Fifa's away-goals ruling unfair
BY SAM BUCKLEAway goals are a big deal in World Cup qualification playoffs. Away goals have already helped Bahrain past Saudi Arabia to earn the right to play the All Whites. They have the very real potential to decide who progresses to South Africa 2010 - and we are certainly not getting any help from Fifa.
Yesterday, Radio Sport reported that Fifa had "clarified" the away goals rule in respect to New Zealand's showdown with Bahrain. Apparently, and contrary to previous understanding, away goals will count as a tiebreaker in extra time (the playoff will enter extra time if the match is tied 0-0 at full time, as it did in Manama).
This is an unjust decision.
First, it is unfair. Both sides should have the same opportunity to score away goals. We only had 90 minutes to score an away goal in Manama. Bahrain now potentially have 120 minutes to score an away goal in Wellington. That's wrong. Others will argue that the fact New Zealand gets to, potentially, play 120 minutes home is a balancing factor. I disagree. The latter is an intangible, "emotional" advantage, while the former is a specific, technical advantage.
Second, and possibly more important, I don't think it's a clarification. I think it's a contradiction - of Fifa's own stated policies. Article 17 (no 9) of Fifa's own regulations for South Africa 2010 state that:
"In the knockout 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 count 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."
OK, if you had a good lawyer, you could argue the wording leaves wriggle room. But it's a pretty fundamental point. If Fifa intended for away goals to be a tiebreaker in extra time, they should have said so, explicitly. It never did. At the very least it's amateur. If Fifa made the rules vague with a view to interpreting them as it deemed most convenient, then that's something far shadier.
Of course, one has to be careful about shouting conspiracy. However, given the history and reality of Fifa politics, given Fifa's appalling recent decision to seed the European World Cup playoffs to help shepherd the big drawcards likes France and Portugal into next year's World Cup (Ireland's Shay Given has been particularly vocal about this injustice) given the politics of world football and inevitable Asian ire should both Australia and New Zealand deny "Asian" sides places at the World Cup, I say it is conceivable that Fifa took a calculated decision to do the Asian Football Confederation a little favour - at our expense.
I should acknowledge that there are different interpretations and applications of the away goals in extra time rule in different competitions around the world. I have found it difficult to reach definitive conclusions about precedent from my rather hurried research. I would be very interested to know what away goals rules will be applied in the European qualifiers and which will apply in the Conmebol vs Concacaf World Cup playoff. I can't recall what rules were in play when Australia and Uruguay went to extra time in the second leg of their 2006 World Cup playoff. Does anybody recall? If, in each of those cases, away goals will/did apply in extra time of the second leg of the playoff, I reckon I'll have to retreat from any inference of shadiness - although I'll still maintain its an unjust policy.
Knowledge, views, information invited.
Sam Buckle is a New Zealand football fan, pundit and founding member of www.yellowfever.co.nz
Follow NZStuffBlogs on Twitter and get fast updates on all Stuff's blogs.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
I agree that's it's unfair, but I think you have to balance it with the fact that we have the easiest path to the world cup of any team and that this rule will apply in the european playoffs too.
Good blog, with some good points.
As always in situations like this, do we need to question ourselves for assuming something in the first place. This rule is applied differently in different situations. UEFA compeitions apply the rule as it is being applied in the current situation. I remember reading a while ago about a UEFA CUP match in the early 70's where Rangers were playing a Portuguese side (Sporting Lisbon I believe). It was tied 5-5 on aggregate at the end of 90 minutes of the second leg (3-2 in both legs). Rangers were the away side and each team scored in extra-time. But the ref ordered penalties to be taken with Lisbon winning. This was incorrect as Rangers had scored an away goal in extra-time. They appealed to UEFA and won the appeal and I think they won the Cup in that year. (I maybe wrong on that).
Ben is right about it applying to the European qualifiers as well - FIFA consistency. And you could argue against the "conspiracy" as the seeded teams are home in the second leg.
I think the key here is that we should've clarified the application before assuming anything. It is applied differently in different competitions and I'm not sure that the FIFA regulations are sufficiently clear to help us decide. Therefore we were wrong to assume anything.
So, what's the answer? Make the "intangible" home advantage tangible. John Terry and Frank Lampard, hardly what you would call soft, have spoken about the tangible effect the Anfield crowd had on them in the 2005 Champions League semi-final. It was a wall of noise which we will not experience in this country, 45 minutes before the kick-off when they came out to warm up. Full house, one hour before the match, with flags singing etc. It was tangible.
This away goals in extra-time point is highly likely to be completely irrelevant and not needing to be applied, but if it is, when the legs are weary in the 30 minutes of extra-time, it is up to us to make the tangible difference to the men in white on the pitch.
Rather than worry about away goals, we should be keeping our fingers crossed for Nelsen and Fallon!!!!
As long as the rules are consistent and apply to all groups then it's up to the All Whites to win outright to get to SA. There's probably not much point worrying about this aspect as no one knows the outcome. It could be 1 nil to either team so no extra time needed.
I agree with Sam here. This is not a "clarification" - it's an amendment. The published FIFA regulations for the 2010 World Cup, if read correctly and consistently, do not differentiate between home and away goals scored in extra time. The problem here is that FIFA is effectively judge and jury - there is not the normal recourse to the Court for Arbitration in Sport which is usually available if an organisation breaks its own rules.
Surly we will protest this??? I cant believe more Journos aren't as outraged.
Let's just win it in normal time and then this discussion becomes academic!
from across the tasman - firstly i'd like to say that im going for the Kiwis and best of luck!!
To your response in the blog..
Away goals counted in extra time when australia uruguay in 05.. nail biting stuff.
australia also lost on away goals to iran in 97 - leading 2 mil with 15 mins to go. absolutley devasted.
i was at both games and the excitment, anticipation & emotions of either games was unbeilevable. enjoy!
go all whites! (hoping for australia to play nz @ the world cup)
I also remember that 2 Iran players that where red carded in there pre Asian WCQ games ended up playing in the 1997 playoff against Australia due to some FIFA rule made at the time. Shame it wont happen for Moss?.
This is a travesty, and smacks of favouritism. Why was the 'clarification' not made earlier. We need to challenge this legally. Where's a good America's Cup lawyer when you need one?
Houston died in bathtub - coroner
Christchurch cricket bat murder admitted
Daily trivia quiz: February 13
Woman crushed, friend watched 'helplessly'
Hundreds of unfit teachers in class
Superbike champion dies after race crash
Tainui leader ousted from board
Bus survivor praises her heroic rescuers
Hundreds of unfit teachers in class
Volunteers fight fires in a truck that won't stop
Your top 10 cheesy pickup lines
Kiwi women obsessed with weight
Ethnic rights advice stuns communities
NZ, mate, you might have a drinking problem
Paul Henry's disjointed return to TV
Warning hearing has power to kill Transmission Gully
It's interesting that FIFA seem to have made, I belive, an error here. The thought "If Fifa made the rules vague with a view to interpreting them as it deemed most convenient, then that's something far shadier." is somehow easy to believe.