Away goals after full time

Jam-Fly

Does anyone else think that away goals should only be in play for 180mins and not if the tie goes to extra time?

The team playing away in the second leg may have 120 mins to score away goals while the team playing away in the first leg will only ever have 90 mins to score away goals.

Guy:Incognito

Just scrap the away goals rule altogether.

Jam-Fly

Jam-Fly wrote: »

The team playing away in the second leg may have 120 mins to score away goals while the team playing away in the first leg will only ever have 90 mins to score away goals.

The whole point is that being at home is an advantage so only applying after extra time follows just fine.

Whether or not it is an advantage is the question that needs to be addressed.

COYVB

Agree with the OP, they should only count if relevant at the 180 minute mark. Once it goes into extra time they shouldn't count

darragh16

Jam-Fly wrote: »

Does anyone else think that away goals should only be in play for 180mins and not if the tie goes to extra time?

The team playing away in the second leg may have 120 mins to score away goals while the team playing away in the first leg will only ever have 90 mins to score away goals.

But its supposed to encourage attacking football, even after extra time and it does the job

gimmick

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Just scrap the away goals rule altogether.

Why? Its a great rule.

Giggsy11

Home team gets 120 mins in their home ground whereas away team gets only 90 mins.

Rule looks fine for me..

gimmick

Giggsy11 wrote: »

Home team gets 120 mins in their home ground whereas away team gets only 90 mins.

Rule looks fine for me..

I man scrapping the away goal.

I agree that during ET the away goals rule should be out the window.

Giggsy11

gimmick wrote: »

I man scrapping the away goal.

I agree that during ET the away goals rule should be out the window.

Then it'l be an advantage to the home team as they get 30 more mins but nothing for away team.

Seans_Username

Deleted User wrote: »

The whole point is that being at home is an advantage so only applying after extra time follows just fine.

Whether or not it is an advantage is the question that needs to be addressed.

I remember after the Ireland - France game in Paris, someone said that the whole handball fiasco shouldn't even have happened because it isn't fair that one team gets an extra half hour at home. Something which I would agree with.

Why not just go straight to penalties after 90 minutes? I for one would definitely have taken penalties at the end of 90 minutes in the Ireland France game. Why does one team get more of an advantage? Admittedly it's not much of an advantage, but it might be enough.

And scrapping the away goals rule in general would be ridiculous. It amazes me sometimes how people don't get it.

Giruilla

gimmick wrote: »

Why? Its a great rule.

Because it makes the home team play too defensively and is a totally outdated rule.

DM_7

Giggsy11 wrote: »

Then it'l be an advantage to the home team as they get 30 more mins but nothing for away team.

True, it would be an advantage of sorts but its not an unfair one. Home and away ties come about thanks to:

Position earned in the earlier round
or
A fair Draw process.

The second leg home advantage came about thanks to a fair system.

Away goals counting after 90 mins in the second leg is over compensation for playing the second leg away.

eagle eye

Its an advantage having the extra time at home and away goals rule negates that so its fair imo.

Giggsy11

If at all there is any confusion on which team has more advantage, they should just go with penalty shootouts after 90 mins. (I love ET time, but this is the only fair rule I can think of)

handsomecake

love it personally. wouldnt change it

Optimalprimerib

Jam-Fly wrote: »

Does anyone else think that away goals should only be in play for 180mins and not if the tie goes to extra time?

The team playing away in the second leg may have 120 mins to score away goals while the team playing away in the first leg will only ever have 90 mins to score away goals.

For what reason would you bring that up now. For what it is worth I agree. It is an unfair advantage for the away team.

Giggsy11

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

For what reason would you bring that up now. For what it is worth I agree. It is an unfair advantage for the away team.

It's not unfair at all. Home team gets extra 30 mins at their home ground which is disadvantage to the away team. Away goal counting in extra time negates this advantage.

Jam-Fly

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

For what reason would you bring that up now. For what it is worth I agree. It is an unfair advantage for the away team.

the spurs match brought it to the forefront of my mind but it's something I've always felt wasn't very fair.

monkey9

This is a decent article in the Guardian by Jonathan Wilson questioning whether the away goals rule should still be used

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/mar/13/the-question-football-away-goals?CMP=twt_gu

CSF

I think the away goals rule only encourages poor football and should be done away with.

smileyj1987

Keep Away goals but if a game goes to extra time all goals should be worth the same .

