UEFA to consider removing away goals in European games

[Maroon Sailor]

5 minutes ago, whodanny said:

I think it's all advantage the away side. If the first leg was 2-2, the second 0-0 and the extra time 1-1 the home side would go out on the away goals in extra time ruling. Yet they scored twice away from home in the first leg, the away side score once and it took them an extra thirty minutes. Can't see that as fair.

 

The 2nd leg wouldn't have went to extra time in this case.

 

The home side in the 2nd leg would have went through after 90 minutes on the away goals they scored in the first leg

 

 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Maroon Sailor

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Apply footballs version of Duckworth Lewis, based on corners, shots on target and free kicks.

 

Anti football is then punished

[The Old Tolbooth]

1 hour ago, JamboJen said:

Don't think I was. We got the away goal over there in a 1-1 but lost 1-0 at home.

 

That's the first European game I think I can remember existing. My friend went to the home match and showed me the programme the next day at school!

 

So we did, it's amazing how the memory plays tricks on you. 

[michael_bolton]

3 hours ago, cb1874 said:

Until there's a better alternative, I'd keep the away goals...anyway, what's changed? It's worked fine for all these years so far?

 

I hate the transfer window, and would scrap it. Sign whoever you like, whenever you like. 

 

What's changed is that travel is now much easier and football is much more uniform.

 

Travelling to European ties in the 60's was arduous. It took longer, flying wasn't what it is today, players were pampered much less, most journeys abroad were journeys into the relatively unknown (especially going east).

 

Today, players rock up at the airport and jump on a flight for a few hours before heading off to a decent hotel, like many others they'll have stayed in around the continent. They play on pitches that are usually much of a muchness in atmospheres they know about before they arrive, often in stadiums they've seen on telly hundreds of times.

 

Basically, it's much easier now. As others have mentioned above, the away goals rule can quickly kill an interesting tie. There's a big difference between being 2-0 down and needing two goals with 85 minutes to play, and needing three. Or being 1-0 down and needing a goal, but knowing that one wrong move and you'll suddenly need three. It ruins games.

 

The away goals rule has led to a lot of boring first legs, especially in recent years. The home team will often take 'anything-nil' and the visitors just want to be in the tie going home. Why not just make it two teams playing football against each other for 180 minutes and trying to win?

 

Abolishing away goals is not a new idea. It's been suggested by a number of coaches and journalists over the years. It made sense back in the 60s, and maybe even the 70s, but it's just a bit silly now.

Edited September 5, 2018 by michael_bolton

[michael_bolton]

18 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

Apply footballs version of Duckworth Lewis, based on corners, shots on target and free kicks.

 

Anti football is then punished

 

Not necessarily. A team can completely dominate a game and not win corners. Depends on how they like to attack.

 

Also, this would simply lead to defensive teams having a ludicrous pop at goal from the halfway line every few minutes. Attacking teams would have to match them for that in case it ended a draw and games would peter out into a shapeless shambles bereft of any momentum as both teams topped up their shot on goal stats.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

2 minutes ago, michael_bolton said:

 

Not necessarily. A team can completely dominate a game and not win corners. Depends on how they like to attack.

 

Also, this would simply lead to defensive teams having a ludicrous pop at goal from the halfway line every few minutes. Attacking teams would have to match them for that in case it ended a draw and games would peter out into a shapeless shambles bereft of any momentum as both teams topped up their shot on goal stats.

I doubt it . Last 10 mins in desperation perhaps.

 

It would discourage fouling and encourage shooting. Got to be a good start for any football match. Shots on target, how many would hit the target from the half way line?

[michael_bolton]

7 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

I doubt it . Last 10 mins in desperation perhaps.

 

It would discourage fouling and encourage shooting. Got to be a good start for any football match. Shots on target, how many would hit the target from the half way line?

 

I think most professional footballers are capable of hitting a completely pointless 'shot' from the halfway line that would go in if the keeper didn't intervene. That's a shot on goal.

 

I don't mean genuine goal-scoring efforts, I mean pointless lumps to the keeper that would count as 'shots'.

 

That's obviously what defensive teams would do. It would put them ahead on the shot count while disrupting the flow of the game and constantly causing attacking teams to start again.

 

The latter stages of drawn games would become farcical with players simply hoofing the ball into the arms of the opposition's goalkeeper from anywhere on the park in order to get ahead in the shot count.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Just now, michael_bolton said:

 

I think most professional footballers are capable of hitting a completely pointless 'shot' from the halfway line that would go in if the keeper didn't intervene. That's a shot on goal.

 

I don't mean genuine goal-scoring efforts, I mean pointless lumps to the keeper that would count as 'shots'.

 

That's obviously what defensive teams would do. It would put them ahead on the shot count while disrupting the flow of the game and constantly causing attacking teams to start again.

