Away goals rule

[wedgie]

There isnt a totally fair rule - and Ive never said there was, but why change something only to favour one team or the other in a.n.other fashion.As this is exactly how it has to be decided.

The deciding factor will always appear unfair in certain circumstances

That sounds like changing the rules for the sake of it.

But nobody on here is changing the rule, it's a discussion, and a perfectly valid one at that because of how far away from 'fair' it is. That said, it's highly unlikely that anyone will come up with a practical solution that is also completely fair, but thats doesn't mean the discussion should then not even take place at all.

Man Utd didnt invest £24m in RvP to rely on GD to win the league, they invested that money to get enough wins / points on the board to win the league outright

Ok, if you insist....

The aim of football over the course of a season is to win more points than any other team.... now that we've got the stating of the obvious out of the way, United buying RvP over the summer is one of the clearest examples of 'we didn't score enough goals' that you will ever see.

Of course Fergie isn't thinking great, lets get it down to goal difference again and this time we'll be the winners, again it's stating the obvious to say that the aim will always be to build up a points total and hope that is enough.

None of this changes the primary motivation for signing Van Persie, which was not just that we could maybe have scored a few more, but also because there were far too many games last season where we looked completely toothless.

At this point I suspect you're simply arguing semantics, because it's difficult to see how one could think signing a player like Van Persie is for any reason other than to make the team a greater goal threat.

 

[Tom84]

but inter had the first game to take advantage of that 'technicality' and didn't do it.

I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing that the way the rule is now games aren't being decided on who has been the better side over the two legs.

• Over the two legs did Zenit/Bayern/Spurs score more goals than Liverpool/Arsenal/Inter? No.
• Over the two legs did Zenit/Bayern/Spurs concede more goals than Liverpool/Arsenal/Inter? No.
• Over the two legs were the scores absolutely level in all 3 ties? Yes they were, Zenit/Liverpool finished 3-3, Bayern/Arsenal finished 3-3 and Spurs/Inter finished 4-4

In a regular game that's called a draw, I guess what we're saying then is that in Europe when the players cant separate the scores the away goals rule is then rewarding the Manager who's used that rule to their advantage the best....

 

[wedgie]

Unfortunately Inter did not know the true value of the away goal at the time of the first game, because you can only know how valuable it could be (or if it's even required at all) when you know if and how many away goals the other team scored.

 

[BaZ87]

you're incredible..

You're actually a genius cm. I'm ridiculous. I'm the one that's not put forward any logical points and responded with mindless dribble or had to resort to "it's just becuase it's Spurs" type posts.

I've never known somebody as incapable of having a sensible debate in my entire life as you cm. That you're 33 years old makes it even more amazing.

 

[cm1179]

i can't debate with you, Baz87 as you've shown what i've suspected all along; you're a bit narrow minded and don't have much to offer other than something that is staring you blindingly in the face.

have a look at the last line of Tom84's post #184 for something that might blow your little mind.

 

[Newbie007]

Originally Posted by cm1179
but inter had the first game to take advantage of that 'technicality' and didn't do it.

I'd argue that scoring 4 goals in a match is better than scoring 3, so technically Inter did do it over the 2 legs, its just what a person thinks is better.

Ignoring the current rules. Do you think that in games that end in a draw over 2 legs, having an outright winner on the night, so normal ET & then pens would be a fairer result than away goals? Yes/No?

 

[BaZ87]

i can't debate with you, Baz87 as you've shown what i've suspected all along; you're a bit narrow minded and don't have much to offer other than something that is staring you blindingly in the face.

have a look at the last line of Tom84's post #184 for something that might blow your little mind.

Yes. I'm the narrow minded one that can't see that this thread is about more than just the Spurs game. That's me, not you.

You can't debate anything with anybody. There are new born children with severe brain damage that are more likely to offer a sensible argument than you/

 

[Tom84]

have a look at the last line of Tom84's post #184 for something that might blow your little mind.

Just because I said that doesn't mean I agree with it cm.

Like Baz has said the rule was brought in to detour away sides from defending whereas all it's done is encouraged the home sides to defend. I want to see the best or most deserving teams go through in a two legged tie not the team who's manager has bent a rule to their advantage the best.

 

[wedgie]

How long is it since cm was arguing that Liverpool weren't worthy of their 3-2 win over Spurs, couple weeks?

It's just weird, because on the one hand you have the suggestion that goals aren't everything, which is all he can be suggesting when saying you can score more goals and not deserve the win. But now we have the exact opposite idea, that goals are everything, infact that is so much the case that you can even score the exact same number of goals as your opponent over two legs, and as long as you scored them at the right time, you will deserve the 'win'.

Very odd, zero consistency in the value placed on goal scoring, yet total consistency in his opinion backing up the team he supports. You don't see that everyday....

 

[Sheff]

In an age of easy travelling, the away goals rule is silly. It only encourages teams to play defensively at home.

(Spurs would have won on penalties last night. German player, German assistant coach. )

Have you seen the video of Freund and Holtby vs Walker and Naughton? I'm not convinced!

 

[cm1179]

You can't debate anything with anybody. There are new born children with severe brain damage that are more likely to offer a sensible argument than you/

nice.

Just because I said that doesn't mean I agree with it cm.

Like Baz has said the rule was brought in to detour away sides from defending whereas all it's done is encouraged the home sides to defend. I want to see the best or most deserving teams go through in a two legged tie not the team who's manager has bent a rule to their advantage the best.

we scored 3 goals and kept a clean sheet. we did more than inter.

