By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
S.Peelman on 10 July 2014
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
S.Peelman said:

I agree no extra time at all is probably not the best idea, but isn't a reward for playing like shit precisely what a team gets with a second chance in a penalty shootout after holding out in extra time? A Golden Goal would prevent that while rewarding the attacking team with a shorter effort. The other team in my eyes forfeited their right to equalize again the moment the match was allowed to go into extra time. Equalizers are for regular time.

When both teams play like shit or don't like yesterday then yes, they deserve to suffer  

The penalty shootout after 120 minutes is a necessary evil, because there has to be a winner at some point and you can't let teams play forever. The Golden Goal rule doesn't prevent a reward for playing like shit, because it requires a goal to be scored; if a team that plays like shit doesn't concede a goal, then it doesn't matter whether or not there is a Golden Goal rule.

Yes, of course. I'm certainly not against the penalty shootout .

The Golden Goal rewards the attacking team if they manage to score. I only feel that's fairer than having them ride out the entirety of the rest of the extra time.