Schadenfreude is tempered by silly away goals rule…

Posted on by admin

Tuesday night’s Champions League tie between Juventus and Porto was an absolute corker. One hundred and twenty minutes of drama including five goals, a red card and a total of 45 shots. My appetite for mid-week football was utterly satiated, save for a sour taste left by the framework within which the Portuguese side secured their passage to the quarter-finals – the away goal in extra-time.

Occasionally I find myself a tad disinterested by European fixtures that don’t feature a British side, particularly when it’s not two of the super-powers playing, but Tuesday night’s tie was an altogether enthralling affair, one of the best European matches I’ve seen in a while. The high stakes created such a hectic atmosphere that at times I completely forgot the stands were empty.

Indeed it is the absence of supporters that is at the heart of the post-pandemic debate about the away goal rule. Playing at home used to be a quantifiable advantage, but that is currently not the case. Pre-pandemic, the value of playing at home vs the additional opportunity to score away goals was a source of much debate. But those arguments are currently moot so the rule is currently unfit for purpose.

We could ask why UEFA didn’t make a temporary amendment to the law, but we have become so accustomed to the snail’s pace at which the governing body operates that we have accepted the limitations of their forward-ish thinking.

In 2018 UEFA announced their intention to review the broader issues with the away goal law. Giorgio Marchetti, UEFA’s deputy secretary general, stated that: “The coaches think that scoring goals away is not as difficult as it was in the past. They think the rule should be reviewed and that’s what we will do.” Nothing changed as a result of those discussions and, sadly, no-one was surprised. But perhaps we should cut old UEFA a break. After all, this law has only been around since the 1960s.

Of course Tuesday night’s game is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that a team has been left feeling short-changed by UEFA’s application of their antiquated laws. In 2015 Chelsea were also dumped out of the Champions League round of 16 after losing to Paris Saint-Germain in extra-time via an away goal.

The first leg in Paris ended in a 1-1 draw, a scoreline that was repeated in the second leg at Stamford Bridge. Chelsea struck first in extra-time through an Eden Hazard penalty, before PSG’s Thiago Silva’s scored in the 114th minute. The outcome of the highly entertaining series was decided on Silva’s away goal, much to the consternation of Blues fans, José Mourinho and neutral spectators.

Whilst there are no crowds, home advantage is significantly diminished. There is no 12th man for Delia to yell at. What advantage do UEFA think remains? Is it the players’ familiarity with their surroundings, the dimensions and surface of the pitch? These assets pale in comparison with the advantage of an extra 30 minutes-plus to score more valuable goals.

The bigger discussion is of course the away goal rule itself, one I’ll avoid today, mostly because so much has been written and said about it over the years.

The debate about the rule was at its peak during that 2015 Champions League season, when Arsenal were also knocked out on the away goals rule. The Gunners’ 3-3 aggregate draw with Monaco left a sour taste. I recall watching Arsene Wenger’s post-match press conference expecting a tirade, desiring it. Monsieur Wenger duly obliged.

So, what are the most prominent historical arguments for and against away goals in extra-time?

The argument for the rule is that the 30 minutes of additional home support is equal to the opportunity to score away goals. The roar of the crowd, the added inspiration – it undoubtedly makes a massive difference.

An unpopular opinion perhaps, but, one Reddit user even postulated: ‘Consider that extra time is goal-less and goes to penalties. That means the penalty shoot-out takes place in the home team’s stadium’. A fair point perhaps, but that would have come as little comfort to Juventus.

Arguments against the law centre around the away team having an extra 30 minutes to score an away goal – the nonsensicality of one team playing 120 minutes with the away goal advantage while the other has just 90.

Whether you are for or against it, one thing that most fans share is a hatred for losing via a penalty shoot-out. In the event of a tie, I think we would all prefer to find a fair way to play out extra-time.

So what is the alternative?

With regard to the current season, it’s pretty obvious – there should be no away goal advantage in extra-time during the pandemic.

When fans return en masse it becomes a very different question though. It would be grand if we could just get rid of the rule in extra-time, but how do we then reduce the home team’s advantage? There is no obvious way to return the match to a state of neutrality.

Perhaps ‘as is’ is the most equitable system. Maybe nothing needs to be done? Is it the case that this debate is only re-ignited by those on the sharp end of the stick? Should we all just enjoy the Ronaldo failure and stop asking questions?

Eoin Mac Raghnaill – follow him on Twitter

The post Schadenfreude is tempered by silly away goals rule… appeared first on Football365.

Go to Source