The away goals rule - is it fair?

One of the flukes of the champions league was on show last night - Barcelona knocked PSG out of the quarter finals despite never actually beating them. For those that missed it the two results were 2-2 and 1-1, with Barcelonas 2 away goals providing the 'victory'.

Is this really justified? Footballers are supposed to be sportsmen, and all sportsmen are supposed to live by the ethos of keeping your eye on the game and ignoring everything else. Can the crowd be distracting? Of course, but likewise is it too hard to ask an individual on 50 thousand pounds a week to just ignore what's going on outside of the game?

This sort of circumstance isn't the only case of the away goals rule being unfair either. The rule also applies in extra time, meaning the home team would have to score twice as many goals as the away team in extra time to secure victory. There is only one leg of extra time, so isn't it immediately unfair in that sense?

Just get rid of it, it's horrendously unfair and I've seen personally how mood killing it is seeing your team concede one goal an yet having to now score at least two to qualify. The winner should be the one that scores more, not the one that was least affected by the crowd. I have a window in work that looks right out on A+E and particularly in the nights that can be a hugely distracting sight. I think for 50 grand a week though, I could probably bring myself to ignore it.

Re extra time, the home team doesn't have to score twice as many goals, it just needs to score one more goal than the away team.


The reason for the away goals rule I don't think was ever about players being distracted by the crowd..... this argument is surely a distraction! The rule was brought in, I believe, to encourage away teams not to simply shutting up shop and playing for a draw (usually goalless), and relying on getting a home win in the return leg.

We did, of course, end up with two draws in the Barca-PSG tie, but both were excellent and exciting games, so arguably the away goals rule did its job there. And if the rule wasn't in place, we would have ended up with a penalty shoot-out lottery - would that have been any fairer (particularly for the away side in the second leg)?

In fairness it seems a better way of deciding a game than penalties

The Tonker wrote:Re extra time, the home team doesn't have to score twice as many goals, it just needs to score one more goal than the away team.


The reason for the away goals rule I don't think was ever about players being distracted by the crowd..... this argument is surely a distraction! The rule was brought in, I believe, to encourage away teams not to simply shutting up shop and playing for a draw (usually goalless), and relying on getting a home win in the return leg.

We did, of course, end up with two draws in the Barca-PSG tie, but both were excellent and exciting games, so arguably the away goals rule did its job there. And if the rule wasn't in place, we would have ended up with a penalty shoot-out lottery - would that have been any fairer (particularly for the away side in the second leg)?

Re the first paragraph - if the away team scores in extra time, even if the home team equalise they will still lose. Therefore they will need at least two goals. Double.

You're also assuming that it would of also been a draw after extra time - the way that match was going I doubt that would of been the case and Barcelona would of probably beaten them properly.that doesn't however make losing despite not losing okay in my opinion.

I also never said penalty shoot outs were fair either. Maybe it's 'playgroundy', but I'd back golden goal after extra time over penalty shoot outs. Next goal wins at leat ensures a victory in regular play, not via the often completely luck inspired penalties.

Red614 wrote:

The Tonker wrote:Re extra time, the home team doesn't have to score twice as many goals, it just needs to score one more goal than the away team.


The reason for the away goals rule I don't think was ever about players being distracted by the crowd..... this argument is surely a distraction! The rule was brought in, I believe, to encourage away teams not to simply shutting up shop and playing for a draw (usually goalless), and relying on getting a home win in the return leg.

We did, of course, end up with two draws in the Barca-PSG tie, but both were excellent and exciting games, so arguably the away goals rule did its job there. And if the rule wasn't in place, we would have ended up with a penalty shoot-out lottery - would that have been any fairer (particularly for the away side in the second leg)?

Re the first paragraph - if the away team scores in extra time, even if the home team equalise they will still lose. Therefore they will need at least two goals. Double.

You're also assuming that it would of also been a draw after extra time - the way that match was going I doubt that would of been the case and Barcelona would of probably beaten them properly.that doesn't however make losing despite not losing okay in my opinion.

I also never said penalty shoot outs were fair either. Maybe it's 'playgroundy', but I'd back golden goal after extra time over penalty shoot outs. Next goal wins at leat ensures a victory in regular play, not via the often completely luck inspired penalties.

Re the first paragraph, if the away team scores two goals, the home team has to score three, not four. Not double. The home team just needs to score one more than the away team.

Not against the golden goal option, although it has been tried. I think it's main problem is that it offers no guarantee about when play might end, and players will already be knackered having already played 30 minutes extra time.

It's "Fair" in the sense that it applies to both sides at the start of the tie, but I have seen some very frustrating outcomes.
When you consider that in the early days of European Football, draws were decided by a toss of a coin..........

Also, I'm not a big fan of golden goals, though I can see your argument that the tie is decided in open play. Teams tend to get ultra cautious when faced with sudden death in open play and I think that was a main reason for it being dropped.

There is actually a bonus for the losing supporters with the "Away goals rule" in that they can mutter darkly into the future that they were never actually beaten over two legs.

Digressing, what's less fair is the seeding system for the Champions League which ensures that the same old faces qualify and are kept apart until the final rounds.

But hey! That's show business! The removal of "uncertainty" in football brings in the big bucks!

I saw that coming Tonker - when was the last time you saw 5 goals scored in extra time? The vast majority of the time even three goals is a big ask in only 30 minutes of play after already having played 90. You could also prove me wrong by saying if the away team scores 137 goals the home team only needs 138. I'd personally not like this thread to turn into a discussion into my use of the word double

It's a fair system to stop teams playing for that bore draw. However, it's my view that you shouldn't have two away goals, e.g. last night PSG had 1 away goal, Barca 2, it should just be that both teams scored an away goal, thud they both offset each other.

