All Whites, Ferns, and other international teams

CHANGE OF RULING - away goals in extra-time

137 replies · 6,935 views
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Marius Lacatus wrote:
Id be very keen to have a crack at this on Hand of God, but I want to be clear about the facts. At a glance it seems the rules for our fixture are the exception, which would be a disgrace.
�

What do we know for sure?

- European qualifiers (extra time away goals will not count for double)

- it is contrary to FIFA's own regulations for SA 2010 as Sanday has pointed out.

�

What else? that is shocking.

�

�


Marius, there was no rule change. All this confusion was created by the FIFA guy that Piney contacted who misinterpreted the rule as it is written rather ambiguously. The reality is that in FIFA and UEFA competitions, the away goals rule has always counted in the extra time of second legs - it's unfair, but it's the way it's been for a long time and is unlikely to change.

The way to understand the rule is when they say for extra time "if the scores are still tied" they mean if there's no winner and a team scoring more away goals (they clearly set out that away goals rule is the number 1 tie-breaker before explaining the extra-time scenario), then the match goes into a penalty shoot-out. Poorly phrased, but has been the practice for a long time now.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I still say we should put in an official protest.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
yea I actually didnt realise that bahrain would theoretically get 30 mins extra to score an away goal.....WE MUST PROTEST!!!!
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

This is just the sort of stuff NZF should be all over. Get the bloody lawyers onto it. The clause appears to state if level after extra time then penalties. It does not state wether or not goals have been scored in the period of extra time.

This is professional sport and the stakes could not be higher. Times to grow some Balls  NZF. I'm E-mailing van Hattum right now.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Fifa:  Football's Idiotic Fascist Authority.
 
They do what the hell they want, and truly believe they OWN football. No, they are merely the custodians of the peoples' game. 
 
Anyone go to the Women's U17 World Cup games? Did you think it was strange how any action involving controversial refereeing decisions were not replayed on the big screen? Big brother dictating to the masses.
 
C'mon NZF stand up and show some passion.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
BlattersBalls wrote:
Anyone go to the Women's U17 World Cup games? Did you think it was strange how any action involving controversial refereeing decisions were not replayed on the big screen? Big brother dictating to the masses.


The same rules as the A-League then ?

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hard News wrote:
BlattersBalls wrote:
Anyone go to the Women's U17 World Cup games? Did you think it was strange how any action involving controversial refereeing decisions were not replayed on the big screen? Big brother dictating to the masses.

The same rules as the A-League then ?

Pretty sure that NZ cricket and/or ICC does the same - and I think the max number of replays is one.

I think it was initiated (in NZ at least) after a game where rubbish was thrown on to the field in disgust.

On the topic, I hope that this doesn't somehow mess with the minds of the team. Just bloody go out and win the damned thing.
ahmad2009-10-28 15:26:52

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hard News wrote:
BlattersBalls wrote:
Anyone go to the Women's U17 World Cup games? Did you think it was strange how any action involving controversial refereeing decisions were not replayed on the big screen? Big brother dictating to the masses.


The same rules as the A-League then ?
 
Not sure, I live in Christchurch, so haven't seen a game at the stadium. Though I would suggest that it is unfair (and something of a disincentive) that  supporters who pay good money to go to a game,  are denied the same replay coverage as those sitting on there arses in the warm at home.
 
Presumably there is an offical somwhere playing god as to what is suitable for consumption and what is not. This sort of autocratic sanitisation has no place in football.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
So in the past has the rule been like this?
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Gee, all of a sudden FIFA has some sort of evil bias against us, isn't this the same FIFA which has given NZ the easiest potential route to the world cup of any team.  If the team has to win to get in, good - that's still easier than what everyone else has to do to get there. 
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
loyalgunner wrote:
So in the past has the rule been like this? [/QUOTE]
I'm no expert but if you look up the away goals rule on Wikipedia it seems that this rule (for ET) is applied inconsistently across different tournaments. So there is hardly a "precedent".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Away_goals_rule

According to someone that wrote this part on Wikipedia:

[quote]The semi-finals of the promotion playoffs in the Football League, despite being two-legged, ceased to employ the away goals rule from 2000. As away goals scored in extra time counted double, the side finishing lower in the league gained an advantage by playing away in the 2nd leg, thus giving them 30 more minutes to score an away goal. The rescinding of the away goals rule has affected the results of several play-off semi-finals.


So it seems the disparity of counting away goals AET is noted but doesn't stop it being applied.

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Posting this on behalf of A N Other (whose opinion I respect but whose workplace does not have access to / use of this website) ...
 
 
"Yes, it used to always be that away goals only counted in normal, not extra time in the second leg.
 
