100 pct.
It probably was useful back in the 60s, but nowadays it makes the home team so defensive in the 1st leg.
I hated it after we went out of the ECWC to Åtvidaberg to it in 1972!
The problem I see with scraping it, is that it's a disincentive for teams to attack away from home, especially if it's the away leg 1st.
A bit of the polar opposite of LG's point!
Which is the worse to two evils?
And I don't see a better way of avoiding going to the lottery of a penalty shoot out!
Knockout games should be played in neutral venues.
One game, not two legs
comment by Chelsea_badger (U22493)
posted 2 hours, 40 minutes ago
Knockout games should be played in neutral venues.
One game, not two legs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. Though I suspect if UEFA ever agrees, they would increase ticket prices to cover the shortfall in earning losses over the two legs.
The clubs won't like it...lower gates, the fans won't like it less football..Missing home fan support as well...plus having to travel to see own team not being able to support at home. The media will not support a change to single neutral venue either.
Whats wrong with discussing this on the already on going thread?
I think at the time it was introduced it was probably merited, but I believe football has evolved and ironically I think the rule now causes teams to be too cautious.
********************
This is patently wrong.
The away goal rule was introduced BECAUSE teams were playing too cautiously away from home.
Games got very boring because away teams simply parked the bus.
The away goals rule opened games up and made them worth watching.
Football tactics evolved because of that rule.
Football needs that rule!
Then they can get rid of all group games, country protection, no CL teams dropping into the Europa. Straight two leg ties from the off in all European competitions as it used to be, until the money men changed it to favour the bigger clubs.
Three leg knockout ties is the answer.
Play home and away then a third game at neutral venue. Winner on aggregate goes through.
comment by Tway (U1162)
posted 3 hours, 34 minutes ago
The clubs won't like it...lower gates, the fans won't like it less football..Missing home fan support as well...plus having to travel to see own team not being able to support at home. The media will not support a change to single neutral venue either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My three leg knockout style will make all these people very happy.
More gates more football more money for media.
I am such a genius. Sometimes I outdo myself.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - The Artist Formerly Known as Prince (U1282)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Tway (U1162)
posted 3 hours, 34 minutes ago
The clubs won't like it...lower gates, the fans won't like it less football..Missing home fan support as well...plus having to travel to see own team not being able to support at home. The media will not support a change to single neutral venue either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My three leg knockout style will make all these people very happy.
More gates more football more money for media.
I am such a genius. Sometimes I outdo myself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------You are! Did you send this idea to UEFA + media?
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 3 hours, 47 minutes ago
I think at the time it was introduced it was probably merited, but I believe football has evolved and ironically I think the rule now causes teams to be too cautious.
********************
This is patently wrong.
The away goal rule was introduced BECAUSE teams were playing too cautiously away from home.
Games got very boring because away teams simply parked the bus.
The away goals rule opened games up and made them worth watching.
Football tactics evolved because of that rule.
Football needs that rule!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know why it was brought in, but football has evved since then. Many more teams are very skilled at counter attack football now and that has led to home teams being too cautious. I believe we will see more goals if they scrap the rule.
It is also a flawed rule in that it gives unfair advantage to the team playing away in the 2nd leg icthe tie goes to ET.
The scenarios created by the away goal rule are also unnatural at times.
For example a team draws 1 1 away from home and there scores first in the home 2 nd leg. There is actually no change to the dynamic of the match.
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 3 hours, 47 minutes ago
I think at the time it was introduced it was probably merited, but I believe football has evolved and ironically I think the rule now causes teams to be too cautious.
********************
This is patently wrong.
The away goal rule was introduced BECAUSE teams were playing too cautiously away from home.
Games got very boring because away teams simply parked the bus.
The away goals rule opened games up and made them worth watching.
Football tactics evolved because of that rule.
Football needs that rule!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know why it was brought in, but football has evved since then. Many more teams are very skilled at counter attack football now and that has led to home teams being too cautious. I believe we will see more goals if they scrap the rule.
