Away goals rule

Purdy · 15 Mar 2013 at 12:34

FrankJH said:
Is that trying to imply that Inter werent aware they would probably need an away goal from the 1st game?

Certain knowledge>probability

120mins for an away goal>90mins

Honestly I'm not that arsed about it in normal time, just one of the rules I'm used to, it is when it is applied in extra time I dislike it. (No cm it has **** all to do with Spurs going through)

Newbie007 · 15 Mar 2013 at 12:36

Tom84 said:
I've already gone over why a 4-1 is better than a 3-0 (or in this case a 3-1/2-0) read through the thread.

On a seperate note I was thinking about what cm1179 said about how it was correct that the Spurs/Inter tie rewarded Spurs' defending at home which got me thinking about this scenario....

Spurs are away from home first and win 0-1, that's a win and a clean sheet away, no one will surely argue that a clean sheet away from home isn't more impressive than one at home.

Second leg kicks off and Spurs score again making it 2-0 on aggregate

Inter go on to win the second leg 1-2 and go through on away goals

In this scenario the team who managed to keep a clean sheet in 1 of the 2 legs hasn't been rewarded at all, the team who's been rewarded is the one that managed to score 2 goals on a given night rather than 1. Wonder if cm1179 has an opinion on this.....?

Ok, but say the score at WHL was 0-0, then in the return leg the score is 0-0 after normal time, they go to ET & Inter have 2 players sent off but the score finishes 1-1. Spurs go through with the away goal. But surely Inter have been the more impressive as they have scored a goal whilst playing with 9 men?

I also don't think ET should take into account away goals, especially when penalty shoot-outs don't take into consideration the away goal rule. The only 'fair' way to end the tie with the score being equal after 180 minutes is a 3rd game behind closed doors, in a neutral setting?

Purdy · 15 Mar 2013 at 12:40

Comparing all these scenarios just shows that the rule isn't fair.

I'd agree third game at a neutral setting would be good (although always going to be mainland Europe for English teams) but that would be a nightmare for scheduling/prices etc.

cm1179 · 15 Mar 2013 at 12:54

BaZ87 said:
This thread is not just about Spurs vs Inter!

This thread is not just about Spurs vs Inter!

yeh but it kinda is though, isn't it Baz87? butthurt from you and the thread being created on a night that spurs went through on the topic. be a bit zaney if spurs actually came up, wouldn't it?

Tom84 said:
I've already gone over why a 4-1 is better than a 3-0 (or in this case a 3-1/2-0) read through the thread.

On a seperate note I was thinking about what cm1179 said about how it was correct that the Spurs/Inter tie rewarded Spurs' defending at home which got me thinking about this scenario....

Spurs are away from home first and win 0-1, that's a win and a clean sheet away, no one will surely argue that a clean sheet away from home isn't more impressive than one at home.

Second leg kicks off and Spurs score again making it 2-0 on aggregate

Inter go on to win the second leg 1-2 and go through on away goals

In this scenario the team who managed to keep a clean sheet in 1 of the 2 legs hasn't been rewarded at all, the team who's been rewarded is the one that managed to score 2 goals on a given night rather than 1. Wonder if cm1179 has an opinion on this.....?

interesting scenario. harsh but fair. that's the way it is.

cm1179 · 15 Mar 2013 at 12:56

Purdy said:
I'd agree third game at a neutral setting would be good (although always going to be mainland Europe for English teams) but that would be a nightmare for scheduling/prices etc.

and this is why it IS fair. the game can't go on forever.

Bucket · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:08

cm1179 said:
yeh but it kinda is though, isn't it Baz87? butthurt from you and the thread being created on a night that spurs went through on the topic. be a bit zaney if spurs actually came up, wouldn't it?

interesting scenario. harsh but fair. that's the way it is.

To defend Tom (don't often...) he mentioned that he was going to start a thread on this some time ago but feared for backlash etc.

The fact that the situation of Away goals occurred twice this week (Arsenal, Spurs) i'd imagine prompted him to make the thread.

Not everything is an agenda, no matter how much you want to play the whole victim attitude to add to your troll story a la Cheets (all be it Cheets was at least light hearted and not a total nutter).

cm1179 · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:14

victim attitude when my team are through? couldn't give a stuff what any of the spurs haters think.

read the thread, i think you'll find my feelings are clear. it's not my fault that the one time i decide to join in Baz87's 'debate' he can't get his brain around the basics.

that's the problem with this place. it's too much of a clique. rock the boat and get personally insulted. heck, he even started on AVB (again)

Purdy · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:18

cm1179 said:
and this is why it IS fair. the game can't go on forever.

Well there is this thing called penalties, which being at home doesn't really seem that important.

cm1179 · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:19

Purdy said:
Well there is this thing called penalties, which being at home doesn't really seem that important.

so do you feel penalties were fair in the cl final last year?

Tunney · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:22

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.