 

The latter stages of drawn games would become farcical with players simply hoofing the ball into the arms of the opposition's goalkeeper from anywhere on the park in order to get ahead in the shot count.

Your assuming that a defensive team would have possession of the ball.

 

FIFA have actually not been given credit for trialling the game, over the years. Ditched 4 quarters for example, but pass back rule, goal line tech etc, they have got things right.

 

Harder to trial something like this, but I am fairly certain that no team would see sitting back over 180 minutes committing fouls, shots and corners, a high percentage chance of winning by hoofing the ball at the keeper from the half way line.

 

Quite the opposite I believe.

[michael_bolton]

1 minute ago, Sir Gio said:

Your assuming that a defensive team would have possession of the ball.

 

FIFA have actually not been given credit for trialling the game, over the years. Ditched 4 quarters for example, but pass back rule, goal line tech etc, they have got things right.

 

Harder to trial something like this, but I am fairly certain that no team would see sitting back over 180 minutes committing fouls, shots and corners, a high percentage chance of winning by hoofing the ball at the keeper from the half way line.

 

Quite the opposite I believe.

 

I think you're looking at it the wrong way round.

 

Currently a team that plays defensively knows that their best chance of winning is to defend well, but have an out-ball which leads to them making one or two high-quality chances in a game. Scoring one of them and defending well will win them the game.

 

The scenario you propose discourages that out-ball. Since the defensive side could simply add another player to their midfield and every time they intercept a pass, just launch it to their opponents' keeper. One shot. More pressure on the 'attacking' side. Why try to score a goal when there's an easier way to win?

 

Of course, over time this would lead to attacking sides by-passing the midfield as an important defensive strategy would become keeping the ball as far from your goal as possible, since losing possession anywhere within 'shooting' distance could result in defeat. Basically, it would encourage route-one football.

 

My main objection to your idea, however, is that goals should be the only way you win a football match. Shots, possession, fouls etc are just details on the way to who scored the highest number of goals.

 

 

[itsnomarooned]

Don't have a problem with away goal rule. The cynic in me feels that anything proposed by "top clubs" is intended to benefit them directly rather than them giving a flying **** about improving the game.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

10 minutes ago, michael_bolton said:

 

I think you're looking at it the wrong way round.

 

Currently a team that plays defensively knows that their best chance of winning is to defend well, but have an out-ball which leads to them making one or two high-quality chances in a game. Scoring one of them and defending well will win them the game.

 

The scenario you propose discourages that out-ball. Since the defensive side could simply add another player to their midfield and every time they intercept a pass, just launch it to their opponents' keeper. One shot. More pressure on the 'attacking' side. Why try to score a goal when there's an easier way to win?

 

Of course, over time this would lead to attacking sides by-passing the midfield as an important defensive strategy would become keeping the ball as far from your goal as possible, since losing possession anywhere within 'shooting' distance could result in defeat. Basically, it would encourage route-one football.

 

My main objection to your idea, however, is that goals should be the only way you win a football match. Shots, possession, fouls etc are just details on the way to who scored the highest number of goals.

 

 

I think your final paragraph makes my point 

[michael_bolton]

1 minute ago, Sir Gio said:

I think your final paragraph makes my point 

 

I don't see how it does. My point is that who had the most shots is irrelevant.

[oh ah grantona]

Away goals is fine but in the event of a draw i think extra time should be scrapped in every competition and just go straight to pens

[whodanny]

2 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Except that isn't my idea at all.

 

Example:

 

1st Leg: 2-1

2nd Leg: 1-0

 

Current rule is away team goes through in 90. The same rule applies except it only applies after 120 minutes.

The away side still have an extra 30 mins to score an away goal that the other side didn't get in the first leg. It means only one side get the opportunity to benefit from an away goal over the whole tie.

Edited September 5, 2018 by whodanny

[whodanny]

2 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

The 2nd leg wouldn't have went to extra time in this case.

 

The home side in the 2nd leg would have went through after 90 minutes on the away goals they scored in the first leg

 

 

No. This is assuming that away goals only count in extra time. Read the thread.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

2 hours ago, michael_bolton said:

 

I don't see how it does. My point is that who had the most shots is irrelevant.

I would say shot accuracy is a good barometer, allied to other data, such as corners won, fouls awarded, are strong KPI's in a game of football. There may be oddities, every rule does, but this is a tie breaker. And a far riskier tie breaker than holding out for penalties for negative teams in my point of view

[michael_bolton]

2 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

I would say shot accuracy is a good barometer, allied to other data, such as corners won, fouls awarded, are strong KPI's in a game of football. There may be oddities, every rule does, but this is a tie breaker. And a far riskier tie breaker than holding out for penalties for negative teams in my point of view

 

But football isn't about KPIs. It's about goals.

 

That's how a weaker team beats a stronger team. Your system would just reward rich teams and send tactical development back in time by around 40 years.

