It just wouldn't work. And I have a good example for it. In game 10 of PAS finals, WJ2 is completely pinned and out of options while getting pushed by the blue. They end up denying points.
Happening here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2418885753?t=3h22m
Now some people say denying should be punished and -1 points given for each deny. Well think about that specific situation further. If WJ2 does not deny. They will actively have to choose which team to GIVE the points over to. That is not too far from collusion and would completely ruin competitive integrity (or what is left of it). Some could argue that they should fight, in a situation as clear as that, it would be pointless and they just gotta choose which team getting the points is better for them.
I know this is just one example, but it isn't far fetched. These things happen all the time, not on every round but on most days.
3 Comments
-1 if u die to own grenades or molly
I’ve heard Kowo suggest that players who are downed when the game ends count towards those who downed them. So if you are in a 1v4, and you down 3, you’d get 3 points. Which would encourage fighting as it’s much more likely you’d benefit over not.
Denying points is a perfectly acceptable strat and negating points for not having the lucky compound is stupid. Almost every sport has this mechanic. Committing a foul instead of giving up a goal or basket. Giving a safety over giving up perfect field position in American football.