"That made sense and was justice because there never is extra time in the first leg ... so to allow the away team in the 2nd leg an extra 30 minutes to score a goal (as they are doing now)  is wrong. 
 
"And FIFA , having changed its mind, is doing so  in the hope that the Asian team will go through - see how many Asian members there are on the FIFA Executive committee. 
 
"They  are a law unto themselves, and will do anything to achieve  ends.  All we can do is to win - otherwise the sudden and wrongful change in the rules will finish us off!!!" 
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
stevenivan wrote:
Gee, all of a sudden FIFA has some sort of evil bias against us, isn't this the same FIFA which has given NZ the easiest potential route to the world cup of any team.  If the team has to win to get in, good - that's still easier than what everyone else has to do to get there. 
 
It's not necessarily about 'evil bias' (though I wouldn't rule it out). It's about not changing the rules half way through a competition, which on the face of it, is what Fifa appear to be doing. 
 
And Fifa aren't really doing us an favours per se. They are providing Oceania with a 0.5 place at the World Cup in order to back up the premis of it being a truly World representative competition. However, aA cynic might look at Oceania's 0.5 spot and suggest that it was actually a gift to Asia, who now get 4.5 places and might reasonably assume that they would cruise the playoff. The fact that it is now 0-0 after tha Manama game suggests otherwise. For this reason, I want to know exactly when this 'clarification' occured.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
A cynic might look at Oceania's 0.5 spot and suggest that it was actually a gift to Asia, who now get 4.5 places and might reasonably assume that they would cruise the playoff...
 
 
Absolutely! You and my A N Other are totally on the ball ...
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
loyalgunner wrote:
So in the past has the rule been like this?
 
The wording of the FIFA regulations for the 2006 WC and the 2010 WC are identical on this issue. I don't recall any previous FIFA "clarifications" being published.
The confusion arises from sloppy drafting of the regulations, together with the historically and geographically inconsistency with which the away goals "rule" has been applied.
I am unaware of an extra time away goal ruling influencing the outcome of a FIFA competition match - there are a number of examples in UEFA/CONMEBOL/CONCACAF. Can anyone produce a FIFA competition precedent?
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I know it's not a direct comparison with away goals, but I guess some might say that the All Whites get the benefit (if they need it) of playing 120 minutes at home, whereas Bahrain only got 90 max.
 
Most people would agree that playing the second leg at home is an advantage (Ricki and NZF clearly stated how pleased they were that the home leg was second).  I guess the downside is this ruling regarding away goals in extra-time.
 
I agree though that there has been great uncertainty over the ruling.  My first email reply from FIFA was published elsewhere on YF and suggested (without clearly stating) that away goals wouldn't have significance in extra-time, and when I sought clarification, I got nothing back.
 
At least we know now.
 
EDIT: Just noticed Bucks makes the point about playing 120 minutes at home in his Hand of God blog; sorry, this has obviously already been raised. 
liverpoolfan12009-10-28 19:03:41
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Even though its unfair..rules are rules..the best thing for us is for our fantastic all white to beat bahrain!
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
darkhorse wrote:
Even though its unfair..rules are rules..the best thing for us is for our fantastic all white to beat bahrain!
 
But i think that is precisely what has been uncertain, the rules
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
sneakyrat wrote:
Sorry to be professor knowsnothingaboutfootball over here (blame the media) but what's the deal normally with extra time? This is how I assumed it always worked.
 
This is how it has always worked in football I have watched...and it has led to my team losing in the past as well.
 
Has the ruling been 'changed' as such?
 
Until I read about this recently specifically talking about this game, I assumed that away goals in extra time would still count (which they now will anyway).
 
Hopefully it doesn't come down to that anyway, going a goal down in extra time is always a struggle to even get an equaliser against.
 
edit - it was definitely used in this way in the UEFA Cup (and I think still is in the knockout stages), and I am almost certain the rule is applied in this way in the UEFA Champions League as well. Basically, don't feel too hard done by, because this is definitely not a unique case, nor do I believe it to be some kind of conspiracy.
Steve-O2009-10-28 19:48:48

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
liverpoolfan1 wrote:
I know it's not a direct comparison with away goals, but I guess some might say that the All Whites get the benefit (if they need it) of playing 120 minutes at home, whereas Bahrain only got 90 max.
 
Most people would agree that playing the second leg at home is an advantage (Ricki and NZF clearly stated how pleased they were that the home leg was second).  I guess the downside is this ruling regarding away goals in extra-time.
 
I agree though that there has been great uncertainty over the ruling.  My first email reply from FIFA was published elsewhere on YF and suggested (without clearly stating) that away goals wouldn't have significance in extra-time, and when I sought clarification, I got nothing back.
 
At least we know now.
 
