Is away goals rule counter-productive?

But thats not what happens.

All that happens is home teams plays defensive football, the fans arent involved and the game is a dull and one sided where one team may or may not score.

If they score, away goal or not, the other team has to open up.

If teams want to play defensively, then go for it, but having an away goal rules wont change anything about it and it doesnt.

In my opinion, a draw is a draw, 1-1 one game and 0-0 the next is the same thing. The "better team" did not necessarily advance.

Yohan Modric wrote:I guess this discussion can also lead onto whether home teams have an advantage over away teams.

But that is impossible considering that every team gets a home and an away game

Zealous wrote:

Would you suggest away goals not being counted once the game reaches extra time? The problem is there is a feeling that a team already has an advantage at home by virtue of being at home.

it's certainly a better option than giving one team 30 minutes to score a goal that counts for two at that point, though i think the rule in general is stupid and should go away... this isn't the 50s, playing an away match doesn't require grueling travel so it shouldn't be considered such a disadvantage

I feel like its just a gimmick rule to try and add more entertainment.

I dont like that, to me thats wrong, but when it actually doesnt do that anyway, I dont see whats the point of it at all.

All it does is create odd situations where you dont have to actually win a game to beat someone.

it doesn't even add entertainment, it's just an artificial obstacle to make things more "challenging"

it's like asking olympic sprinters to run with only one shoe on, sure it makes it more "challenging" and it's the same for everyone so it's "fair" but it's still *bleep* stupid

elitedam wrote:I think the away goals rule is arbitrary and takes the excitement from a lot of games. I would favor extra time and then penalties to decide the winner.

Also, isn't the team that plays at home in the second leg the higher seeded team? They would deserve to have that advantage if the game goes into extra time.

Don't think so. Malaga played at home yesterday but they definitely aren't higher seeded than Porto.

Well short of having NBA style playoffs I'm not sure how we could create a system where the better side would win.

Even if the rule was scrapped the defensive team would still be defensive so the issue of dull games won't really change too much, be it during the 90 minutes or in extra time and if the draw continues we get a penalty shoot out and that definitely ensures that the "better" team isn't a favourite to go through both teams in that scenario are on equal terms.

At least with the away goal rule you give the away team something to think about. An incentive to at least prepare a plan of attack to take advantage of the rules.

Also when teams draw in both games the whole concept of better team goes out the window doesn't it? I mean neither team actually won so how can one say one team deserves it more? The away goal rule at least gives one team some sort of argument for being "better" (even if that's not necessarily the case).

ExtremistEnigma wrote:

elitedam wrote:I think the away goals rule is arbitrary and takes the excitement from a lot of games. I would favor extra time and then penalties to decide the winner.

Also, isn't the team that plays at home in the second leg the higher seeded team? They would deserve to have that advantage if the game goes into extra time.

Don't think so. Malaga played at home yesterday but they definitely aren't higher seeded than Porto.

But Malaga topped their group, Porto didn't. That's fair imo but the problem is after the round of 16 the team that plays the second leg at home is decided via the luck of the draw.

Zealous wrote:

Even if the rule was scrapped the defensive team would still be defensive so the issue of dull games won't really change too much, be it during the 90 minutes or in extra time and if the draw continues we get a penalty shoot out and that definitely ensures that the "better" team isn't a favourite to go through both teams in that scenario are on equal terms.

but the point is that it provides one more incentive for teams to pack up... see psg vs valencia and bayern vs arsenal, psg and bayern bagged an advantage in away goals and barely showed up in the return game because they pretty much didn't have to since the away goal rule provided them with an advantage that made it significantly harder for the other team

i mean when we scored at psg the tie would have been blown open if it wasn't for the away goal, same thing when arsenal scored their first...

At least with the away goal rule you give the away team something to think about. An incentive to at least prepare a plan of attack to take advantage of the rules.

