Under the reported plan, an attacker would start 32 yards from goal, with a defender at least 10 yards away and the goalkeeper positioned in front. Each attempt would last 15 seconds. A foul would bring a penalty, while a missed chance would end the attack without a score.
Teams would alternate between attacking and defending. Five attackers from each side would be selected after the final whistle, while defenders could appear only once, chosen as the attacker moves into position.
That would create a very different tactical battle. Attackers would have to decide whether to dribble, shoot early or draw contact. Defenders would need timing and restraint, while goalkeepers would face a moving target rather than a set-piece guess.
Farrell argues that penalty shootouts make one player carry an outsized emotional burden. He points to the abuse suffered by Marcus Rashford, Bukayo Saka and Jadon Sancho after their misses in the Euro 2020 final.
Yet ADG would not remove pressure; it would change its shape. A failed one-on-one could expose a player for 15 seconds, while a defender’s decision could decide the tie. Coaches would also need to identify specialists in acceleration, close control and defensive duelling.
Farrell has also argued that extra time increases fatigue and can produce cautious football. A shorter ADG contest might offer broadcasters a more predictable ending, but its competitive value would need to be tested rather than assumed.
The next step is a proper trial, not immediate adoption. Farrell says he will keep pressing football’s lawmakers: “Eu continuo batendo na porta da e da IFAB até que um dia eles conversem sobre isso.” Until ADG reaches a meaningful test match, it remains an intriguing challenge to one of football’s oldest knockout traditions.