It is also a flawed rule in that it gives unfair advantage to the team playing away in the 2nd leg icthe tie goes to ET.
The scenarios created by the away goal rule are also unnatural at times.
For example a team draws 1 1 away from home and there scores first in the home 2 nd leg. There is actually no change to the dynamic of the match.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no advantage either way.
What you are saying would apply in an y match where the team that scores the first goal then parks the bus.
There are always imponderables in football, but they can happen to either side.
What is critical is that the away goals rule saved football from the monotony of defensive tactics.
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 3 hours, 47 minutes ago
I think at the time it was introduced it was probably merited, but I believe football has evolved and ironically I think the rule now causes teams to be too cautious.
********************
This is patently wrong.
The away goal rule was introduced BECAUSE teams were playing too cautiously away from home.
Games got very boring because away teams simply parked the bus.
The away goals rule opened games up and made them worth watching.
Football tactics evolved because of that rule.
Football needs that rule!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know why it was brought in, but football has evved since then. Many more teams are very skilled at counter attack football now and that has led to home teams being too cautious. I believe we will see more goals if they scrap the rule.
It is also a flawed rule in that it gives unfair advantage to the team playing away in the 2nd leg icthe tie goes to ET.
The scenarios created by the away goal rule are also unnatural at times.
For example a team draws 1 1 away from home and there scores first in the home 2 nd leg. There is actually no change to the dynamic of the match.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no advantage either way.
What you are saying would apply in an y match where the team that scores the first goal then parks the bus.
There are always imponderables in football, but they can happen to either side.
What is critical is that the away goals rule saved football from the monotony of defensive tactics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time it did do that,that is why I said it was merited. Now I belive the opposite happens. For example the home team objective becomes not to concede. This has become an evolving trend,even more so if the home team scores first.
I think we will see teams play more naturally if this unnatural rule is removed.
You claim it gives an unfair advantage to the team playing in the second leg, but in reality stats show thay the team who are home in the second leg have an advantage. This is why the reward for topping the group is being home second leg. Remove the away goal rule and the team that are home second leg will have a greater advantage because they can park the bus for a 0-0.
Since the away goal rule only impacts games that end as a draw, the only outcome is more extra time.
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 3 hours, 47 minutes ago
I think at the time it was introduced it was probably merited, but I believe football has evolved and ironically I think the rule now causes teams to be too cautious.
********************
This is patently wrong.
The away goal rule was introduced BECAUSE teams were playing too cautiously away from home.
Games got very boring because away teams simply parked the bus.
The away goals rule opened games up and made them worth watching.
Football tactics evolved because of that rule.
Football needs that rule!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know why it was brought in, but football has evved since then. Many more teams are very skilled at counter attack football now and that has led to home teams being too cautious. I believe we will see more goals if they scrap the rule.
It is also a flawed rule in that it gives unfair advantage to the team playing away in the 2nd leg icthe tie goes to ET.
The scenarios created by the away goal rule are also unnatural at times.
For example a team draws 1 1 away from home and there scores first in the home 2 nd leg. There is actually no change to the dynamic of the match.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no advantage either way.
What you are saying would apply in an y match where the team that scores the first goal then parks the bus.
There are always imponderables in football, but they can happen to either side.
What is critical is that the away goals rule saved football from the monotony of defensive tactics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time it did do that,that is why I said it was merited. Now I belive the opposite happens. For example the home team objective becomes not to concede. This has become an evolving trend,even more so if the home team scores first.
I think we will see teams play more naturally if this unnatural rule is removed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might well think that......but teams will probably go back to the good old park the bus again.
Football reall has not "evolved" very much. It simply goes through cycles.
The away rule stops one horrible cycle from happening again.
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 3 hours, 47 minutes ago
I think at the time it was introduced it was probably merited, but I believe football has evolved and ironically I think the rule now causes teams to be too cautious.
