Away goals rule

FrankJH · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:01

wedgie said:
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?

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.

wedgie said:
.......

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

Leeroy Jenkins · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:02

Think it's a stupid rule in my opinion, if a game finishes 4-4 i dont understand how 1 team can just be eliminated. But at the very least they should scrap the away goals rule in extra time it is unfair to the home team that they must score 2 goals if the away team gets just 1 goal in extra time, they have had an extra 30 minutes more than u to score that all important away goal.

Gilly · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:04

cm1179 said:
i thought he said he thought spurs didn't deserve to go through?

He did also say " it's obvious who had the more convincing win over the other " and as that was obviously Spurs...

cm1179 · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:05

BaZ87 said:
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?

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

so you believe there's nothing advantageous in playing at home?

so you'd take it to extra time AGAIN? the only one i'd go with is the golden goal and it that scenario, spurs would've won (again)

where would this third tie be played btw?

cm1179 · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:06

Gilly said:
He did also say " it's obvious who had the more convincing win over the other " and as that was obviously Spurs...

well i know that but i'm pretty sure he thinks it was inter.

BaZ87 · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:11

cm1179 said:
so you believe there's nothing advantageous in playing at home?

Where did I say that there's no advantage from playing at home? I don't know for certain what's the bigger advantage, an extra 30 mins at home or an extra 30 mins of the away goals rule. I'm interested in knowing how often the home or away side has won in ET so we can see which is the bigger advantage.

cm1179 said:
so you'd take it to extra time AGAIN? the only one i'd go with is the golden goal and it that scenario, spurs would've won (again)

I mentioned the possibility (not that I believe 100% it's the right way) of a 3rd game at a neutral venue and you asked what you'd do if it ended in a draw - so yes extra time.

And I couldn't care less whether a golden goal situation would have still ended with a Spurs win because cm, this is not just about Spurs.

cm1179 said:
where would this third tie be played btw?

That's the sort of detail that would needed to be decided but I can't imagine there will be a shortage of grounds where the game can be played.

Tom84 · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:13

FrankJH said:
Arsenal conceeded THREE at home, Im not sure how anyone can really defend that argument

Frank in your own words;

They (spurs) deserved a slight advantage for not conceeding in 90 mins

Arsenal didn't concede in 90 minutes in Munich so where's their advantage? Answer is they dont get one because due to the away goals rule it doesn't matter how they great an effort it was from them for pulling the score level they were punished for their first leg performance/result.

Earlier in this thread you said a 3-0 win was better than a 4-1 now though you're saying a 3-1 defeat is worse than a 2-0. Which is it? :confused:

Purdy · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:15

[bgcb]REPO_MAN;23943348 said:
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 shonk-hole like Anfield?

Shonk hole like Anfield? Why should a goal be worth more at some fascist hole like the bernebau

?

Also I'd be more impressed at a team winning at Anfield, you can get drowned by noise, you could get drowned by plastic at the bernebau and that is about it.

cm1179 · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:23

BaZ87 said:
Where did I say that there's no advantage from playing at home? I don't know for certain what's the bigger advantage, an extra 30 mins at home or an extra 30 mins of the away goals rule. I'm interested in knowing how often the home or away side has won in ET so we can see which is the bigger advantage.

I mentioned the possibility (not that I believe 100% it's the right way) of a 3rd game at a neutral venue and you asked what you'd do if it ended in a draw - so yes extra time.

And I couldn't care less whether a golden goal situation would have still ended with a Spurs win because cm, this is not just about Spurs.

That's the sort of detail that would needed to be decided but I can't imagine there will be a shortage of grounds where the game can be played.

you do a lot of 'imaging' and accuse me of having no answers. i don't need an answer because i understand why it's the way it is. all your propositions are doing is showing why it is the way it is.

