It makes overtime much more exciting with the Golden Goal.
2006-06-25 17:47:12 · 8 answers · asked by gggg 3 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ FIFA World Cup (TM)
Are you kidding, basically ANY goal scored in extra time is basically a golden goal anyway. So why waste the time. Golden Goal is a great idea.
2006-06-25 17:53:19 · update #1
You guys are missing the point. You said what if there's a bad call? There's always bad calls. If a bad call is made in extra time the game is over anyway.
I'm saying, that late in the game, chances are only one team will score anyway.
Why not bring back the golden goal and save time.
I don't understand that slogging business, because both teams have to play offense and defense with golden goal too.
2006-06-25 17:57:02 · update #2
Korea vs. Italy was infamous. But chances are, Italy wasn't going to score anyway. Korea wins.
2006-06-25 18:00:38 · update #3
What if a team scores in your "extra time"? The other team will pass the ball to their goaltender and defenders all the time and waste the extra time...that's fun. I just saw that happen in the Mexico vs. Portugal game.
2006-06-25 18:04:51 · update #4
Great points, last few guys!
2006-06-26 00:04:12 · update #5
Very true, they should bring back the Golden Goal because it is more exciting because the team has to defend so they wont get scored and attack at the same time to finish the game. Every shot is more intense since that can determine the match. In Extra Time even though the team scores they still can be too confident since the team has 30 minutes to tie the game again.
2006-06-25 18:41:01 · answer #1 · answered by GUESS 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, they should not. What if theres a bad offsides/penalty kick call? The other team could do nothing about it. I also think they should eliminate penalties, because penalties have nothing to do with which team plays better football. However, if a team is leading at the end of the first half overtime, I think that should be a win.
Addition: Ok, you people miss my point. Of course golden goal is more exciting. When theres an awful ref, like the other day in Portugal vs Netherlands, that makes the game more exciting too. But it doesnt mean its the best thing to do. If the refs are ALWAYS really bad, do you think the tournament would be proceeding normally? There are more good reffed games than poor ones, but the poor ones receive much, much more attention, for obvious reasons. But come back to the main point: Is Golden Goal fair? and to the people who say that in extra time, theres only one goal anyway, so theres no point in playing after that, learn some soccer history, please. Euro 04 two goals scored in extra time, and in the world cup, 78 final 2 in extra time, and my favorite, 86 cup round of 16, three goals scored in extra time. and, most importantly, while golden goal and penalty shootouts are more exciting, they dont really tell you which is the better team (especially penalties)
2006-06-25 17:54:22 · answer #2 · answered by Joga Bonito 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sports are all about the excitement and competition of the game and the only thing more exciting than golden goal overtime is the PK shootout. Golden Goal Overtime is a great way to end the game in my opinion. If you give up a goal you lose it is that simple. You must still attack because you don't want to go into PK's. I think Golden Goal has much more excitement and that is what football is all about.
2006-06-25 18:10:33 · answer #3 · answered by Cool Guy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No!
refer this post:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApPXX2MRcXWX9llJ64has3Lsy6IX?qid=20060623213849AA9VI15
"The Golden Goal rule was introduced to save time, but it was a bad idea because all that the teams had to do was to score a goal (hence, they were just throwing their bodies at the ball and slogging to get a goal). Whereas, without the rule in place, they have to hold on till atleast 15 minutes, meaning they have to attack, but also defend so that the team that has just scored a goal in Extra time, still have to play & not concede goal(s) before the time are over.
Therefore, in the latter case we have better football played by both sides, as opposed to both just slogging it out in a horrible manner to get the golden goal."
Therefore, as I am saying it is good in theory, but NOT in practical nail-biting situations, as was shown blatantly in WC 2002.
2006-06-25 17:50:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the first 90 minutes of the, let them play their style of game. if certain matches ends up with 0-0, then bring out the golden goal see WHO is the lucky team.
2006-06-25 18:10:27 · answer #5 · answered by seran 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i thought they still are using the golden goal rule??!
golden goal is much more interesting than silver goal.
2006-06-25 17:51:11 · answer #6 · answered by fie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no that's actually not fair, i say let them play and battle til they gave up with the time
2006-06-25 17:50:31 · answer #7 · answered by Jubei 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
uncertain
2006-06-25 17:55:06 · answer #8 · answered by MS SIASIA K 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