********************
This is patently wrong.
The away goal rule was introduced BECAUSE teams were playing too cautiously away from home.
Games got very boring because away teams simply parked the bus.
The away goals rule opened games up and made them worth watching.
Football tactics evolved because of that rule.
Football needs that rule!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know why it was brought in, but football has evved since then. Many more teams are very skilled at counter attack football now and that has led to home teams being too cautious. I believe we will see more goals if they scrap the rule.
It is also a flawed rule in that it gives unfair advantage to the team playing away in the 2nd leg icthe tie goes to ET.
The scenarios created by the away goal rule are also unnatural at times.
For example a team draws 1 1 away from home and there scores first in the home 2 nd leg. There is actually no change to the dynamic of the match.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no advantage either way.
What you are saying would apply in an y match where the team that scores the first goal then parks the bus.
There are always imponderables in football, but they can happen to either side.
What is critical is that the away goals rule saved football from the monotony of defensive tactics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time it did do that,that is why I said it was merited. Now I belive the opposite happens. For example the home team objective becomes not to concede. This has become an evolving trend,even more so if the home team scores first.
I think we will see teams play more naturally if this unnatural rule is removed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might well think that......but teams will probably go back to the good old park the bus again.
Football reall has not "evolved" very much. It simply goes through cycles.
The away rule stops one horrible cycle from happening again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could be right, just have no certainty that scrapping the rule will work out,I just feel like it will.
comment by LustyMonc (U22632)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - The Artist Formerly Known as Prince (U1282)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Tway (U1162)
posted 3 hours, 34 minutes ago
The clubs won't like it...lower gates, the fans won't like it less football..Missing home fan support as well...plus having to travel to see own team not being able to support at home. The media will not support a change to single neutral venue either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My three leg knockout style will make all these people very happy.
More gates more football more money for media.
I am such a genius. Sometimes I outdo myself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------You are! Did you send this idea to UEFA + media?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a great idea. I'll do it now.
I don't think removing it will have any impact on the way teams set out. More often than not, the underdog will be incredibly cautious for the 180 minutes anyway and often with away goals, the home team is afraid of conceding.
However, at least it means that if two teams finish level, one won't progress without anything actually splitting the teams
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 16 minutes ago
I don't think removing it will have any impact on the way teams set out. More often than not, the underdog will be incredibly cautious for the 180 minutes anyway and often with away goals, the home team is afraid of conceding.
However, at least it means that if two teams finish level, one won't progress without anything actually splitting the teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yeah...its hard to make a good argument that beating a team 3 1 away from home is better than beating a team 2 0 away from home.
At least penalties are a teat of skill, courage and mental strength.
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 16 minutes ago
I don't think removing it will have any impact on the way teams set out. More often than not, the underdog will be incredibly cautious for the 180 minutes anyway and often with away goals, the home team is afraid of conceding.
However, at least it means that if two teams finish level, one won't progress without anything actually splitting the teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yeah...its hard to make a good argument that beating a team 3 1 away from home is better than beating a team 2 0 away from home.
At least penalties are a teat of skill, courage and mental strength.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a pretty easy argument to make. Scoring 3 away from home is harder than scoring 1 at home and 2 away.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 16 minutes ago
I don't think removing it will have any impact on the way teams set out. More often than not, the underdog will be incredibly cautious for the 180 minutes anyway and often with away goals, the home team is afraid of conceding.
However, at least it means that if two teams finish level, one won't progress without anything actually splitting the teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yeah...its hard to make a good argument that beating a team 3 1 away from home is better than beating a team 2 0 away from home.
At least penalties are a teat of skill, courage and mental strength.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a pretty easy argument to make. Scoring 3 away from home is harder than scoring 1 at home and 2 away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in this scenario, the team that scored 3 away wouldn't have scored any at home. So not that much easier, huh?
