Summary: Blatter wants to alter the away goal rule in the knockout stage, as he said its quite old. The away team in the 2nd round has a possible advantage of 30 min extra. That makes sense. And for the first time, I completely agree with him.

I think it would be best if the away goal starts to count after the 30 extra minutes in the 2nd round (if applicable)

Source:
FIFA president Sepp Blatter has called for a rethink on the away goals rule and questioned whether the method for settling knock-out games still makes sense.

The system - where the team who has scored the most goals away from home wins the tie if the scores are level - has been used since 1965 in European competition and still applies in the Champions League and Europa League.

'In reality it favours the club that play away from home in the second leg. Where the scores are tied, that team has 30 minutes more than their opponent to score a valuable away goal. After all, in the first leg there is no extra time.' said Blatter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2787160/FIFA-president-Sepp-Blatter-questions-fairness-away-goals-rule-knock-games.html

A very welcome change indeed.

Agree with Blatter (me too for first time).

But the team who play the 2nd leg in their stadium is also blessed because its very important in CL, for example if United didnt knew Vs Olympiakos that they needed 3 goals to qualify, they wouldnt have done the same game.
France against Ukraine in the WC play offs as well, Barça remontada vs Milan....

I found it equitable because the away team have a more valuable goal but at the same time, they play the extra 30 minutes away, which is very different.
Imagine extra 30 min at Camp Nou or Bernabeu or the Bridge, in big competitions, the help of the stadium is underrated here by Blatter.

A team like Chelsea for example would rather protect their 1-0 result at home rather than go all in for a goal, vs Psg they were blessed to know the first leg result. Psg at the opposite, would have attacked more in the Bridge if they didnt know first leg result.

When you host first, you arent favoured at all, because the other team are hosting knowing the first leg result while the end of the second game gives you qualification or makes you quit competiion.
The fact the team is hosting the second leg in my mind is a big favour that the away goal makes a little justice, against a fierce stadium for 120min, better have the away goal with you, its more equitable imo.

I just don't like the away goal rule at all...

This is just plain stupid, the rule helps the away team as much in the regular time as in the extra time.

So if the away team scores 3 in the non way goal time, they just count as normal goals...

Thats stupid. Get rid of away goals and play normally, we'll see more ET and penalties then as well

Uhmn, it's hard to tell which one is better, I certainly dont like this rule as much as some members here, but it's there for a reason.

Why would ET away goal be non-sense? For example, as tiki_taka said: some teams takes advantage of this rule and kill the game before it even starts. The ET away would certainly be better some what. AND we dont have to watch that Penalties (I hate penalties).

Especially, since we all know that the Away goal rule exists for a reason.

So the Away rule is to prevent the penalties if it is possible - that can already be a big different.

Sure, the team who can play 30' extra at home in the 2nd game has advantage (in theory). But if you dont have that away goal rule, what then? play in different stadium? that would be non sense.

Im not against getting rid of the away goal, but we will witness more extra times and more penalties like tuan said.
but it will mean that the away teams wouldnt attack to get that away goal and we could assist to boring first legs and teams playing the 0-0 who will become a good result if we take the rule away.

I wouldnt touch anything if i was Blatter, there was no problem at this level anyway, i just know that i always wish for my team to host last because the second game is the decisive one and playing it at home is a bigger advantage than the away rule for me.

I thin there would be more goals and not 0:0 as @tiki said. Look, home teams first rule: NOT CONCEDE. Without this rule I think teams will play more offensively.

The rule is simply outdated, it makes games more tense for home teams. I just dont like it, but this modification would be the worst thing ever. Since always teams in knockout stage go with defensive mentality to their away games, getting rid of the away goal rule would prevent this like many others already said. Just think about how fair would it be for a fixture to be settled if both teams end up in a draw... if they draw it means they are equally as good in theory.. If a team has a bad home game they have almost no chance of going for the comeback in the second leg because a team with an away advantage will go full defensive playing at home. This rule allows teams to play a lot with the scores and it ends up in playing defensive when the score lets you. This rule helps fixtures to be decided on the 120 minutes with no need for ET but I dont think it is the fairest way to go.