Jam-Fly

monkey9 wrote: »

This is a decent article in the Guardian by Jonathan Wilson questioning whether the away goals rule should still be used

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/mar/13/the-question-football-away-goals?CMP=twt_gu

that's a good article. I've always felt people really underestimate how massive a clean sheet is at home. So much so, that if offered a 0-0 result at home in the first leg, I think most teams should take it.

I also disagree that having an away first leg and home second leg is an advantage. I'd argue the opposite. If you play your home leg first, you know what has to be done in the second leg. You have the advantage of being able to get away goals.

Morzadec

monkey9 wrote: »

This is a decent article in the Guardian by Jonathan Wilson questioning whether the away goals rule should still be used

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/mar/13/the-question-football-away-goals?CMP=twt_gu

Great article and I think it is a topic that definitely warrants debate.

I agree that away goals are inherently unfair and irrelevant. The Milan vs Barcelona example Wilson uses (hypothetically imagining a late Milan goal to put them through on away goals) is a good example. Barca clearly showed more attacking intent in both legs (which the away goal is supposed to encourage) but might have gone out on this rule. Liverpool vs Zenit is another recent example (Liverpool showing more attacking intent away than Zenit).

It is an outdated rule and quite often an unfair rule.

The example of the Munich vs Madrid match last season is also a great example of how it can make a game overly tactical, encouraging cautious tactics and a worse spectacle.

However, what away goals do do is create drama. In no other format in football can you go from defeat to victory or vice-versa with a single goal. This can create extra tension, extra drama and make the tactical battle, the mental battle (do you stick or do you twist?) incredibly engrossing. This is almost a skill in itself, and often one that calls on the managers skill, nerve and reading of the game more than the players' - how to manage the logistics of the away goal, how to manage the pressure when you know that just one goal can cost you far more than just one normal goal. The Champions League can often demand very different abilities to be called on from managers and players than normal domestic league games, largely because of the headache of managing away goals consists of.

So I would be in two minds about the away goal. On the one hand I think it is largely outdated, illogical, and gives an arbitrary advantage to one team thus adding an element of luck to the tie. We accept it because we're used to it, but I imagine if you explained it to someone who was new to the sport they would find it strange and illogical.

However, it creates dramatic scenarios, it really adds to the pressure and tension in the tie, it tests teams tactically and psychologically in a way normal football matches don't. This often makes for an engrossing viewing experience, in which nerves are heightened, every mistake, every goal, everything is magnified and takes on a greater importance - this is a large part of what we watch the big Champions League games for.

TLDR: Away goals rule is probably outdated and unfairly arbitrary, but it can add a lot of pressure and drama to ties.

764dak

Morzadec wrote: »

Great article and I think it is a topic that definitely warrants debate.

I agree that away goals are inherently unfair and irrelevant. The Milan vs Barcelona example Wilson uses (hypothetically imagining a late Milan goal to put them through on away goals) is a good example. Barca clearly showed more attacking intent in both legs (which the away goal is supposed to encourage) but might have gone out on this rule. Liverpool vs Zenit is another recent example (Liverpool showing more attacking intent away than Zenit).

It is an outdated rule and quite often an unfair rule.

The example of the Munich vs Madrid match last season is also a great example of how it can make a game overly tactical, encouraging cautious tactics and a worse spectacle.

However, what away goals do do is create drama. In no other format in football can you go from defeat to victory or vice-versa with a single goal. This can create extra tension, extra drama and make the tactical battle, the mental battle (do you stick or do you twist?) incredibly engrossing. This is almost a skill in itself, and often one that calls on the managers skill, nerve and reading of the game more than the players' - how to manage the logistics of the away goal, how to manage the pressure when you know that just one goal can cost you far more than just one normal goal. The Champions League can often demand very different abilities to be called on from managers and players than normal domestic league games, largely because of the headache of managing away goals consists of.

