UEFA CCC decides to scrap away goals rule

[rpo.castro]

My biggest problem with it is it gives a clear advantage to the home team in the second leg if it goes past the 90.

The only way I see around this is to just have penalties after 180 minutes if it's still level. Of course the problem then is too many penalty shoot outs to decide ties, although let's face it, in international tournaments if you can't separate teams with 2 hours of football, you get penalties. Here you get 3 hours to do it. Do we really need the extra half an hour? Can we think of many CL ties (not finals) that have been decided in extra time, rather than penalties? Does that extra half an hour produce a winner?

1) you can see that you not every ET mach goes to PK.
2) you questions about CL ties can't be answered because you are trying to make to changes at once: Away goals, and scrapping ET.
You have very few matches going to ET. But you have quite some ties decided by Away goals. Without AGR, even knowing this change the dynamic of the tie, yes you will have more ET. You exchange an arbitrary rule for more 30 minutes of football. Its 30 minutes, if they are good minutes and bad minutes, maybe lets cut some minutes of second half. Going for PK without ET its going to a more arbitrary/luck direction.
Yesterday was fun with some interesting developments in ET's, so until now scrapping AGR its being positive.

[elkjiaer is back]

I have compared all qualifying matches played in the current season so far with those for 5 season from 2015/2016 to 2019/2020 (last season only a few matches were played as two legged ties)

This season (21/22):
Two legged ties played: 116
extra time: 17 (14.7%)
penalties: 8 (47% of those going into extra time)

Seasons 2016 to 2020
Two legged ties played: 941
extra time: 63 (6.7%)
penalties: 26 (41% of those going into extra time)
decided by away goals (before extra time is played): 79 (8.4%)

Too early do draw conclusions and I will try to update this after each round is played, but what we can see is:
Away goal + extra time (old rule) = 15.1%; extra time (new rule)= 14.7% marginal difference
We also have more matches going into penalties

Matches going into ET that would have been decided by away goal rule (7/17)

Basically only 6% of ties would have been decided by AGR this season compared to 8.4% when the rule was actually applied.
This is probably the most interesting result so far, but please remember we have a small dataset.

Feel free to come with inputs and suggestions on how to compare the datasets /before and after

[fabiomh]

(dropped - I was wrong)

[amenina]

Stats up to Q3

Champions League: 39 ties, 4 extra time, 1 penalties.
Europa League: 8 ties, 2 extra time, 1 penalties.
Europa Conference League: 119 ties, 21 extra time, 12 penalties.
Total: 156 ties, 27 extra time, 14 penalties.

Three teams have played extra time twice: Alashkert (ARM), Shakhter Karagandy (KAZ), Raków Częstochowa (POL). All three have won both ties.

[naaba]

I really can't stand the scrapping of away goal rule. This is ridiculous. This has been the norm since 1965.

Scoring goals at a big club stadium was worth a lot. Now, let's imagine that Salzburg draws 3-3 at Bayern in return leg. It would be worth nothing. They would come from 1-0 lead (equalised in last minute) to scoring 3 goals in München... with the only reward being extra time on Bayern ground ?

It doesn't make any sense. An European away game was always supposed to be special, because of the distance, travelling, different culture and atmosphere... Now what ? 0-0 or 4-4 in a difficult away game is worth the same. A 4-3 loss in an away game (first leg) wasn't considered so bad. You could still qualify with 1-0, 2-1 or 3-2. But now ? Nope. Extra time.

The legendary PSG - Manchester United in 2019 wouldn't have been legendary if it had ended in extra time.
Remember :
First leg : Manchester United - PSG : 0-2
Second leg : PSG - Manchester United : 1-3

Manchester qualified with a penalty scored at 90+4'. It was a big shocker and a tsunami of emotions for supporters of both sides. It wouldn't have had the same effect if it would only have lead to extra time.

When I look at the results now they just don't feel the same. A 2-4 away win would always have been a huge win. Now it has the same taste as 0-2, 1-3, 3-5 or 4-6.

[swisspower]

I really can't stand the scrapping of away goal rule. This is ridiculous. This has been the norm since 1965.

Scoring goals at a big club stadium was worth a lot. Now, let's imagine that Salzburg draws 3-3 at Bayern in return leg. It would be worth nothing. They would come from 1-0 lead (equalised in last minute) to scoring 3 goals in München... with the only reward being extra time on Bayern ground ?

It doesn't make any sense. An European away game was always supposed to be special, because of the distance, travelling, different culture and atmosphere... Now what ? 0-0 or 4-4 in a difficult away game is worth the same. A 4-3 loss in an away game (first leg) wasn't considered so bad. You could still qualify with 1-0, 2-1 or 3-2. But now ? Nope. Extra time.

