What is your opinion of the golden goal ?

Question

in 2002 FIFA world cup the golden goal was used, and I think it was a good thing because whoever scored the golden goal was the hero. Still (like in 2006 world cup), with the overtime playing of two 15-minute halves, the scorer in overtime is deemed a hero.

so what is your opinion, which do you like more: the golden goal rule or the overtime of two 15-minute periods? and why?

Answer 1

I'm against because the teams fear to lose and they decide to stay back... And some of the mythic game of the World Cup wouldn't have been so beautiful with the golden goal... (Germany-France 1982 ; Sweden-Romania 1994...)

Answer 2

Most of the time I don't like the golden goal rule. While it is true that this rule is an encouragement for the teams to seek an early ending of the game, it takes away the nerve-wracking time when one team has scored in overtime and the other team tries to even the score! This usually leads to an all-or-nothing offense from the team scored against and loads of good fast-break opportunities from the leading time - usually this time of the game is more enjoyable than the whole rest of the game!

Answer 3

I favor the golden goal then the extra time. i think with the golden goal rule force the players to attack more then to defend, this makes the game much more entertaining.

The extra time rule makes the teams stall more than attack. Plus the better side will usually win with the golden ball rule, as the other side can't just stall and have a lucky draw on penalty.

And a game as big as a final, it definitely deserve to be decided more on skill than luck.

Answer 4

great rule, when a game goes to extra time it doesnt allow players to sit back and wait for peneltys, teams have to attack more then they did in teh 90 mins so it makes for a extra 30 mins of exciting football

Answer 5

giveing the luck chance

Answer 6

I don't know...