Jonathan Chait characterizes Brams and Jorash’s football overtime suggestion as “as some kind of parody of liberal technocracy failing to take culture into account.”
Huh? I don’t see what’s particularly “liberal” about a football rule change. Chait writes:
Do I have to explain what would happen if they actually tried to implement a system like this? Okay: About half the coaches would be unable to understand the concept . . . Fans would revolt.
Seems like typical liberal condescension to me!
P.S. To be serious for a moment . . . I actually think that Brams and Jorash’s idea is interesting (although it could be improved; see comments at the second link above), but maybe Chait is right that the idea would be unpopular. I have no idea if Chait is correct. But I don’t think there’s any particular liberalness or conservativeness to these ideas.
P.P.S. My favorite soccer overtime suggestion remains to add a ball after each 15 minutes of overtime until somebody scores. Once enough balls are on the field, it’s certain to happen, no? This seems a lot better than a penalty-kick shootout.