11/05/24
April 28, 2003
No more golden goal, says UEFA.: UEFA will dispense with the game-killing goal of death (aka golden goal) for the upcoming UEFA and Champions League finals. They will be using the "silver goal", which ensures the completion of the first 15 minutes of extra-time, even if a team scores in the very first second of extra-time. (Under the golden goal rule, the first team to score in extra-time automatically won the game.) Reasons stated for doing this included reducing overly cautious play, undue pressure on the referee, and crowd trouble due to the abrupt and unpredictable ending of the game. I'm all for this. I always thought the golden goal was just too brutally quick.
posted by worldcup2002 to soccer at 01:24 PM - 12 comments
Feh. You soccer ninnies and your fear of sudden death. This is why hockey playoffs are so much better than any other sport at any other time of the year. Basketball: no sudden death...slow death, yes. Baseball: no sudden death...except if the visiting team failed already. Football: Sudden death, but you can win in the wimpiest of ways (a kicker from midfield). Soccer: no sudden death, except for the shootout, and that's just a perverted version of the game so it doesn't count. Hockey: Sudden death, and all the fear/excitement it provides. You play until you win. Period.
posted by grum@work at 01:55 PM on April 28, 2003
Now they have to implement it for the World Cup too... Wasn't it this way originally? And isn't the UEFA already adhering to this policy?
posted by StarFucker at 02:14 PM on April 28, 2003
I don't think so SF. AFAIK, historically and in UEFA the rule is that extra time is *two* periods of fifteen minutes. If one teams scores in the first period they still have to hang on until the end of the second period. Essentially, this proposal turns the first and second period into separate entities.
posted by squealy at 02:23 PM on April 28, 2003
Nice point, squealy. I thought at first, well, aren't they just doing what they did before? But no, the difference, and it is subtle, is indeed that the game can be decided and end at half-time, if someone is leading at that point. In the past, they played out the entire 30 minutes of extra-time regardless of the score. Which I think is awesome, and much tougher than a freaky weaky sudden-death rule, grum. Why? Have you seen guys who have run 90 minutes non-stop in Spanish summer heat (after a gruelling two or three straight weeks of competition against the world's best -- not counting the past season of domestic league games just completed), and then have to run another 30 minutes (there's only a one or two-minute break between extra-time halves) to win a game, possibly the last chance they'll ever have of glory. I can remember players pulling up with cramps, still playing their hearts out to win that glory. That's heroics. Not some namby-pamby little heartbreak goal stolen from the middle of the field. And, oh, yeah, there's penalty kicks if they can't settle it in extra-time. Now that's a heartbreaker.
posted by worldcup2002 at 03:00 PM on April 28, 2003
Oh, this is about the FINAL... Because all the other UEFA games are using the Silver goal already. I thought the final used it as well. Anyway, i think the World Cup should have this silver goal thingy.
posted by StarFucker at 03:01 PM on April 28, 2003
I'd be more impressed if they dumped the penalty shootout. THAT'S brutal. I've never had any trouble with golden goal, and I'm a big soccer fan. I've always thought, in the event of a draw, in extra time they play 15 minute segments, until there's a winner. Every 15 minutes, one player is pulled from each team.
posted by Drood at 04:36 PM on April 28, 2003
120 minutes is a long time to play football, and you'll see many players during extra time having cramp, and the longer play makes them more prone to injuries. wc: Note that the silver or golden goal rules do not apply to all domestic competitions, for example the fa cup and division one playoffs as FB and squealy know all too well. Pulling a player every 15 minutes is not really an option in FIFA's view, as you merely increase the potential for injuries (hence why most other similar proposals are rejected). I have a love-hate relationship with penalties - they're fantastic in terms of raw emotion (and creation of heroes/villains), but it does seem a daft way to decide a game of footie.
posted by BigCalm at 07:36 AM on April 29, 2003
pulling players off the field seems like a gimmick that would solve the problem but it wouldn't be a very 'pure' solution. i'd like to see games go as long as it takes and not have things decided on a penalty shootout. of course, there isn't a whole lot of scoring to begin with so the potential exists for games to go too long and exhaustion and cramping would be a concern (as raised). i've never had a problem with the golden goal - well, being a hockey fan primarily I find that it is suitable for hockey. i think the proposed compromise is suitable for football though. the "sudden death" way to decide games can be dramatic but, in hockey, teams tend to take less chances and become more defensive in an OT. i don't think that games typically take more than an extra period to decide (on average), but in a soccer game when you might only get two shots on net in 90 min to then change to a more defensive style to protect yourself from a golden goal is a recipe for another 30 min of dull action. well, i guess that is part of the impetus for change.
posted by gspm at 10:21 AM on April 29, 2003
the "sudden death" way to decide games can be dramatic but, in hockey, teams tend to take less chances and become more defensive in an OT. You obviously didn't watch all the Toronto/Philadelphia overtime games this year. :)
posted by grum@work at 10:50 AM on April 29, 2003
true, i didn't. but i have seen many an OT game, just a generalisation. I WISH i could have seen those games though. :(
posted by gspm at 12:05 PM on April 29, 2003
For the last four years or so UEFA have used the golden goal rule - before that it was just two 15 minute periods, and then maybe penalties. Where UEFA competitions matter though (Champions league and uefa cup), except the finals, the rounds are played over two legs, and are decided by the away goals rule. In these games, they don't need the golden goal (because it only goes to extra time if the away goals are equal, if there is then any goals in extra time, someone must then have more away goals than the other. Therefore no penalties)
posted by dng at 12:57 PM on April 29, 2003
I was going to post something about this after finishing my tea, but you beat me to it wc2002. Well done. It seems to be a good idea. It's true that the Golden Goal tended to encourage conservative play rather than the attacking play it was meant to engender. It did also seem unfair that the opposition didn't get the chance to equalize, Also, that is most likely to be the most exciting period of play as one team strive desperately to save the game and the other defends to the last man. I say this having seen Blues win a Cup Final on the Golden Goal rule as well.