Another What is the Rule Here Qt

yom 1

Was talking to a mate about this and didnt know the answer..

Say in the Liverpool Chelsea semi on tuesday, If Chelsea had scored in extra-time would Liverpool had needed 1 goal to equalise or 2 to counter an away goal by Chelsea. Reason I'm asking is because if Liverpool had needed 2 would that not be an unfair advantage to Chelsea as Liverpool couldnt get an away goal in extra time in the first leg cos obviously there is none.

Hobart

yom 1 wrote:

Was talking to a mate about this and didnt know the answer..

Say in the Liverpool Chelsea semi on tuesday, If Chelsea had scored in extra-time would Liverpool had needed 1 goal to equalise or 2 to counter an away goal by Chelsea. Reason I'm asking is because if Liverpool had needed 2 would that not be an unfair advantage to Chelsea as Liverpool couldnt get an away goal in extra time in the first leg cos obviously there is none.

Good question. Away goals carry into extra time. It is unfair, but that's just the way it works.

therecklessone

Article 5 of UEFA Champions League regulations says they count double in extra time. Tough on the home side in 2nd leg.

Mitch Connor

yom 1 wrote:

Was talking to a mate about this and didnt know the answer..

Say in the Liverpool Chelsea semi on tuesday, If Chelsea had scored in extra-time would Liverpool had needed 1 goal to equalise or 2 to counter an away goal by Chelsea. Reason I'm asking is because if Liverpool had needed 2 would that not be an unfair advantage to Chelsea as Liverpool couldnt get an away goal in extra time in the first leg cos obviously there is none.

Chelsea's goal would have been an away goal, so they would have gone through, even if chelsea has scored another.

I doesn't seem fair, but thats the way it is. Its more fair then the Carling Cup, where away goals are only counted after 90minutes though.

Dun laoire

therecklessone wrote:

Article 5 of UEFA Champions League regulations says they count double in extra time. Tough on the home side in 2nd leg.

Should be abolished once the 90 are up. It's a huge advantage for the away team if it gets that far but i think most teams want to play at home for the second leg so it's a bit of a strange one.

Sizzler

Erm, it was golden goal was it not? Hence wouldnt have meant fook all ! When Kuyt scored the offside goal ITV instantly called it as him putting Liverpool into the final with a golden goal.

yom 1

I was thinking it was an away goal but my mate was full sure it wasnt.

Cheers for clearing it up lads.

Hobart

Sizzler wrote:

Erm, it was golden goal was it not? Hence wouldnt have meant fook all ! When Kuyt scored the offside goal ITV instantly called it as him putting Liverpool into the final with a golden goal.

I've heard this too. I thought the whole "golden goal" thing was dropped. I'm not sure tbh what the arrangement was on Tuesday. I was lucky enough to be in Anfield on Tuesday and when that goal went in, the crowd went totally bannana's, so maybe it was.

_blank_

Sizzler wrote:

Erm, it was golden goal was it not? Hence wouldnt have meant fook all ! When Kuyt scored the offside goal ITV instantly called it as him putting Liverpool into the final with a golden goal.

There is no golden goal rule anymore.

Or Silver goal for that matter.

event

no golden goal doesnt exist anymore

anyway, its just tough on the home team, its the way its always been

but some teams prefer to play at home second, so this balances it out

therecklessone

Sizzler wrote:

Erm, it was golden goal was it not? Hence wouldnt have meant fook all ! When Kuyt scored the offside goal ITV instantly called it as him putting Liverpool into the final with a golden goal.

Commentator bullsh*tting I'm afraid, no golden goal anymore (was it ever used in the CL btw?)

~Rebel~

i dont think it was actually the golden goal rule, think thats been pretty much abolished. might have just been a figure of speech?

celtic and Milan played the full 120minutes, even after Kaka had scored in extra time. they'd hardly change the rule mid competition would they? then again, never know..

Hobart

therecklessone wrote:

Commentator bullsh*tting I'm afraid, no golden goal anymore (was it ever used in the CL btw?)

