I can't see why it is better. Do you find it more exciting when all the teams are concentrating on is to make sure that they don't concede a goal.
And especially do you think it is more exciting when you are watchinga game with all the tension that brings and all of a sudden it is over when a team scores. I find it a lot more exciting when you score and the other team are pushing up front. Those last minutes are a lot more exciting than when you know that it is all over if someone scores.
The golden goalrule was not fair either, there has been several examples where teams have been dominating a game completely and suddenly the other team scores. For example I'm pretty confident that Sweden would have scored at least one more goal during the extratime against Senegal 2002.
We've been through this issue in other threads though.
The problem with the golden/silver goals rule is that the people who implemented it didn't think of the fact that teams would change their tactics according to the rules. The golden goal rule is great in theory, because people would have thought "Hey, wouldn't it be great if a single goal won the match? Then teams would come out attacking so they can kill the match off quickly". Unfortunately, the gg rule led to defensive football from teams that were too afraid to concede a goal.
At least with the silver goal rule, you're in for an exciting 15 minutes of football, as the trailing team attacks with all they've got. Unfortunately the length of the halves means that this only happens for about 5 minutes on average :down:
No, it's half an hour of extra time, which I think is best, but Silver Goal is definitely a better idea than Golden Goal. In GG extra time teams don't go forward as they should because they're afraid of conceding the goal that'll decide the game.