CL Away Goals Rule: should it be scrapped?

[Jens' Face]

It's more than just a tiebreaker. It has an awfully large effect on teams' strategy and on results.

I think I'd probably get rid of it.

Your thoughts?

 

[WireRed]

Keep it. It encourages the away team to attack thus more open games. It's also a better way of resolving a game than penalties.

It does effect tactics and tie momentum a lot but that's a good thing IMO. It's one of the challenges to overcome to earn the title of best team in Europe.

 

[esmufc07]

Agree with WireRed. Encourages the away team to open themselves up and look for a goal. On the flipside though you could say it encourages the home team to be slightly more defensive by not looking to concede a goal.

But if it aint broke, don't fix it. And I don't think it's broke.

 

[Christofaux]

It's more than just a tiebreaker. It has an awfully large effect on teams' strategy and on results.

I think I'd probably get rid of it.

Your thoughts?

Oh no's more to think about in football!

I think giving managers and players more to think about makes it more exciting.

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

Yes. Adds an extra element to the game. And to repeat. Makes it more exciting.

 

[Scoreboard Red]

Should it feck, it doesn't detract from the tie one bit and in fact encourages the teams to attack more.

 

[SmashedHombre]

I don't like it. But then I can't think of anything to replace it really, it's better than deciding games on penalties. I've always thought they should only come into play after 90minutes, but I don't suppose that's really any better. I imagine the majority of teams would prefer to finish their midweek games in Europe without extra time.

In the long run I guess both teams get the chance to score away goals, so it's relatively fair. Unless of course the linesman decides to feck you over, ala Fiorentina. That's a classic example of the downside of the away goal rule.

 

[olesmyhero]

I've always liked it. I've never seen a reason to get rid of it.

 

[F-Red]

It's a great rule, keeps the games exciting.

 

[Team Brian GB]

I'm not fond of it and I'd hate to go out of the Champions League on such a technicality.

I recall when it came into effect, or had the potential to in our semi final with Liverpool two years ago - it was our understanding that night that when the second leg went into extra time at Stamford Bridge, the away goals rule still applied - which distorts the balance if Chelsea had 90 minutes at Anfield and they had 120 at Stamford Bridge and becomes unfair.

 

[Scoreboard Red]

I'm not fond of it and I'd hate to go out of the Champions League on such a technicality.

I recall when it came into effect, or had the potential to in our semi final with Liverpool two years ago - it was our understanding that night that when the second leg went into extra time at Stamford Bridge, the away goals rule still applied - which distorts the balance if Chelsea had 90 minutes at Anfield and they had 120 at Stamford Bridge and becomes unfair.

I don't think it does Brian mate, because one leg of a tie is a leg whether it be 90 minutes or 120 minutes plus penalties or whatever, as long as you're deadlocked then it should be whatever the ensuing rules are.

 

[Jens' Face]

I'm not sure it makes teams more attacking overall. I think it makes the home side in the first leg more cautious than they would be. If you have the second leg away, it's almost more important not to concede (in the first leg) than it is to score.

 

[WireRed]

I'm not sure it makes teams more attacking overall. I think it makes the home side in the first leg more cautious than they would be. If you have the second leg away, it's almost more important not to concede (in the first leg) than it is to score.

Not really, obviously a greater emphasis is put on a clean sheet, but I've never seen a team dig in with zero ambition in a 1st leg at home. Home support demands that the team attack, and the away goal rule encourages the away team to attack which heightens the chance of great games with lots of goals.

 

[Plechazunga]

The only time I've ever had an issue with it was when we went out to Leverkusen, it's gutting to go out without ever having gone behind. But them's the breaks, it's an excellent rule.

I recall when it came into effect, or had the potential to in our semi final with Liverpool two years ago - it was our understanding that night that when the second leg went into extra time at Stamford Bridge, the away goals rule still applied - which distorts the balance if Chelsea had 90 minutes at Anfield and they had 120 at Stamford Bridge and becomes unfair.

Who's it unfair on? Chelsea get an extra 30 minutes in front of their home support.

