Away goals rule could be abolished

robfosters

robfosters

robfosters

Caporegime
Joined
1 Dec 2010
Posts
53,694
Location
Welling, London
I bloody well hope so. I hate the rule. The team who wins should be the one who scores the most goals, not the one who scores most away from home. Would make the ties far more exciting imo. Probably get a few more penalty shoot outs out of it as well. Everyone loves a shoot out.

Bring it on I say!
 
I don't mind away goals, but I don't like the fact that they count in extra time of the second leg. That basically means you get an extra 30mins to score an away goal. If after 180mins it's all square you're basically then playing a mini 30min game where any score draw puts the away team through. Arsenal got knocked out by Olympiacos due to this anomaly, they got more opportunity to score away goals.
 
The problem with replays in two-legged games at least in the early rounds is maintaining the schedule alongside other competitions, they were largely abolished when I was too young to even follow football. The sort of fixture congestion Liverpool were moaning about recently would become commonplace.
 
HangTime said:
I don't mind away goals, but I don't like the fact that they count in extra time of the second leg. That basically means you get an extra 30mins to score an away goal. If after 180mins it's all square you're basically then playing a mini 30min game where any score draw puts the away team through. Arsenal got knocked out by Olympiacos due to this anomaly, they got more opportunity to score away goals.
Click to expand...

Agree that away goals counting in extra time is unbalanced. Other issues are that penalties can be something of a lottery and is often an unsatisfactory way to settle a tight contest, additionally there are often games where at the end of 90 minutes you can almost see that penalties are inevitable and extra time it’s just a case of both sides being cagey and running down the clock.

Something I came up with a few years ago that would help with all of these issues would be to play the penalty shootout after 90 minutes however, rather than winning the tie, the winner of the shootout effectively has ‘advantage’. You then play extra time in the knowledge that whoever won the shootout will be awarded the win if it’s still level. This will ensure that one team has motivation to give everything to try and score, and makes it feel like the game has been settled via regular play.
 
kaiowas said:
Agree that away goals counting in extra time is unbalanced. Other issues are that penalties can be something of a lottery and is often an unsatisfactory way to settle a tight contest, additionally there are often games where at the end of 90 minutes you can almost see that penalties are inevitable and extra time it’s just a case of both sides being cagey and running down the clock.

Something I came up with a few years ago that would help with all of these issues would be to play the penalty shootout after 90 minutes however, rather than winning the tie, the winner of the shootout effectively has ‘advantage’. You then play extra time in the knowledge that whoever won the shootout will be awarded the win if it’s still level. This will ensure that one team has motivation to give everything to try and score, and makes it feel like the game has been settled via regular play.
Click to expand...
I starting writing the same thing in my post, but threw it out in the end because I think it just encourages the team that won the shootout to be super-defensive, and reduces the drama for broadcasters. You'd also potentially have weird situations like the winning penalty being scored by a player that got sent off, although I suppose that's no different from a player scoring in regular time and getting sent off.

On the plus side, it might give players a chance for immediate redemption, e.g. Stuart Pearce misses a penalty so then goes charging round for the next 30mins fighting for every ball.
 
HangTime said:
I starting writing the same thing in my post, but threw it out in the end because I think it just encourages the team that won the shootout to be super-defensive, and reduces the drama for broadcasters. You'd also potentially have weird situations like the winning penalty being scored by a player that got sent off, although I suppose that's no different from a player scoring in regular time and getting sent off.

On the plus side, it might give players a chance for immediate redemption, e.g. Stuart Pearce misses a penalty so then goes charging round for the next 30mins fighting for every ball.
Click to expand...


On a slightly different note - I couldnt work out if the below scenario was fair or not

one team has a player sent off , but they get to penalties.

does that mean the team who has a man sent off gets a bit of a bonus in panalties if everyone scores the 1st time - ie their primary striker is taking the 11th pen (his 2nd pen) at the same time as the other team's g/k ? Admittedly the other gk would be taking a pen (most likely?) vs a defender so its a bit of swings and roundabouts.

I dont think there is a perfect answer to be honest - Im not convinced the extra 30 mins in added time really does much (especially in Europa when you can change 1/2 the starting 11 by the end of extra time)
 
ThundyCat said:
Same goes for the stupid play-offs.

Why should someone who finishes 6th potentially get promoted over someone who finishes 3rd!
Click to expand...

It should really just be 1 up 1 down but I imagine they needed a carrot to stop half of the league from down tooling half way through the season.

I suppose when the playoffs were implemented 3rd place would have been grateful they had a chance at promotion at all.
 
FrankJH said:
On a slightly different note - I couldnt work out if the below scenario was fair or not

one team has a player sent off , but they get to penalties.

does that mean the team who has a man sent off gets a bit of a bonus in panalties if everyone scores the 1st time - ie their primary striker is taking the 11th pen (his 2nd pen) at the same time as the other team's g/k ? Admittedly the other gk would be taking a pen (most likely?) vs a defender so its a bit of swings and roundabouts.

I dont think there is a perfect answer to be honest - Im not convinced the extra 30 mins in added time really does much (especially in Europa when you can change 1/2 the starting 11 by the end of extra time)
Click to expand...
No it doesn't work like that, you only need to select as many takers as players in the opposition team. So if it's 11v10 then you only need 10 takers and can let your worst taker (not necessarily the keeper) sit it out. So when 10 players have taken from both teams, you go back to the start again.
 
HangTime said:
No it doesn't work like that, you only need to select as many takers as players in the opposition team. So if it's 11v10 then you only need 10 takers and can let your worst taker (not necessarily the keeper) sit it out. So when 10 players have taken from both teams, you go back to the start again.
Click to expand...
Fair enough

I would still suggest its likely that the keeper is most likely to be the last chosen to be a penalty taker
 
in the event of a draw there should be an infinite amount of extra time, however every minute a player from both sides gets taken off the pitch in random order so by the time 10 mins are played you are down to 1 man each, and the rule should be that you can't play rush goalies so you can't just stick an outfield player in goal when the keeper comes off.
 
wildman said:
in the event of a draw there should be an infinite amount of extra time, however every minute a player from both sides gets taken off the pitch in random order so by the time 10 mins are played you are down to 1 man each, and the rule should be that you can't play rush goalies so you can't just stick an outfield player in goal when the keeper comes off.
Click to expand...
Talk about utter chaos!!! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom