown.

    “I can’t see any negatives in this in fact I think it’s a great way to change the dynamics of a game and to stop games grinding towards a penalty shootout.”

    Traianedes and Hallinan cite a number of advantages of their format:
    ●    It retains the drama of the penalty shootout and gives it relevance.
    ●    It ensures a non-cautious approach to extra time therefore one team must attack while the other team may choose to defend the KFPM result or attack cautiously.
    ●    Both teams are aware that a result will be achieved by playing open-play football.
    ●    Players get a rest during KFPM.
    ●    Players who miss in the shootout have a chance to redeem themselves in extra time.
    ●    The game is finished by playing open-play football.


    “Phil sent his idea to FIFA by certified mail then followed up by phoning them and they have confirmed that this playing format is on the table for discussion,” said Brown.

    FIFA has been looking into the possibility of doing away with penalties deciding games for some time now and the Traianedes-Hallinan concept may be the solution the world body is seeking.

    The new format will be used in this weekend’s quarter-final stages and for the remainder of this year’s Bayside cup tournaments and a report of the outcome will be sent to FIFA headquarters in Switzerland for further consideration.

     

    Last modified on Friday, 20 July 2012 14:06

    7 comments

    • Comment Link shite Thursday, 26 July 2012 20:13 posted by shite

      Not all the league members agreed and i dont believe all the responses have been positive. Check the leagues facebook account.

      I fail to see the positives myself. Players will rest and suffer injury. One team will always be playing defensive in ET regardless.

      To actually submit it to Fifa and the rest of the world without trialing it or applying more consideration might in fact result in creating a mockery of the league and the australian game.

      what other bright New Irish rules?...score in your own goals? (no thats not with your brothrs sister).

    • Comment Link Antler Bar Friday, 20 July 2012 08:26 posted by Antler Bar

      Somehow that lactic acid build-up has affected your cognitive functions.

    • Comment Link FIFAsurelydonotcare Thursday, 19 July 2012 23:28 posted by FIFAsurelydonotcare

      ● It retains the drama of the penalty shootout and gives it relevance.

      It also has "relevance" when it decides the match after extra time.

      ● It ensures a non-cautious approach to extra time therefore one team must attack while the other team may choose to defend the KFPM result or attack cautiously.

      Most teams don't want to leave it to penalties, tame extra times are due to tiredness, this will still be the case.

      ● Both teams are aware that a result will be achieved by playing open-play football.

      Unless it's a draw in ET, then the match was decided 30 minutes ago.

      ● Players get a rest during KFPM.

      Lactic acid builds up and players suffer during 30 minutes of uncalled for extra time.

      ● Players who miss in the shootout have a chance to redeem themselves in extra time.

      actually a very crap reason.

      ● The game is finished by playing open-play football

      Same poor point from earlier just slightly re-worded.

      - This is a completely pointless change to the current set up. Almost AFL like in random rule changing. Penalties not always the best way to end game, but having them before ET does not solve a single thing.

    • Comment Link Antler Bar Thursday, 19 July 2012 09:35 posted by Antler Bar

      It's your club that is the laughing stock Shana because your players have the combined intellectual clout of a boiled egg.

    • Comment Link Striker Wednesday, 18 July 2012 17:15 posted by Striker

      Good idea. The dynamics of the game change significantly. Tactics going into extra time will change from what they are now.

      Shana, don't know what the laughter is about. It's better than what we saw with Spain v Portugal in Euro 12 wasting 30 minutes in demonstrating passing skills. I think the point of the concept is to avoid that scenario. I don't think the shoot out is pointless at all in the new proposal. You have a guaranteed result if extra time doesn't produce one. One team must attack. In Spain v Portugal, neither team attacked, so there was no desparation of any team trying to score in extra time as you refer to. At least with the new scenario, someone has to do something.

      i think the present system doesn't encourage attacking football, or at least encourage a result from normal play.

    • Comment Link Kpfm Wednesday, 18 July 2012 13:20 posted by Kpfm

      And here I was thinking that the purpose of extra time was to win the game. Apparently not! But it's worth a laugh - I mean and Irishman and a goal keeper came up with the idea! Now it looks like Spiderman agree's...

    • Comment Link Shana Wednesday, 18 July 2012 11:12 posted by Shana

      There are plenty of negatives that have been conveyed to Wayne Brown and the Bayside FA by the players. This system will force players to go through a penalty shootout that could be pointless. It was also reduce the desperation of two teams trying to score in extra time down to one attacking and one defensive. Unfortunately for the Bayside FA, this idea had become a point of laughter in our club. The great game of soccer should be left with the system that is working.

    Leave a comment

    Follow us on Twitter

    Goal Weekly Login

    Goal Weekly Login