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 16 minutes ago
I don't think removing it will have any impact on the way teams set out. More often than not, the underdog will be incredibly cautious for the 180 minutes anyway and often with away goals, the home team is afraid of conceding.
However, at least it means that if two teams finish level, one won't progress without anything actually splitting the teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yeah...its hard to make a good argument that beating a team 3 1 away from home is better than beating a team 2 0 away from home.
At least penalties are a teat of skill, courage and mental strength.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a pretty easy argument to make. Scoring 3 away from home is harder than scoring 1 at home and 2 away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in this scenario, the team that scored 3 away wouldn't have scored any at home. So not that much easier, huh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But would also have only conceded 2 at home. 3 - 1 is always considered a better result than 2 - 0. Even in league football having a higher number of goals scored is better.
"3-1 is always considered a better score than 2-0." No it isn't 🤣. The only reason it ever would be is because of the daft and illogical away goals rule. The point is that over 180 minutes you haven't scored more
There’s been about a billion well written articles proving why the away goal rule is so brilliant and why you are so painfully wrong.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 16 minutes ago
I don't think removing it will have any impact on the way teams set out. More often than not, the underdog will be incredibly cautious for the 180 minutes anyway and often with away goals, the home team is afraid of conceding.
However, at least it means that if two teams finish level, one won't progress without anything actually splitting the teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yeah...its hard to make a good argument that beating a team 3 1 away from home is better than beating a team 2 0 away from home.
At least penalties are a teat of skill, courage and mental strength.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a pretty easy argument to make. Scoring 3 away from home is harder than scoring 1 at home and 2 away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are saying a team that wins 2 away but loses 3 1 at home is obviously the inferior side?
Sign in if you want to comment
Away you goal
Page 1 of 2
posted on 28/5/21
100 pct.
It probably was useful back in the 60s, but nowadays it makes the home team so defensive in the 1st leg.
posted on 28/5/21
I hated it after we went out of the ECWC to Åtvidaberg to it in 1972!
The problem I see with scraping it, is that it's a disincentive for teams to attack away from home, especially if it's the away leg 1st.
A bit of the polar opposite of LG's point!
Which is the worse to two evils?
And I don't see a better way of avoiding going to the lottery of a penalty shoot out!
posted on 29/5/21
Knockout games should be played in neutral venues.
One game, not two legs
posted on 29/5/21
comment by Chelsea_badger (U22493)
posted 2 hours, 40 minutes ago
Knockout games should be played in neutral venues.
One game, not two legs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. Though I suspect if UEFA ever agrees, they would increase ticket prices to cover the shortfall in earning losses over the two legs.
posted on 29/5/21
The clubs won't like it...lower gates, the fans won't like it less football..Missing home fan support as well...plus having to travel to see own team not being able to support at home. The media will not support a change to single neutral venue either.
Whats wrong with discussing this on the already on going thread?
posted on 29/5/21
I think at the time it was introduced it was probably merited, but I believe football has evolved and ironically I think the rule now causes teams to be too cautious.
********************
This is patently wrong.
The away goal rule was introduced BECAUSE teams were playing too cautiously away from home.
Games got very boring because away teams simply parked the bus.
The away goals rule opened games up and made them worth watching.
Football tactics evolved because of that rule.
Football needs that rule!
posted on 29/5/21
Then they can get rid of all group games, country protection, no CL teams dropping into the Europa. Straight two leg ties from the off in all European competitions as it used to be, until the money men changed it to favour the bigger clubs.
posted on 29/5/21
Three leg knockout ties is the answer.
Play home and away then a third game at neutral venue. Winner on aggregate goes through.
posted on 29/5/21
comment by Tway (U1162)
posted 3 hours, 34 minutes ago
The clubs won't like it...lower gates, the fans won't like it less football..Missing home fan support as well...plus having to travel to see own team not being able to support at home. The media will not support a change to single neutral venue either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My three leg knockout style will make all these people very happy.
More gates more football more money for media.
