Both sides of the river, there is bacteria
- Feb 25, 2013
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Because it's not about each part of the team getting equal opportunity to contribute. It's about stepping up to the plate when it's your turn to do so and the Chiefs D couldn't do thatRegulation time is irrelevant at that point, both sides were deadlocked. Neither offence or defence broke this deadlock. However in OT, without the right of reply, one team has an advantage in that their offence gets a chance to win the game immediately. The other doesnt. And that opportunity is decided by a coin toss.
The game doesnt lose anything by adding the right of reply, it just creates a balanced scenario where evenly matched teams get a fairer way to duke it out for the win. This would allow the offence and defence of both sides to have a say in the outcome, not just one or the other.
I cant see any reason that is not a fairer system.
This is what I meant earlier, why would a fairer system where both sides offence and defence get to contribute not be a fairer way of getting a winner after regulation time? The best side is still going to win because they need to be good on both sides of the ball, not just one.