Away goals to be scrapped in Europe - are you for or against?

[The Prophet]

A penalty or a free kick awarded in the course of a game is a bit different to a penalty shootout though.

As I say, away goals is a massively Marmite topic, so you won't please everyone. 

[Kaizero]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

A penalty or a free kick awarded in the course of a game is a bit different to a penalty shootout though.

As I say, away goals is a massively Marmite topic, so you won't please everyone. 

There's still skill related to the actual game of football involved. It's not a coin toss. They're exciting as fuck as well.

If the teams can't get a winner in 240 minutes and added time I prefer the game to be decided by something relevant to the game of football where some skill under pressure is needed.

 

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Kaizero

[triggs]

13 minutes ago, Kaizero said:

Should exclude that from the goal total then since it's not a natural part of the game.

Penalties are a more natural part of the game when it comes to it actually being decided than the value of a goal scored away being higher than at home.

I didn't mean an actual free kick, I meant as in nobody is challenging you. A penalty is scored 80% of the time or whatever, a free kick is scored, maybe 5% of the time, or less? There's skill involved in scoring a free kick and there are more players in the way and its further out.

I'm not sure if it was a pisstake earlier but I'd actually much prefer the hockey style run from the halfway line penalties as they have more skill involved by both the taker and keeper.

[Kaizero]

17 minutes ago, triggs said:

I didn't mean an actual free kick, I meant as in nobody is challenging you. A penalty is scored 80% of the time or whatever, a free kick is scored, maybe 5% of the time, or less? There's skill involved in scoring a free kick and there are more players in the way and its further out.

I'm not sure if it was a pisstake earlier but I'd actually much prefer the hockey style run from the halfway line penalties as they have more skill involved by both the taker and keeper.

Was a bit of hyperbole, but the point stands. Penalties are part and parcel of the game. It's easier to get a winner from a penalty shootout than a free kick shootout.

I don't mind the hockey type penalty idea though, but actual penalties are more normal for the game and would take less time.

[Superior Acuña]

1 hour ago, triggs said:

I didn't mean an actual free kick, I meant as in nobody is challenging you. A penalty is scored 80% of the time or whatever, a free kick is scored, maybe 5% of the time, or less? There's skill involved in scoring a free kick and there are more players in the way and its further out.

I'm not sure if it was a pisstake earlier but I'd actually much prefer the hockey style run from the halfway line penalties as they have more skill involved by both the taker and keeper.

If you're not aware, these were actually used in the MLS in the 90s. I think it was considered more broadly but the MLS experiment wasn't considered too successful - not sure why really. Johan Cruyff wanted Europe to try it.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Inferior Acuña

[Guest]

Remember seeing a couple of Shoot Outs like that on Channel 5 when they had the coverage. Almost all were shit.

[Guest]

That one where the keeper brings him down and no penalty is awarded.

[Froggy]

Quite surprised at the amount of people wanting to get rid. They're an exciting aspect of cup games. Football is getting dull enough as it is.

[Guest]

You’ll still get excitement, though? A team being two goals down with the other team scoring away from home won’t be practically dead and buried. I know people use the Spurs/Ajax, Barca/PSG games as examples but how often do these occur? 1-0 away loss and an early goal conceded at home in the second leg and it’s almost game over in most circumstances. Scrapping the away goals rule still gives incentive for the home team that two goals is doable, and also still encourages an aspect of attacking play from the away side since they don’t have the away goal rule to hide behind.

[Nobody]

If only they had away goals here, might have been some excitement. 

Oh and apparently we should scrap the whole kicking of the ball thing according to @triggs

 

 

[triggs]

7 minutes ago, Nobody said:

If only they had away goals here, might have been some excitement. 

Oh and apparently we should scrap the whole kicking of the ball thing according to @triggs

 

 

I never said to scrap penalties for fouls in the box, though from memory that penalty was for a dive anyway. Keep up

 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by triggs

[Nobody]

You literally said penalties are just a "free kick at goal" and that that's not a natural part of the game, which is up there with Stiflers take on the back pass as one of the weirdest opinions on the game I've seen in a long time. 

