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

[triggs]

23 hours ago, Nobody said:

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.

It doesn't have any relevance to the game. What you did in the 210 minutes before it has nothing to do with a penalty shoot out.

[Wullie]

It's just a semantic misunderstanding going on here. Triggs means "the game" as in the particular football match that is being played, Towelie means "the game" in a wider sense as in the game of football generally.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, triggs said:

It doesn't have any relevance to the game. What you did in the 210 minutes before it has nothing to do with a penalty shoot out.

With a penalty-shoot out, at least the winning team has actually won the tie and scored more goals than the opposition. 0-0 & 1-1 and one team going out after a draw has never felt right to me.

[Fantail Breeze]

I’ve never been a fan of away goals. For the reasons is directly above - you can draw two games but go out, which seems bizarre.

As others have also said, it’s fairly crap because away goals often kill games that should still be alive.

I also think ET is bollocks too. You rarely see a good period of ET, usually it’s just people going through the motions.

Just go straight to penalties. 

[Raconteur]

I have to say that I like away goals for many of the reasons people have criticised - I believe one of your first priorities going into any home match is to keep a clean sheet, and the away goals rule rewards good home defences.

 

There’s a lot of talk about “spectacle”, but defending well at home gives a better chance of qualifying seems a more sporting reward than extra penalty shootouts.

 

Besides, away goals level the advantage derived from playing away first. In the second leg, the home team is roared on by the crowd, but the away team’s goals have greater value. Without it, I’d suggest we’ll see more second-leg home teams prevailing.

[number37]

Away goals are an anachronistic quirk, harking back to the bygone days when you're drawn away against Dynamo Radgepackets deep behind the iron curtain.

You're staying in a run-down Soviet youth hostel where some rooms might have curtains, some might have hot water, others have cold but never both, you're shitting through the eye of a needle, the beds are rock hard, if you've got bedding it's not been cleansed in however long and if you're allowed to train on or at least look at the farmer's field of a pitch you'll be playing on, it'll be under the watchful gaze of a couple of dozen conscripted red army soldiers and plain clothed agents monitoring your every move. So, yeah, your away goal or two might not endear you to the local Party committee members but having them worth that little bit more must surely make your ordeal worthwhile. 

Keep away goals. 

Travel is infinitely better these days (covid aside), the iron curtain has come down so we're all friends now, facilities are beyond comparison (you even need to have UEFA approved stadia), players probably spend longer playing the match than they do in the foreign city and so away matches in Europe have become increasingly mundane, especially with the multi-national and multi-cultural composition of squads these days so it's not like the olden days when your entire Celtic side is from Glasgow and they may never have ventured outside the UK, certainly not for football. There are no real cultural shocks or unknowns, not at the UEFA competition level or in the brief exposure to the local area the players would ever be exposed to. Logistically, I doubt Chelsea going to Bayern Munich is all that more different to Chelsea going to Manchester City - it's flights and hotels but just a longer flight. 

So away goals aren't the sweetener they used to be but so what? I totally agree with a lot of what has been said throughout this topic about why they should be abolished and from a purely logical point of view, my head would say get rid. I know they change matches and skew things way out of proportion, so you can score the same amount of goals as your opponent over two legs but still lose? It's crazy and doesn't make sense, of course it doesn't, try explaining that to someone who doesn't understand football. We need to think with our hearts. 

It's for that reason why I feel they should and must be retained. It's because they're an historical quirk. It's because they don't make sense. Like I say, I get why people want rid and it's not like I'm offering a concise and logical argument for their retention but football is so, so much more than logic and reason. The governing bodies have done absolutely everything they can to sanitise, rationalise or ruin the sport we love over the years - whether it's VAR, Champions League formats, Qatar world cup, handball rule, offside rule or who knows what else. Football doesn't need to be perfect, we love it because it's not. 

Football needs passionate debate, it needs odd things. I feel away goals is one of the few remaining 'human' elements of the game. Just like this very topic has proven, we get rid of away goals (despite what is logical or not) and what more do we have to talk about? We should just let the pools panel handle the scores instead to save the players from having to turn up to the games in the first place. Saves the environment too. 

Keep away goals for no other reason than "just because". 

[Kaizero]

1 hour ago, number37 said:

Away goals are an anachronistic quirk, harking back to the bygone days when you're drawn away against Dynamo Radgepackets deep behind the iron curtain.

You're staying in a run-down Soviet youth hostel where some rooms might have curtains, some might have hot water, others have cold but never both, you're shitting through the eye of a needle, the beds are rock hard, if you've got bedding it's not been cleansed in however long and if you're allowed to train on or at least look at the farmer's field of a pitch you'll be playing on, it'll be under the watchful gaze of a couple of dozen conscripted red army soldiers and plain clothed agents monitoring your every move. So, yeah, your away goal or two might not endear you to the local Party committee members but having them worth that little bit more must surely make your ordeal worthwhile. 

Keep away goals. 

Travel is infinitely better these days (covid aside), the iron curtain has come down so we're all friends now, facilities are beyond comparison (you even need to have UEFA approved stadia), players probably spend longer playing the match than they do in the foreign city and so away matches in Europe have become increasingly mundane, especially with the multi-national and multi-cultural composition of squads these days so it's not like the olden days when your entire Celtic side is from Glasgow and they may never have ventured outside the UK, certainly not for football. There are no real cultural shocks or unknowns, not at the UEFA competition level or in the brief exposure to the local area the players would ever be exposed to. Logistically, I doubt Chelsea going to Bayern Munich is all that more different to Chelsea going to Manchester City - it's flights and hotels but just a longer flight. 