"they have to think of a way around it" is not a reason for a rule with such a significant impact

Also when teams draw in both games the whole concept of better team goes out the window doesn't it? I mean neither team actually won so how can one say one team deserves it more? The away goal rule at least gives one team some sort of argument for being "better" (even if that's not necessarily the case).

losing 2:1 away and winning 1:0 at home doesn't make you the "better" team in any way shape or form... if the teams are even after 180 minutes there's extra time, if they're still even after that it doesn't matter which one of them will go through as neither one is better than the other and penalties are more appropriate than flipping a coin

Well clearly that's incorrect, there is a shape and form to deciding who was better in your last scenario. The team with more away goals

i really don't think that's the consensus though... mostly because people who believe team A is better than team B because they scored a goal at team B's stadium don't have access to online communications in mental hospitals

ExtremistEnigma wrote:

elitedam wrote:I think the away goals rule is arbitrary and takes the excitement from a lot of games. I would favor extra time and then penalties to decide the winner.

Also, isn't the team that plays at home in the second leg the higher seeded team? They would deserve to have that advantage if the game goes into extra time.

Don't think so. Malaga played at home yesterday but they definitely aren't higher seeded than Porto.

As was previously mentioned, Malaga were "seeded" higher because they won their group. UEFA could start seeding teams in the quarterfinals if they want to give higher seeded teams the advantage of playing extra time and penalties at home.

I would like to see the rule taken away, it kills some ties in the first round and it's just stupid that teams get knocked out for drawing on aggregate.

My only concern is that without a reason to go for an away goal you might see more teams putting 10 behind the ball and not even counter attacking the home side.

che wrote:i really don't think that's the consensus though... mostly because people who believe team A is better than team B because they scored a goal at team B's stadium don't have access to online communications in mental hospitals

It was a joke, lighten up

The rule is fine as it is, which is why it won't be changed. Could it be better? I personally think so but I don't see it as such a big issue as some other here.

Haven't read through the thread yet, I don't like the away goals rule, but hate how if a team is winning on away goals then there's no ET. If the aggregate result is a draw it should go to ET regardless of away goals.

che wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

lol if you're already in extra time, either team's goal will be enough to win

no... golden goal doesn't exist anymore

say both matches finish 1:1, then it goes to extra time and the away team score... now the home team have to score two or they're out, without the away goal rule they would only have to score one to take it to penalties

and before anyone says i'm pulling this scenario out of my ass and it would never happen - liverpool vs atletico in uefa cup two years ago

dat prophecy

THE AWAY GOALS RULE IN EXTRA TIME IS BS!

Yeah the rule has to be scrapped... ATLEAST for Extra Time.

Why give the away team so much power? 30 minutes more to score an away goal, ridiculous.

urbaNRoots wrote:Yeah the rule has to be scrapped... ATLEAST for Extra Time.

Why give the away team so much power? 30 minutes more to score an away goal, ridiculous.

totally agree, didnt realise the rule applied in OT until now. or at least i have forgotten if it happened before.

The Franchise wrote:I feel like its just a gimmick rule to try and add more entertainment.

I dont like that, to me thats wrong, but when it actually doesnt do that anyway, I dont see whats the point of it at all.

All it does is create odd situations where you dont have to actually win a game to beat someone.

And as the great Herman Edwards said: YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Haven't read through the thread yet, I don't like the away goals rule, but hate how if a team is winning on away goals then there's no ET. If the aggregate result is a draw it should go to ET regardless of away goals.

That, in effect, scraps the away goals rule. An aggregate score of 3-3 (or any odd goal total for agg.) would only be decided by away goals

urbaNRoots wrote:Yeah the rule has to be scrapped... ATLEAST for Extra Time.

Why give the away team so much power? 30 minutes more to score an away goal, ridiculous.

QFT.

Inetr could have won it before extra time tbh.

Zealous wrote:Inetr could have won it before extra time tbh.

no doubt

The away goals rule is stupid and should be removed..

ET and/or penalties are exciting.. Once it goes to ET, it should start back at 0-0

Swagg wrote:The away goals rule is stupid and should be removed..

ET and/or penalties are exciting.. Once it goes to ET, it should start back at 0-0

I mean, going back to 0-0 is just semantics. It effectively goes back to nil nil anyway as AET means a tie score... (whether in the game or on aggregate).

Play the 2 games, decide the winner by who has more goals, end of.