So I would be in two minds about the away goal. On the one hand I think it is largely outdated, illogical, and gives an arbitrary advantage to one team thus adding an element of luck to the tie. We accept it because we're used to it, but I imagine if you explained it to someone who was new to the sport they would find it strange and illogical.

However, it creates dramatic scenarios, it really adds to the pressure and tension in the tie, it tests teams tactically and psychologically in a way normal football matches don't. This often makes for an engrossing viewing experience, in which nerves are heightened, every mistake, every goal, everything is magnified and takes on a greater importance - this is a large part of what we watch the big Champions League games for.

TLDR: Away goals rule is probably outdated and unfairly arbitrary, but it can add a lot of pressure and drama to ties.

What do you think of Chelsea getting knocked out by Shakhtar in the group stage by away goals?

jethro081

I have had this conversation many times and it has always struck me as unfair. I think away goals should only count until the end of normal time. Too often teams have gone out undeservedly as a result of a poxy late away goal.

An interesting point above about going straight to penalties though.

after 180 minutes, are a further 30 minutes really necessary? it's not something i've considered before if i'm honest but it is something worth thinking about. after two legs there can be no argument of advantage either way, so straight to penalties could be the right choice.

in any case, i do think away goals in extra time is a balls, and i've always felt it to be a bit of a farce when a team loses out because of it.

osarusan

DM-ICE wrote: »

Away goals counting after 90 mins in the second leg is over compensation for playing the second leg away.

This is what I think too. Especially with only 30 minutes extra-time, an away goal has such value. Too much value

elefant

osarusan wrote: »

This is what I think too. Especially with only 30 minutes extra-time, an away goal has such value. Too much value

I agree. Wasn't one of the reasonings behind scrapping the silver goal rule that it just made extra-time terrible as a spectacle after 1 goal, as all one team had to do was defend for 15 minutes?

Surely the same applies with away goals in extra-time. Away team scores, all they need to do is put 11 men behind the ball and not concede two in a maximum of 30 minutes. May as well bring back golden goal, but only effective for the away team.

iDave

Never felt it was very fair seeing a team eliminated from a competition even if its a draw.

Morzadec

764dak wrote: »

What do you think of Chelsea getting knocked out by Shakhtar in the group stage by away goals?

Not really aware what happened with Chelsea exactly?

But sounds pretty unfair, unless it was used as a last resort to separate the teams.

Head to head is fair enough as the first tiebreaker, but I would go to goal difference next before considering away goals.

RandolphEsq

Two legged ties don't appeal to me. The luck of the draw should dictate who gets to play at home. The reason there are two legs are for revenue but if competitions had one leg knockout rounds in football it would be so much more exciting

764dak

Morzadec wrote: »

Not really aware what happened with Chelsea exactly?

But sounds pretty unfair, unless it was used as a last resort to separate the teams.

Head to head is fair enough as the first tiebreaker, but I would go to goal difference next before considering away goals.

Well, head to head is the first tiebreaker in group stages. Chelsea and Shakhtar both won at home by a one goal margin. However, Shakhtar won on away goal because they scored more away goals at Chelsea than Chelsea did at Shakhtar which is a bit unfair.

Sappy404

They should scrap extra time.

The argument that the home advantage cancels out the away goal advantage in extra time is flawed because it equates having x minutes to score an away goal with having x minutes of home support. If the two were equal there'd be no need for two-legged ties.

At full time in the second leg, a drawn tie should go straight to penalties, perhaps with the away side choosing ends so as to minimise the advantage of home support.

gnfnrhead

Sappy404 wrote: »

At full time in the second leg, a drawn tie should go straight to penalties, perhaps with the away side choosing ends so as to minimise the advantage of home support.

There are at least four officials at each match. No reason teams cant take penalties in front of their own fans in a shoot out. The main official probably wouldnt be too thrilled with it, but if he isnt able for it he probably shouldnt be in that position to begin with.

losthorizon

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Just scrap the away goals rule altogether.

Seriously you do not want to scrap the away goals rule but I agree with the OP that after the two 90 minute games are up that away any extra away goals should not count.

Why should the luck of a draw decide that a certain goal count as two.

It seems a bit unfair.

In normal play the away goals really does encourage teams at least to attack a small bit which they might not do even if down a goal but continue defending in depth.


Its not something you want to see.