So away goals aren't the sweetener they used to be but so what? I totally agree with a lot of what has been said throughout this topic about why they should be abolished and from a purely logical point of view, my head would say get rid. I know they change matches and skew things way out of proportion, so you can score the same amount of goals as your opponent over two legs but still lose? It's crazy and doesn't make sense, of course it doesn't, try explaining that to someone who doesn't understand football. We need to think with our hearts. 

It's for that reason why I feel they should and must be retained. It's because they're an historical quirk. It's because they don't make sense. Like I say, I get why people want rid and it's not like I'm offering a concise and logical argument for their retention but football is so, so much more than logic and reason. The governing bodies have done absolutely everything they can to sanitise, rationalise or ruin the sport we love over the years - whether it's VAR, Champions League formats, Qatar world cup, handball rule, offside rule or who knows what else. Football doesn't need to be perfect, we love it because it's not. 

Football needs passionate debate, it needs odd things. I feel away goals is one of the few remaining 'human' elements of the game. Just like this very topic has proven, we get rid of away goals (despite what is logical or not) and what more do we have to talk about? We should just let the pools panel handle the scores instead to save the players from having to turn up to the games in the first place. Saves the environment too. 

Keep away goals for no other reason than "just because". 

We used to flip coins to decide a winner before that.

[Anderson]

Confirmed.

[Kaizero]

45 minutes ago, Anderson said:

Confirmed.

good

[HaydnNUFC]

*Mourinho switching off the TV (or modern football) and saying fuck off*

[Ketsbaia]

I'm torn because away goals suck but the extra time/penalties alternative sucks more.

 

I like the thought of both teams removing 2 players for extra time. More space to force a more open period.

[Pata]

3vs3 in icehockey has actually become pretty boring. Teams realised how important having possession is and players are often too scared to even take shots. Which means OT is often just circling around trying to keep possession without taking any risks as having just one player outside of the game usually means the other team gets a dangerous chance.

 

 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Pata

[Guest]

 

[LFEE]

Does that stat not just highlight that away teams tried to attack more to get away goals which was the purpose of the rule to avoid teams going away and closing shop ?

 

Anyway. I would’ve just applied it after extra time to avoid penalties as much as possible.

[Guest]

It was the same rules applied before that though for the first set of stats. Guess a good comparison would be that last stat with Play-Off and League Cup Semi Final scores where there’s been no away goal for a while.

[gjohnson]

Surprised that it hasn't been proposed that the 'richer' team doesn't get an automatic advantage in the case of a draw.

 

As an example....PSG play Dynamo Bucharest. Scores are level after 2 legs. Amazed that it's not been proposed that PSG should go through automatically, as that seems to be what football is about these days

[Kaizero]

5 hours ago, gjohnson said:

Surprised that it hasn't been proposed that the 'richer' team doesn't get an automatic advantage in the case of a draw.

 

As an example....PSG play Dynamo Bucharest. Scores are level after 2 legs. Amazed that it's not been proposed that PSG should go through automatically, as that seems to be what football is about these days

 

What even is this nonsense.

[Kaizero]

10 hours ago, LFEE said:

Does that stat not just highlight that away teams tried to attack more to get away goals which was the purpose of the rule to avoid teams going away and closing shop ?

 

Anyway. I would’ve just applied it after extra time to avoid penalties as much as possible.

 

Penalties are the best, scarp extra time and go directly to them.

[Guest]

For people against change, football was like this for about 100 years and no-one’s telling me this was better than what came after the rule change.

 

 

 

[triggs]

22 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

For people against change, football was like this for about 100 years and no-one’s telling me this was better than what came after the rule change.

 

 

 

That was the worst rule ever but doesn't mean every subsequent rule change is correct

[Doctor Zaius]

No away goals means more games going to extra time. Extra time means longer games. Longer games means more breaks. More breaks means more advertising. More advertising is more money for somebody, somewhere. Thats all there is to it. Probably.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2021 by Doctor Zaius

[Kaizero]

5 minutes ago, Doctor Zaius said:

No away goals means more games going to extra time. Extra time means longer games. Longer games means more breaks. More breaks means more advertising. More advertising is more money for somebody, somewhere. Thats all there is to it. Probably.

 

 

 

 

Extra time means breaking up scheduled programming which in turn effects negatively on advertisement income for linear television channels.

[Nobody]

16 minutes ago, Kaizero said:

 

Extra time means breaking up scheduled programming which in turn effects negatively on advertisement income for linear television channels.

Linnear television will surely become less and less relevant though

[Kaizero]

10 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Linnear television will surely become less and less relevant though

 

True, but if it's not a subscription service it would still be hard (though not impossible) to sell ads based on something that might happen. 

[Superior Acuña]

3 hours ago, Optimistic Nut said:

For people against change, football was like this for about 100 years and no-one’s telling me this was better than what came after the rule change.

 

 

 

 

Seen that before but so funny, can't believe it's so soon before I was watching. Was also surprised to learn that they still had 2 points for a win then, another rule that seems a bit mad in hindsight. One rule I don't actually want, but would enjoy seeing trialled to see what it does is 0 points for a draw.

 

I'm fairly indifferent about whether we should have ET or go straight to pens in two legged games - would probably lean towards pens. I think ET for sure in a 90 mins game though.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2021 by Inferior Acuña