Penalty shoot outs

[tenacres]

Thought this was worth its own thread so as not to clog up the thread re the Salford match and the deserved accolades about our team. Of course its kind of a moot point, but here goes anyway:

static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/60/Laws%20of%20the%20Game_16-17_Digital_Eng.pdf

From Laws of the game 16/17 pages 71 and 73

3. Kicks from the penalty mark
Kicks from the penalty mark are taken after the match has ended and unless
otherwise stated, the relevant Laws of the Game apply.
Procedure
Before kicks from the penalty mark start
• Unless there are other considerations (e.g. ground conditions, safety etc.),
the referee tosses a coin to decide the goal at which the kicks will be taken
which may only be changed for safety reasons or if the goal or playing
surface becomes unusable
• The referee tosses a coin again and the team that wins the toss decides
whether to take the first or second kick

I can't believe that the kicks were taken at the Salford end for safety reasons, that would certainly seem like a "fudge" if so. I also can't believe we would have chosen to take kicks 2nd (pretty much universally agreed to be an advantage to have the first pent) or chosen not to have them in front of our own fans. So it seems very likely we lost both tosses. I believe this two separate tosses rule has come in fairly recently. It certainly seems we were hard done by. The one teams= chooses ends and one chooses first kick rule which was in place for some time certainly seems fairer IMO.

Would be interested to hear any other comments on this.

[maysie]

I think no matter what we think it’s redundant now. I’ve watched the game back and Reda tells the lads what end we are at. Would he have chose second you never know?
Personally I feel second is a better option as the pressure is on either way just as we saw with the first penalty.

I thought after the game the penalties we missed we’re poor. However, the keeper made a good save for Zeb penalty.

We were unlucky and the commentators were complimentary and we deserved to win. McCallum should have had a pen but not given, the keeper made a couple of great saves.

However any excuses or wishes aside the lads were brilliant

[unknownquantity]

On another thread I said I thought that the rule at kick off was that teams tossed with the winner choosing either to kick off or choose ends and the other team choosing ends if kick off was chosen. There was I believe a well documented controversy in an F A Trophy match between Northallerton and Bashley when the home team opted to kick off, but the away team were not given choice of ends.

I think various suggestions have been made regarding this including making the order of the penalty kicks resembling the order in which tennis tie break points are contested.

I think that the toss of a coin does have some influence on the game, but probably not as much as in cricket. It is also funny to think that on one occasion the tossing of a coin was used as a tie break in a European Championship semi final and whatever its' limitations the penalty shoot out is a better method to use.

It perhaps unfortunate also that two of our substitutes were unsuccessful from the spot.

[nkc]

The first coin toss is not called by captains. The ref will say something like 'heads right hand end, tails left hand end' and spin it himself. It is not a team choice, obviously you also have grounds like Villa Park, Newcastle, etc where both ends have home fans behind them in any case. The only toss the captains call is for choice of taking first or second kick. The toss for taking of first or second kick still takes place even in competitions that have the ABBA format penalty kicks.

[back4more]

May 6, 2019 20:43:38 GMT unknownquantity said:

On another thread I said I thought that the rule at kick off was that teams tossed with the winner choosing either to kick off or choose ends and the other team choosing ends if kick off was chosen. There was I believe a well documented controversy in an F A Trophy match between Northallerton and Bashley when the home team opted to kick off, but the away team were not given choice of ends.

I think various suggestions have been made regarding this including making the order of the penalty kicks resembling the order in which tennis tie break points are contested.

I think that the toss of a coin does have some influence on the game, but probably not as much as in cricket. It is also funny to think that on one occasion the tossing of a coin was used as a tie break in a European Championship semi final and whatever its' limitations the penalty shoot out is a better method to use.

It perhaps unfortunate also that two of our substitutes were unsuccessful from the spot.

Malcy, your memory seems impeccable as always. In the sixties I can recall berating a Liverpool supporting colleague because his team had progressed in Europe based on the toss of a coin. Might have been v Cologne but not totally sure. 
Don't be too hard on our subs - win together, lose together. Both those lads have been absolute heroes in my eyes and I would love them to be at the Silverlake next season.

[michaelefc]

You can argue it doesn't matter now, and you can argue black is blue; but FACT - for us to be kicking at the Salford end and second is UNFAIR AND WRONG. The rules that allow this need changing.

[nkc]

I really do not get your argument. Why is going second unfair, some teams may choose to go second. If Newcastle are in a penalty shoot out at home, or Everton, or Aston Villa, or Wolves and so on, would your rule change mean they automatically have to go second. Penalty kicks is not a great way to decide a game but as it stands, and it's associated rules seem to be as good a way to deciding a tie as is currently on offer. Although not directly associated with this the fact the highest placed team plays at home when a penalty shoot out may happen in play offs then Newcastle, or other club with home fans behind both goals, have actualy earned that advantage with their league performance during the season. 

[unknownquantity]

I think it is fair to say that there are clearlymore penalty shoot outs have been won by the team kicking first, but I am not sure of the overall significance of this. Of 18 penalty shoot outs have been won by the team kicking second and in only two of these have the team who were first to miss won the shoot out.

