well, after playing for 120 minutes the players are usually exhausted,
and most of them have ran something like 10 miles, so making them play until someone scores sounds brutal, because that could last for several more minutes.But both sides would be exhausted so it would be fair. Also most players in the World Cup tourney are professional level athletes, pretty they can take it. In baseball, they play inning after inning until there is a winner. In the playoffs, the NBA, NFL, and NHL all play their sport until there is a winner.
At least my way, the game would be decided by playing the sport itself instead of shoot outs.
NHL does it a good way IMO.
Regular season games have a 5 minute, sudden-death 3v3 (compared to 5v5 in regulation) overtime period. After that, winner is determined by shootout. Both teams get 1 point when the game goes into OT, and the winner (via the sudden-death period or shootout) gets a second point. (In regulation, winner gets 2 points, loser gets 0.)
But in the playoffs, all games that end in a tie in regulation just keep going, with full 20 minute 5v5 sudden-death periods.
The players are definitely tired at that point - I’ve seen playoff game go into the third OT period, which, if that went the full 20 minutes, would mean the length of the game doubles. It didn’t - someone scored around 5min into 3OT - but every player was absolutely exhausted.
I think something like this could work for soccer, honestly. Player fatigue is kind of part and parcel with OT in any sport, so I don’t really get that argument. I don’t know if the NHL’s “regular season” shortened OT period with fewer players on the field would work for soccer, but I don’t see why sudden-death OT periods in general wouldn’t.