Is it easier for Barca to score two goals at the Stade De France, and harder for PSG to score only one in the Nou Camp? Probably.

I think the original rationale was to prevent negative play by the away team in the days when the backpass was allowed to be handled by the keeper.

It certainly provides an incentive to the away team in the sense that a 0-0 draw in the first leg leaves them needing to win the second game outright if they concede at home.

According to Wiki, the ref had a 'mare in the application of the away goals rule in a second-round tie in the 1971–72 European Cup Winners' Cup between Rangers and Sporting Clube de Portugal. This fixture had the following scorelines:

First leg: Rangers 3 – 2 Sporting
Second leg, after 90 minutes: Sporting 3 – 2 Rangers
Second leg, after extra time: Sporting 4 – 3 Rangers

Since the teams were now level 6–6 on aggregate, the Dutch referee Laurens van Raavens ordered a penalty shootout, which Sporting won 3–0. Rangers appealed the loss, however, on the grounds that Van Raavens should not have ordered the shootout, since the Rangers goal in extra time in Lisbon gave them a lead of three away goals to two. Rangers won the appeal and went on to win the Cup Winners' Cup that season.

Quite interesting (well I thought so).

G-ster wrote:I think the original rationale was to prevent negative play by the away team in the days when the backpass was allowed to be handled by the keeper.

It certainly provides an incentive to the away team in the sense that a 0-0 draw in the first leg leaves them needing to win the second game outright if they concede at home.

According to Wiki, the ref had a 'mare in the application of the away goals rule in a second-round tie in the 1971–72 European Cup Winners' Cup between Rangers and Sporting Clube de Portugal. This fixture had the following scorelines:

First leg: Rangers 3 – 2 Sporting
Second leg, after 90 minutes: Sporting 3 – 2 Rangers
Second leg, after extra time: Sporting 4 – 3 Rangers

Since the teams were now level 6–6 on aggregate, the Dutch referee Laurens van Raavens ordered a penalty shootout, which Sporting won 3–0. Rangers appealed the loss, however, on the grounds that Van Raavens should not have ordered the shootout, since the Rangers goal in extra time in Lisbon gave them a lead of three away goals to two. Rangers won the appeal and went on to win the Cup Winners' Cup that season.

Quite interesting (well I thought so).

Good stuff! Interesting and worth a bit of flair

G-ster wrote:I think the original rationale was to prevent negative play by the away team in the days when the backpass was allowed to be handled by the keeper.

It certainly provides an incentive to the away team in the sense that a 0-0 draw in the first leg leaves them needing to win the second game outright if they concede at home.

According to Wiki, the ref had a 'mare in the application of the away goals rule in a second-round tie in the 1971–72 European Cup Winners' Cup between Rangers and Sporting Clube de Portugal. This fixture had the following scorelines:

First leg: Rangers 3 – 2 Sporting
Second leg, after 90 minutes: Sporting 3 – 2 Rangers
Second leg, after extra time: Sporting 4 – 3 Rangers

Since the teams were now level 6–6 on aggregate, the Dutch referee Laurens van Raavens ordered a penalty shootout, which Sporting won 3–0. Rangers appealed the loss, however, on the grounds that Van Raavens should not have ordered the shootout, since the Rangers goal in extra time in Lisbon gave them a lead of three away goals to two. Rangers won the appeal and went on to win the Cup Winners' Cup that season.

Quite interesting (well I thought so).

Yes, I thought it was interesting (and I'm still awake).

It does raise a point that Rangers had an extra 30 minutes to get an away goal that Sporting didn't have - is that fair?

Red614 wrote:I saw that coming Tonker - when was the last time you saw 5 goals scored in extra time? The vast majority of the time even three goals is a big ask in only 30 minutes of play after already having played 90. You could also prove me wrong by saying if the away team scores 137 goals the home team only needs 138. I'd personally not like this thread to turn into a discussion into my use of the word double

Italy V Germany World Cup semi-final, Mexico 1970.1-1 after 90 minutes, 4-3 to Italy after extra time. Possibly the greatest 30 minutes of football ever. Of course, away goals were never a consideration in that one...

Hmmm, a vaid point about away goals in extra time; the away team does have a distinct advantage there.

Although maybe it's fair for a team from sea-level Rio de Janeiro playing at 12,000 feet altitude in La Paz in the Copa Libertadores. Might be puffing a bit after another 30 mins of play.

The Tonker wrote:

The reason for the away goals rule I don't think was ever about players being distracted by the crowd..... this argument is surely a distraction! The rule was brought in, I believe, to encourage away teams not to simply shutting up shop and playing for a draw (usually goalless), and relying on getting a home win in the return leg.

This is exactly right and harks back to the days when Johnnie Foreigner, especially the Italians, would kill off the away leg as a football game as soon as they could.

I don't think the away goals rule should apply after the end of normal time in the second leg, as afte rthat time, the playing field is no longer level (so to speak).

The options to me would be a further 30 minutes, then pens if the teams were level on goals (regardless of away goals rule), or maybe even scrapping the extra time and going straight to penalties, but increase the kicks to seven, from five.

On the subject of the Barca/PSG game mentioned in the OP, I read earlier that Xavi had a 100% pass success rate in the game.
All 96 of them found a team-mate.