Of course there was a lot of pressure on Chris Zebroski who always gives 100% effort in an Eastleigh shirt especially as I believe he took the last penalty in the shoot out against Dover a few years ago, but there was I think a lot of pressure on Sallford's third penalty taker as I do not think many teams have won shoot outs having missed twice before the opposition have missed.

I think back4more is right about Cologne, although I think my mention of the substitutes was an observation rather than a criticism.

[michaelefc]

Statistics show that 60% of penalty shoot outs are won by the team kicking first. These stats can be ascertained by Googling the question. It is obviously an advantage to kick towards your own fans, so what happened to Eastleigh at Salford was blatantly unfair. Any captain that chooses to kick second is either unaware of the statistics (and he shouldn't be!), or an idiot.

[hantslondoner]

On the other hand, in two-legged cup ties. most teams seem to prefer to play the home leg second.

BTW the keeper made a good save from Zeb's penalty. And in penalty shootouts you stand or fall as a team. Otherwise you could also blame Sam for missing one and Josh for not saving more. And then blame anyone else who missed a chance during the 120 minutes....

[michaelefc]

Yes I agree. I thought all 5 of our penalties were pretty decent and on another day all 5 could well have gone in. Anyone who has the bottle to take a penalty in those circumstances will certainly never be criticised by me.

Incidentally stats also show that teams playing the home leg second do better than the those playing the home leg first. You just have to follow the stats.

[unknownquantity]

I read an article yesterday that queried the accuracy of the 60% figure.  I did however find a list of the 30  matches in the finals stages of the World Cup matches involving penalty shoot outs of which 15 were won by the team shooting first and the 19 European Championships finals games also involving a shoot out of which 8  were won by the team shooting first.  These are obviously fairly small samples, but interestingly enough there was a strong campaign to introduce the ABBA method in the World Cup finals.

I do not usually take statistical information at its' face value, and really need more information than some of the writers on this issue provide. 

On Sunday Spennymoor won a penalty shoot out at Brackley after going second.

[tenacres]

The London School of Economics did some extensive research to come up with the 60-40.

www.lse.ac.uk/website-archive/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2010/12/Penalties.aspx

I'd be interested to see a citation to any research that contradicts this.

The other factor is what is the advantage gained by choosing ends (presumably the end that your fans are at). Would guess that this may be something like 55-45 (all other things being equal).

[unknownquantity]

Below is an article by Pinnacle analysing Ignacio Palacios-Huerta's survey. 

Popularised in Soccernomics, a study by Ignacio Palacios-Huerta of 129 pre-2003 penalty shoot-outs resulted in just over 60% wins for the side taking the first kick of the sequence. This timescale was used because post this date, the side winning the toss could choose whether to kick first or second, but before 2003 they were compelled to. In the earlier dataset the order was decided by the coin toss and was therefore truly random
Understandably, the 60% headline figure has become associated with penalty shoot-outs played out nowadays. An individual penalty from a front line taker is likely to be successful just under 80% of the time. So more often than not, the side going second will be playing from behind and it is easy to rationalise that the build-up of pressure increasingly erodes confidence and performance of the team kicking second.

A 60% success rate over 129 trials is possible if both sides had a 50% chance of winning the shoot-out, but it is unlikely and such figures are not considered statistically significant. So the evidence for a large first shooter advantage initially appears compelling but it may not be reflected in the odds available about each side once the coin toss and choice has been made.

However, there are objections. Firstly, on average, the side taking the first penalty may have an advantage, but it might not be as large as the 60% widely quoted. If teams had a marginally elevated overall 54% chance of winning when kicking first, they would be more likely to record a 60:40 split over 129 matches compared to a scrupulously fair contest. So the 60% rate may have arisen partly by chance in 129 iterations of an only slightly unfair contest.

Also, various alternative studies by Kocher, Lenz and Sutter, ranging from 262 to 470 shoot-outs from the same timeframe have failed to repeat the 60% figure. Instead they have recorded success rates for first shooters of around 53%, statistically consistent with the possibility of a fair contest. In World Cups this figure is around 58%

In the UEFA European Championship, for example, the first team to take a penalty have lost 11 of the 18 shoot-outs-outs on record.

The 60% figure is almost bound to crop up if any of the latter stages of the World Cup go to a penalty shoot-out. But it would be unwise to assume an edge of this strength for the team electing or required to shoot-outs first. There is ample contradictory evidence, both latterly and from the same timescale as the original study.

[michaelefc]

Whether its 60, 58 or 53%, fact is its an advantage. And the fact that it is perceived to be an advantage, means there is likely to be a psychological aspect to it too. I just cannot see how anyone can dispute that Salford had a clear advantage in taking the first kick and in front of their supporters. I know that people do like arguing black is white, and here is an example of just that.

Makes no difference, facts are facts. Can anybody really imagine a scenario whereby Eastleigh could have had first kick at the away end? No me neither.