The Kinnelon boys' soccer team this week became the latest victim of that most capricious of tie-breakers:  the penalty kick shootout.  After the Colts and Harrison played through regulation and overtime in a scoreless tie, the Blue Tide ended Kinnelon's season on what amounts to a roll of the dice.

Ask anyone involved in soccer.  Few will speak enthusiastically about "PK's", as they're often called.  For the most part, you'll find people calling the shootout a "necessary evil" or something along those lines.  Most coaches consider PK's a "lottery" or a "crapshoot", while many others would use words that we can't print here.

You would think that the prospect of such a random resolution to a soccer match would encourage teams to push forward during overtime to avoid it.  You would be wrong.  Usually, overtime sessions are even more defensive than regulation play, in large part because players and coaches are more concerned about giving up the winning goal than they are about scoring it.  Also, in a strange way, many teams seem almost satisfied to lose in PK's, considering the result a tie rather than a loss.

Many organizations dislike the penalty shootout so much that in tournament finals, they end the game in a tie and declare co-champions rather than decide a winner via PK's.  This somewhat lame formula is used by the NJSIAA and many county tournaments (including Passaic County).

Why, then, is the PK shootout used to break ties in soccer tournaments (not just in high school)?  Basically, because most of the other options tried were worse.  In the past, tie games were sometimes decided by an actual drawing of lots!  One method occasionally used would award the victory to the team with more corner kicks, but that's anti-climactic and fairly random as well.

The only other method in common use today is replaying the entire match.  While that's probably the fairest way to resolve the issue, it's simply impractical in most cases when tournaments must be completed on a strict timeline.

So then, is the penalty shootout a "necessary evil"?  To us, that statement is half-correct.  The shootout is evil, all right, but it isn't necessary.

Our proposal to minimize the need for penalty kick shootouts borrows from field hockey.  By removing players from the field, we can create more space and dramatically increase the likelihood of a goal being scored during actual play.

Specifically, we propose the following:  play the first 10-minute overtime the same as it is done now.  If neither team scores, switch ends but also remove two players from each side (9-on-9, or less if a player has been red-carded).

If that still doesn't determine a winner, remove two more players per team.  Now the sides will play 7-on-7 for a final 10 minutes.  To be fair, that time should be broken up into two five-minute periods with the teams switching ends.  Also, to prevent coaches of less-skilled teams from trying to waste time, substitutions would only be allowed at the changeover or in case of injury.

We believe such a formula would resolve most games.  Inevitably, some ties would still persist, and in those cases, a penalty kick shootout would probably still be necessary when a winner must be declared.

Some purists might dislike the idea of 7-a-side soccer, but it's certainly a lot closer to the real thing than a kicking contest.  In fact, a similar scheme has been suggested for nothing less than the World Cup final match (in place of, you guessed it, a PK shootout).

Under this scenario, the maximum length of a soccer game could increase by 10 minutes, but we don't believe that is unrealistic and would be a small price to pay in order to determine a winner on the field.

Our plan would reduce the number of PK shootouts to determine important games.  What it would not do is resolve the larger issue of teams playing stultifying, defensive soccer.  Ultimately, that issue needs to be addressed for the good of the game--including the side benefit of reducing the number of ties to be broken. -- Paul Mencher for Jersey Sports Now