Removing ET in 2-leg ties

[Tazmania]

I propose that extra-time (ET) be abolished in all two-leg ties in all club and NT competitions with ties which are level on aggregate after the second leg going automatically to penalties without playing ET.

I base this conclusion on counting the number of ties in the three UEFA club competitions during the 2021-24 cycle which went to ET in the qualifying rounds and KO stages, excluding the nine finals which are of course single-leg ties. I counted:

- 107 qualifying round ties which went to ET, of which 51 were decided by ET and 56 by penalties;
- 32 KO stage ties went to ET, of which 15 were decided by ET and 17 by penalties.

Overall, of the 139 ties which went to ET, 66 (the equivalent of 47%) were decided by ET and 73 (53%) by penalties.

At a time when the number of games and player workload is such a topical issue, removing ET from all two-leg ties would help - without any disadvantage - to lighten the demands on players without reducing the size of competitions.

Single-leg ties would continue to have ET before penalties if necessary.

[rpo.castro]

With a rate around 50% I think absurd simply abolishing ET.
Penalties should be the last case scenario because its more luck than football. Matches or ties should be decide on merit not on luck.

If the ET rate was much lower we could think ET was a waste of time. With 50% it isn't.

Saving workload? Talk to Infantino. He thinks otherwise.

[offside]

I personally like the extra time rule, what I like less is the penalty shoot out rule: so personally I'm not a big fan of this idea.

Also, with the new rules about the higher number of substitutions, tired players can sit on the bench and fresh players can sub in for the extra time: with six substitutions potentially more than half of the team can be changed from the beginning of a match to the end of it; and if this is not enough, the number could be increased to seven (for example) in future.

[Tazmania]

While it is true that substitutions do ease the workload on players which comes from playing ET, the underlying point is that ET is inefficient in deciding drawn ties which - let's remember - each team already had three hours to win.

[Witkop1983]

I would only remove ET and penalties in playoff matches between teams that played in the same league
Like in the promtion playoffs in England or the European playoffs in the Netherlands. If it is a tie after 180 minutes the team that finished higher in the league progresses.
In 1 legged playoffs I would do extra time if tied after 90 minutes, but no penalties after 120 minutes (again the team that finished higher progresses)

[mspm89]

I would only remove ET and penalties in playoff matches between teams that played in the same league
Like in the promtion playoffs in England or the European playoffs in the Netherlands. If it is a tie after 180 minutes the team that finished higher in the league progresses.
In 1 legged playoffs I would do extra time if tied after 90 minutes, but no penalties after 120 minutes (again the team that finished higher progresses)

This is a staple of some Latin American leagues in fact. Though playoffs, even to determine the champions, are of course more common in this region.

[Sagy]

I personally like the extra time rule, what I like less is the penalty shoot out rule: so personally I'm not a big fan of this idea.

Also, with the new rules about the higher number of substitutions, tired players can sit on the bench and fresh players can sub in for the extra time: with six substitutions potentially more than half of the team can be changed from the beginning of a match to the end of it; and if this is not enough, the number could be increased to seven (for example) in future.

The changes that I would like to see are:
1) Allow team to “undo” a substitution during the break before ET start
2) give each team 2 subs during the break before ET start
3) give each team 1 sub during the ET Halftime break
If a team doesn’t take advantage of these during these times they can’t be used during a sub window

[offside]

The changes that I would like to see are:
1) Allow team to “undo” a substitution during the break before ET start
2) give each team 2 subs during the break before ET start
3) give each team 1 sub during the ET Halftime break
If a team doesn’t take advantage of these during these times they can’t be used during a sub window

I'm ok with #2 and #3, but I personally don't like the undo thing of #1.

[KRB]

I disagree. Penalties is a matter of luck. Extra time gives the change to the better team to qualify.

[Ambro]

There's definitely more luck involved in penalties than in open play but, as someone already mentioned here, the better team already had 3 hours to make the difference on the field.

