it's really pisses me off. why is is this even a rule? why the team which got 2 draws have to be eliminated? example as PSG vs. Barcelona, both draws but PSG is out, just because this stupid rule of "away goal". Without this rule I think that would be probably more attacking football. I don't think so that scoring more goals on opponent's stadium is something to prove that the team is better. any ideas?

Yes.. I guess I do agree; PSG did kind of deserve to go through, but Inter should have gone through instead of Tottenham/

It was introduced over 40 years ago, when traveling to a rival's stadium was much harder and less likely to win. Times changed and its truly not needed anymore. FIFA needs to fix things like this because there is little need for them in the modern football.

I say without it the CL would benefit. We would potentionally see more extra-time or penalties, which I love. 

What do you replace it with?

During all the crying when Spurs knocked out Inter someone said that the game should go straight to penalties, which I think is a ridiculous idea, penalties IMO are no way for a game to be settled, there even worse than away goals.

You could always do what the americans do, periods of over time, although in football that could go on forever.

Its even more ridiculous in cases where teams share a stadium. I remember Inter Milan and AC Milan in 2003..where AC Milan qualified because the second leg had been arbitrarily decided as an away game for them, even though both matches were in the same stadium.

The away rule is there because it's certainly more difficult to score when you are the away team. The home team has the psychological advantage, the support of the fans etc, so really there is some merit is scoring away goals but it's not needed.

@Raimondo It's not that there is "little need for it" but more like that it does more harm than it does good to the teams and yes, I think extra times and then penalties is the way to go as well.

@quikzyyy PSG scored with a offside goal in the 1st leg so it should've been 3-2 for Barsa

I think the away goal rule is okay. It brings more depth to the fixtures. If there is no away goal rule there is no real point in having two legs. It would be like having a 180 minutes game. With the away goal rule, the two games are not played the same way. So it's two different games.

I agree with KingHenry. Home advantage is a big advantage, especially in a knock-out format. It also makes sure that teams playing away do not just sit back and play for a draw, which was often the case when Italian football ruled the world.

It's the same every year; some teams win by it, and some teams lose by it. Everyone knows the rules going into it, and that's how it works. There's no need to change it, or scrap it, just because a couple of results end up in a way which you don't like. :p

For everyone saying how Inter should have gone through instead of Tottenham: really? You'd reward a team who lost 3-0 away, and didn't score? At least Spurs scored in the San Siro. 

That's why they went through. Seriously, get over it. 

And think about the suggestion of extra-time and penalties: why would that be better? That's an extra half hour with HOME ADVANTAGE for the home team, and home advantage during penalties. Is that fair? Of course it isn't.

It works fine as it is. Every regional organization (like UEFA, CONCACAF etc) uses it.

I think if the Away team has scored at least one goal, then the away goal rule shouldn't apply. 

@TheTruth it was just example nothing more.
@Lodatz penalties are just about nerves nothing more.

@quik: You mean... having a whole stadium boo every opposition PK taker, and cheer wildly for every home PK taker has no effect?

Sure. ;)

@Lodatz penalties and extra time make the game a lot more exciting. 

@Lodatz you raise some good points! You've changed my opinion. ;)

@rai: that's your opinion. I always think ending a game with penalties is a shame. 

But that wasn't my point. My point was the huge advantage that extra time offers the home team. Now, in the case of away goals cancelling each other out, as in the Spurs vs Basel tie, then there's no other option. But to say that it is preferable to away goals, and to have ET and PKs the end result of any aggregate draw...

...is exactly what the away goals rule was invented to solve.

You might as well not have two legs, as KingHenry said.

Away goals is not really the problem. The problem IS penalty-shootouts! They give too much stress and sadness if you lose.

Before the penalties were introuduced in the 60's.

Take an example, Switzerland Germany 1938.

It was 2-2 at the end of ET. They replayed the match the other match and Switzerland won it.

I hate away goals. who cares if your playing away you have some supporters who are gonna support you in the away stadium.

I personally think that playing 2nd leg at home is huge advantage. But sometimes I think away goals are reason that the game is more defensive because nobody wanna concede a goal at home.

Talking of away goals, that BPL hating bitch knibis trash talked on the highlights when Spurs knocked out Inter on away goals crying they were unfair but was nowhere to be seen when Barca went through against PSG, wonder why that was. Signs of a typical troll.

You are jsut saying that because Barcelona advance to the semis due to away goal