Away Goals rule

[northbank123]

Right, really scraping the Bank Holiday barrel here for discussion but I was watching the League One play-offs and couldn't help but to think how a great game in Bradford v Swindon wouldn't have been anywhere near as good had that rule applied.

It's fucked me off for a long time and I personally would love to see this rule scrapped, certainly in the CL where it plays such a huge role. It annoys me that a lucky away goal in the first 5 minutes of a tie that lasts 180 minutes has such a disproportionate impact on the tie as a whole. I don't see why a goal scored away should be worth more in knockout but not in league format. And the situation with away goals and extra time is a mess.

The biggest argument put forward in favour of the rule is that otherwise away teams would set up for 0-0s and we'd get boring games. I simply don't buy this. Firstly, I think teams would know the dangers of playing too negatively away from home and if you watch CL football there are loads of teams that set up ridiculously defensively anyway. Secondly, I think any supposed entertainment benefits are wiped out by home teams encouraged to play more negative football to aspire to protect their clean sheet.

Worse than that, the rule ruins too many ties after 90 minutes. With the rule that supposedly rewards endeavour, a home team losing a 3-2 thriller is more or less out of the competition. Without the rule, they may still face an uphill task but are by no means out of it. Imo it's ridiculous that in over 20 years of the modern CL only 2 sides have lost at home first leg then progressed, and only 3 sides in European Cup history before that. Instead of making for exciting knockout football, it serves to increase the predictability of a competition that for the most part is already a bloated borefest.

[g88ner]

It doesn't sit well with me either, as it's a rule designed to make it more entertaining for the audience even though it's not entirely fair from a purely sporting perspective.

How on earth can it be right that when both teams score the same number of goals over 180 minutes, that one is deemed worthy of progressing and the other punished by elimination? - and I'm not really convinced that winning 3-1 away is any better than winning 2-0, and that winning 5-2 away is more worthy of progression than 4-1...

I'm not suggesting a rule change though, as I haven't looked at the evidence. Perhaps 2 leg ties with no away goals are statistically lower scoring and less entertaining? - I assume there must be evidence to support this, otherwise why use away goals in the first place?

[northbank123]

It doesn't sit well with me either, as it's a rule designed to make it more entertaining for the audience even though it's not entirely fair from a purely sporting perspective.

How on earth can it be right that when both teams score the same number of goals over 180 minutes, that one is deemed worthy of progressing and the other punished by elimination? - and I'm not really convinced that winning 3-1 away is any better than winning 2-0, and that winning 5-2 away is more worthy of progression than 4-1...

I'm not suggesting a rule change though, as I haven't looked at the evidence. Perhaps 2 leg ties with no away goals are statistically lower scoring and less entertaining? - I assume there must be evidence to support this, otherwise why use away goals in the first place?

Just looked it up and it's been used since 1968 in the European Cup so not really going to be any evidence for or against. Hardly high on UEFA's list of priorities but it does piss me off. Might be hard to argue we deserved to go through over 180 minutes but given that we drew 3-3 with Bayern is it fair that they're essentially rewarded ahead of us for playing such a negative, boring game in the second leg?

[Clash]

Nice post and I totally agree with you NB123. I've wanted the away goals rule scrapped for a few years now.

I remember us drawing 2-2 at home to Villa in 1996 in the Lge cup semi but going out on away goals after a 0-0 draw at Villa Park. That was when I realised the argument that this rule encouraged teams to attack was out of dayte because all Villa did at home was defend. And for 120 minutes as the away goals rule only applied after extra time.

Another painful one was losing 1-0 at Valencia after a 2-1 home win.

I think it was a good idea when it was introduced (and far better than settling ties with the toss of a coin) but it ruins far more games now than it enhances and whats wrong with the concept of the team who scores the most goals going through?

I would also add that its debatable whether or not its actually more difficult to score away from home anymore. Many teams play in on the counter attack and stadiums are not as intimidating for visiting players or referees anymore either.

Im not a massive fan of penalty shoot outs but if the scores are level after two legs then thats a fair enough way to settle a tie I think.

[northbank123]

Nice post and I totally agree with you NB123. I've wanted the away goals rule scrapped for a few years now.

I remember us drawing 2-2 at home to Villa in 1996 in the Lge cup semi but going out on away goals after a 0-0 draw at Villa Park. That was when I realised the argument that this rule encouraged teams to attack was out of dayte because all Villa did at home was defend. And for 120 minutes as the away goals rule only applied after extra time.

Another painful one was losing 1-0 at Valencia after a 2-1 home win.

I think it was a good idea when it was introduced (and far better than settling ties with the toss of a coin) but it ruins far more games now than it enhances and whats wrong with the concept of the team who scores the most goals going through?

