4 ms·
>I think that's a pretty bad idea - the objective is for a team to win And a series of static 1v1s is more accurate than a series of 10v10s, 9v9s and so on? P
by gspetr 4y ago
>I think that's a pretty bad idea - the objective is for a team to win
And a series of static 1v1s is more accurate than a series of 10v10s, 9v9s and so on?
People have criticized chess for pretty much the same thing wrt tie breakers for world championship, classic chess being decided by player's proficiency in a very different format and decision making.
I'm not saying I support the diminishing player count, but perhaps penalties should be deferred until another (3rd total) added extra time in the final match only. Maybe give the teams 2 extra subs if it is still tied after 2nd AET.
- smcl 4y agoYeah I honestly think it is - some extra time to try to get an edge then a series of set pieces where ultimately if they’re evenly matched everyone, even the goalkeepers, could end up taking a pen. There’s no easy way to handle a situation like this, but utilising an already integral component of the game like penalties is probably the fairest solution, and it helps that it’s the one with the most excitement and drama for those watching. It could be much worse, before penalties a literal coin toss was used. If recall correctly teams made it thru to the European Cup (what the Champions League used to be called) final based on a coin toss