I am such a genius. Sometimes I outdo myself.
posted on 29/5/21
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - The Artist Formerly Known as Prince (U1282)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Tway (U1162)
posted 3 hours, 34 minutes ago
The clubs won't like it...lower gates, the fans won't like it less football..Missing home fan support as well...plus having to travel to see own team not being able to support at home. The media will not support a change to single neutral venue either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My three leg knockout style will make all these people very happy.
More gates more football more money for media.
I am such a genius. Sometimes I outdo myself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------You are! Did you send this idea to UEFA + media?
posted on 29/5/21
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 3 hours, 47 minutes ago
I think at the time it was introduced it was probably merited, but I believe football has evolved and ironically I think the rule now causes teams to be too cautious.
********************
This is patently wrong.
The away goal rule was introduced BECAUSE teams were playing too cautiously away from home.
Games got very boring because away teams simply parked the bus.
The away goals rule opened games up and made them worth watching.
Football tactics evolved because of that rule.
Football needs that rule!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know why it was brought in, but football has evved since then. Many more teams are very skilled at counter attack football now and that has led to home teams being too cautious. I believe we will see more goals if they scrap the rule.
It is also a flawed rule in that it gives unfair advantage to the team playing away in the 2nd leg icthe tie goes to ET.
The scenarios created by the away goal rule are also unnatural at times.
For example a team draws 1 1 away from home and there scores first in the home 2 nd leg. There is actually no change to the dynamic of the match.
posted on 29/5/21
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 3 hours, 47 minutes ago
I think at the time it was introduced it was probably merited, but I believe football has evolved and ironically I think the rule now causes teams to be too cautious.
********************
This is patently wrong.
The away goal rule was introduced BECAUSE teams were playing too cautiously away from home.
Games got very boring because away teams simply parked the bus.
The away goals rule opened games up and made them worth watching.
Football tactics evolved because of that rule.
Football needs that rule!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know why it was brought in, but football has evved since then. Many more teams are very skilled at counter attack football now and that has led to home teams being too cautious. I believe we will see more goals if they scrap the rule.
It is also a flawed rule in that it gives unfair advantage to the team playing away in the 2nd leg icthe tie goes to ET.
The scenarios created by the away goal rule are also unnatural at times.
For example a team draws 1 1 away from home and there scores first in the home 2 nd leg. There is actually no change to the dynamic of the match.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no advantage either way.
What you are saying would apply in an y match where the team that scores the first goal then parks the bus.
There are always imponderables in football, but they can happen to either side.
What is critical is that the away goals rule saved football from the monotony of defensive tactics.
posted on 29/5/21
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 3 hours, 47 minutes ago
I think at the time it was introduced it was probably merited, but I believe football has evolved and ironically I think the rule now causes teams to be too cautious.
********************
This is patently wrong.
The away goal rule was introduced BECAUSE teams were playing too cautiously away from home.
Games got very boring because away teams simply parked the bus.
The away goals rule opened games up and made them worth watching.
Football tactics evolved because of that rule.
Football needs that rule!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know why it was brought in, but football has evved since then. Many more teams are very skilled at counter attack football now and that has led to home teams being too cautious. I believe we will see more goals if they scrap the rule.
It is also a flawed rule in that it gives unfair advantage to the team playing away in the 2nd leg icthe tie goes to ET.
The scenarios created by the away goal rule are also unnatural at times.
For example a team draws 1 1 away from home and there scores first in the home 2 nd leg. There is actually no change to the dynamic of the match.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no advantage either way.
What you are saying would apply in an y match where the team that scores the first goal then parks the bus.
There are always imponderables in football, but they can happen to either side.
What is critical is that the away goals rule saved football from the monotony of defensive tactics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time it did do that,that is why I said it was merited. Now I belive the opposite happens. For example the home team objective becomes not to concede. This has become an evolving trend,even more so if the home team scores first.
