- Forum Clout
- 31,465
It's true that exhausted defenders are more error prone, but it's also the case for strikers, wingers and attacking midfielders. They won't have the pace or energy to make breakthroughs. Penalties are just a part of football, if you can't manage to scrape a win then it goes to penalties where you might get knocked out, it's fine imo and you often see lesser teams manage to grind a draw out and beat a much better team on paper when it comes to penalties.The "infinite overtime" argument was made for hockey when they were debating getting rid of shootouts in the playoffs.
In 2013, the Bruins and Blackhawks went to like 4 OTs in the Finals and it was surreal. The players were dying... but eventually someone scored. And in 2018, the Red Sox and Dodgers went to like 19 innings in a World Series game, which is more than 2 full regular games. The game was in LA so it was close to 5am in Boston when it ended. It was absurd.
These extreme examples are few and far between, and I'm only talking about getting rid of shootouts in elimination situations, like the World Cup or league playoff. I don't see how the players getting tired equates to decreased chances of a score happening and the game lasting longer than of they were fresh. If anything, they'd be more error-prone and likely to let up easy scores, no?
If you disagree, then why not just give both teams more subs in OT? Why is this so hard? I don't mean to be a Tomlinson about it, but I wouldn't want my team to win a game on penalty shots - it robs them of a true victory and renders everything that happened in regulation meaningless.
If you can't win the game within 120 minutes and lose on penalties, then your a loser who deserves to be knocked out.