Not really, obviously a greater emphasis is put on a clean sheet, but I've never seen a team dig in with zero ambition in a 1st leg at home. Home support demands that the team attack, and the away goal rule encourages the away team to attack which heightens the chance of great games with lots of goals.

Exactly. It's a good balance. Teams may be marginally more defensive at home but they used to be unbearably defensive away.

 

[Jens' Face]

makes sense -- you've guys have made me a fan

except ... what if away goals were the 2nd tiebreaker and total goals were the first one? that seems to me, at first glance at least, to provide just as much incentive to attack and a little less to prioritize a clean sheet over a home victory.

it would also put Fiorentina through instead of Bayern, and that's a clear plus

 

[Snow]

Not really, obviously a greater emphasis is put on a clean sheet, but I've never seen a team dig in with zero ambition in a 1st leg at home. Home support demands that the team attack, and the away goal rule encourages the away team to attack which heightens the chance of great games with lots of goals.

What about when a team wins the away game? You bet every Mourinho and Capello side would play defensively in the second leg.

I say the pros and cons are the same in promoting attacking football.

 

[Snow]

I don't think it's a great rule but it's the best one we have.

Preferably I'd like to have overtime until someone is ahead. Not like the golden rule but say that after a period of 10 minutes the game stops. If someone is ahead then game is over. If not, then next period and so on.
Of course this isn't possible due to the players being human and all that. But what if more substitutes were allowed? Or even an extra bench which is only allowed after 90 minutes?

That idea sounds far too progressive, stupid even, and I'm getting ahead of myself.

Therefor we keep the rule. At least it's better than penalties.

 

[Anderson Searl]

I felt for Fiorentina the other night, a shame that such a rivviting 2 matches had to be decided on away goals.

 

[BahamaRed]

Allowing one goal to count as two. Great rule.

 

[Christofaux]

Allowing one goal to count as two. Great rule.

Both teams know the rules, its not unfair to either team.

 

[Scoreboard Red]

Allowing one goal to count as two. Great rule.

But it doesn't count as two, you silly sausage, that's the misconception.
The term is 'away counts as double', but it's just a term, the goal is still just ONE goal, it's just that the team who scored the more away goals, hence taken the game to their opponents in their own backyard, are deemed the victor.

 

[olesmyhero]

I felt for Fiorentina the other night, a shame that such a rivviting 2 matches had to be decided on away goals.

I felt for them as well, but they knew the rules going into the tie, and didn't defend like they should have after their last goal.

 

[BahamaRed]

But it doesn't count as two, you silly sausage, that's the misconception.
The term is 'away counts as double', but it's just a term, the goal is still just ONE goal, it's just that the team who scored the more away goals, hence taken the game to their opponents in their own backyard, are deemed the victor.

Rule 1 (a) (i)The winner of the game is the team that scores the most goals.
That's why I like penalties. It follows rule 1 (a) (i).

If you have to have away goals a better system would be to have extra time first, like in the League Cup, and only then if it is tied to go to away goals. At least that gives the teams the chance to win the game as the founders intended.

 

[Anderson Searl]

I felt for them as well, but they knew the rules going into the tie, and didn't defend like they should have after their last goal.

The beast of football is complacency, Jovetic looked like he wanted to cry, he played out of his element.

 

[olesmyhero]

The beast of football is complacency, Jovetic looked like he wanted to cry, he played out of his element.

The transfer muppet in me really wants us to sign him.

 

[Anderson Searl]

The transfer muppet in me really wants us to sign him.

Considering he's played a role with them that replicates our front 6 in our 2 most used formations, he'd fit in perfectly.

Love the lad, he's got such energy.

 

[Sir Matt]

The transfer muppet in me really wants us to sign him.

Hey, he's my muppet target!

Can we also ensure that the referees know the rules? That would have helped Fiorentina more than knowing the away goals rule. Or how about we just send Ovrebo to referee u10 matches in Siberia.

 

[olesmyhero]

Hey, he's my muppet target!

