Away goals rule

[cm1179]

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

.

i said it's harsh but fair and that's what it is. it's not primary school sports day stuff. it's a proffessional game, there has to be such scenarios as there is no other practical way. a 3rd leg (as has been mentioned) is not fair on the team or the fans. spurs will be nackered as it is.

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)

because the home team couldn't get the job done in the given time and they knew what they needed to do. it's a home advantage. every team should want the first leg at home. there is no fairer way of doing it or the game would never end.

 

[FrankJH]

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)

Sorry that just sounds like an excuse, and even then they were 3-0 at 60 minutes in the first game, so that scoreline is "certain knowledge" even if they werent aware of it before (a low scoring 1st leg, the away team can probably get away with not scoring, but the larger the score the more likely they need to score).

If you want to scrap extra time and go straight to pens? (Surely scraping the away goal rule but still palying extra time is a huge boost to one team)

 

[Tom84]

Ok, why is it 'fairer' for the away team to have an additional 30 minutes to score away goals in Extra Time?

The idea is that it offsets the advantage the home side have of playing an extra 30 minutes on their own ground (an advantage that the away side obviously didn't have in the first leg). I personally though would argue that it's a bigger advantage to have your goals count twice than to simply be playing in your own stadium.

 

[FrankJH]

I don't think he was implying anything, it's a pretty clear point that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Infact your response even shows the point he was making, Inter know they 'probably' need an away goal. Sure, both teams know the value of away goals before a ball is even kicked, the difference is Spurs went into last nights game knowing with 100% certainty how many away goals Inter would be scoring over the course of the tie..

I guess you missed the smiley

Less of the insults please its not necessary

That was Spurs advantage for not conceeding - it shouldnt be their problem that Inter were not able to score in the 1st leg. They deserved a slight advantage for not conceeding in 90 mins

Sorry but I had to lol @ this as well.........


Who did United buy over the summer...... Oh yes it was that towering defender RvP. I guess you were right, fergie tried to improve our GD by conceding less rather than scoring more.

Or was it to get the points on the board originally rather than to rely on GD at all........ I would suspect the former myself

The idea is that it offsets the advantage the home side have of playing an extra 30 minutes on their own ground (an advantage that the away side obviously didn't have in the first leg). I personally though would argue that it's a bigger advantage to have your goals count twice than to simply be playing in your own stadium.

I dont think anyone has said you dont have a point - the thing that sticks with me is that this only comes about because of two identical score lines over 180 minutes (to then force the extra 30)

If the away team in the first leg cant score in 90, why is there any advantage / who says they would be able to score in 120 (both sets of players are likely to be as weary, as many 2nd string in both sides is most likely) ?

 

[[bgcb]REPO_MAN]

Away goals rule rules.

Adds far more to the drama, and makes it a lot more exciting. Anyone who disagrees is a bit clueless tbh.

Why should a goal not be worth more at the Bernebau than at some (no need) like Anfield?

 

[BaZ87]

i said it's harsh but fair and that's what it is. it's not primary school sports day stuff. it's a proffessional game, there has to be such scenarios as there is no other practical way. a 3rd leg (as has been mentioned) is not fair on the team or the fans. spurs will be nackered as it is.

So it's fair that Arsenal go out despite them keeping a clean sheet and your only reason as to why the away goals rule is fair was because Spurs kept a clean sheet? Right, thanks for making that clear

And of course there's other ways of determining the outcome. A 3rd game may raise practicality issues but at least a side that's effectively drawn a tie is still in with a chance. And I'm not a massive fan of penalty shoot-outs, as the saying goes, they're a lottery but at least they require one side to score one more goal than the opposition which is the objective of a football match.

 

[Tom84]

every team should want the first leg at home.

Whether it's right or wrong it's actually the opposite, every season you hear managers express the need to finish top of their CL group so that the second leg of the first knock out stage is at home (the idea being that if you trail in a tie you have the home advantage to help you overcome the deficit)

Given that the 'luxury' of playing at home second is performance based reward I dont feel this is an unfair part of the system before you go there

 

[BaZ87]

I personally though would argue that it's a bigger advantage to have your goals count twice than to simply be playing in your own stadium.

You've got plenty of time on your hands Tom, get on google, wiki and wherever else and find out what % of games that are decided in ET are won by the away side.

 

[Tom84]

That was Spurs advantage for not conceeding - it shouldnt be their problem that Inter were not able to score in the 1st leg. They deserved a slight advantage for not conceeding in 90 mins

Where was Arsenal's reward for not conceding in Munich then? Or are we only rewarding the teams that dont concede in the first leg?

 

[cm1179]

So it's fair that Arsenal go out despite them keeping a clean sheet and your only reason as to why the away goals rule is fair was because Spurs kept a clean sheet? Right, thanks for making that clear

i said it's harsh but fair can you not understand the meaning behind that?! bleeding hell!

your 3rd tie idea is not practical. this is the way it is. it's a professional sport. there's lots of other sports where conditions may seem that one competitor or team has a slight advantage and the final outcome therefore seems a little harsh.

you leave me unable to draw any other conclusion that you're just butthurt because it's spurs. if spurs go out of a competition under these circumstances, i'll take it on the chin because i understand that it's the way it is. just like how spurs were far better than liverpool but ended up losing because we couldn''t get the job done. that's sport. move on.

 

[FrankJH]

No cm - every team wants the more difficult away game done 1st

 

[Kimi]

Rubbish rule, get rid, play extra time

 

[Tom84]

You've got plenty of time on your hands Tom, get on google, wiki and wherever else and find out what % of games that are decided in ET are won by the away side.