YOU mentioned the golden goal, i brought to your attention that had spurs been playing under the golden goal rule, they'd have won anyway and you STILL have a problem with it.

please, go into a bit of detail about where the game for a 3rd tie could be played.. in the instance of spurs v inter, what would be a fair middle ground for both fans to travel? shall we say ...... paris? ok.. right. so, when shall we play it? well, i can't see anything other than a mid-week fixture. ok. so the fans have to travel mid-week, again and the players have another journey abroad, in an already hectic schedule, to play a game, that if it ends 0-0, could go to ET ...... again. then this has a domino effect on the other teams in the competition too.

or we could just leave it as it is and make sure one team gets the job done over 2 legs. that team was spurs.

FrankJH · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:30

Tom84 said:
Frank in your own words;

They (spurs) deserved a slight advantage for not conceeding in 90 mins

Arsenal didn't concede in 90 minutes in Munich so where's their advantage? Answer is they dont get one because due to the away goals rule it doesn't matter how they great an effort it was from them for pulling the score level they're punished for their first leg performance/result.

Earlier in this thread you said a 3-0 win was better than a 4-1 now though you're saying a 3-1 defeat at home is worse 2-0. Which is it?

I would call that cherry-picking

Losing 3-1 at home is a terrible result, and a mountain to climb in the return. As it should be

Arsenal nearly pulled it off - IF they had froced BM to conceed as many as they had in the first leg, Arsenal would have "won" the advantage (by forcing BM to score two to win the tie)

The context of the match(es) has to be taken into account. If Arsenal had won the first leg away 2-0 (ie fi the draw had been reversed) that would be a fantastic result, but having already conceeded three, it wasnt and shouldnt be quite enough

Tom84 · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:34

cm1179 said:
in the instance of spurs v inter, what would be a fair middle ground for both fans to travel? shall we say ...... paris? ok.. right. so, when shall we play it? well, i can't see anything other than a mid-week fixture. ok. so the fans have to travel mid-week, again and the players have another journey abroad, in an already hectic schedule, to play a game, that if it ends 0-0, could go to ET ...... again.

What you've proposed there would be the absolute fairest way of deciding who goes through (however extra time would only come into effect in the hypothetical third leg not in the standard second leg). So to paraphrase;

San Siro - Inter 0-1 Spurs (0-1)
WHL - Spurs 1-2 Inter (2-2)
Neutral venue - Inter 0-0 Spurs -> Added Time -> Penalties

In this scenario both teams have the equal chance of being at home and beating the other on aggregate and having failed to do so are taken to a neutral venue to decide who's the better side in the tie.

Now this will never happen, just as it will never go straight to penalties with the scores level after 180 minutes of both legs so given the above is the fairest way of deciding ties that are level are we really saying the new best alternative is the away goals rule? Rhetorical question you dont have to answer it.

MooMoo444 · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:39

I honestly think away goals adds nothing to the game. I'd much rather extra time/penalties than just ending the match based on who is better at scoring while on holiday.

Tom84 · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:41

FrankJH said:
I would call that cherry-picking

Losing 3-1 at home is a terrible result, and a mountain to climb in the return. As it should be

Frank it's not 'cherry-picking' at all you said winning at home 3-0 was better than winning at home 4-1 by that same token then Arsenal winning 2-0 away must be better than Bayern winning 3-1 away? Again in your own words you said

not conceeding should be given "extra" credit, even at home (as the home match should be the easier of the two)

You clearly suggest there should be an added bonus of keeping a clean sheet and you clearly suggest that keeping a clean sheet at home is easier than doing it away so given Arsenal did the harder of those two and kept a clean sheet away from home surely they deserved more than being dumped out of the competition at the end of the 90 minutes on Wednesday?

FrankJH said:
The context of the match(es) has to be taken into account. If Arsenal had won the first leg away 2-0 (ie fi the draw had been reversed) that would be a fantastic result, but having already conceeded three, it wasnt and shouldnt be quite enough

Ok so lets say Arsenal did go to Munich first and won 2-0 and then Bayern went to the Emirates and won 3-1 who deserves to go through in that scenario?

cm1179 · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:41

but it's not fair really though, is it? it's inpractical on the teams playing in it and the teams already through as it would make the schedule unmanageable. what happens if the games postponed etc? it's a car crash.

the crux of this, is if that people believe the away goal is a silly advantage then it's even more reason that it shows the right team went through as inter didn't use this to their advangtange in the first leg due to rubbish attacking. they had their chances, spurs didn't park the bus and scored enough, home and away, to get the job done.