The legendary PSG - Manchester United in 2019 wouldn't have been legendary if it had ended in extra time.
Remember :
First leg : Manchester United - PSG : 0-2
Second leg : PSG - Manchester United : 1-3

Manchester qualified with a penalty scored at 90+4'. It was a big shocker and a tsunami of emotions for supporters of both sides. It wouldn't have had the same effect if it would only have lead to extra time.

When I look at the results now they just don't feel the same. A 2-4 away win would always have been a huge win. Now it has the same taste as 0-2, 1-3, 3-5 or 4-6.

Nonsense. Cancelling that rule was the best decision of UEFA in years.

It encourages you to play more offensive at home, because recieving a goal is not the end of the world anymore.

The qualifying tie Basel Hammarby was so much more fun, for example. Basel was going into the game with a 2-0 lead, but Hammarby went up 3-0, and even when Basel scored the 3-1 there was still a penalty shootout, rightly so.

The idea of the away rule was to encourage the away team to play more offensive. That never happened. Instead, due to loss aversion bias, it was the home team who acted more carefully, since recieving a goal at home was almost certain doom.

I'm sure we will see more goals overall now in the knockout stages

[rpo.castro]

Just because something was been introduced in 1965 doesn't mean it still made sense. UEFA did that because (and not despite) 2021 isn't 1965.
And despite what have been said about Real Madrid, I think we are watching better matches or at least, not more defensive in 1st leg.

[bugylibicska]

I really can't stand the scrapping of away goal rule. This is ridiculous. This has been the norm since 1965.

Scoring goals at a big club stadium was worth a lot. Now, let's imagine that Salzburg draws 3-3 at Bayern in return leg. It would be worth nothing. They would come from 1-0 lead (equalised in last minute) to scoring 3 goals in München... with the only reward being extra time on Bayern ground ?

It doesn't make any sense. An European away game was always supposed to be special, because of the distance, travelling, different culture and atmosphere... Now what ? 0-0 or 4-4 in a difficult away game is worth the same. A 4-3 loss in an away game (first leg) wasn't considered so bad. You could still qualify with 1-0, 2-1 or 3-2. But now ? Nope. Extra time.

The legendary PSG - Manchester United in 2019 wouldn't have been legendary if it had ended in extra time.
Remember :
First leg : Manchester United - PSG : 0-2
Second leg : PSG - Manchester United : 1-3

Manchester qualified with a penalty scored at 90+4'. It was a big shocker and a tsunami of emotions for supporters of both sides. It wouldn't have had the same effect if it would only have lead to extra time.

When I look at the results now they just don't feel the same. A 2-4 away win would always have been a huge win. Now it has the same taste as 0-2, 1-3, 3-5 or 4-6.

Nonsense. Cancelling that rule was the best decision of UEFA in years.

It encourages you to play more offensive at home, because recieving a goal is not the end of the world anymore.

The qualifying tie Basel Hammarby was so much more fun, for example. Basel was going into the game with a 2-0 lead, but Hammarby went up 3-0, and even when Basel scored the 3-1 there was still a penalty shootout, rightly so.

The idea of the away rule was to encourage the away team to play more offensive. That never happened. Instead, due to loss aversion bias, it was the home team who acted more carefully, since recieving a goal at home was almost certain doom.

I'm sure we will see more goals overall now in the knockout stages

Well said.

[hertolo]

There are examples in both directions, there always will be. I dont feel like „more drama“ should be an argument for one or the other though…

Scoring goals at a big club stadium was worth a lot. Now, let's imagine that Salzburg draws 3-3 at Bayern in return leg. It would be worth nothing. They would come from 1-0 lead (equalised in last minute) to scoring 3 goals in München... with the only reward being extra time on Bayern ground ?

I don‘t think Salzburg would prefer the old rule in this instance though. Because that one implies it would need to score 3 goals… Isn‘t it better / easier to go for a 0-0 and/or a late goal than having to try to score three goals. A 0-0, 1-1 or 2-2 is terrible for Salzburg in this case, after all.

It doesn't make any sense. An European away game was always supposed to be special, because of the distance, travelling, different culture and atmosphere... Now what ? 0-0 or 4-4 in a difficult away game is worth the same. A 4-3 loss in an away game (first leg) wasn't considered so bad. You could still qualify with 1-0, 2-1 or 3-2. But now ? Nope. Extra time.