I think we will see teams play more naturally if this unnatural rule is removed.
posted on 29/5/21
You claim it gives an unfair advantage to the team playing in the second leg, but in reality stats show thay the team who are home in the second leg have an advantage. This is why the reward for topping the group is being home second leg. Remove the away goal rule and the team that are home second leg will have a greater advantage because they can park the bus for a 0-0.
Since the away goal rule only impacts games that end as a draw, the only outcome is more extra time.
posted on 29/5/21
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 3 hours, 47 minutes ago
I think at the time it was introduced it was probably merited, but I believe football has evolved and ironically I think the rule now causes teams to be too cautious.
********************
This is patently wrong.
The away goal rule was introduced BECAUSE teams were playing too cautiously away from home.
Games got very boring because away teams simply parked the bus.
The away goals rule opened games up and made them worth watching.
Football tactics evolved because of that rule.
Football needs that rule!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know why it was brought in, but football has evved since then. Many more teams are very skilled at counter attack football now and that has led to home teams being too cautious. I believe we will see more goals if they scrap the rule.
It is also a flawed rule in that it gives unfair advantage to the team playing away in the 2nd leg icthe tie goes to ET.
The scenarios created by the away goal rule are also unnatural at times.
For example a team draws 1 1 away from home and there scores first in the home 2 nd leg. There is actually no change to the dynamic of the match.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no advantage either way.
What you are saying would apply in an y match where the team that scores the first goal then parks the bus.
There are always imponderables in football, but they can happen to either side.
What is critical is that the away goals rule saved football from the monotony of defensive tactics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time it did do that,that is why I said it was merited. Now I belive the opposite happens. For example the home team objective becomes not to concede. This has become an evolving trend,even more so if the home team scores first.
I think we will see teams play more naturally if this unnatural rule is removed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might well think that......but teams will probably go back to the good old park the bus again.
Football reall has not "evolved" very much. It simply goes through cycles.
The away rule stops one horrible cycle from happening again.
posted on 29/5/21
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 3 hours, 47 minutes ago
I think at the time it was introduced it was probably merited, but I believe football has evolved and ironically I think the rule now causes teams to be too cautious.
********************
This is patently wrong.
The away goal rule was introduced BECAUSE teams were playing too cautiously away from home.
Games got very boring because away teams simply parked the bus.
The away goals rule opened games up and made them worth watching.
Football tactics evolved because of that rule.
Football needs that rule!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know why it was brought in, but football has evved since then. Many more teams are very skilled at counter attack football now and that has led to home teams being too cautious. I believe we will see more goals if they scrap the rule.
It is also a flawed rule in that it gives unfair advantage to the team playing away in the 2nd leg icthe tie goes to ET.
The scenarios created by the away goal rule are also unnatural at times.
For example a team draws 1 1 away from home and there scores first in the home 2 nd leg. There is actually no change to the dynamic of the match.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no advantage either way.
What you are saying would apply in an y match where the team that scores the first goal then parks the bus.
There are always imponderables in football, but they can happen to either side.
What is critical is that the away goals rule saved football from the monotony of defensive tactics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time it did do that,that is why I said it was merited. Now I belive the opposite happens. For example the home team objective becomes not to concede. This has become an evolving trend,even more so if the home team scores first.
I think we will see teams play more naturally if this unnatural rule is removed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might well think that......but teams will probably go back to the good old park the bus again.
Football reall has not "evolved" very much. It simply goes through cycles.
The away rule stops one horrible cycle from happening again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could be right, just have no certainty that scrapping the rule will work out,I just feel like it will.
posted on 29/5/21
comment by LustyMonc (U22632)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - The Artist Formerly Known as Prince (U1282)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Tway (U1162)
posted 3 hours, 34 minutes ago
The clubs won't like it...lower gates, the fans won't like it less football..Missing home fan support as well...plus having to travel to see own team not being able to support at home. The media will not support a change to single neutral venue either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My three leg knockout style will make all these people very happy.
More gates more football more money for media.