BaZ87 · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:42

cm1179 said:
you do a lot of 'imaging' and accuse me of having no answers.

So you want a specific ground. It will be played in Anzhi Makhachkala's stadium on Sunday morning, 3am local time.

cm1179 said:
YOU mentioned the golden goal, i brought to your attention that had spurs been playing under the golden goal rule, they'd have won anyway and you STILL have a problem with it.

I don't have a problem with it cm, it's just not relevant. As it's been explained to you 10000 times, this thread is not to discuss whether Spurs should have won or not, it's to discuss whether the current away goals rule is fair.

cm1179 said:
please, go into a bit of detail about where the game for a 3rd tie could be played.. in the instance of spurs v inter, what would be a fair middle ground for both fans to travel? shall we say ...... paris? ok.. right. so, when shall we play it? well, i can't see anything other than a mid-week fixture. ok. so the fans have to travel mid-week, again and the players have another journey abroad, in an already hectic schedule, to play a game, that if it ends 0-0, could go to ET ...... again. then this has a domino effect on the other teams in the competition too.

or we could just leave it as it is and make sure one team gets the job done over 2 legs. that team was spurs.

Do you want specifics or are you going to use (if you have any) a bit of common sense? There is no reason why a suitable venue couldn't be found that is neutral in terms of traveling distance for both sides.

48 teams enter the group stages of the Europa League. In last years competition (group stages onwards) only 4 ties were decided by the away goal. Based on that, any individual team has just over an 8% chance of having to play 1 extra game in a neutral venue. The likelihood of having to play an extra game is incredibly small and playing 1 extra game away in Europe (away in terms of traveling only) is neither a huge ask for the club or its supporters.

Would it have been impossible for Spurs and Inter to have played a 3rd game? Of course not. Their schedule would still pale into insignificance when you compare it to Chelsea's.

That said, before it confuses you, I'm not saying a 3rd game is 100% the right way to go. I'm just discussing and debating the possibilities.

cm1179 · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:46

BaZ87 said:
That said, before it confuses you, I'm not saying a 3rd game is 100% the right way to go. I'm just discussing and debating the possibilities.

you're not debating it, it's flawed and you know this with your sarcastic '3am local time' answers. you're 'throwing it out there' is what you're doing because deep down, you're gutted about last night. take it on the chin and get over it.

Tom84 · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:49

cm1179 said:
but it's not fair really though, is it? it's inpractical on the teams playing in it

Well then just like in the FA Cup where teams dont want a replay one of the two teams makes sure that over the two legs on aggregate they've scored more than the other. The way the rule is now teams play to progress on a technicality rather than based on who is the better side.

cm1179 · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:51

Tom84 said:
. The way the rule is now teams play to progress on a technicality rather than based on who is the better side.

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

BaZ87 · 15 Mar 2013 at 15:57

cm1179 said:
you're not debating it, it's flawed and you know this with your sarcastic '3am local time' answers. you're 'throwing it out there' is what you're doing because deep down, you're gutted about last night. take it on the chin and get over it.

No, my sarcastic comment was a response to your moronic question. You asked for a specific answer to a generic point. How can I tell you where and when a game should be played without knowing which teams are involved and what round of the competition its in etc etc etc. Use a bit of common sense cm. It doesn't take a genius to look at the schedules of the 2 teams involved and find a suitable date for a match to be played.

And your second sentence is you acting like a 5 year old again. Believe it or not, I want both Chelsea and Spurs to go as far as they can in this competition. You need to realise that not everybody has the mentality of a child like you do cm.

cm1179 · 15 Mar 2013 at 16:02

you're incredible, Baz87. you ask for a debate and start of fairly reasonable but then you just go and get all ridiculous, insulting and sarcastic when you start to see your idea may be flawed. you are this.

i've had my say. the away goals rule is the fairest way to do things.