[poultry]

But if they remove the away goals, how the hell does the home team score. ?

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

1 hour ago, michael_bolton said:

 

But football isn't about KPIs. It's about goals.

 

That's how a weaker team beats a stronger team. Your system would just reward rich teams and send tactical development back in time by around 40 years.

It wouldn't honestly. The teams that win football matches generally have higher numbers in the first 2 stats and concede less free kicks. Its not going to reward sitting back or fouling. You disagree, that's ok.

 

Goals would win the game anyway, the KPI is a tie breaker which is my point on the earlier post. Those chasing goals would get the win 99 times out of 100

Edited September 5, 2018 by Sir Gio

[michael_bolton]

17 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

It wouldn't honestly. The teams that win football matches generally have higher numbers in the first 2 stats and concede less free kicks. Its not going to reward sitting back or fouling. You disagree, that's ok.

 

Goals would win the game anyway, the KPI is a tie breaker which is my point on the earlier post. Those chasing goals would get the win 99 times out of 100

 

That's part of the problem. It inherently favours rich teams.

 

A smaller team that has defended well for 90 minutes or 120 minutes or 180 minutes, even if you disagree with me about the tactical impact, would then be punished simply for having inferior players and would lose the tie, since the top sides tend to dominate possession and chances simply by having better players.

 

Or, the smaller team would then have no choice but to open up and attack, leading to lots more huge winning margins as teams are just picked off. Again, favours rich teams.

 

I still don't see how such a rule would lead to anything other than lots of silly shots at goal, though. And, if you think diving is bad now, wait till the number of fouls given is a potential deciding factor in who wins a semi-final...

 

Also, many teams simply don't value corners, so won't go out of their way to win them. This would automatically favour 'get it up the park' fitba.

 

I just don't see an upside to this.

Edited September 5, 2018 by michael_bolton

[Paolo]

8 hours ago, luckydug said:

I detest the away goals rule.

There is no need for it and it has achieved the very opposite of what it was intended for. It was also introduced to save time and expense to stop playoffs. 

We didn't have penalty shoot outs then though.

If it's a draw on aggregate just take the tie to extra time then penalties.

Then the advantage lies with the team that are home in the second leg, which will normally be the ‘bigger’ side, since they would likely to be seeded, and therefore home for the second leg (which can be an advantage in itself). 

[whodanny]

5 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Except that isn't my idea at all.

 

Example:

 

1st Leg: 2-1

2nd Leg: 1-0

 

Current rule is away team goes through in 90. The same rule applies except it only applies after 120 minutes.

Ah, wait. I mis-read it as away goals scored in extra time. Got you now. Sorry.

[whodanny]

5 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

The 2nd leg wouldn't have went to extra time in this case.

 

The home side in the 2nd leg would have went through after 90 minutes on the away goals they scored in the first leg

 

 

Sorry, mis-read it as away goals scored in extra time.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

5 hours ago, whodanny said:

The away side still have an extra 30 mins to score an away goal that the other side didn't get in the first leg. It means only one side get the opportunity to benefit from an away goal over the whole tie.

No. They score an away goal in ET and it goes to penalties, assuming the home team score as well, as the 2nd leg would finish 2-1.

[gnasher75]

I would prefer the summer transfer window to close before the season starts.  It doesn't seem right players playing a handful of games for one team and then moving.

[PeterintheRain]

The away goals rule should have been scrapped decades ago.  Why should you be punished if you draw 0-0 away to Barcelona then draw 1-1 at home?  Always been a nonsense.

 

   If eufa believe in their pretendy co-efficient then this is the perfect opportunity to prove it.    When a tie finishes level on goals after the 2nd leg then the team with the lower ranking wins.   They can play extra-time first if they want but the better team should be able to win over 180 minutes, if they can't then they don't deserve to progress in any competition.

[FarmerTweedy]

On 05/09/2018 at 08:51, cb1874 said:

Until there's a better alternative, I'd keep the away goals...anyway, what's changed? It's worked fine for all these years so far?

 

I hate the transfer window, and would scrap it. Sign whoever you like, whenever you like. 

There's no need for an alternative. As things are, when a tie is level on aggregate after the second 90 minutes, if away goals don't settle it, it goes to extra time then, if need be, penalties.  Removing the away goals rule would just mean a few more ties going to extra time and penalties. Seems fairer to me than saying that team x should go through because the first leg was 2-1 to the home team (team x) and the second leg was 3-2 to the home team (team y). What has team x actually done there to show it's better than team y?

[RDSK]

Whilst I agree the away goals rule has its flaws I would keep it. A game going to extra time over 2 legs is a relatively rare outcome and going on to penalty kicks is even rarer. The novelty of extra time and penalties adds to the excitement of fans when the scenarios come around. The away goals rule limits the number of games that go to extra time which is a good thing.