What part of SHOULD was confusing there? It is an exhibition game and to award home field advantage to the winning league is ridiculous. I don't even know how that "solution" addresses the problem of running out of arms to pitch games taht go into very extra innings (which, incidentally, almost happened again). That would be like saying, to address Tom Brady getting injured a year ago, we have moved the pro-bowl to Miami. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Are you out of your mind? You can't just play the sport one-man less, they already run ~6-10Km a game each. I don't *love* the shootout but there is no alternative. In the dying minutes of a 120min match, which is usually a final of significance if it's going to E.T. anyway, the level of play is sloppy because the players are drained mentally and physically. Shootouts determine who has the mental edge at the very brink of elimination. They should institute digital analysis for off-sides, goal line scrambles and replays for penalty shot awards.
Its something that we have done previously in hockey games. Sudden death extra time drop off, 6 minutes of 9 players, 6 of 7 players then I believe it keeps going at 5 until someone scores. It hurts so much but I tell you what, playing both shoot out and drop off eliminators I'd much prefer loosing something knowing that I did everything I could and not because someone missed a shootout attempt.
It would never work in Soccer. In hockey the players can come on and off and take a breath... 120 minutes and then to add extra time to it would be overkill. Also playing 7vs7 on a full sized field is a lot more tiring than playing 11 v 11 and well what you would see happening on the field if they played 120+ would be horrible. Another problem with it is that the players have to play 3 games a week sometimes and also at the World Cup and European Championship you have a really small period of rest before your next game and if one team played the extended extra time lets say 140 minutes while the other team played just 90 minutes in their last game it would give them a massive advantage. Its already quite noticeable at 120 minutes... In NHL playoffs you have to win 4 games out of 7 to get to the next round, even in the final(correct me if I am wrong) yet in soccer if you lose one game in the knock out stages you go home. So coming to your next game tired has a much much bigger consequence than it would in the NHL.
I don't remember if someone said it or not already, but in hockey, where the ref blows his whistle if he can't see the puck. That shit needs to go. I remember the Wings got screwed by it a few times in the last couple playoffs. Maybe even in one of the finals. This same bitch of a rule has kept Michigan out of the frozen four as they would have beaten Miami (OH) in overtime if the ref didn't blow the whistle. Instead Miami went on to win it a few minutes into the second OT.
What sort of alternative is there? Let the other team hammer away at the goalie for x number of seconds after he has the puck covered? It's the refs' responsibility to be in position to see the puck and make the right call. Yes, that doesn't always happen, but just because your teams got screwed by a bad call or two doesn't mean that the rule itself has to go. It protects the goalies in goal-mouth scrambles and guys taking cheap shots at them after the puck is covered.
How about have it be a reviewable situation. If the ref blew the whistle, and the puck was not covered, allow the goal. It's not a complicated thing to look at in replays.