EDIT: Just noticed Bucks makes the point about playing 120 minutes at home in his Hand of God blog; sorry, this has obviously already been raised. 
I didnt see your first email reply from FIFA - do you still have it?
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Just this...
 
Dear Jason
 
Thanks for your message.
 
Art. 17, par 9 of the Regulations for the 2010 FIFA World Cup reads as follows:

"In the knock-out format, both teams shall play one home and one away match each, the sequence of which will be determined by lots drawn by the FIFA Organising Committee. The team having scored most goals over the two games will qualify for the next round. If both teams score the same number of goals over the two matches, the goals scored away will be counted as double. If the same number of goals is scored away or both matches end without any goals being scored, extra time of two periods of 15 minutes each will be played. If the score is level after extra time, penalty kicks will be taken to determine the winner in accordance with the procedure described in the Laws of the Game."

 
Trust this information will be of use to you.
 
Best regards
 
Wolfgang
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
ok, so straight from the regs
 
wherever i google, thats all i can find. the regs quoted. given this issue must pop up every four years I find it extroadinary the regs are so vague
 
cheers piney
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
f**k sticks.

At one stage both NZF and FIFA told us the opposite. Damn FIFA and their rule changing at the last minute. They've f**ked Europe and now us too. In saying that, lets get it done in the 90.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Why isnt NZ football SCREAMING THIS AT THE TOP OF THEIR LUNGS TO ANYBODY WHO WILL LISTEN.

THEY SHOULD BE GOING TO EVERY MEDIA OUTLET THAT WILL LISTEN, THEY SHOULD BE PUTTING IN A OFFICIAL PROTEST, RICKI HERBERT SHOULD OF CALLED FOR A PRESS CONFERENCE WHERE HE CALLS FIFA UP ON THEIR CORRUPTION, THERE SHOULD OF BEEN MORE OF A FUSS MADE.

brettdale2009-10-28 21:33:39
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
what exactly should they be screaming about.  That they don't like a rule.  FFS.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Oops - posted in the old thread, not realising there was a new one. Sorry - hadn't been on here for a few days.
 
I don't think this is a rule change. UEFA have always operated this rule for their comps, but some of the other federations haven't.
 
FIFA haven't changed anything either. This ambiguity has been in their previous WC regulations too, but of course we had golden goal and silver goal rules for a while so that the ambiguity couldn't make any difference to the outcome. Those of us with a European background, having been accustomed to UEFA's treatment, just assumed extra-time away goals applied and I guess CONCACAF originating fans assumed otherwise. And we didn't get a scenario in the last WC or two to find out either way.
 
There's really no conspiracy.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Marius Lacatus wrote:
wherever i google, thats all i can find. the regs quoted. given this issue must pop up every four years I find it extroadinary the regs are so vague
 
Ah, but with golden goal it was impossible. Before that, there weren't too many playoffs. I tried going back over the previous tournament qualifying campaigns to find a precedent... and couldn't find a single instance where an extra-time goal was scored by both teams. My guess is that the poor wording of the regulation has never really been exposed before.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
thank you sinz - you are of much wisdom. i think i am tending towards the theory of sloppy drafting but nothing would surprise me.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
That the rules got changed halfway thru!!!!
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
brettdale wrote:
That the rules got changed halfway thru!!!!
 
Really? The regulations haven't changed. They remain exactly as they were for the 2006 World Cup. 2002 had the golden goal, so you couldn't have a tie involving extra-time goals. I don't have a copy of the earlier tournament regs - I don't think they were publicly published in PDF form like everything is now.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
as much as i am suprised by all of this, we are going to win 3-0 so it wont matter.
 
Although i think we neeed to stand up for ourselves, just because we are "small" doesnt give these governing bodies the right to push us around.
 
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Who's being pushed around? We're merely being held to the same rules as everyone else aren't we?
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ wrote:
Who's being pushed around? We're merely being held to the same rules as everyone else aren't we?
 
Thats the thing,we dont really know for sure. We can assume its always been this way,or we can think FIFA is screwing us over. More fun to think conspiracy i think
 
and even if it was always this way (though there isnt really any way to prove it),it still isnt a fair rule.
 
EDIT: FM09 actually says for champions league knockout round that "away goals used if scores are level after 90mins. Away goals used if scores are level after extra time" haha. If only FIFA were that clear with their wording of the rule.
Tegal2009-10-29 01:50:17

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Just got an e-mail back from Mr van Hattum.  He says that the matter has been taken up with Fifa for clarification. I think we are screwed. I really don't understand how this can happen given the clear wording (' if the scores are level after extra time...' ) in Fifa's own competition regulation book.
 