)

Bucket · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:33

cm1179 said:
victim attitude when my team are through? couldn't give a stuff what any of the spurs haters think.

read the thread, i think you'll find my feelings are clear. it's not my fault that the one time i decide to join in Baz87's 'debate' he can't get his brain around the basics.

that's the problem with this place. it's too much of a clique. rock the boat and get personally insulted. heck, he even started on AVB (again)

I have read the thread, it's quite clear as it is from every other post you make that it's only a matter of time until you are off.

And FYI, I don't think I am cliquey with anyone. I don't believe I've ever even responded to one of BaZ' posts, nor him me!

Gooner14 · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:34

The away goals rule is stupid, it's even more stupid when one club can have 30 minutes extra to score an away goal.

Good piece here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/mar/13/the-question-football-away-goals

I've been in favour of getting rid of the away goals since we lost at Highbury in 2006 to Wigan.

cm1179 · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:42

Bucket said:
I have read the thread, it's quite clear as it is from every other post you make that it's only a matter of time until you are off.

yeh. because i'm the one chucking personal insults around. aren't i?

Newbie007 · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:50

cm1179 said:
yeh. because i'm the one chucking personal insults around. aren't i?

Remind us who is the one with a comment deleted by the admin again?

cm1179 · 15 Mar 2013 at 13:54

Newbie007 said:
Remind us who is the one with a comment deleted by the admin again?

check page 1 and you'll see it's still there and in all it's accuracy.

BaZ87 · 15 Mar 2013 at 14:05

cm1179 said:
read the thread, i think you'll find my feelings are clear. it's not my fault that the one time i decide to join in Baz87's 'debate' he can't get his brain around the basics.

The problem is you can't understand very simple things cm. We've been over this time and time again and it's not just been me. Every other thread you're either acting like a child or failing to understand basic things.

This thread was supposed to be discussing whether the away goals rule is the right way to determine the outcome of drawn games. Your posts have consisted of acting like a 5 year old, repeating the rule as if it's a reason for why the rule is just and both failing to understand things and talking dribble.

I have no interest in your feelings cm even if you did make them clear (and nothing's clear with you). I've asked you to explain logically why the away goals rule is right and the best you've come up with is saying Spurs kept a clean sheet, which means **** all (Arsenal were the only side to keep a clean sheet in their tie and were knocked out) and remember this isn't just about Spurs, and you also said "we scored away from home", which is just repeating the rule, not explaining why it's right.

edit: and not that I need to defend myself over it but I didn't 'start on AVB'. I thought I'd respond how you usually do - with something totally irrelevant and childish.

mmj_uk · 15 Mar 2013 at 14:13

I don't understand why people see "parking the bus" as a bad thing, all out defense is an effective strategy which is why better attacking teams talk about it in a derogative manner (usually when they fail to win). Back in the Medieval ages we (England) would have probably lost quite a few battles if we didn't sit back and absorb attacks when required.

Why shouldn't worse teams be allowed to defend and try to nick a goal? it's no less boring imo than Barcelona's tactics of not allowing the opposition to have the ball.

cm1179 · 15 Mar 2013 at 14:13

no, Baz87. it's you who can't understand the simple thing and it's this; the away goals rule is the simplest and fairest way to do it and you haven't come up with a suitable alternative for it. every alternative is inpractical.

i rarely enter into a debate on here because it always ends this way, which is pretty much what i (or someone else) may say to you (or someone else who is in the clique of the football forum) and you don't like it although in fairness, it does only seem to be you who resorts to personal and club insults. hence why i and a lot of others, simply don't bother.

BaZ87 · 15 Mar 2013 at 14:20

cm1179 said:
no, Baz87. it's you who can't understand the simple thing and it's this; the away goals rule is the simplest and fairest way to do it and you haven't come up with a suitable alternative for it. every alternative is inpractical.

You can't come up with a logical reason, can you? Simply saying it's fair doesn't make it so cm.

Your one attempt at coming up with a reason (the clean sheet comment) was flipped around by Tom and despite it contradicting your original point, you claimed it was fair for Arsenal to go out.

cm1179 said:
i rarely enter into a debate on here

Rarely? You never debate anything. You post random (and usually childish) statements and when somebody tries to draw you into a debate you simply continue with the random and childish posts.

I hope for your sake that it's intentional and you're replies make no sense to what you're responding to because you realise that you have no logical answer to what's said to you, rather than you actually believing you make sense.

Newbie007 · 15 Mar 2013 at 14:25

cm1179 said:
no, Baz87. it's you who can't understand the simple thing and it's this; the away goals rule is the simplest and fairest way to do it and you haven't come up with a suitable alternative for it. every alternative is inpractical.

Ok, why is it 'fairer' for the away team to have an additional 30 minutes to score away goals in Extra Time?, using the Spurs situation from last night (as you think everything in this thread is in relation to that game)