I remember when this was announced quite a few on here seemed annoyed.  How are you feeling about it now? 

Edited August 25, 20223 yr by tlg1903

Fucking hate it as biggest beneficiaries so far seem to have been Tribute Act. 

For me it was just the next stage in the sponsors ruining football.
Started with creating the Champions league (allegedly because they were pissed off that Real Madrid and AC Milan were drawn together in the 2nd round of the 1989-90 European cup instead of it being the Final)
Then came the 'seeding' system to ensure better teams don't cut each other's throats in qualifying, and they always get the second leg at their home ground
Next it was remove the 'away goals' to make it even less likely some upstart diddy team ruins their TV audiences

and coming soon - Certain teams won't need to actually win any domestic cups, or even finish in the top 10 of their league, they will automatically get european football based on their 'historical record' (or sellability)

Edited August 26, 20223 yr by tom_widdows

I've been amazed at the amount of teams who would have won on away goals rule before it got scrapped but have eventually lost on penalties after it has been changed, 

On 26/08/2022 at 23:51, tom_widdows said:

Next it was remove the 'away goals' to make it even less likely some upstart diddy team ruins their TV audiences

 

I remember hearing this at the time and I just think it's nonsense 2bh. How does removing the away goals rule make it less likely? You're stating it like it only diddy teams could score an away goal.  

On 26/08/2022 at 22:46, Jute said:

Fucking hate it as biggest beneficiaries so far seem to have been Tribute Act. 

Depends how you look at it.  When they played malmo for the CL last season they were 2-1 down after the first leg.  Away goals rule is in place they would only need a 1-0 win to go through instead of a 2-0.   I know they didn't go through anyway but it didn't work to their advantage that time. 

On 27/08/2022 at 00:12, SeeBass said:

I've been amazed at the amount of teams who would have won on away goals rule before it got scrapped but have eventually lost on penalties after it has been changed, 

Got any stats on that SeeBass? 

39 minutes ago, tlg1903 said:

Depends how you look at it.  When they played malmo for the CL last season they were 2-1 down after the first leg.  Away goals rule is in place they would only need a 1-0 win to go through instead of a 2-0.   I know they didn't go through anyway but it didn't work to their advantage that time. 

But they lost both legs so away goals never came into it. Where as Braga put them out if away goals was still in place. 

38 minutes ago, Jute said:

But they lost both legs so away goals never came into it. Where as Braga put them out if away goals was still in place. 

Just because a result doesn't end in a draw doesn't mean the rule wouldn't have had  an effect on how the game was played.  Quite frankly I just think one goal being worth more than another is incredibly stupid. It kinda reminds me of arguing with fucking rugby fans after the Ghana Uruguay game where Gyan bottles the last minute penalty from the suarez handball. 

Ghana should be put through. 

No they shouldn't they lost. 

Suarez handled on the line

He was penalised and Ghana bottled the penalty. 

It should just have been awarded as a goal. 

........ You want to award a goal when you know the ball hasn't crossed the line? No wonder your favourite sport is so shit. 

An away goal counting as double in the event of a draw is just as imaginary a goal. 

Away goals never, ever "counted double". Let's knock this pish on it's head ASAP. The rule was, in the event of a tie the team that had scored more away goals was awarded the tie. 

Sorry, but this "away goals count double" shite really boils my piss as it's not true, never has been true.

 

On 29/08/2022 at 13:25, Madbadteacher said:

Away goals never, ever "counted double". Let's knock this pish on it's head ASAP. The rule was, in the event of a tie the team that had scored more away goals was awarded the tie. 

Sorry, but this "away goals count double" shite really boils my piss as it's not true, never has been true.

👆You are literally admitting yourself that away goals are worth more than home goals. How could you award the tie to a team if they were not? 

Saying worth double is just easy language to use and to all intents and purposes it's true. 

On 28/08/2022 at 15:43, tlg1903 said:

Just because a result doesn't end in a draw doesn't mean the rule wouldn't have had  an effect on how the game was played.  Quite frankly I just think one goal being worth more than another is incredibly stupid. It kinda reminds me of arguing with fucking rugby fans after the Ghana Uruguay game where Gyan bottles the last minute penalty from the suarez handball. 

Ghana should be put through. 

No they shouldn't they lost. 

Suarez handled on the line

He was penalised and Ghana bottled the penalty. 

It should just have been awarded as a goal. 

........ You want to award a goal when you know the ball hasn't crossed the line? No wonder your favourite sport is so shit. 

An away goal counting as double in the event of a draw is just as imaginary a goal. 

I know that's not the rule, but I wouldn't be against that rule being altered. It's not a foul preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity and its not a hand ball that could have resulted in a goal scoring opportunity. Its a hand ball that has stopped a goal. In that situation if you took away the chance of the penalty being saved or missed, you stop that deliberate foul immediately. 

23 hours ago, tlg1903 said:

 

👆You are literally admitting yourself that away goals are worth more than home goals. How could you award the tie to a team if they were not? 

Saying worth double is just easy language to use and to all intents and purposes it's true. 

So, by that logic a 4-1 defeat away followed by a 2-0 win at home makes the tie 4-4?

6 hours ago, Madbadteacher said:

So, by that logic a 4-1 defeat away followed by a 2-0 win at home makes the tie 4-4?

What on earth are you talking about? That makes even less sense than one goal being worth more than another. 

10 hours ago, baggy89 said:

I know that's not the rule, but I wouldn't be against that rule being altered. It's not a foul preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity and its not a hand ball that could have resulted in a goal scoring opportunity. Its a hand ball that has stopped a goal. In that situation if you took away the chance of the penalty being saved or missed, you stop that deliberate foul immediately. 

I disagree, I would say it's a goal scoring opportunity as the ball has not yet gone into the net.  Also, you can't say you stop that deliberate foul. In this instance Suarez doesn't know for sure he's going to get caught and it's the last minute of extra time so what has he to lose?

1 hour ago, tlg1903 said:

What on earth are you talking about? That makes even less sense than one goal being worth more than another. 

PEDANT ALERT!

 

4-1 with "away goals count double" makes 4-1 into 4-2. Second leg 2-0. Combined score 4-4. that wasn't how the rule worked, but is an example of what "away goals count double" would be literally. The rule was, simply, in the event of a tie after both legs (plus extra time) the team that scored more away goals won. They are not the same.

You literally said, in your first post, 

On 29/08/2022 at 13:25, Madbadteacher said:

Away goals never, ever "counted double". Let's knock this pish on it's head ASAP. The rule was, in the event of a tie the team that had scored more away goals was awarded the tie. 

Sorry, but this "away goals count double" shite really boils my piss as it's not true, never has been true.

So, no, there's nothing pedantic about pointing out your example, where the final result isn't a tie, doesn't make any sense.