Get rid of ET...

^ so you want to go directly to penalties?

Yep there is no perfect formula for this, I hope they would come up with something creatives, some kind of algorithm to calculate when after the 2nd round the game ends up with a draw, like put a weight on goal (first round weight slightly higher) etc... And it gotta be the most optimum algorithm.

Just make like in some countries, get rid of away goal rule but keep the classic ET.

Blatter is right. I've been arguing for this for ages (http://footyroom.com/inter-milan-4-1-tottenham-hotspur-2013-03/). If the game goes to extra time in the second leg, the away team has an extra 30 minutes to score an away goal which will pretty much count as 2 goals for them. The argument that "well, the team has home advantage" doesn't make much sense when you consider the amount of fatigue that will come to play, essentially making any "home advantage" non-existent. My opinion is that away goal rules should not count when games go to extra time. For example:

Team X 2-1 Team Y (first leg)
Team Y 2-1 Team X (second leg)
Aggregate: 3-3 -> extra time at Team Y's home

If Team X and Team Y both score 1 goal in extra time, Team X wins 4-4 on aggregate. I believe that this should not happen. The game should go straight to penalties. You don't apply a rule for 90 minutes the first leg and 120 minutes the second leg. It is simply not fair.

^again I ask, what is the difference with those extra 30 min and the regular 90? Both teams get fatigued, since when it is an advantage to play away just because your goals can eventually count for 2?...

Look at it the other way around, if FIFA removes the away goal rule for the ET then the home team will have 30 extra minutes to play at home in a important fixture were the away team has no away goal rule. In the end it will favour the home team.

I dont like this rule at all but modifying it will only make it worst. Teams will now park the bus looking for the extra time to come and we will have teams playing with time once again.

EXTRA TIME AFFECTS BOTH TEAMS EQUALLY!

thinking that having the rule apply in the regular 90 minutes is fair but it isnt if applied in the next 30 is nonsense...

btw... Tottenham deserved to go through in that fixture because they played great in the first leg...

I agree with you the game about everything except : '' you consider the amount of fatigue that will come to play, essentially making any "home advantage" non-existent. ''
This is the time 90.000 fans supporting you count the most, when your legs are done, the peoples help boost the mental while its much much complicated to be tired playing away in a big competition.

As a proposition : I would prefer a 3rd game concept in a neutral stadium or Golden goal in Extra time, the first to score wins.
Anyway, we cant consider the home advantage inexistent, In Football History stats, the winner has frequently been the home team despite away goal advantage.

The only time i saw this situatio happened is in 2000, Barça vs Chelsea ( 6-4 o agg ).
Chelsea won at the bridge 3-1, the second leg ended 3-1 at full time, then Barça scored twice to win the tie in Extra time.

There is no denial about the advantage of the away goal in Extra time, but i keep my preference for hosting the second leg and eventually play Extra time at home, i understand both points anyway.

@tuanis: "Teams will now park the bus looking for the extra time to come and we will have teams playing with time once again". what you said is only right for certain situation. On the other hand (to reflect your question): without the extra time - which is as it is now, the team who score an away goal in the 1st round (say 2 - 1), will park the bus in the 2nd round when they have 1 - 0. So either way it would cause that.

BUT, if we get rid of the away rule in 90 min, and only ET as you asked: the kind of team team who play at home and park the bus to get an 30' extra time at home stadium? that sounds a lot like weaker teams who would do that anyway. I think this would prevent at least some parking boring buses (not all of course), just a bit more.

I know it doesn't bring that much, but IMO its a bit better than the away goal rule now

@tiki: hosting a 3rd game would be desire in any case, but I dont think it would be convinient for such a tight schedule teams are having now. And sometimes too fair and square takes away the bitter part in sport. It's like a meal, sometimes too full doesn't make it good... a little less leave a longer lasting taste right?