Golden Goal Rule Out! (and I'm not Swedish)

[Rodgers]

I think this thread should be reviewed in the light of the S Korea-Italy match today

 

[Sodak]

[dance]
Headlines:
"Italy lose to team that actually pushes the ball forward"
"Playing for draw costs Italy"


How many minutes until the Italian coach is unemployed?

 

[Håkon]

It was good that attacking football for once resulted in a Golden Goal, but yet what could have happened was that Korea made a bad pass, Italian defender passes 60 meters to Vieri - goal. I know, because Norway lost in exactly the same way (except no golden goal) in '98 France. That is the risk that Korea took, and they should get credit for that. With the normal extra time (ie 30 minutes), Korea would have had time to equalise and even score a third goal if such a thing happened (although this is highly unlikely). But that is what I think is so bad about the Golden Goal - teams who have played well suddenly get caught because they are vulnerable in the back, and the only way to stop this is to play defensively (go figure)

 

[starlifter]

Must admit I was suprised at Italy... they have solid experience, if nothing else... or so I thought. But maybe the Koreans just "wanted" it more... didn't see the game, just read the summaries, so I can't really tell....

 

[Dell19]

Except without the golden goal a team that was attacking could concede a goal and then have to attack even more, and just concede another goal...

 

[Sodak]

Originally posted by Håkon
... With the normal extra time (ie 30 minutes), Korea would have had time to equalise and even score a third goal if such a thing happened (although this is highly unlikely). But that is what I think is so bad about the Golden Goal - teams who have played well suddenly get caught because they are vulnerable in the back, and the only way to stop this is to play defensively (go figure)

I agree. But that brings us back to the problem of potentially eternal games, rematches, or PK shootouts.

 

[Major Guevara]

You know if they would have had the Golden Goal rule in USA 94 the team that ended up in third place (Sweden ) would not have come in third place at all. Sweden would have been beaten by Romania in the quater-final. Considering this I dont understand how anyone can support the Golden Goal

 

[Dell19]

Well it makes it interesting and puts more risk on the game, so that an attacking team can win against a defensive team...

 

[Hitro]

That's nonsense. I mean, if they can win now, they could also win without the golden goal rule.
But you'll have even more defensive teams this way.

 

[Dell19]

So surely its also nonsense to remove the rule...Not all teams play defensively and they can lose out like today with Italy. A team that is playing in a non golden goal situation can play defensively safe in the knowledge that if they do concede a goal, they can then decide to play attacking football whilst the other team becomes ultra defensive.

 

[Hitro]

The point is that there is still a chance to equalize, it's just more fair. Take Sweden vs. Senegal for example. It's not unlikely that Sweden would have equalized it, and the neutral viewer lost an intense quarter of an hour of great football.
I'm all against it and that's no question of who wins. The first Golden Goal in an important competition was scored by Germany in the final of EURO 1996. But I've been against it then as much as I am now.

 

[Dell19]

Some games would be improved but others could become more dull. I am willing to accept that its probably better without the golden goal rule but I don't think its as bad as people make out.

 

[klazlo]

Originally posted by Hitro
The point is that there is still a chance to equalize, it's just more fair.

Yes, that's the point, and furthermore overtime would be more entertaining and less defensive without it. If I remember correctly before WWII there was no overtime and penalties, they even replay the whole game next day or something.

 

[col]

Imagine the situation as it might have been in 1966 when Geoff Hurst 'scores' a golden goal to win the world cup - then replays show it didnt cross the line after all......

We'd never had heard those immortal lines from Ken - -some people are on the pitch, they think its all over. IT IS NOW....(fourth goal goes in)

 

[JoeM]

Golden goal may not be the best but it put South Korea through who were attacking the game, and Italy out who couldn't be assed with it and hoped for penalties.

Other options?

Thumb-war between the captains - Batistuta would be *really* crying after that.

Guitar-duels!

American-hotrods carrying both teams in an awesome chicken-style death-match.

Snap.

Ipsy-dipsy.

Both teams out!

Flip a coin.

 

[Dell19]

Originally posted by JoeM
Flip a coin.

Thats just got to be the best decider ever!

 

[muppet]

Why not extra time without golden goal like they have in American football?

Maybe if it still remained undecided after a couple of extra-times, the fans could choose sides, get involved in a brawl and the last fan standing decides the winner?

 

[Dell19]

Not really fair on away teams...We also have football tournaments without a golden goal rule. Shocking there are also tournaments where games will be replayed if the teams draw...