Obliquely, it does so by giving a higher weight to any goal(s) scored by the visitors at the higher seed's home game, when the intent of having the second game at home is supposed to be more advantageous by nature of it being, you know, on their home field. It could be argued that the away goal weight has the effect of neutralizing that benefit, because a visitor could score one and bunker. Of course, the best way to deal with that is to pound the visitors mercilessly and make it a non-issue.
I suddenly smell something nasty like as if some swampy, shitty livestock just walked into the room. Weird ...
Firstly, ******** you. I hope you get trampled to death by giant tortoises, MetroTard. Ok, got that out of the way. The Away Goals rule penalizes the higher seed because it neutralizes any home-field advantage, which is fine except that MLS should be doing the diametric opposite of that.
There's a difference between not taking advantage of an advantage, and negating an advantage. Without the away goals rule, being 2 down in a series is disadvantageous enough, to be sure. That a team could be on their "advantageous" home field and win the match 3-1 in regulation, yet still go down because of the away goals rule, well, that's negating an advantage. If 3-1 took us to extra time, I would agree with you. By my cursory review of the rule, that is not the case.
I edited that post, I feel ya. I can see where it sucks. Will be glad to advance though, what can I say.
ya'll can say what you want about it but there is no disadvantage for the higher seed the rule penalizes ineptitude the higher seed should have what it takes to get a result in the first leg (see NER) if they dont...they get a wake up call like we did last wk
The rule prizes scoring goals, and penalizes you for not doing it. I think the fundamental question is what do you want your playoffs to do? Find the best two teams in the final, or sell the game, make fans, be exciting, be on tv... I think MLS has a variety of answers to these questions and sometimes doesn't answer them the same ways all their fans would.
It also helps avoid PKs deciding match ups. The WC Final, where Germany scored in Extra Time, was the exception. There is rarely any scoring in ET, and then you go to PKs. ugh.
Might be a cruel way to get eliminated but it does make for some memorable drama. My most painful soccer memories are Romania getting bounced in PKs by Ireland in WC '90 and again by Sweden in '94. My earliest soccer memory is Champions League final in '86 won by Steaua Bucharest in shootout with Steaua keeper Helmut Duckadam saving all 4 PKs. Barcelona was stunned losing the final in their own country.
And again, this summer when Ludogorets of Bulgaria was in the 2nd leg of their last qualification round. A substitute midfielder had to take the place of their Goal Keeper in Extra Time. (Injury or Red Card, I can't remember). He made a few key saves in Extra Time, and then went onto PKs. He made a few saves and scored one himself. They're now in Group B with Real Madrid, but they got the same record as Liverpool.
Then there's this "In a nail biting finish, the final of the 2005 Namibian Cup had to be settled by a record breaking 48 penalty kicks, with KK Palace holding their nerve to defeat the Civics 17-16 following a 2-2 draw in normal time. A number of players on each side had to take 3 spot kicks in the shootout, which lasted almost as long as the game"
That was Cosmin Moti, a Romanian veteran center back for Ludogorets who ironically eliminated a Romanian team ... Steaua Bucharest. What made it more bizarre was that before Ludogorets, Moti was a long time player for Dinamo Bucharest which is Steaua's arch rival. Go figure ... The funny thing is that this now places Moti into legend status for Dinamo fans ...