By Daragh O'Leary
Fortunately for me, Cork won the Mick Mackey Cup after defeating Limerick in the Munster Hurling Final last weekend. It’s been seven years since the Rebels last won the competition, but much of the talk concerning the final centred on the penalty shootout which was used to decide the game.
After 70 minutes of regulation time and a further 20 minutes of extra time, Cork and Limerick still couldn’t be separated and so a penalty shootout was used as a tiebreaker because scheduling issues meant a replay wasn’t possible. This was the first time a Munster hurling final ended in penalties, and naturally, some purists of the game have suggested that it wasn’t fair to end the final in such a way. Personally, I can’t get my head around why this “issue” has caused so much drama.
Yes, I understand that ideally the game should be decided in play, but if a replay is not an option and two teams can’t be separated after regulation & extra time, what’s wrong with a penalty shootout? It is a widely used as tiebreaker in multiple sports including hockey, Gaelic football, soccer, and rugby.
A point discussed on Off the Ball in the aftermath of the final was that penalties might be seen by some as a lottery. Again, I struggle with this point of view.
Taking penalties is a part of the game which tests a player’s ability the same way taking 65s or frees do. Teams are free to practice penalties the same way they are other aspects of hurling. No one seems to think Darragh Fitzgibbon’s last second 65 to decide the game in extra time was unfair, so why is using penalties in a shootout to decide the game after extra time unfair?
Some may argue that 65s and frees are a result of open play actions, but so are penalty shootouts. A game only ends in a penalty shootout if the open play actions of the match result in a draw. The economic literature relating to competition can provide some further insight into the fairness of penalties in a competitive context.
A key characteristic of fairness in a competitive context in economics is equality of opportunity (Suttle, 2022). Essentially, this means that all agents involved are taking part in the same competition and are free to take part the same way as each other. This is certainly a feature of the penalty shootout; both teams are asked to execute the same task, abide by the same rules, and achieve the same objective. There is nothing unfair about this.
Some of the commentary surrounding the shootout suggested that it was simply too cruel a way to decide such a contest. This is where I think an important conceptual distinction needs to be made. Losing a penalty shootout is cruel. Supporters and players experience misery after a loss, but the victorious team would experience the exact same misery had they lost – which is fair.
Unfairness in the context of competition is the affording of an unlawful advantage to certain agents that better enables them to compete with their rivals. For example, if the referee allowed Cork to take their penalties closer to the goal than Limerick, that would be unfair.
I wonder is the perceived unfairness surrounding last Saturday’s penalty shootout somewhat attributable to the favourites losing. It could be that the unexpected outcome provided a signal to consumers that the result wasn’t correct because it was not what they thought would happen.
Fortunately for me, Cork won the Mick Mackey Cup after defeating Limerick in the Munster Hurling Final last weekend. It’s been seven years since the Rebels last won the competition, but much of the talk concerning the final centred on the penalty shootout which was used to decide the game.
After 70 minutes of regulation time and a further 20 minutes of extra time, Cork and Limerick still couldn’t be separated and so a penalty shootout was used as a tiebreaker because scheduling issues meant a replay wasn’t possible. This was the first time a Munster hurling final ended in penalties, and naturally, some purists of the game have suggested that it wasn’t fair to end the final in such a way. Personally, I can’t get my head around why this “issue” has caused so much drama.
Yes, I understand that ideally the game should be decided in play, but if a replay is not an option and two teams can’t be separated after regulation & extra time, what’s wrong with a penalty shootout? It is a widely used as tiebreaker in multiple sports including hockey, Gaelic football, soccer, and rugby.
A point discussed on Off the Ball in the aftermath of the final was that penalties might be seen by some as a lottery. Again, I struggle with this point of view.
Taking penalties is a part of the game which tests a player’s ability the same way taking 65s or frees do. Teams are free to practice penalties the same way they are other aspects of hurling. No one seems to think Darragh Fitzgibbon’s last second 65 to decide the game in extra time was unfair, so why is using penalties in a shootout to decide the game after extra time unfair?
Some may argue that 65s and frees are a result of open play actions, but so are penalty shootouts. A game only ends in a penalty shootout if the open play actions of the match result in a draw. The economic literature relating to competition can provide some further insight into the fairness of penalties in a competitive context.
A key characteristic of fairness in a competitive context in economics is equality of opportunity (Suttle, 2022). Essentially, this means that all agents involved are taking part in the same competition and are free to take part the same way as each other. This is certainly a feature of the penalty shootout; both teams are asked to execute the same task, abide by the same rules, and achieve the same objective. There is nothing unfair about this.
Some of the commentary surrounding the shootout suggested that it was simply too cruel a way to decide such a contest. This is where I think an important conceptual distinction needs to be made. Losing a penalty shootout is cruel. Supporters and players experience misery after a loss, but the victorious team would experience the exact same misery had they lost – which is fair.
Unfairness in the context of competition is the affording of an unlawful advantage to certain agents that better enables them to compete with their rivals. For example, if the referee allowed Cork to take their penalties closer to the goal than Limerick, that would be unfair.
I wonder is the perceived unfairness surrounding last Saturday’s penalty shootout somewhat attributable to the favourites losing. It could be that the unexpected outcome provided a signal to consumers that the result wasn’t correct because it was not what they thought would happen.
RSS Feed
