the away goals rule

[Lillehamring]

ok, so i've been watching (fairly) neutrally the liverpool atletico game this evening and, as a non-partisan viewer and sports fan, i kind of feel cheated by the result.

now, as far as i understand, the only reason for the away goals rule is to encourage the away team to attack, however because of the result in the first leg it seemed to me that the away team tonight were doing anything but that, knowing as they did that they could (as proved to be the case) afford to lose 2-1 and still win,

add to that the even more frustrating logic that should the game be tied at the end of 180 minutes and the way goals rule not coming in to play, they would have an extra 30 minutes of this double goal advantage with which to get the result they need.

to me, it was apparent that having this extra 30 minutes of double goal eligibility was a much much bigger advantage than simply being at home for an extra 30 minutes.

essentially, i just think the rule gives too greater advantage to the team playing at home first - firstly it allows them the opportunity to control the game in the first leg more easily (being at home) - surely the best result in a home first leg is to keep a clean sheet, and then of course they have a greater opportunity to adjust their game plan in the second leg, knowing how many away goals they need in the second leg to advance without necessarily winning on aggregate. and of course, potentially having an extra 30 minutes to do so.

after 180 the two teams were inseparable, in extra time both teams scored, however the away team was rewarded by being given an 'extra goal' and proceeded to shut up shop - and the only advantage liverpool had was to be in front of their own fans - i know which 'advantage' i would prefer.

maybe i'm wrong, maybe someone can try to convince me of the merit of the system, but tonight i only witnessed it doing the opposite of what it was designed to encourage,

[Anish]

You're talking like it's easy to score away goals. It's not, which is why it is such a precious commodity. Liverpool had an extra 30 minutes of ET at home - that advantage was guaranteed after the game finished 1-0. There was no guarantee or certainty that Atletico would score, so you can't compare the two. Atletico earned their 'double goal' by attacking and scoring when the odds were against them at 2-0 down away from home.

The fact is Liverpool had the opportunity to grab an away goal last week but failed, whereas Atletico did score an away goal. So what if they had 30 minutes of extra "double-goal eligibility", Liverpool had 30 minutes of home advantage and didn't make it count.

Another thing - if the game had finished 1-0 to Liverpool and went to penalties - would you be complaining that the penalties should not be taken at Anfield but at some neutral ground? Because the next step in your argument is that both teams had 90 minutes to take an advantage but couldn't do so, so why should the team at home in the 2nd leg have the advantage of penalties at their ground.

We all know the rules beforehand. The team playing at home in the second leg has a huge advantage - the crowd roaring them on knowing exactly what they need to win the tie. That's clearly not the case for the home team in the first leg.

[Koke]

During the Manure/Bayern game, my mum came up with this pretty decent idea actually. It might sound crazy to some but I thought it was a decent suggestion. She said if it's a draw then how about we use less and less players in extra-time. Start extra-time with 9 v 9, every 5 minutes both teams lose another player. After 15 minutes its 7 v 7 with lots of space, someone will eventually score without a doubt.

It's not perfect, but honestly it's better then penalties. A lot of football will be played, end to end stuff, and in the end its still football, and not lottery pens. It's actually not a bad idea tbh.

Only in football can you actually have teams going through without winning.

[StanSP]

Scrap away goals and go straight to penalties.

[Lillehamring]

You're talking like it's easy to score away goals. It's not, which is why it is such a precious commodity. Liverpool had an extra 30 minutes of ET at home - that advantage was guaranteed after the game finished 1-0. There was no guarantee or certainty that Atletico would score, so you can't compare the two. Atletico earned their 'double goal' by attacking and scoring when the odds were against them at 2-0 down away from home.