In the 23 Champions league ties decided by away goals, 14 have favoured the team playing at home second, however in the 96 UEFA Cup/Europa League ties settled by away goals, 58.3% have been won by the side playing away in the second leg. Thus, combining the results of both competitions, only 45.4% of the ties decided by the away goals rule were won by the team playing at home second. This demonstrates that statistically there is no evidence to support the anecdotal belief that the away goals rule favours the team who plays at home in the second leg, in fact it may actually disadvantage them.

Source: http://www.leftmidfield.co.uk/is-playing-at-home-in-the-second-leg-an-advantage

EDIT: Not sure how up to date that is mind but another of their stats is based up till the end of the 09/10 season so we can assume it's fairly up to date (give or take 3 seasons)

 

[Gilly]

why do you think spurs didn't deserve to go through then, Tom84?

did you watch the first leg...

Spurs had the most convincing win, so I'm assuming he means the right team went through even though they lost on the night

 

[wedgie]

I guess you missed the smiley

I didn't miss the smiley, but apparently I missed why the use of that smiley altered the question you asked?

Less of the insults please its not necessary

Erm, ok??

That was Spurs advantage for not conceeding - it shouldnt be their problem that Inter were not able to score in the 1st leg. They deserved a slight advantage for not conceeding in 90 mins

You're not convincing me that we have a fair way of splitting two teams that score the exact same number of goals over two fixtures. I will gladly concede that I do not have in mind a perfect alternative that is 100% fair, but to argue that the system we currently use is a fair one, that's the part I can't get my head around. Maybe we should award extra credit to the team with more shots on target? I mean surely if one team has 30 shots on target, and another only has 1 shot on target, it should be quite clear who is the most deserving of the two teams?

Or was it to get the points on the board originally rather than to rely on GD at all........ I would suspect the former myself

.......

 

[FrankJH]

Where was Arsenal's reward for not conceding in Munich then? Or are we only rewarding the teams that dont concede in the first leg?

Arsenal conceeded THREE at home, Im not sure how anyone can really defend that arguement

IF they had managed to score the extra one in Munich (which they nearly did by all accounts) Bayern would have had to score twice to go through

IE Arsenal nearly did benefit from the same rule, but in the end they couldnt quite do what they needed to (Im sure they probably knew at the start of the 2nd leg they needed 3 to go through)

 

[BaZ87]

i said it's harsh but fair can you not understand the meaning behind that?! bleeding hell!

It's harsh on Inter to go out to. That's not the question though, the question is why it's fair and so far your only reason why it's fair is because Spurs kept a clean sheet. Arsenal kept a clean sheet and Bayern didn't. Why is it fair for Arsenal to go out?

your 3rd tie idea is not practical. this is the way it is. it's a professional sport. there's lots of other sports where conditions may seem that one competitor or team has a slight advantage and the final outcome therefore seems a little harsh.

Again, simply saying something is the case, doesn't make it so. You never give any reasoning behind anything you say. I suspect because you're incapable.

you leave me unable to draw any other conclusion that you're just butthurt because it's spurs. if spurs go out of a competition under these circumstances, i'll take it on the chin because i understand that it's the way it is. just like how spurs were far better than liverpool but ended up losing because we couldn''t get the job done. that's sport. move on.

Another problem of yours. You can't get your head around the possibility that not everybody has the mental age and acts like a 12 year old. Just because that's the sort of attitude you take, it doesn't mean everybody else is the same.

As it's been pointed out to you previously, Tom raised the question about the away goals rule in another thread prior to the Spurs game and I replied to him mentioning that I too didn't agree with it. It's fairly logical to anybody with a brain that after 2 sides in 2 days getting knocked out because of away goals that the subject has some relevance right now and prompted Tom to start the thread.

Source: http://www.leftmidfield.co.uk/is-playing-at-home-in-the-second-leg-an-advantage

EDIT: Not sure how up to date that is mind but another of their stats is based up till the end of the 09/10 season so we can assume it's fairly up to date (give or take 3 seasons)

I was more interested in specifically ties that are decided in extra time so that we could see whether having an extra 30 mins at home is a greater or lesser advantage compared with having an extra 30 mins of the away goals rule.

 

[cm1179]

I was more interested in specifically ties that are decided in extra time so that we could see whether having an extra 30 mins at home is a greater or lesser advantage compared with having an extra 30 mins of the away goals rule.

it's fair. they're at home.

how would you decide the 3rd leg tie if it ended 0-0? where would you play it? when would you play it? how would it effect the schedule? how much more rest time would you give the winner, who then has to face a team who (in all probability) have won their game over 2 legs?

 

[BaZ87]

it's fair. they're at home.

How did you come up with this conclusion cm. You just decided it just like that? Or did you look into the details and see how many times the home side won in ET and compared it to the amount of times the away side won?

how would you decide the 3rd leg tie if it ended 0-0?

Extra time, golden goal, penalties. Any scenario that requires one side to actually score more goals than the opposition.

 

[cm1179]

Spurs had the most convincing win, so I'm assuming he means the right team went through even though they lost on the night

i thought he said he thought spurs didn't deserve to go through?

Surely it's time Fifa/Uefa look at changing this rule? I've seen 3 teams go out of Europe this season due to it and no one is going to convince me that the 'right' team went through in any of the 3 ties...



[*]Third example Inter tonight, Spurs win at home 3-0, Inter win 4-1 in the second leg, to me it's obvious who had the more convincing win over the other and yet its the losing team on the night who progressed.
[/LIST]