Most of the time the extra time is boring because players are tired and also because both teams are less willing to take the risk of conceding goals. It's time for football authorities to come up with alternatives to penalty shoot-out.

[KRB]

There's definitely more luck involved in penalties than in open play but, as someone already mentioned here, the better team already had 3 hours to make the difference on the field.

Most of the time the extra time is boring because players are tired and also because both teams are less willing to take the risk of conceding goals. It's time for football authorities to come up with alternatives to penalty shoot-out.

That means both teams were almost equal. However the more fair way is the extra-time. If they didn't want extra time, they shouldn't remove the away goal. Even if they are tired, the best qualifies. That makes more worthy to qualify.

[offside]

Most of the time the extra time is boring because players are tired and also because both teams are less willing to take the risk of conceding goals.

Some other times the extra time are really exciting.
And as @Sagy and I already mentioned above, the number of allowed substitutions can be increased to face the tired players issue.

It's time for football authorities to come up with alternatives to penalty shoot-out.

I agree with you here, also if it is not so easy to find something fairer, faster and less luck involved that penalty shoot outs. Any idea?

[Sagy]

Most of the time the extra time is boring because players are tired and also because both teams are less willing to take the risk of conceding goals.

Some other times the extra time are really exciting.
And as @Sagy and I already mentioned above, the number of allowed substitutions can be increased to face the tired players issue.

It's time for football authorities to come up with alternatives to penalty shoot-out.

I agree with you here, also if it is not so easy to find something fairer, faster and less luck involved that penalty shoot outs. Any idea?

Some of the greatest games of all time had very exciting ET. Three that come to mind are West Germany - Italy in 1970, West Germany - France 1982, Argentina - France 2022. Yes, it also true that some ET were a complete waste of time. I don’t find this a a reason for or against ET.

There are a few alternatives, some are better than others (in no particular order):
- have the PK before the ET so one team know they have to attack
- greater number of corner kicks
- least number of touches by the GK in the box
- greater time of possession in opponents half
- fair play points
- least number of fouls

Remember, the teams are tied after 120 (or 210) min. Whatever is used to break the tie is going to be something that we normally consider secondary. In my view, as long as the criteria are clear and known in advance, it’s “fair”. However, all of these will not have the climax and randomness associated with PKSO (some people like both of these).

[elkjiaer is back]

Since the season 2009/2010, including all European competitions and discarding two-legged ties where stronger teams were set to play return match at home (first KO round after group stage), we had 2961 ties where the home/away order was randomly drawn.

With away goal rule:
2261 ties
150 went to extra time (6.6%) among which 82 were decided at extra time (55%), 55% of those were won by the home team (not statistically significant)

Without away goal rule:
700 ties
128 went to extra time (18%) among which 64 were decided at extra time (50%), 61% of those were won by the home team (not statistically significant)

With and without away goal rule
132 ties went to penalties where home team won 47% of the times (not statistically significant)

All in all when a tie went to extra time it did not make any difference whether away goal rule was in place or not, and home team qualified 52.5% of the times ((not statistically significant)

All in all:
Since away goal rule was removed 3 seasons ago, the probability of a tie going to extra time has tripled (from about 6% to 18%)
We also considered ties where teams play return match were selected at random, so we can assume stronger/weaker teams in each tie were equally distributed
If a tie goes to extra time then 1 out of 2 goes to penalties.
Playing extra time at home does not give a clear edge on the chance of winning the tie

Now I know you are curious, so I hope you will appreciate me using several hours to calculate probabilities of winning the two-legged tie for all 700 ties played without away goal rule .
Now is getting interesting.
Following values represent the probability of the team playing return match at home to win the tie before first leg was played and the percentage of times those teams won the tie, only considering those 128 going into extra time:

underdog (0-20% win prob): 20% qualification
slightly underdog (20-40% win prob): 52% qual
balanced (40 to 60%): 54% qual
slightly favorite (60 to 80%): 65%
clear favorite: (>80%): 64%