I am such a genius. Sometimes I outdo myself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------You are! Did you send this idea to UEFA + media?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a great idea. I'll do it now.
posted on 29/5/21
I don't think removing it will have any impact on the way teams set out. More often than not, the underdog will be incredibly cautious for the 180 minutes anyway and often with away goals, the home team is afraid of conceding.
However, at least it means that if two teams finish level, one won't progress without anything actually splitting the teams
posted on 29/5/21
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 16 minutes ago
I don't think removing it will have any impact on the way teams set out. More often than not, the underdog will be incredibly cautious for the 180 minutes anyway and often with away goals, the home team is afraid of conceding.
However, at least it means that if two teams finish level, one won't progress without anything actually splitting the teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yeah...its hard to make a good argument that beating a team 3 1 away from home is better than beating a team 2 0 away from home.
At least penalties are a teat of skill, courage and mental strength.
posted on 29/5/21
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 16 minutes ago
I don't think removing it will have any impact on the way teams set out. More often than not, the underdog will be incredibly cautious for the 180 minutes anyway and often with away goals, the home team is afraid of conceding.
However, at least it means that if two teams finish level, one won't progress without anything actually splitting the teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yeah...its hard to make a good argument that beating a team 3 1 away from home is better than beating a team 2 0 away from home.
At least penalties are a teat of skill, courage and mental strength.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a pretty easy argument to make. Scoring 3 away from home is harder than scoring 1 at home and 2 away.
posted on 29/5/21
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 16 minutes ago
I don't think removing it will have any impact on the way teams set out. More often than not, the underdog will be incredibly cautious for the 180 minutes anyway and often with away goals, the home team is afraid of conceding.
However, at least it means that if two teams finish level, one won't progress without anything actually splitting the teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yeah...its hard to make a good argument that beating a team 3 1 away from home is better than beating a team 2 0 away from home.
At least penalties are a teat of skill, courage and mental strength.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a pretty easy argument to make. Scoring 3 away from home is harder than scoring 1 at home and 2 away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in this scenario, the team that scored 3 away wouldn't have scored any at home. So not that much easier, huh?
posted on 29/5/21
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 16 minutes ago
I don't think removing it will have any impact on the way teams set out. More often than not, the underdog will be incredibly cautious for the 180 minutes anyway and often with away goals, the home team is afraid of conceding.
However, at least it means that if two teams finish level, one won't progress without anything actually splitting the teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yeah...its hard to make a good argument that beating a team 3 1 away from home is better than beating a team 2 0 away from home.
At least penalties are a teat of skill, courage and mental strength.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a pretty easy argument to make. Scoring 3 away from home is harder than scoring 1 at home and 2 away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in this scenario, the team that scored 3 away wouldn't have scored any at home. So not that much easier, huh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But would also have only conceded 2 at home. 3 - 1 is always considered a better result than 2 - 0. Even in league football having a higher number of goals scored is better.
posted on 29/5/21
"3-1 is always considered a better score than 2-0." No it isn't 🤣. The only reason it ever would be is because of the daft and illogical away goals rule. The point is that over 180 minutes you haven't scored more
posted on 29/5/21
There’s been about a billion well written articles proving why the away goal rule is so brilliant and why you are so painfully wrong.
posted on 29/5/21
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 16 minutes ago
I don't think removing it will have any impact on the way teams set out. More often than not, the underdog will be incredibly cautious for the 180 minutes anyway and often with away goals, the home team is afraid of conceding.
However, at least it means that if two teams finish level, one won't progress without anything actually splitting the teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yeah...its hard to make a good argument that beating a team 3 1 away from home is better than beating a team 2 0 away from home.
At least penalties are a teat of skill, courage and mental strength.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a pretty easy argument to make. Scoring 3 away from home is harder than scoring 1 at home and 2 away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are saying a team that wins 2 away but loses 3 1 at home is obviously the inferior side?
Page 1 of 2