UEFA CCC decides to scrap away goals rule

[SteffenM]

So we have our first winner and looser of the rule changes (right?
CL Q1

Cluj - Borac Banja Luka
3-1 victory for Cluj in 1st leg

Borac Banja Luka - Cluj
2-0

And goes for extra time, where Cluj scores and moves on.
So Cluj is the first team, who would have lost with the old rules, and won with the new.
and Borac Banja Luka, the first team to have won with the old rules, but lost with the new.


So also late to this discussion. A bit mixed, but more against, then pro this rule change.

I agree.
Btw, in my opinion there is already a huge amount of matches for clubs fighting deep into the spring in european cups. Adding to that several overtimes just increases the risk of injuries.
If they are going to scrap the away goals rule, it should at least go hand in hand with shortening the overtime (2x10 is enough) and adjusting the penalties system.

But already more pressure on the teams to qualify, then direct Group Stage teams.
No wonder the teams going through the qualifier, have a harder time in the Group Stages.

Less options and time (and money) for squad planning and player fatigue, which will just increase in more overtime in July/August.

Already an advantage in July for teams, who can play they have to have players for Group Stages,
and also fewer or none qualifiers, and fatigue for this games.


So what does FIFA and UEFA want. One thing is FIFA is against a Super League in Europe, but in favor in Africa.

But they also want more matches. Club World Cup, global Nations League etc. UEFA makes CL Group Stages go from 6 to 10 matches.
And now also UEFA wants more game time for players.

Not sure the players health are considered. Now we got the +1 sub in extra time, and additionally the temporary 2 extra subs while the Covid is around. While head injuries still are big issue, which haven't been addressed. Maybe as Football being the slowest big sport to deal with this.

Will the 5+1 sub be permanent? If not, this looks....weird...
Maybe a rule change, 5+3 subs or something, to make this make more sense. A lot of qualifying matches in extra time, with tired players, are just not that interesting.

[V Yo-Yo]

I'm thinking this change is better suited for seeded teams (favorites). I don't have the stats to prove it, but historically some large upsets have happened due to the underdog going through on away goals. Perhaps Cluj getting away with it is the first example of many, where the favorites still manage to survive.

[Forza AZ]

So far no extra penalty-series because of change in rule. Both matches with an extra extra-time were decided before penalty's.

[SteffenM]

So far no extra penalty-series because of change in rule. Both matches with an extra extra-time were decided before penalty's.

But isn't the argument against extra time. So two games already at extra-time.
Try going through 4 qualifying rounds, and meet a team directly qualified for group stages.

Bigger team, more money, broader squad, more time for squad planning, but now also with HUGE fatigue advantage.

And still nothing about we won't go back to 3 subs?

[Forza AZ]

But isn't the argument against extra time. So two games already at extra-time.

That's true, but people said (here) that this would also lead to more penalty shoot-outs. So far that is not the case.

[amenina]

CL Q1: 16 ties, 2 went to extra time, 0 went to penalties.
For the 2 ET ties, both won by higher-coefficient team, 1 won by 2nd leg home team, 1 flip (i.e., different team would have advanced with away goals rule).

ECL Q1: 33 ties, 3 went to extra time, 1 went to penalties.
For the 3 ET ties, 2 won by higher-coefficient team, 2 won by 2nd leg home team, 1 flip (the other 2 would have gone to extra time even with away goals rule).

[seso]

Thanks, very nice!

[krdel]

But isn't the argument against extra time. So two games already at extra-time.

That's true, but people said (here) that this would also lead to more penalty shoot-outs. So far that is not the case.

Now it is.

ECL Q1: 33 ties, 3 went to extra time, 1 went to penalties.
For the 3 ET ties, 2 won by higher-coefficient team, 2 won by 2nd leg home team, 1 flip (the other 2 would have gone to extra time even with away goals rule).

And all 3 won by favourites!

[rpo.castro]

So in 49 ties we have 3 matches that would have been decided by the famous away goals rule, with one of those going to PSO. This is massive. Bring your the rule back. Not

[matt]

So in 49 ties we have 3 matches that would have been decided by the famous away goals rule, with one of those going to PSO. This is massive. Bring your the rule back. Not

There are several examples (among matches played in the last days) of ties open until the final whistle. This wouldn't be the case until this year.

Riga - Malmo, Shamrock - Slovan, Klaksvik - RFS, Gagra - Sutjeska, La Fiorita - Birkirkara.

This is a major point in favour of the change.

[SimonB]

So in 49 ties we have 3 matches that would have been decided by the famous away goals rule, with one of those going to PSO. This is massive. Bring your the rule back. Not

3 out of 49. That's over 6% so it is quite big. now imagine if the bias goes to the home teams playing second which we won't either know for sure or see until we have several hundred matches at least.

[rpo.castro]

6% big? In this case ?its not deaths due to covid

[kenzel]

3/47 - EL 19/20 1st QF (1 pen)
3/47 - EL 18/19 1st QF (2 pens)
1/50 - EL 17/18 1st QF (1 pen)
2/48 - EL 16/17 1st QF (1 pen)
1/51 - EL 15/16 1st QF (no pen)
2/39 - EL 14/15 1st QF (1 pen)
3/38 - EL 13/14 1st QF (3 pens)
1/37 - EL 12/13 1st QF (no pen)

[SimonB]

6% big? In this case ?its not deaths due to covid

It depends upon the context and we don't have enough figures to show it either one way or the other yet. But if you take something that in an ideal world should be 50/50, it shouldn't matter if you have the 2nd leg at home or not. Now, I believe some historical figures published on here, I am sorry I can't remember where, used to show that the difference was only a few 10ths of a percent in favour of the team who played at home second, if that changes with the rule change to a few whole percent, in my opinion at least, that would represent a significant shift.

[rpo.castro]

6% big? In this case ?its not deaths due to covid

It depends upon the context and we don't have enough figures to show it either one way or the other yet. But if you take something that in an ideal world should be 50/50, it shouldn't matter if you have the 2nd leg at home or not. Now, I believe some historical figures published on here, I am sorry I can't remember where, used to show that the difference was only a few 10ths of a percent in favour of the team who played at home second, if that changes with the rule change to a few whole percent, in my opinion at least, that would represent a significant shift.

I don't understand that stuff about ideal world or 50/50. Odds aren't 50/50. The only thing I know is that a goal is goal, home, away, neutral. Its a goal.
If result at halftime is closer to that 50/50, should we play just 45 minutes instead?

Second why should matter if the outcome is different with away goals rule or without?
In one hand there's the one that call that a stupid lazy rule and prefer that the outcome of a tie should be decided by who score more goals. More.
On the other side there are the ones that say there will be a lot more of ET, that will lead to injuries, etc etc a lot of matches in PSO, and lets face it, the rule was made to avoid the 3rd leg matches. Its was just to short the ties, which would make sense 50 years ago. Fortunately we evolved.
So even in this little sample we had ET in only 6% of the ties, ties where both teams had more 30 mins to win the tie and avoid PSO. So, no. So far it we haven't seen any significant change so far. And even if we seen, even if Tottenham would lose the tie to Man. City or to Ajax in 2018-19, so be it.