Quote:
Originally Posted by SirRawrsALot
You're argument is pretty lol considering the 2012 Badminton incident. The fact that you acknowledge said incident is super LOL.
It's just not worth it.
In badminton both teams wanted to lose, the fact that both teams played to lose made it apparent to everyone that both teams were trying to lose.
In this game USA would be trying to win. Fiji doing just one of the following things
- Missing one of their conversions or
- Letting USA under the posts on the final try in the last minute of the game.
- Missing one tackle that costs a score
Would not have been noticed to nearly the same extent as the badminton. Not even close to the same thing.
Its a pretty massive equity change in terms of your opponent (Fiji started a 60% fav vs NZ, would have been 90%+ against USA).
Decisions ITT that cost less than 1% win equity or less than 1% future win equity (such as playing players for one more football series than necessary and risking injury) get slammed all the time IT, and this lighting of 30% win equity on fire is considered lol?