I would also add that its debatable whether or not its actually more difficult to score away from home anymore. Many teams play in on the counter attack and stadiums are not as intimidating for visiting players or referees anymore either.

Im not a massive fan of penalty shoot outs but if the scores are level after two legs then thats a fair enough way to settle a tie I think.

Exactly the sort of tie that I don't think benefited from that rule. We went 1-0 down to an Ayala goal (I think) at Highbury and from thereon we were always walking a tightrope. Even though we fought back well on the night and turned it round and kept Valencia out for nearly the whole match out there we were always on the verge of crashing out, and one lapse of concentration did for us. It hardly encouraged free-flowing football as we ended up playing for a 0-0 while they played for a 1-0 out there. Similarly when we played Villarreal in the semi-final second leg we played for a 0-0 and they knew they couldn't afford to concede due to the away goals rule - sure enough an absolutely dreadful game took place.

[LeGinge (Northern Branch)]

I seem to remember hearing that the main reason for the introduction was to reduce the possible outcomes that leading to extra time and or penalties as it's statistically less likely to have the same score home and away as the same 'result'

This might be nonsense, can't remember where I heard it...

[GranadaJoe]

And if it wasn't for the away goals rule this season we'd have beaten Munich, thrashed Barca 7-0 on aggregate and be favourites at Wembley.

It'd be interesting to know how many times we'd benefitted v suffered as a result of the rule.

[Bradywasking]

Another argument against away goals is if the teams finish level after 180 minutes then the home team in the second leg have a distinct advantage for extra time and possible penalties. In the League Cup the away goals rule does not come into play until the end of extra time in the second leg, which I think is fairer.

[TheCook]

What idiot decided to bring Geograpy into it? A goal is a goal

[Goonuz71]

Slightly off topic...but do away with penalty shoot outs and go with either the team with most shots on target or the team thats won the most corners over both legs ( should prove who was the most attacking side )

[I Hate Hleb]

Couldn't think of a worse idea!! Shots on goal could include harmless skuffed efforts, 20-25 yard shots that dribble into the goal-keepers arms and other 'attempts' that don't really threaten or look likely to result in a goal. Similarly, counting corners will only encourage sides to deliberately play for them and also increase the number of short ones taken with the sole intent of trying to play the ball off the defender and gain yet another one. If those 2 things are the alternatives, then I would rather stick with what we've got, imperfect thought the away goals rule might be.

[northbank123]

Slightly off topic...but do away with penalty shoot outs and go with either the team with most shots on target or the team thats won the most corners over both legs ( should prove who was the most attacking side )

Difficulty with classifying what is a "shot on target". Could get the ridiculous scenario where teams drawing are shooting from 45 yards or playing primarily for corners.

If two teams score the same number of goals after 90/180 minutes I think it's wrong to declare one the winner purely on the basis of an otherwise unimportant statistic, whether that be corners or goals scored away from home. At least penalty shoot-outs acknowledge that the tie was a draw.

[flash gunner]

I like away goals it does make the away team go for it when they could just shut shop. People moan about penalties and until now I've never heard people not liking away goals but there are no better ways to decide drawn football matches IMO

[g88ner]

I like away goals it does make the away team go for it when they could just shut shop. People moan about penalties and until now I've never heard people not liking away goals but there are no better ways to decide drawn football matches IMO

I knew you would... always causing trouble just like when you said Bergkamp didn't mean that flick against Newcastle

To be fair, I don't hate the away goals rule nor mind it's existence... I'm just not convinced that, on a purely sporting level, it makes sense that one team is eliminated and the other progresses when they both score the same amount of goals over 180mins... nor am I convinced winning 3-1 is any better than 2-0, but the away goals rule eliminates one and progresses the other... just seems a tad arbitrary to me

[northbank123]

I like away goals it does make the away team go for it when they could just shut shop. People moan about penalties and until now I've never heard people not liking away goals but there are no better ways to decide drawn football matches IMO

I'm not convinced about this. The whole overriding fairness thing about one team going through despite drawing is a bit annoying but I could live with that alone, given that both teams know the rule exists before and throughout the tie.

But I don't really see the perceived entertainment factor benefit. As much as away teams know the value of scoring, home teams are incentivised to be more defensive in order to keep a clean-sheet. Too many games are tense, nervous and defensive because of the huge impact of an away goal, and this can become even worse if the away team take the lead as they are generally happy protecting a lead and the home team know they can't afford to concede again. There are still plenty of away teams who set up very negatively hoping to nick a goal on the counter, and I don't think this would change drastically if the rule was scrapped. As I said, it also ruins many otherwise competitive ties after 90 minutes (e.g. 2-3 defeat at home would leave a difficult but certainly do-able task away without the rule, but is almost a complete write-off with the away goals rule, and the stats on teams progressing after losing the first leg at home are shocking).