Would you scrap the away goals rule?

[Groucho]

Well? Would you?

I reckon I'd get rid.

 

[roydo]

Quite like scoring them like.

 

[roydo]

Oh, you mean like counting double?

Yeah.

 

[chrismpw]

Only in extra time of the 2nd leg.

 

[Eggs]

...only if we can ban them retrospectively and we can play extra time against Panathinakos.

 

[ijjysmith]

I would yes.

It makes no sense if you think about it.

 

[RomEFCRom]

Yes, I've been saying this for years. Especially in the League Cup in England and as someone says above, the "after extra time" is ridiculous

 

[ilikecheese]

I like it as it is.

 

[mmmmsnouts]

Scrap? No.

Eliminate after 180 minutes? Yes. Away goals shouldn't count double when the other team had 30 fewer minutes to score one in their leg.

 

[Groucho]

Scrap? No.

Eliminate after 180 minutes? Yes. Away goals shouldn't count double when the other team had 30 fewer minutes to score one in their leg.

Good point

 

[Seamus Colemole]

Scrap? No.

Eliminate after 180 minutes? Yes. Away goals shouldn't count double when the other team had 30 fewer minutes to score one in their leg.

The argument for that though is that it's balanced out by the home side having 30 mins extra home field advantage. And if you take that away and away goals and just do penalties after 90 mins of the second leg the home side still get an advantage and the away side don't.

Wasn't the away goals rule bought in to encourage teams in 2 legged ties to be a bit more adventurous in the away leg rather than just playing for a 0-0?

 

[Rook]

Away goals are awful.

 

[dublinbluenose]

They really don't make sense in domestic competitions.

 

[spence03]

Absolutely. Always hated them. They kill matches. Football matches shouldn't be settled by geography.

 

[kenada_blue]

Nah, keep it. Adds a lifeline to either side, especially for an "inferior" team.

Tonight's game was done in he 1st leg. But if Atletico bagged one, would've put the tie in the balance than what it was tonight.