Recent example of exciting games without away goal rule would be our 'dear' neighbours play off games. Had that had away goals, that game is over when Lincoln gets their goal. It was now very much alive until the last kick of the game. 

[Guest neesy111]

5 minutes ago, Nobody said:

You literally said penalties are just a "free kick at goal" and that that's not a natural part of the game, which is up there with Stiflers take on the back pass as one of the weirdest opinions on the game I've seen in a long time. 

Recent example of exciting games without away goal rule would be our 'dear' neighbours play off games. Had that had away goals, that game is over when Lincoln gets their goal. It was now very much alive until the last kick of the game. 

Away goals did use to count in the play-offs AET, but they were scrapped after 2000.

[Wullie]

Eh? How is a game over when a team needs to score twice at home after the 56th minute?

[Guest neesy111]

3 minutes ago, Wullie said:

Eh? How is a game over when a team needs to score twice at home after the 56th minute?

I think @Nobody is saying with away goals they would've needed 2 goals while, if they had got 1 on the day it goes to ET?

[Wullie]

Well obviously. It would hardly have been one of the great comeback stories.

"Remember that time we needed 2 goals at home against Lincoln City with more than a third of the game left, was a million to one shot I tells ya" 

[Nobody]

It's a completely different thing mentally to score twice again after coming back from a two goal deficit already. Of course it can happen, but it's very different game at that point. 

[triggs]

1 hour ago, Nobody said:

You literally said penalties are just a "free kick at goal" and that that's not a natural part of the game, which is up there with Stiflers take on the back pass as one of the weirdest opinions on the game I've seen in a long time. 

Recent example of exciting games without away goal rule would be our 'dear' neighbours play off games. Had that had away goals, that game is over when Lincoln gets their goal. It was now very much alive until the last kick of the game. 

I never said it wasn't a natural part of the game. Keep up

[Nobody]

Fine, you said it had no relevance to the game, which is utter tripe.

Your "keep up" bantz is shite and all. 

[Superior Acuña]

2 hours ago, Wullie said:

Well obviously. It would hardly have been one of the great comeback stories.

"Remember that time we needed 2 goals at home against Lincoln City with more than a third of the game left, was a million to one shot I tells ya" 

Well no, but the game was obviously more tense and exciting because the game was close and the mackems just needed a goal.

[Kaizero]

3 hours ago, Wullie said:

Well obviously. It would hardly have been one of the great comeback stories.

"Remember that time we needed 2 goals at home against Lincoln City with more than a third of the game left, was a million to one shot I tells ya" 

"Remember that time we only needed 1 goal to level the field against Lincoln City because that was the fair way of dealing with things and it gave us a much more realistic mountain to climb, energizing us and giving us faith it could be achieved? Boy do I wish I could trade that for a million to one shot at having to score twice! Now that would be exciting to watch as time runs out, us needing two goals instead of one. Wow. I'm excited just thinking about it."

 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by Kaizero

[Wullie]

It's objectively more exciting because it's win or lose, as opposed to win, lose or play another boring period of extra time where a load of knackered players go through the motions trying not to concede. There's more at stake. You might not like it because it's "not fair" (even though it is completely fair because everyone knows the rules before they start and it's the same for both teams, that's the definition of fairness) but it simply is a more exciting way to decide a tie.

[Froggy]

5 hours ago, Nobody said:

If only they had away goals here, might have been some excitement. 

Oh and apparently we should scrap the whole kicking of the ball thing according to @triggs

 

 

I never said they were the only exciting part of a game to be fair. Games can be exciting without them, I just think they add a level of excitement and intrigue to a two legged tie. 

[triggs]

2 hours ago, Nobody said:

Fine, you said it had no relevance to the game, which is utter tripe.

Your "keep up" bantz is shite and all. 

I was talking about penalty shoot outs, which don't have any relevance to the game. Keep up

[Nobody]

36 minutes ago, triggs said:

I was talking about penalty shoot outs, which don't have any relevance to the game. Keep up

Kicking a ball, trying to score past a goal keeper has no relevance to the game. Righto.

"Penalties is a lottery" is a load of shite and all.