I saw him first.

 

[Sir Matt]

I saw him first.

Nu uh.

 

[hungrywing]

Let's just be thankful that the idiot who came up with the 'away goals count double' spiel didn't in the throes of wit come up with 'away goals are worth 1.5'

 

[hungrywing]

Rule 1 (a) (i)The winner of the game is the team that scores the most goals.
That's why I like penalties. It follows rule 1 (a) (i).

If you have to have away goals a better system would be to have extra time first, like in the League Cup, and only then if it is tied to go to away goals. At least that gives the teams the chance to win the game as the founders intended.

Always thought this would be an interesting implementation.

 

[Scoreboard Red]

Rule 1 (a) (i)The winner of the game is the team that scores the most goals.
That's why I like penalties. It follows rule 1 (a) (i).

If you have to have away goals a better system would be to have extra time first, like in the League Cup, and only then if it is tied to go to away goals. At least that gives the teams the chance to win the game as the founders intended.

Always thought this would be an interesting implementation.

And then what when the loser compains that isn't fair?
This system has been in place for eons and it works extremely well. Yes, it's frustrating going out when you've beaten someone in that leg, but tough shite. We got dusted by Monaco in 1998 on the rule, tough shite, stroll on....

 

[hungrywing]

And then what when the loser compains that isn't fair?
This system has been in place for eons and it works extremely well. Yes, it's frustrating going out when you've beaten someone in that leg, but tough shite. We got dusted by Monaco in 1998 on the rule, tough shite, stroll on....

My other personalty must have taken over for a second and deleted the part about things not being fair because I don't remember saying anything like that. I apologize for him.

Bahama didn't say anything about fairness either. If he's anything like me then the aspect about it that interests him is an extra time that is basically a 30-minute winner-takes-all.

Yes there are issues such as fatigue, home-field advantage, etc etc.

 

[Scoreboard Red]

My other personalty must have taken over for a second and deleted the part about things not being fair because I don't remember saying anything like that. I apologize for him.

Bahama didn't say anything about fairness either. If he's anything like me then the aspect about it that interests him is an extra time that is basically a 30-minute winner-takes-all.

Yes there are issues such as fatigue, home-field advantage, etc etc.

Well then what would your justification be for scrapping the away-goal rule?
Fatigue and home team advantage is experienced by BOTH teams over the two legs, are they not?

 

[dhstriker]

makes sense -- you've guys have made me a fan

except ... what if away goals were the 2nd tiebreaker and total goals were the first one? that seems to me, at first glance at least, to provide just as much incentive to attack and a little less to prioritize a clean sheet over a home victory.

it would also put Fiorentina through instead of Bayern, and that's a clear plus

What are you talking about? Both teams had a total of 4 goals and if away goals were the second tie breaker, Bayern would still have gone through. As the tie breakers go, total goals over the two ties are the first tie breaker. If you're talking about total goals in the home leg...or away leg...that would completely do away with the away goals rule, because it would not be relevant.

 

[lysglimt]

People who are against it surely can't remember how it was before ?

The away-team putting 10 men behind the ball to get 0-0 - knowing that they would go through with any win at home. Didn't matter if it was 1-1 after 90 minutes - then they would get 30 minutes of extra-mine etc. It favoured the team playing the last match at home - A LOT!

It's one of the best rules ever implemented!

 

[Jens' Face]

What are you talking about? Both teams had a total of 4 goals and if away goals were the second tie breaker, Bayern would still have gone through. As the tie breakers go, total goals over the two ties are the first tie breaker. If you're talking about total goals in the home leg...or away leg...that would completely do away with the away goals rule, because it would not be relevant.

yeah, I don't know what I was talking about. It's not been one of my clearer evenings.

 

[Devilton]

Away goals make for interesting ties and promotes attacking football. There is no good reason to change that.

 

[SharkyMcShark]

This thread comes up at least once a year.

 

[fatboy]

i actually find this away goals thingy really intriguing. It adds to much more into the strategising. Keep it, I say.