Blatter is a Twat, a politician,  a eurocrat and a man that looks like he's never kicked a football in his life. I'm sick of this stage-managed sh*t, the sanitisation, the men in suits pitch-side ( Howard Webb had to consult with some gimp this morning to suspend the NZ- Burkina Faso game. He has the authority as the ref but needed to check with 'Mr Fifa' so as not to f**k his refereeing aspirations)  the endless politics, and the leverage used to slant things for Fifa's purposes. Don't bother putting out a rule book if you are not going to stick to it.
 
Come on the whites, 3-0! shove that up your arse Sepp.
BlattersBalls2009-10-29 09:02:27
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
cronus wrote:
Posting this on behalf of A N Other (whose opinion I respect but whose workplace�does not have access to / use of this website) ...
�

�

"Yes, it used to always be that away goals only counted in normal, not extra time in the second leg.

�

"That made sense and was justice because there never is extra time in the first leg ... so to allow the away team in the 2nd leg an extra 30 minutes�to score a goal (as they are doing now) �is wrong.�

�

"And FIFA , having changed its mind, is doing so� in the hope that the Asian team will go through - see how many Asian members there are on the FIFA Executive committee.�

�

"They� are a law unto themselves, and will do anything to achieve� ends.� All we can do is to win - otherwise the sudden and wrongful change in the rules will finish us off!!!"�


This is bullsh*t - FIFA and UEFA, since they've used it, have always applied the away goals rule in extra time. The only competition that I'm aware of that used the away goals rule, but did not apply to extra time was the League Cup in England, but I'm not sure if they still used that.

Basically, this is the way it's been since the away goals rule was introduced by UEFA and FIFA, and I'm sure all our players knew/expected this to be the case for this tie. I don't really understand all the indignation, now we sound like a bunch of whiners who whine simply for the sake of whining.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ wrote:
Oops - posted in the old thread, not realising there was a new one. Sorry - hadn't been on here for a few days.
�

I don't think this is a rule change. UEFA have always operated this rule for their comps, but some of the other federations haven't.

�

FIFA haven't changed anything either. This ambiguity has been in their previous WC regulations too, but of course we had golden goal and silver goal rules for a while so that the ambiguity couldn't make any difference to the outcome. Those of us with a European background, having been accustomed to UEFA's treatment, just assumed extra-time away goals applied and I guess CONCACAF originating fans assumed otherwise. And we didn't get a scenario in the last WC or two to find out either way.

�

There's really no conspiracy.


Thank you SiNZ, this is what I've been trying to say for the last 3 pages, just not as eloquently.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
As long as this is the way it is for all play offs. I have no problem.
Perhaps FIFA could make it clearer in their world cup regulations.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
[ [/QUOTE]

This is bullsh*t - FIFA and UEFA, since they've used it, have always applied the away goals rule in extra time. The only competition that I'm aware of that used the away goals rule, but did not apply to extra time was the League Cup in England, but I'm not sure if they still used that.

Basically, this is the way it's been since the away goals rule was introduced by UEFA and FIFA, and I'm sure all our players knew/expected this to be the case for this tie. I don't really understand all the indignation, now we sound like a bunch of whiners who whine simply for the sake of whining. [/QUOTE]
 
Then they have always used this illegally, and need to ammend the regulation book, as it is clear for all to see that when the scores are level after extra time penalties must ensue. I would suggest that Fifa stop concerning themselves with sanitising refereeing decisions, stop  micro-managing every game like a broadway production, and start focussing on the stuff that really matters- The rules.
BlattersBalls2009-10-29 09:35:13
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
liverpoolfan1 wrote:
Hi all,
�

Just had it confirmed by Michael Glading that contrary to previous posts on this, FIFA have ruled that away goals WILL have significance in extra-time.

�

The only way it can go to extra-time is a 0-0 draw after 90 minutes.

�

Then,�if it's a score-draw (1-1, 2-2 etc) after extra-time, Bahrain go through.

�

If it's 0-0 after extra-time, it's penalties.

�

�

�

�

�


This is so stupid. Why ever bother having extra time at all??? Just go straight to Penalties. It would be the most fairest thing you can do for a home/away tie.

And all that talk about having home advantage for 30 minute is a lot of rubbish. Anyone who plays competitively, understands that the home advantage is reduced as the game progressed so basically extra time feels like a neutral venue.

Anyway, if we don't win, then it is going to be a 0-0 draw. Its been an very long time since we had a score draw at home, even longer than being undefeated for 8 years.

I think at extra time, both teams would play the time for penalties because both teams does not want a goal scored against them in short 15 minute halves. Most teams just draw out the extra time and think that penalties are the best way to control the outcome of the game for them.

That extra time with 15 each way is getting more of a joke. . . .
Permalink Permalink