The first half of Atletico Madrid vs Real Madrid in their Champions League semi-final second leg was absolutely outstanding to watch.
With Los Blancos bringing a three-goal lead with them to the home of their bitter rivals, we all knew that Simeone's men would need an early goal to make the game competitive, but when it came our expectations were exceeded.
Atleti built on that momentum and scored again, and with Real Madrid suddenly being jolted into a position where they had to act, we enjoyed a thrilling 40 minutes that represents everything that Champions League semi-finals should offer.
And then Isco scored.
After Karim Benzema's wizardry, Real got the goal that not only extended their lead on aggregate, but meant that Atleti had to start again, and would need to score a further three goals.
That was never going to happen, and the second half was understandably a less exciting affair, but neutral fans all over Europe were again wondering why this rule exists when it can be so detrimental to the spectacle.
The Isco kid may have clinched it. Bloody away goal rule kills another belting game.
— Gary Lineker (@GaryLineker) May 10, 2017
Isco goal further proof of how infuriating the away goals rule is. Second-half could be a procession now.
— Samuel Luckhurst (@samuelluckhurst) May 10, 2017
Is a 3-0 win really that much better than a 4-1 win?
That's the message we're getting, as had Atletico managed to bag two goals without reply in the second half, they still would have gone out.
It was originally introduced to avoid replays on neutral grounds, which were proving to be a logistical nightmare, but developed into an incentive for the away team to be more attacking, rather than just try and play defensively before having a go back on their own patch.
Michael Owen isn't someone who is often quoted to support an argument, but his views on the away goal the night after Barcelona's astonishing comeback against PSG made a lot of sense.
I don't like it, I think it's quite dated now.
Gone are the days when teams just go out and try to defend away from home, it used to happen, then you'd bring them back to Anfield or bring them back to Old Trafford, and beat them at home, but I just don't think there's any relevance.
Imagine Barcelona [against PSG], it could have been 5-1, what an unbelievable comeback, 5-5 on aggregate but they go out because one goal is worth double?
It goes against what football shout be about. A goal should be a goal, not two.
There has to be a better way to settle a deadlocked match.
However, it seems that we are so used to the away goals rule, it's so ingrained into our consumption of European football, that nobody is looking for an alternative. We seem to be just accepting it.
Granted, conceding a goal at home is a negative thing, but if you've managed to score four up the other end, it should hardly be held against you if the opposition beat you 3-0 on their ground, meaning you've both scored four goals each in 180 minutes of football.
It's a strange rule, but it seems as though it's hear to stay.
Do you think the away goal rule should be scrapped, or is it fair? Get in touch and let us know.