How long is it since cm was arguing that Liverpool weren't worthy of their 3-2 win over Spurs, couple weeks?

considering it was a game played less than a week ago, a couple of weeks is hardly the case.

besides, that was a league game with 6 points available. spurs were the better team on both occassions but didn't get the job done and didn't deserve all 6 points.

 

[wedgie]

we scored 3 goals and kept a clean sheet. we did more than inter.

Odd, I thought Spurs won 3-0 within the course of 90 minutes, and then Inter won 3-0 within the 90 minutes.

considering it was a game played less than a week ago, a couple of weeks is hardly the case.

besides, that was a league game with 6 points available. spurs were the better team on both occassions but didn't get the job done and didn't deserve all 6 points.

Ok so not a couple weeks, totally irrelevant to the point I was making of course, but there you go.

I remain unconvinced by any of the arguments that away goals is a fair system, and remain totally convinced that had Spurs lost to away goals last night, you would be on the other side of the fence on this topic.

To be clear again, I'm not suggesting I know for sure there's a completely fair way, or that away goals isn't the fairest option (although I feel keeping everything the same and just scrapping away goals might be a slightly fairer system) the main point of contention for me is people actually trying to suggest that away goals is itself a completely fair system, when it so blatantly isn't.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

The only way to do it is penalties after 180 minutes of play and the score is equal, you can't do it any other way because if it goes to extra time then home advantage for an extra 30 minutes is considered an advantage and in Uefa logic the away goal balances this out, but they definitely do not balance each other out.

 

[FrankJH]

But nobody on here is changing the rule, it's a discussion, and a perfectly valid one at that because of how far away from 'fair' it is. That said, it's highly unlikely that anyone will come up with a practical solution that is also completely fair, but thats doesn't mean the discussion should then not even take place at all..

Well to be fair the whole discussion started because the away goal rule was thought of as unfair and it needed to be changed.

All I said (and Ive said it in past posts in this thread) is that there isnt going to be a fair way to decide , in the instances where the same amount of goals have been scored both ways - some think penalties are unfair but at the end of the day its a last resort.

So yes "changing of the rules" is a basis of this thread, and imo its only going to change how one or other team is going to be advantaged on these occasions when the same amount of gaols are scored (in relative terms)

Ok, if you insist....

The aim of football over the course of a season is to win more points than any other team.... now that we've got the stating of the obvious out of the way, United buying RvP over the summer is one of the clearest examples of 'we didn't score enough goals' that you will ever see.

Of course Fergie isn't thinking great, lets get it down to goal difference again and this time we'll be the winners, again it's stating the obvious to say that the aim will always be to build up a points total and hope that is enough.

None of this changes the primary motivation for signing Van Persie, which was not just that we could maybe have scored a few more, but also because there were far too many games last season where we looked completely toothless.

At this point I suspect you're simply arguing semantics, because it's difficult to see how one could think signing a player like Van Persie is for any reason other than to make the team a greater goal threat.

you brought up the subject of RvP being purchased originally.At the end of the day RvP being purchased has no relevance to this topic imo

If the title was ot come down to GD again then Utd should have invested in better defensive players as well as RvP to make the most of his skills (just from a consistantly changing back line never helps anyone, plus imo while Evra has been good in attack, there are a number of moments where he has lacked in defence)....but this is off topic

this part of the conversation could easily be a whole seperate thread (although it would be too club specific to be allowed?)



There isnt (and probably never will be ) a totally fair way , but there is always going to be fair and unfair ways of less skilled teams blunting an attack (like Stoke and others in the EPL but in a Euro /Cup situation) so there needs to be a defiinitive rule in place

 

[wedgie]

Well to be fair the whole discussion started because the away goal rule was thought of as unfair and it needed to be changed.

All I said (and Ive said it in past posts in this thread) is that there isnt going to be a fair way to decide , in the instances where the same amount of goals have been scored both ways - some think penalties are unfair but at the end of the day its a last resort.

So yes "changing of the rules" is a basis of this thread, and imo its only going to change how one or other team is going to be advantaged on these occasions when the same amount of gaols are scored (in relative terms)

This I can't disagree with too much, it is unfortunately very unlikely that a system will be found that is completely fair. I'm ok with that, I'm ok with having the discussion knowing that a solution is very unlikely, but as I've said previously, what I can't in any way agree with is the suggestion that the away goals rule is fair.

you brought up the subject of RvP being purchased originally.

If the title was ot come down to GD again then Utd should have invested in better defensive players as well as RvP to make the most of his skills (just from a consistantly changing back line never helps anyone, plus imo while Evra has been good in attack, there are a number of moments where he has lacked in defence)

Yes I know I did, and since you're so disastrously wrong in what you're saying, I tried to leave the discussion before it started. You weren't happy with this, ok fine, talk around it as much as you want, it won't for a second change the fact that the main catalyst for bringing in RvP was how poor we looked in attack on quite a few occasions last season.

Only in the world of FrankJH do you completely ignore an attempt to let the topic die before it gets started, then a couple posts down the line start to lecture about how the subject is not relevant .

 

[Jokester]

I don't see a problem with the away goal rule per se, it encourages attacking football away from home which can only be a good thing. The issue I have with it though is the inherent unfairness of the extra 30mins that one team gets in the event of extra time.

Not so much a case of doing away with away goals, but how about doing away with extra time in 2 legged ties? Straight to penalties.

 

[FrankJH]

laughs at your NON attempts to "let the subject die"

 

[wedgie]

Laughs at how blind you are....

.......

Does that really give you the impression that I was desperate to engage you in the discussion??