Euro Championships is the only time I remember it.

Mitch Connor

when golden goal was said by teh commentator, i think he ment it was a golden goal in the sense it was worth its weight in gold (although a goal has not weight) or something like that, as opposed to be a regulation golden goal. I think he just used a slightly confusing phrase, as opposed to meaning liverpool had scored the goal that ended the match.

yom 1

therecklessone wrote:

Commentator bullsh*tting I'm afraid, no golden goal anymore (was it ever used in the CL btw?)

must have been - sure Liverpool won the Uefa Cup in 2001 on a golden goal

assuming it was in the Uefa Cup it must have been in the Champions League aswell

SCULLY

Although the away team does have an extra 30 minutes to score an away goal, this is thought to be balanced out by the fact that the home team has an extra 30 minutes of home advantage.... don't necessarily agree but thats the argument that usually gets rolled out....

eirebhoy

AZ and Sporting Lisbon were playing in the UEFA cup semi's a couple of years ago. The first leg was 2-1 in Lisbon to the home team. The 2nd leg was 2-1 to AZ so it went to extra time. AZ scored in the 2nd half of extra time to make it 3-1. Sporting scored in 120th minute and won the match. Very cruel.

Nunu

Feck sake lads! Some of you call yourself football fans - one of you was at the game and didn't even know the rules about extra time, away goals etc

The reason away goals still count in extra time is because the last thing anyone wants is a peno shoot out...........well maybe not Liverpool;). Seriously have they ever lost a shoot out? not that I can remember anyway.

Off-topic: I firmly believe peno shoot outs should happen before extra time, extra time really would become do or die then! Penos really are a horrible way to end a game.

Mitch Connor

Nunu wrote:

Off-topic: I firmly believe peno shoot outs should happen before extra time, extra time really would become do or die then! Penos really are a horrible way to end a game.

you've lost me with that - why would you have peno shoot outs before extra time, what would they decide, and what would the point of extra time be?

Nunu

It's simple: Before extra time starts take the penos.
Both teams then go into the extra period knowing what has to be done to progress. For example in the Liverpol - Chelsea game if the penos were taken before extra time, Chelsea would have known we need a goal here cos if it ended all square on aggregate Liverpool would progress having already won the shoot out..

PiE

Nunu's clearly looking to usurp smemon as the king of absurdity.

el rabitos

Nunu wrote:

It's simple: Before extra time starts take the penos.
Both teams then go into the extra period knowing what has to be done to progress. For example in the Liverpol - Chelsea game if the penos were taken before extra time, Chelsea would have known we need a goal here cos if it ended all square on aggregate Liverpool would progress having already won the shoot out..

is this before or after half time multi-ball?

destraynor

I think thats a deadly idea, seriously.

It will take the pressure and stigma off the guy who misses the spot kicks cause the team will undoubtedly take the collective blame, having had 30 minutes to sort it out.
Also the pennos might give the players a bit of a break before going straight into the extra time.

Something else I'd like to see is a 4th and 5th substitution being allowed in extra time. Sometimes great players are walking around the pitch like zombies, and you feel bad for them, cause they gave it their all for 100 minutes, and really should leave the pitch.

Nunu

destraynor wrote:

I think thats a deadly idea, seriously.

It will take the pressure and stigma off the guy who misses the spot kicks cause the team will undoubtedly take the collective blame, having had 30 minutes to sort it out.
Also the pennos might give the players a bit of a break before going straight into the extra time.

Something else I'd like to see is a 4th and 5th substitution being allowed in extra time. Sometimes great players are walking around the pitch like zombies, and you feel bad for them, cause they gave it their all for 100 minutes, and really should leave the pitch.

You and me my friend are what they call innovators;) ..... I've often thought of that extra sub idea aswell.

