Golden Goal or Silver Goal???

[Hawkamaniac]

UEFA will be using the new "Silver Goal" in each final this year. Meaning if a team is ahead after on of the 15 minute extra time halves they would win instead of the "Golden Goal" first to score wins. Just curious as to which you would prefer. I like the Golden Goal better and being a fan of Italy wish they would scrap the penalty shoot out all together.

[Freddie Adu]

I think Golden Goal is better. Makes for better game-ending moments.

[O'Dubhghaill Rules!]

When Golden Goal was first used I initially thought that it was going to be great giving the excitement knowing the game can end at any time. However, the tentative play I've seen in some games that have gone to extra time has changed my mind. Many times people are afraid to try and win, fearing that they will give up the counterattack and lose. I like the Golden Goal better than the all out 30 minutes, however I think the Silver Goal is a nice compromise between the two. I think that play will be flowing better, knowing that if a team goes down a goal they can still get it back, granted in a shorter period of time.

[thurd]

wait what i silver goal? i couldnt grasp the concept reading your post, sorry

[O'Dubhghaill Rules!]

Originally posted by thurd
wait what i silver goal? i couldnt grasp the concept reading your post, sorry I will do my best to explain the Silver Goal to you. Instead of the Golden Goal where the game ends immediately after a goal, and instead of playing all 30 minutes of extra time, the Silver Goal is being put into place. If a team scores within the first 15 minute half of extra time, the game will end at the end of that period. However, if the game is still tied they will continue on and play the 2nd half, where again if a goal is scored, they will play until the end of the period, giving the other team a chance to tie. I guess the best thing to do is give an example.

It's Celtic 1-1 Porto and the end of 90 minutes. The game goes into ET and Larsson scores in the 100th minute to give Celtic a 2-1 lead. Normally the game would be over with the Golden Goal, Celtic wins. However with the Silver Goal, Porto are given 5 minutes (or however much time there is til the 105th minute) to tie the game. If they tie it, the game continues, if not Celtic win.

If the game is tied it continues to the 2nd portion of ET where the same rule is in place, if 1 team scores, the other gets until the end of that 15 minute half to even things up or the game's over.

[Lawmill]

I like the full 30. Teams will be less hesitant to attack when the score is still tied and if one team does score, the other will go into all-out attack.

[owian]

Originally posted by Lawmill
I like the full 30. Teams will be less hesitant to attack when the score is still tied and if one team does score, the other will go into all-out attack.

I agree with this. Golden Goal seems like a good strategy (anything to prevent PK's) but it basically becomes a middle school dance. Both teams staying on there side of the field. They would rather take there chances with penalties then risk being the guy who gave up the goal. And most of the players are to tired to make the runs anyways. Giving them the whole time allows room for error thus in theory room to take risks.

One Idea I read during the world cup written by an american collumnist that recomended giving even more extra time but at the same time opening up the substitutions. For instance for each 15 minute period played each team gets another substitution. Or something to that effect. Just idea to only be used in finals.

[Hawkamaniac]

The problem I have with the "Silver Goal" is it will produce even more pk's than the "Golden Goal". I think they should do whatever is possible to get rid of pk's. If you had the "Golden Goal" with no chance of pk's, saying they just played unlimited amount of 15 minute halves until someone scored you wouldn't see a team try to slow things down and try their luck in pk's. I say have two normal 15 minute halves of "Golden Goal" and then any halves after that your allowed to bring players back in that were subbed out.

[Hattrix]

Sorry for not putting an [R], but since the result is from 1966, I doubt anyone's too put out.

Is the pheonomenon of a second goal in Extra Time something FIFA wants to revive. Personally, I like the idea. There's an extra emotion getting an insurance goal in a game that had been a nailbiter up to that moment. I certainly don't think it's overkill. I'm interested to see how this pans out. Exaclty what competitions are utilizing it?

[tpmazembe]

Originally posted by Lawmill
I like the full 30. Teams will be less hesitant to attack when the score is still tied and if one team does score, the other will go into all-out attack.

France vs. Germany, WC'82 Semis - the best proponent of full 30. What a game. Unscripted drama. Seesawing action until the end. Penalties aren't always bad; they were part of this game's drama as well (Steileke sobbing like a baby, and Schumacher picking him up a few minutes later).

Whereas the golden goal encourages defensive play and is unfair, the full 30 extra time, unless played in final game, is too taxing on the winning team. Usually the team moving on has a hard time putting in a complete physical effort the following match during short tournaments like WC.

I'd propose a hybrid. The Silver goal set-up for all elimination games other than the final, with penalties deciding the winner after 30 minutes extra time.

