I know in late February 2004 it was decided to do away with the golden goal - what was the logic for this? So far, I have found two main arguments: 1) it encouraged more defensive play and 2) it put excessive pressure on the referee (source: http://www.answers.com/topic/golden-goal). These don't seem very logical to me - coaches always have the option to go for the win or play for PKs and referees always face a great deal of pressure. The benefits of the golden goal, in contrast, seem substantial: fewer games decided by PKs and less fatigue for players when games end earlier. Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue? I am new to the community and would be interested in hearing arguments for and against the golden goal.
FIFA's study showed that less games were settled by Golden Goal than had been by playing a straight 30 mins of extra-time.
I'm for the golden goal returning. Penalty shoot outs are cool, but you might as well flip a coin to determine who wins.
No golden (or silver) goal encourages teams to play attacking soccer instead of worrying about letting in the winning goal. In addition, penalties were almost never called with golden goal due to the sudden death nature of it. There was one in Gold Cup 2003, and in Euro 2000. That's all I can remember. I am in favor of the way it is now, the traditional way. 30 minutes played no matter what.
I prefer the traditional 30 min as well. Maybe it's because that's what I grew up with and was used to. But I also believe it makes the game just the more interesting. It puts the players to their physical limits and forces the coaches to make decisive strategic decisions as to when and who they want to change out players. Not to forget, I want to see as much soccer action as possible, no? Let's take for example 1966, England-Germany, where during a thrilling overtime two more goals were shot. Or 1970 World Cup semifinal, which Italy won 4-3 over Germany and were 5 goals were shot in extra time and it was voted game of the century back then. The golden goal rule would have ruined the games. Then again, Germany became European Champions in 1996 with the golden goal against the Czechs. (I believe that's when it was first introduced by the way, but I'm not sure.). Mmmh....maybe the golden goal rule isn't that bad after all.... Juuust kidding....I don't like and I'm glad it's no longer in existence. Zwanzigoetzel
The "golden goal" should not be brought back in. Extra-time should be played for the traditional thirty minutes and that's all. France vs West Germany in 1982 and Italy vs West Germany are great games that represent why extra-time should be played for thirty minutes. The coin toss is stupid. They used it at Euro 68 and that decided the outcome of the Italy vs USSR semi-final. I'd rather see penalties than a coin toss because penalty shoot-outs less dependant on luck in comparision to a coin toss.
Now I totally can't agree with that. The golden goal leadas to a very defensive game. Did you see the Confed Cup? Argentina - Mexico and Germany - Mexico were great games, especially in over time. That should prove anyone wrong who claims that it makes the game more defensive. Plus, even if they would have scored, we would have been robbed of some of the most entertaining minutes of the Confed Cup.
I'm also in favor for the returning of the Golden Goal, just because I still think it will result in less penalty-shout outs. But maybe they can make a comprimise. Just play the full 30 minutes, but when both teams score the same amount of goals in extra time let the team that scored the first goal be the winner. In that case the team that gets behind still has a chance, but they have to score twice to win the match.
When the golden goal was first introduced at was a raging success at the youth tournaments it was trialled at. Unfortunately when the professionals got involved at the top level extra time became ultra safe and defensive. The main driver of this is that to lose a game to a mistake in extra time was a lot more damaging to peoples careers than a loss on penalties. At the top level golden goal extra time became a time to go and make breakfast (big games on TV where I liove usually start at 4AM) get ready for work and then come back and watch the penalty shootout. It simply didin't acheive its objective of reducing the number of games decided by penalties.
FIFA thought the same way, that was the reason the Golden Goal. However, reality was very different, more games ended-up going to PKs than before. This is one case in which FIFA looked at the facts and reversed an earlier (bad IMHO) decision.
Not a link, but I do have some numbers. World cups from 1950 to 1994 there were 25 Extra time games and 11 ended up on PKs (44%). Even if you exclude the 1954 and 1958 ET games, you get 11/23 (48%). In 1998 and 2002 (Golden Goal era) there were 9 ET games and 5 ended up on PKs (56%). Since this is a small Sample I added Euro 1996-2004 ET games, 7 out of 11 were decided on PKs. So during the GG era in Major international competitions, 60% (12/20) of ET games ended up going to PKs. Is the sample large enough? I say yes (but I'm not objective ).