TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Sports Discussion
-- How do you want extra time in football to be resolved?


Posted by Yohan on Jun-26-2005 19:46:

How do you want extra time in football to be resolved?

I'm still kinda annoyed at FIFA for changing the rules. First the golden goal, then the silver goal, now 2 extra 15 min quarters to be played.

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about.

Golden Goal: In extra time, first team to score a goal wins. If the score is still tied at the end of both 15 min halves, penalties to decide the winner.
Silver Goal: If a team scores and leads at the end of a 15 min extra half, that team wins. If the score is still tied at the end of both 15 min halves, penalties to decide the winner.
Current rule: Both two 15 min extra time halves are to be played and at the end of the extra time, whoever leads wins the game. If still tied, penalties to decide the winner.


Posted by evil_bastard on Jun-26-2005 20:15:

30 minutes of extra time which we currently have is the best.

That's what it always was until they brought in Golden Goal some time during the 90s. Golden Goal was a nice idea in theory because they thought that it would make both teams fight like hell to get the goal which would end the game, with both teams pouring forward to try and deliver that fatal blow. But in reality, with the stakes so high and the players so tired, each team would cautiously probe for opening's in the other's defence. It was very tactical and not much fun to watch, although I have to say it was very suspenseful whenever the ball was anywhere near the goal because the game could be over in a second and you saw defenders desperately hacking the ball away from danger. Plenty of hearts in mouths moments.

Then they decided Silver Goal would be a better idea which meant that if you won the first 15 minutes of extra time, the game was over, otherwise the rest of the 30 minutes was played to try and find a winner. This was a bit crap IMO because again teams were cautious, if they conceded they would have very little time to get an equaliser, so it was only at the very end of each half that they would throw caution to the wind.

With the full 30 minutes you know that if you concede early on you have time to get an equaliser, so you're not so worried about pushing up the field. The Portugal v England game during Euro 2004 was the perfect example of why 30 minutes extra time is the best. Even though we lost, it was a hell of a game, the sort of game even neutrals don't forget watching. Just like Czech Republic v Holland last summer or AC Milan v Liverpool.


Posted by Michael19 on Jun-26-2005 20:26:

i agree. THe way it is now with 30minutes and penos is grant. DOnt fix it if it isnt broken. Typically fifa though, fucking planks.


Posted by fastmp3 on Jun-26-2005 21:39:

imo golden goal was better


Posted by Yohan on Jun-27-2005 01:13:

Even with 30 min extra time, most teams still play conservatively.

So with Golden Goal, at least there's a bit more excitement when the ball does go into the goal area.


Posted by Goashem on Jun-27-2005 01:27:

i like the silver goal over the golden goal. but overall i dont like either of them. the extra 30 minutes is good enough.


Posted by nettwerk on Jun-27-2005 01:51:

I too prefer the 30-min extra time. Besides the already mentioned Portugal X England, Benfica X Sporting for the Portuguese Cup this season is another perfect example why the rule should stay as it is.


Posted by Eddie N MIAMI on Jun-27-2005 03:36:

its ok how it is now

Golden goals suck cause teams still played to scared to attack risking a loss.


Posted by malek on Jun-27-2005 05:47:

Remove some players (2-3) to open up the game and have the golden goal rule in effect.

No penalty shots, they're so random and don't do justice to the game.


Posted by Michael19 on Jun-27-2005 17:02:

quote:
Originally posted by malek
Remove some players (2-3) to open up the game and have the golden goal rule in effect.

No penalty shots, they're so random and don't do justice to the game.



and basically kill the rest of the players on the pitch?!


Posted by chesco on Jun-27-2005 17:10:

It's fine the way it is.


Posted by malek on Jun-28-2005 05:19:

quote:
Originally posted by Michael19
and basically kill the rest of the players on the pitch?!


poor players, i'm gonna cry for them


Posted by Dmatrox on Jun-28-2005 06:40:

have 5 on 5, remove 2 defensemen


Posted by Michael19 on Jun-28-2005 19:55:

quote:
Originally posted by Dmatrox
have 5 on 5, remove 2 defensemen




11-2 = 5?




Posted by kutvolkots on Jun-28-2005 20:24:



The answer to every problem.


Posted by Genesis Evolved on Jun-29-2005 02:07:

Keep playing until the first goal. Doesn't matter if it's 1 min or 200 mins.


Posted by starglider on Jun-29-2005 13:42:

The rules really don't need changing. 30 minutes of extra time is the right amount, no golden/silver goal nonsense, and if that doesn't settle it... well, penalties are a part of football, like it or not.


Posted by xxxtasy on Jun-30-2005 05:32:

quote:
Originally posted by malek
Remove some players (2-3) to open up the game and have the golden goal rule in effect.
A suggestion worth considering.

Each team remove a few players, make the field less crowded, and hence better scoring chances.


Posted by hardstyle on Jul-06-2005 20:07:

eh

replay the game 2 days later like they did in the 40's


Posted by sensorium on Jul-07-2005 07:37:

Straight to the PKs. Three PKs for each coach. Then you can blame a coach for losing.


Posted by flavdave on Jul-08-2005 02:47:

Golden Goal



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.