It seems the away goals rule has been abolished from now on. The main reason given is that it sometimes made home teams too defensive through fear of conceding at home.
It was originally brought in during the 1960s, I think, because away teams would often play for a 0-0 draw and try to nick victory at home. I seem to remember that in its early days, away goals counted double in the event of a tie over two legs, but I believe this was later amended to say simply that the team scoring more away goals would be the winners.
Although it was a reasonable idea at the time, I feel that subsequent changes to the game make it right for the rule to be abolished, for several reasons.
(1) when the rule started, teams could spend a large amount of time passing the ball between defenders and a goalkeeper who was allowed to pick up the passes in those days. This led to a lot of legal time wasting, usually by the away team. This meant that it was a lot easier to play for 0-0 away from home.
(2) referee training seems to have improved over the years and has extended to teaching refs how not to be swayed by home crowds.
(3) VAR helps to ensure that 50:50 decisions don't go mostly to the home team.
(4) defending teams don't seem to automatically get the benefit of the doubt these days - it was a lot easier to be given offside when not interfering at one point, and even 'level with defender' was given offside.
It's a lot harder to go for 0-0 now than it once was. I think the abolition of the away goals rule is right.
The away goal rule has been part of European football for decades. Why change it now??
I think it makes better. Makes team come out and try and get goals.
Just another part of the game that has been eroded by modern football culture.
It's not a fair rule. Away goals still count if the tie goes to extra time, so the team playing away in the second leg would get an extra 30 minutes to score an away goal than their opponents had in the first leg. Blatantly unfair. It would have made more sense to keep away goals but not let them count if the match went to extra time. But this is UEFA we're talking about.......if there is a wrong way to do something they find it.
I accept that not everyone will like this rule change and that there are valid concerns, but I question whether 'because we have done it this way since 1965(?)' is one of them.
I'm old enough to remember when the away goals rule changed originally, and I do agree that before that time, the target in two-legged European ties was to go for 0-0 away and try to nick a win at home. The team at home in the first leg would generally regard a 2-0 win as giving a little room for error. It did make for some boring games, but other rules were different then too - as mentioned in my thread starter.
It's only because of those other rule changes that I think the away goals rule abolition is worth trying. If the backpass/offside rules/refereeing attitudes were still the same as in the 1960s, I would be opposed to abolisahing it as well. It was a good rule when it was made, but I feel that other events have overtaken it.
Besides, if it doesn't work out, it can always be reviewed again.
It might not seem so, but I usually take the traditionalist view as well; I wasn't happy about three points for a win, the not picking up backpasses rule, or the golden/silver goals rules (since abolished)).
Perhaps my support of abolishing the abolition of the away goals rule is also an act of traditionalism, because I remember when it didn't exist .
Actually, maybe we could bring back the original offside rule which said that if one defender and a goalkeeper are between the attacker and the goal line at the time of the pass, the attacker is offside. Some teams would leave one defender back knowing that they had a margin of error if they judged it wrong. I once read that Newcastle employed this law to the fullest and might catch attackers offside twenty times in a game, but I'm sure there were others. I'm not sure when that law changed but it might be a hundred years ago.