You can turn this around though, the first leg of any game is just like the first half of a match. Interesting, you have experienced the enemy, but truly nothing has been decided yet, so you go get your beer and sausage and wait for the minutes that really matter. There have been so many games where an impossible lead has been caught on the second game, so? I would have considered a 0-0 a splendid result in a home game in the first leg, since it meant that the opposing club could not score any away goals any more, while you still could. What I am saying, there‘s a million ways to spin this, and I would very much like to look at the data at the end of the season though!

What I do give you is that I don‘t understand why they didn‘t do a halfway reform: The away goal rule stands for the first 180 minutes of the two legs, but doesn‘t for the 30 minutes of prolonged play. That I would have thought fair.

[Englandmad2007]

I'm kinda 50%-50% on this. I get both sides of the argument.

[amirbachar]

Away Goals made sense as a random tiebreaker, to have less chances that the match is equal at any given time, hence increasing the number of goals.
Instead, I would introduce the penalties before the 2nd leg, and then one team always knows it has to score.

[Todor]

Just because something was been introduced in 1965 doesn't mean it still made sense. UEFA did that because (and not despite) 2021 isn't 1965.
And despite what have been said about Real Madrid, I think we are watching better matches or at least, not more defensive in 1st leg.

Don't fool yourself. Every change UEFA does is money not football related. The reason they changed the rule so aprubtly is they understood they were losing money from it, be it from less ET's meaning less air time, enhanced chance of the bigger teams to be eliminated, confusion of the new markets in Asia and North America over the away goal rule, ties be decided early by an away goal in the second leg (i.e 2:0 in the first leg, than 0:1 early in the second meaning the home team need to score 4 times), or anything else. Do you really think UEFA cares how the tie between Dinamo (Batumi) and Cucaricki will be decided? It' all about CL knock-outs and the viewing ratings.
Otherwise any tie-breaker known before hand is better than the lottery of the penalties, which should be the last resort to decide a tie.

[rpo.castro]

Just because something was been introduced in 1965 doesn't mean it still made sense. UEFA did that because (and not despite) 2021 isn't 1965.
And despite what have been said about Real Madrid, I think we are watching better matches or at least, not more defensive in 1st leg.

Don't fool yourself. Every change UEFA does is money not football related. The reason they changed the rule so aprubtly is they understood they were losing money from it, be it from less ET's meaning less air time, enhanced chance of the bigger teams to be eliminated, confusion of the new markets in Asia and North America over the away goal rule, ties be decided early by an away goal in the second leg (i.e 2:0 in the first leg, than 0:1 early in the second meaning the home team need to score 4 times), or anything else. Do you really think UEFA cares how the tie between Dinamo (Batumi) and Cucaricki will be decided? It' all about CL knock-outs and the viewing ratings.
Otherwise any tie-breaker known before hand is better than the lottery of the penalties, which should be the last resort to decide a tie.

So much nonsense doesn't even deserve an answer

[krdel]

Just because something was been introduced in 1965 doesn't mean it still made sense. UEFA did that because (and not despite) 2021 isn't 1965.
And despite what have been said about Real Madrid, I think we are watching better matches or at least, not more defensive in 1st leg.

Don't fool yourself. Every change UEFA does is money not football related. The reason they changed the rule so aprubtly is they understood they were losing money from it, be it from less ET's meaning less air time, enhanced chance of the bigger teams to be eliminated, confusion of the new markets in Asia and North America over the away goal rule, ties be decided early by an away goal in the second leg (i.e 2:0 in the first leg, than 0:1 early in the second meaning the home team need to score 4 times), or anything else. Do you really think UEFA cares how the tie between Dinamo (Batumi) and Cucaricki will be decided? It' all about CL knock-outs and the viewing ratings.
Otherwise any tie-breaker known before hand is better than the lottery of the penalties, which should be the last resort to decide a tie.

Exactly. The data supports that.

[Dragan Mance]

Scraping away goal rule is the best decision UEFA ever did.

Why away goal should be more rewarding than goal at home?

So for example, we have tie Chelsea-Lille.

Chelsea - Lille 3:3
Lille - Chelsea 0:0

And you would say that Lille shoud advance because they scored three goals in London? Why shouldn't Chelsea go through because they scored 3 goals at home, Lille scored 0?

It is stupid. Every goal should count the same. Especially now with VAR and all other things... In 1965, you didn't have TV coverage, VAR... Home team had big advantage because referee would often be on their side... Who can judge them? You are refeering a game in front of 50,000 fans, there is no TV coverage, of course you are going to be on home team side in 50/50 situations... So away goal rule had sense in 1965.

In 2022, there is no sense.