Away Goals Rule

Its something that has always annoyed me, as I dont think that its very fair and can kill off games, I'll give some examples.

The return leg of the Man U V Real match. It died after Ronaldo scored straight away. You knew that Utd would need to get 5 goals, and that was never going to happen while taking propper care of your defence, fair enough it helped create a goal feast, but you knew that there was only going to be 1 winner..... unlike Inter V Valencia where all inter had to do was score 1 in Spain, after having a 1-0 home win, and not colapse at the back. What happens? inter get an early goal and we get 85 min of Italian defending :rolleyes: The formation is basically 1-8-0-2. way to kill off a match! And the celtic V Boavista 2nd leg?? :eek: A 1 all draw followed by 100% defence until Celtic manage to get an away goal, followed my a 10 min attack by Boavista. I HATE NEGATIVE FOOTBALL!!!!!
but here's the really stupid thing. Inter Milan and AC are drawn together in the semifinal of the 2nd biggest football competitian there is, they both play in the same ground, but if the scores are 1-1 and 0-0, then one team is deemed better than the other! Why???? They play in the same ground and they have that stupid away goals rule? Crazy!

IMO if a tie is level on aggregate, the team that has scored more goals in one of the legs should be alowed through. I think that it is harder to score more goals over 90 min rather than score away, so if that was applied to the Inter V Valencia tie (2-2 agr 1-0 Inter & 2-1 Val) Valencia would have gone through as they scored 2 goals in just the 1 match, while Inter could do no better than 1 a match. Also Man U wouldnt have needed to put 6 past Real when they scored 3 in OT, 5 (which would be hard enough anyway) would have done (thats still an average of 1 goal every 18 min! but it would have kept the tie alive). If the scores were the same (say 2-1 to both home sides), extra time and then penos.
PS I think that the Silver goal rule is better than the Golden goal.

I think the away goal rule is the best option we have.
You have to remeber the away goals rule was brought in to stop away teams defending for the whole match.
This rule rewards teams who are brave enough to attack in the away game.

Another pet hate - "shielding" the ball out of play - surely that's obstruction if a player makes no attempt to play the ball?

Also, commentators whingeing at a referee who's just made a perfectly correct decision, only the commentator's too thick to know the rules! Happens more often than you'd think!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Troy.McClure
IMO if a tie is level on aggregate, the team that has scored more goals in one of the legs should be alowed through. I think that it is harder to score more goals over 90 min rather than score away, so if that was applied to the Inter V Valencia tie (2-2 agr 1-0 Inter & 2-1 Val) Valencia would have gone through as they scored 2 goals in just the 1 match, while Inter could do no better than 1 a match.

---

The problem with that is that if there's a 2-2 draw and a 1-1 draw, there'll have to be extra time but there wouldn't with the away goals rule.

And the problem is???? I cant see the problem with having another 30 min of footie (or less with the silver goal).

Well then why have any deciding factor? Just go for extra time if they're level on aggregate.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Troy.McClure
And the problem is???? I cant see the problem with having another 30 min of footie (or less with the silver goal).

---

whats the silver goal?

Silver goal is the new bit of messing brought in by FIFA to sort out drawn matches in knock-out tournaments. Basically, there's 15 minutes extra-time played, at the end of which the leader, if there is one, is declared the winner. If not, there's a second 15 minutes and if there's no deadlock, then penalties.

It means an end to the stupid idea of one goal ending a match while still keeping penalties at arm's length.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pineapple stu
Another pet hate - "shielding" the ball out of play - surely that's obstruction if a player makes no attempt to play the ball?

---

yeah...thats the new back pass nowadays...i think that should become an offence again soon...

what about gettin rid of the off-side rule altogether. players wud be more spread out and it wud stop a lot of the negative play and the on-side/off-side arguements. i know this wud help the long ball teams and i havent fully thought this through but i tink it cud be interestin

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yur man
i know this wud help the long ball teams and i havent fully thought this through

---

Really? :D

Can't see how it'd help. Teams would play 5-0-5 - 5 men and a keeper behind the ball each hoofing it as far upfield as possible. I'd say it'd destroy football.

i suppose so. with ideas like that i tink i cud get a job with the fai :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yur man
i suppose so. with ideas like that i tink i cud get a job with the fai :p

---

Ah now - don't be too hard on yourself! At least you're trying!!!:D

I'd loved to see this changed - https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45413648

Should be abolished.

Also if matches are tied, it should go straight to penalties.

I'd be happy if they just ditched the away goals rule in extra time.

Regards the viability of extra time, I'd be happy if it was reduced to two ten minute halves.

I think that'd be unfair on the team playing away in the second leg.

More on this here - https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45460290

The trouble is before the away goals rule, the away team very often just used to just shut up shop and play for 0-0 and many of the games were dire for that reason. There were good reasons at the time for introducing the rule. At least now there is some incentive to try and score away from home.

If we look at statistics over the last few decades, I wonder will we see teams becoming more adventurous away from home? And have results changed? I wonder whether home advantage is still what it once was when most players for a team were from that country and European games were far less numerous than they are now, so there would be more of a novelty factor and a possibility of being overwhelmed when faced with a hostile home crowd in a faraway city.

These days, particularly at the highest level, the players come from all over the place, have already played all over the place, the grounds themselves are far more organised and controlled, and conequently the players are far less likely to be intimidated or overawed, so my sense is that home advantage isn't as important as it used to be.

But I have no idea whether the stats would actually bear that out or not.

Those stats are touched on in the BBC link above.

It'd be interesting to see a comparison between group games and knock-outs; I think that would be telling.