TBH I'm not surprised at a couple of sarky remarks about the shoot-out idea. I've already got some ridicule off a few mates. The gas thing is the vast majority of people just fawn off the idea without even thinking it through...most people don't like change...even if it's for the better.
I actually spent 5 minutes explaining it to a chap a while back and all he could reply with a smart alec look on his face was...."but what's the point in having the extra-time if you've already lost on penos?'.....and he was looking at me as if I was the idiot:rolleyes:

@ PiE and El Rabitos: did you actually think through what I was proposing before posting your replys or did you just read it once and think 'ah, what's this nutter on about', without giving it a second thought?...be honest now.

It makes perfect sense to me anyway...It's not exactly radical thinking - just schedule the timing of the penos differently! It's fool proof and I think it would benefit the game settling matches in open play ultimately and not from spot kicks

PiE

Yea I will be honest, I read your post once and thought "what's this nutter on about?".

Four hours later I'm still thinking the same thing.

Before or after ET, both teams HAVE the chance to settle the game from open play. If you had the penos before ET, the winning team would basically camp on their goal-line for 30mins and you'd have an already shattered opposition try to break them down. Which 99 times out of 100, won't happen at the highest level.

And what if the winners of the shootout score again? Do the losers need two goals? Do away goals still count? Does every spot kick count as a full goal?

There's a reason your mates aren't taking it seriously.

BKtje

What i think he means is that extra times in a lot of games is a non event with both teams settling for a peno shoot out. Now if after 90mins they had a peno shootout the winner of which was awarded a one goal lead to take into extra time it would make it much more exciting since one team would HAVE to attack.

However what happens if its level again afte extra time...unless away goals count and if they do does the peno shootout count as an away goal count.

Its a novel idea but no way in hell it would work.

Nunu

B-K-DzR wrote:

What i think he means is that extra times in a lot of games is a non event with both teams settling for a peno shoot out. Now if after 90mins they had a peno shootout the winner of which was awarded a one goal lead to take into extra time it would make it much more exciting since one team would HAVE to attack.

However what happens if its level again afte extra time...unless away goals count and if they do does the peno shootout count as an away goal count.

Its a novel idea but no way in hell it would work.

Ah, lads you're really letting yourselves down! How could it not work! No rules change - no including the penos in the overall score - NOTHING!! All that changes is the scheduling of the shoot-out. It's not that hard to understand!

Nothing changes, apart from having the shoot-out before the extra time. Everything still counts at the end - away goals etc.

It's at times like this that my belief that the general public at large are dumbasses seems a valid one:D

I can't believe i have to explain it in such fine detail for you, but here goes:
Say it's a two legged game between Team A and Team B. 1st leg (Team A at home) ends 0-0. 2nd leg (Team B at home) ends 0-0 after 90 mins. Now we have an agg. score of 0-0. At this point you take the penos and say Team A wins the shootout. We now go into exta-time knowing that if it continues goalless Team A progresses. It ends 1-0 To Team A they still progress(1-0 on agg). If it ends 0-1 to Team B they progress(0-1 on agg). If it ends 1-1 Team A progress on away goals(1-1 on agg)....and so on. If it ends 0-0 only then do the penos come into it and abviouly Team A wins having triumphed in the shootout. Do you get it now? There's nothing to get - once again NOTHING changes regarding the rules, away goals etc. It's just a way to have the game finish in open play, the peno shoot -out only comes into it if the tie is level on aggregate and no team has the advantage on away goals - just as it is now.

If you need further clarification after that, then God help you!

ps. If you honestly think it would have anegative affect on the extra time period, well I totally disagree on that aswell. The majority of 2nd half periods in extra time are non events, BOTH teams settle for penos. This way you would have a game for the full 30 mins.

Lex Luthor

Nunu wrote:

It's simple: Before extra time starts take the penos.
Both teams then go into the extra period knowing what has to be done to progress. For example in the Liverpol - Chelsea game if the penos were taken before extra time, Chelsea would have known we need a goal here cos if it ended all square on aggregate Liverpool would progress having already won the shoot out..

you could also say that Chelsea knew before ET that Liverpool had an advantage if it went to penalties so they should have went for teh away goal, which they did.