The Football Thread

[bubuy]

i think football would be better off without the away goals rule.. <_<

[bubuy]

nxt yr na lang ulit..

 

http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Photo/competitions/UCL/300338_SMALL.jpg

[damaso]

i think football would be better off without the away goals rule.. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i'm not sure but i think in the copa libertadores (south america's champions league) there is no away goals rule.

 

the away goals rule does seem unfair, but u gotta admit it brings a whole load of excitement. just like in the liverpool-chelsea tie: if chelsea scores they go through, if not they get eliminated. that's why till the whistle was blown, fingernails were being chewed off.

[teio]

it makes the game a little more tense... producing a number of heart-seizure patients...

i think football would be better off without the away goals rule..  <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

regarding the liverpool-chelsea match... if chelsea scored during stoppage time... hell would surely break loose... the SIX extra minutes added was too much...

i'm not sure but i think in the copa libertadores (south america's champions league) there is no away goals rule.

 

the away goals rule does seem unfair, but u gotta admit it brings a whole load of excitement. just like in the liverpool-chelsea tie: if chelsea scores they go through, if not they get eliminated. that's why till the whistle was blown, fingernails were being chewed off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[turi_guilliano]

it makes the game a little more tense... producing a number of heart-seizure patients...

regarding the liverpool-chelsea match... if chelsea scored during stoppage time... hell would surely break loose... the SIX extra minutes added was too much...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

i agree... six minutes stoppage time is too much...

[cdma]

Forza Milan ! Need we ask which of AC MILAN or LIVERPOOL will win the UEFA Champions League?

[howard_the_duck]

Naku, AC Milan na yan...

 

and ashley cole's girlfriend is soooo hot!!!

Edited May 6, 2005 by howard_the_duck

[bubuy]

i'm not sure but i think in the copa libertadores (south america's champions league) there is no away goals rule.

 

the away goals rule does seem unfair, but u gotta admit it brings a whole load of excitement. just like in the liverpool-chelsea tie: if chelsea scores they go through, if not they get eliminated. that's why till the whistle was blown, fingernails were being chewed off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

y can't it be a "home goals rule" then??? i think it can generate a lot more excitement than the away goals rule.. coz the home team is pushing for goals in their own turf rather than the away team.. the crowd can get more into the game..

 

it makes the game a little more tense... producing a number of heart-seizure patients...

regarding the liverpool-chelsea match... if chelsea scored during stoppage time... hell would surely break loose... the SIX extra minutes added was too much...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ok let's put the liverpool-chelsea second leg as an example, if chelsea scores it would be a draw and chelsea advances, right? all they did was earn a draw and they advance? they weren't even able to score in their own pitch.. and you said it yourself.. 6 extra minutes was too much.. don't u think the referee was biased towards chelsea.. btw, i wasnt able to watch the match, so honestly i dont know how many cards were shown during the second half, if there were stoppages due to injury, etc. but anyway you look at it, 6 minutes was too much..

 

i think a home goals rule is better than the away goals rule, IMHO..

[damaso]

y can't it be a "home goals rule" then??? i think it can generate a lot more excitement than the away goals rule.. coz the home team is pushing for goals in their own turf rather than the away team.. the crowd can get more into the game..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

the rationale behind the away goals rule is that it is harder to score away from home. it also encourages the away team not to play too defensively. right now, the home teams already push for goals. if we adopt the home goals rule, then the away team would just defend, defend and defend. why try to score if its not that important?

[damaso]

ok let's put the liverpool-chelsea second leg as an example, if chelsea scores it would be a draw and chelsea advances, right? all they did was earn a draw and they advance? they weren't even able to score in their own pitch.. and you said it yourself.. 6 extra minutes was too much.. don't u think the referee was biased towards chelsea.. btw, i wasnt able to watch the match, so honestly i dont know how many cards were shown during the second half, if there were stoppages due to injury, etc. but anyway you look at it, 6 minutes was too much..

 

i think a home goals rule is better than the away goals rule, IMHO..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

the chelsea-liverpool tie was not really a good example. first, liverpool were clear underdogs. offensively, they were overmatched. so on the first leg (at chelsea's ground), they played defensively, hoping for a 0-0 draw which they did get. the plan really was to push for the goals at home. what was unexpected was they got the EARLY goal. deciding that chelsea was just too dangerous, they played defensively the rest of the match.

 

as the past history of the competition (actually all football competitions) proves, it is far easier to score goals at home. and so away teams tend to play too defensively. to make european ties more open, the away goals rule was adopted.

[howard_the_duck]

eh di kung tie ang aggreagte, then extra time! so simple, pero ayaw nilang gawin... bakit dahil pagod na ang mga players.

 

or kung tie walang aadvance.

[bubuy]

if we adopt the home goals rule, then the away team would just defend, defend and defend. why try to score if its not that important?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

so on the first leg (at chelsea's ground), they (are you referring to liverpool or chelsea) played defensively, hoping for a 0-0 draw which they did get. the plan really was to push for the goals at home. what was unexpected was they got the EARLY goal. deciding that chelsea was just too dangerous, they played defensively the rest of the match. (boring kasi pag "home team" ang magdedefend..

 

as the past history of the competition (actually all football competitions) proves, it is far easier to score goals at home. and so away teams tend to play too defensively. (which was what liverpool did in the first leg, accdg to your post..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well, i just thought of it coz of the psv-ac milan tie.. it is so unjust that psv wont be in the ECL Final..

Edited May 8, 2005 by bubuy

[bubuy]

eh di kung tie ang aggreagte, then extra time! so simple, pero ayaw nilang gawin... bakit dahil pagod na ang mga players.

 

or kung tie walang aadvance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

free pass ung isang team.. hahaha penalty na lang ung lahat ng 11 players..

[damaso]

well, i just thought of it coz of the psv-ac milan tie.. it is so unjust that psv wont be in the ECL Final..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

the away goals rule gives the away team an incentive to look for the goal. of course, most away teams STILL play very defensively.

 

i agree that psv should have been in the final. they played better for BOTH legs. but that's football, sometimes the better team doesn't win. i'm not sure if uefa will make a rule change. fifa doesn't have an away goals rule, it is just uefa who adopted it.

[bubuy]

only in football..