it can be tho, some teams play better away from home, so i can't see that it is 'guaranteed' to be an advantage, and atletico as far as i could see only really started attacking when they had too, and all the time knowing that they only had to match liverpool's score in OT to go through - thus the pressure was always much greater on liverpool and, whilst playing at home is usually easier, i still don't see that it is an equal level of advantage to being gifted an extra goal

teams are used to playing at home and away, but only in these situations do they have to deal with this bizarre 'double goal'

The fact is Liverpool had the opportunity to grab an away goal last week but failed, whereas Atletico did score an away goal. So what if they had 30 minutes of extra "double-goal eligibility", Liverpool had 30 minutes of home advantage and didn't make it count.

i didn't see the away leg, so can't comment on that specific game, but as i said, and if we accept the logic that playing at home is easier, then the home team in the first leg have the motivation to keep it tight, rather than going all out attack - it isn't very often you see evenly matched teams running up high scores in the first legs

Another thing - if the game had finished 1-0 to Liverpool and went to penalties - would you be complaining that the penalties should not be taken at Anfield but at some neutral ground? Because the next step in your argument is that both teams had 90 minutes to take an advantage but couldn't do so, so why should the team at home in the 2nd leg have the advantage of penalties at their ground.

well, that's a moot point - the situation would be the same with or without the away goals rule - i'm sure plenty of teams lose peno shoot outs at home even now

We all know the rules beforehand. The team playing at home in the second leg has a huge advantage - the crowd roaring them on knowing exactly what they need to win the tie. That's clearly not the case for the home team in the first leg.

[FoxyPV]

I don't think away goals should count. It doesn't seem to make that much of a difference in the way teams play.

Kareem - I like you mum's idea- would you have rolling subs for extra time? Would one of the first people to come off be the keepers?

[ScouseFox]

Scrap away goals and go straight to penalties.

This.

If it's level at the end of two legs, penalties.

[SirBlueFoxington]

Bring back golden goal!

And none of that silver goal bollocks.

[Brainy]

I dont think away goals should count after 180 minutes. I can understand the argument that the home-team has an advantage of having an extra 30 minutes to score, but I think it's a bigger advantage for the away team to score one goal that effectively means double.

[Fosse Fox]

...

[Fosse Fox]

ok, so i've been watching (fairly) neutrally the liverpool atletico game this evening and, as a non-partisan viewer and sports fan, i kind of feel cheated by the result.

now, as far as i understand, the only reason for the away goals rule is to encourage the away team to attack, however because of the result in the first leg it seemed to me that the away team tonight were doing anything but that, knowing as they did that they could (as proved to be the case) afford to lose 2-1 and still win,

add to that the even more frustrating logic that should the game be tied at the end of 180 minutes and the way goals rule not coming in to play, they would have an extra 30 minutes of this double goal advantage with which to get the result they need.

to me, it was apparent that having this extra 30 minutes of double goal eligibility was a much much bigger advantage than simply being at home for an extra 30 minutes.

essentially, i just think the rule gives too greater advantage to the team playing at home first - firstly it allows them the opportunity to control the game in the first leg more easily (being at home) - surely the best result in a home first leg is to keep a clean sheet, and then of course they have a greater opportunity to adjust their game plan in the second leg, knowing how many away goals they need in the second leg to advance without necessarily winning on aggregate. and of course, potentially having an extra 30 minutes to do so.

after 180 the two teams were inseparable, in extra time both teams scored, however the away team was rewarded by being given an 'extra goal' and proceeded to shut up shop - and the only advantage liverpool had was to be in front of their own fans - i know which 'advantage' i would prefer.

maybe i'm wrong, maybe someone can try to convince me of the merit of the system, but tonight i only witnessed it doing the opposite of what it was designed to encourage,

Strange, I could have sworn that I tagged you earlier today as a Scouse shite in disguise who would never had made public his private grief if the Anusfielders had gone through on the away goals rule.

I could also have sworn that Fulham reached a UEFA final yesterday but the underwhelming media reaction means it's probably just silly old me imagining things again.

Can't think why though

[Tilley]

I like away goals, no point in changing it.