Hey guys. I have a question concerning the format of the knockout stage of the UEFA Champions League. I'm sure you all remember the Chelsea-Barcelona second leg game that ended with Fernando Torres being the hero and scoring a late goal to draw the match 2-2 and send Chelsea to the finals. But my question is this: was that goal even necessary? Let me explain...

According to Wikipedia (Not the best source, but the most convenient), the knockout stage of the CL is a two-legged format (not including the final), and is utilizes the away-goal rule, defined here by Wiki:

The tournament uses the away goals rule: if the aggregate score of the two games is tied, then the team who scored more goals at their opponent's stadium advances.[48]

Ok. So Chelsea won the first leg 1-0, giving them the advantage. Barca obviously did not score, meaning that they have to beat Chelsea by two goals or more. Things start off well enough in the second leg, 2-0 to FCB. Then Ramires scores, making it 2-1. At this point, the aggregate score is 2-2, but if the score doesn't change through the rest of the match, Chelsea will advance because they scored at Camp Nou, and Barca didn't score at Stamford Bridge. Then Fernando Torres decides to score. The announcers and Chelsea fans go wild, Torres is a hero, Chelsea are a great story, yada yada yada. But here's my case: The Torres goal wasn't necessary, right? Ramires had already scored the "go-ahead goal" as it were, all Torres did was put the icing on the cake, right? Help me out on this guys: did Torres save Chelsea (I'm crazy) or is the dramatic emphasis on the wrong moment (I'm not crazy, Ramires doesn't get enough credit)?