For the final, I'd advocate a mixture of owian and Hawkamaniac's ideas : full 30 extra time, then succesive 15 minutes of Golden Goal with one substitute each period (but previously substituted players cannot return).

Eventually, regrettably, human error / exhaustion would decide such a final; but no final should be decided on penalties (unfortunately we can't go back to the days of final game replays...or can we?).

[Justin O]

Yuck. I hate it. This will create more penalties. That right there is enough to make it a bad idea. I'll never understand why so many "football purists" and the powers that be are so tolerant of PKs. Instituting a format that will increase PKs is a terrible idea.

Also, say what you want about defenive play, but a golden goal is about the most exciting play in sports. Eliminating it as a way of making the match more exciting just makes no sense to me. I know there have been 30 minute extra periods that had a multiple odd number of goals (the only scenario really in which this format could provide a better result), and those were no doubt exciting, but such matches are hardly the norm. They are definitely the exception.

[DallasGooner]

The NHL in its regular season games decided to reduce the number of players on the ice in attempt to promote a more flowing offence in the added time. What do you think dropping the number of players to say 9 a side would do? Sure the sides could decide to take out 2 strikers and go to a 4-4-0 but the players on the pitch would be more spread out, which one would think would lead to more chances.

Personally I like the golden goal.

[Weißbier]

I take full 30 min.
I like the Penalty´s
thinking of CL´s Final Bayern - Valencia...
I was shitting my pants in the OlympicStadion. 30000 people looking on one big screen. absolutly silence... than the shoot... and everybody shouts loud... *wow*
thats it own feeling...

[olafgb]

Germany vs France in the semifinal of the WC82 surely was advertising for the traditional overtime. For those who don't know: score after 90 was 1-1, in the OT France had a 3-1 lead, but Germany stroke back and made it 3-3. The penalty shootout also created a little legend when Toni Schumacher comforted the weeping Uli Stielicke, who just missed a pk, by saying "Don't worry, I'll save the next one" and in fact he saved the next two.

But: this is a singular exception. Most overtimes are boring, independent if you play them full 30, Golden, Silver, Blue-White-Grey-checked or purple Goal. The teams don't risk much and if not a big favourite is involved, then you'll usually see most relying on their chance with pk's. I am not amazed by pk's either, but at some point you got to quit. Simply for dramatic reasons I like Golden Goal best.

[TVENTURA]

Golden goal or Silver goal won't matter for this final...
Porto will not need extra time to win this game.

[Archers]

Silver followed by Golden and THEN penalties

[bran_new_bhoy]

Originally posted by TVENTURA
Golden goal or Silver goal won't matter for this final...
Porto will not need extra time to win this game.

Aye, right wee man. No matter what message boards I go to, you vastly overconfident Porto supporters are there. You've beaten one decent side in yer cup run and now you unbeatable? Thank god it will all be settled on the pitch.

[CrewToon]

They should play golden goal...and keep playing until someone scores, I don't care how many OTs it takes...

...because that will be the only way that some of these squads will try to play, instead of hoping to wait for PKs, or win on away goals.

and if some of these players drop of exhaustion, so be it!

[mackem_ftm]

Originally posted by CrewToon

and if some of these players drop of exhaustion, so be it!

I think that would be quite amusing. I've seen it happen before in park football (after a mammoth 10 round game of Wembley Pairs :)) but it'd be funny to see some overpaid, underworked prima-donna footballer collapse.

[Maczebus]

Some of you actually like the Golden goal????

Do you actually watch the game? Ever?

I guess it makes it easier to figure out when you started taking interest in football.

The old-style 15 mins each way was great, and as some have mentioned, the French game in 1982 was superb. There are far more examples of why this is a better idea than many other options - but that's the most impressive.

I agree that the silver-goal is a decent half-way house between the two sytems.
As an attempt to get away from the crap goalden goal way, I shall be supporting these steps.

There will never be a way to end a close match that absolutely everyone will be happy with.
The idea of simply putting more people on or playing until everyone's dead just doesn't work in theory and wouldn't work in practice.

The US'ers round here ought to realise that TV schedulers even in countries where football is accepted break into a sweat when matches over-run. Can you imagine what would happen in the US? I can - you'd cut away from the 3rd hour of attrition football, to some womens basketball game.
A football match needs to be finite to a point.

Lengthening the time played by the teams wouldn't necessarily increase the potential to score. If tirednes can be a factor in people scoring through mistakes made by defence and keeper, then tiredness can also be a factor in people not being able to score because all the mid-fielders and strikers are knackered.

So, to recap.
Original 30 minutes ended by penalties (yes we all feel there's something unfair about them, but the game needs to end somehow - this is coming from an England fan so it must mean something, much like Italian fans mentioning penalties).