Talk:Away goals rule

Away goals after extra time
Where does the information that the away goals rule is not in effect after overtime come from? According to the sources available to me, it is actually in effect. See, e.g., the UEFA Champions League competition info or the results of the 2002/03 UEFA Cup. The first round tie between FK Viktoria Zizkov and Rangers F.C. was decided through the away goals rule after extra time. Spike 15:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Not all competitions with the away goals rule suffer from this anomaly, however: the Copa do Brasil has developed its rules to avoid some anomalies, such as the above. In that Cup, if two teams share either the same stadium or the same home town, neither is considered the home club and thus the Away Goals Rule does not apply. This exception was seen, for example, in the 2006 final between Flamengo and Vasco, when both legs were played at the Maracanã Stadium." The reference for it can be seen here in portuguese, Art. 20, § 2: Another curiosity about this issue is that in 2009 season of Copa Sudamericana the same thing happened between Flamengo and Fluminense playing both in this same Maracanã Stadium both matches. The scores were 1x1 in the first match and 0x0 in the second. Fluminense went on as the first match counted as being played on Flamengo's home and could even get to the finals of this competition, loosing it to LDU from Equator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.226.23 (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Barbados-Grenada example
I've removed this example:
 * An unsual application of the away goal rule occured during CONCACAF World Cup qualifying play in 1994. In a two-legged fixture between Grenada and Barbados, Grenada (as the home team) had won the first leg 3-1.  Barbados has taken a 2-0 goal lead into the second half of the second fixture (as the home team).  Under rules in place, the second game would only go into overtime if the game (as opposed to the aggregate score) was tied.  Also, the overtime was of the sudden-death variety, with the winner of the sudden death given a 2-0 victory (regardless of the actual score).  The result of the combination of these rules was that a 2-0 victory would create a two-fixture tie, and thus Barbados would win by the away goals rule (as a result of their single goal at Granada).  A 2-1 victory for Barbados would mean that Grenada had scored a higher aggregate score (4-3) and thus Granada would advance.  When Grenada made the score 2-1, it suddenly became advantageous for Barbados to tie the score, and force an overtime, thus giving them a better chance to win (scoring on Granada would ALSO have given them the outright win, but scoring an own goal is far easier).  Once Barbados scored the intentional own goal, Grenada realized that the easiest way to rectify the situation was to score its own goal.  Barbados thus defended both ends of the field, with Grenada trying to score in either net.  Regulation ended with a 2-2 tie, and Barbados won the overtime victory, granting them advancement.

I've removed because it's factually incorrect. It was the Caribbean Cup, not the World Cup, and it was a group of 3 teams, also including Puerto Rico, not a two-leg fixture. This leads me to doubt whether the away goals rule applied at all. In any case, it wouldn't have made any difference to Barbados' calculation that 2-2 was a better result than a 2-1 win. Here's the final table, sourced from RSSSF: Group 1 23 Jan Barbados      0-1 Puerto Rico       1.Barbados      2  1  0  1  4- 3  3 25 Jan Grenada       1-0 Puerto Rico [*]   2.Grenada       2  1  0  1  4- 4  3 27 Jan Barbados      3-2 Grenada [*]       3.Puerto Rico   2  1  0  1  1- 2  3 [*] decided in sudden death extra time; sudden-death goals count double in goals for/against column! The weirdness results from "golden goal counts double", not "away goals count double". The example is likely to confuse rather than illuminate. It's a nice piece of trivia, but this is the wrong article for it; it's already at Caribbean Cup. I have added the references from here to there. jnestorius(talk) 01:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I misinterpreted the source of the weirdness here. I had thought it was a problem with the away goals, not the golden goal.  It does seem to belong elsewhere.  Thanks for moving to a better article. --Jayron 32  02:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous term "tie"
In United States English, a tie is a draw, a situation where both teams are equal. As far as I can tell, in British English and perhaps other variants, and not counting the confusing cricket definition, a tie (e.g. a Cup tie) is one or more matches between the same two teams in a knockout round of a tournament. This article uses both senses of the term! I've tried to clean the ambiguity up, rather than to impose any particular variant of English, in the spirit of WP:ENGVAR. But I didn't know what to do with common phrases such as tiebreaker and break a tie. (For example, one hears of tiebreaks at Wimbledon; would that imply that the US usage is readily understood in the UK?)  Improvements to my terminology are strongly encouraged! - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In the context of tiebreaking rules such as in football/soccer when a draw is not an acceptable result, or tiebreakers in tennis, the "tie" is not the result of the match. The tiebreaking rule is worded something like "If at the end of normal time in the second leg the teams are tied on aggregate score, ..." and the next criterion is applied until a result is determined. Hence this is not US usage, in which a "tie" is the result. (In cricket, a draw usually occurs if neither team achieves a win within the available time or number of overs. A tie is simply a draw in which both teams score the same number of runs.)203.23.239.198 (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

How about CAF rules?
At least, in the current CAN 2013 qualification, after 90 minutes of the second leg, there will be no extra time. If the two teams are tied, they go directly to the penalty shoots. Is it a general rule from CAF, or is it an anomaly applied only in this qualification? 85.242.30.192 (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence
Is this serious? --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

History of the rule
Could someone add a section about the history of the rule/the away goals count double rule? I'm pretty sure that the original rule was that away goals count double, if tied on points. I.e. a two legged game with the results 1-0 and 3-1 would go to overtime/penalty. But I can't find sources on that --JesperErnstH (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)JesperErnstH


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "if tied on points". I don't think it was ever the case that A1-B0 + B3-A1 would go to overtime/penalties. If it was treated as a two-team group then team B would win on goal difference or goal average if either was a tiebreak criterion; otherwise there would be a playoff match (e.g. 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA – Group 9)). OTOH if it was treated as a two-legged tie, then team B would win 3-2 on aggregate. jnestorius(talk) 12:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The rule was never that away goals count double. That was merely a misinterpretation by some observers (and perhaps some participants) who failed to understand the rule correctly. I don't think I have ever heard of points awarded in a two-leg match between two teams. 203.23.239.198 (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Away goals rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629100814/http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19070.pdf to http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19070.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080609174129/http://www.rsssf.com/ec/ec196667det.html to http://www.rsssf.com/ec/ec196667det.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019071610/http://www.rsssf.com/tableso/oc-u20-90.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tableso/oc-u20-90.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Two examples identical with different outcomes
Example C and D describe the exact same scoring scenarios, but then go on to say these same scenarios lead to different outcomes. This is confusing. 72.216.7.35 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)