ultima said:
By this "argument", Manchester City and Sunderland were a team in the 2011-2012 premier league, because Sunderland's draw bailed Manchester City out, allowing them to win the league. Just because someone else's action benefits you does not make you a team with that person. The fact remains that the team play aspect is gone once a penalty shootout commences. I don't understand people defending the penalty shootout and wanting it in league matches even. You have a much higher chance of winning on penalties against a better team than in open play. This will only make parking the bus, hoping to end regulation level a more common tactic. Extra time should also not be removed. You want to remove luck as much as possible from the equation, and that's done by letting teams play until a goal is scored. In practice, the game must be stopped at some point, as fatigue starts to grind the game to a halt. So the only question is: how long should extra time be? I personally think half an hour is a good amount. Changing to other termination rules (golden goal, etc.) is another argument. I personally prefer the current system. |
It would have been a team effort if Sunderland intentionally drew to give Man City an advtange. Kinda like an opponent at a poker table showing you his cards so you better odds at winning. It definitely becomes a team effort there. Since Sunderland weren't in cahoots (I assume) with Man City it is not called a team effort. Your teammates are definitely on your side and contributing to the success. No one shot or save defines the win but rather the culmination of 5 shots and 5 save attempts.
I dont believe league matches should have penalties because
a) it is not a knockout round so there is no need to determine a winner
b) the league gets very interesting with draws as only 1 point is awarded. You get into it situations where 1 or 2 points are the difference between a championship or not, relegation or not, CL spot or not where a win is a must.
I agree with your view on extra time.







