<p>God. If extra time were a person heck even an object, he/she/it would be dead/destroyed. I HATE EXTRA TIME! Absolutely hate the people that claim 'OMG SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH MY BRAIN. DISEASE!'. Ya, um how about your just stupid?</p>
<p>Extra time is the most socialistic, asinine thingy every created! What is the point of making the playing field even when the playing field is inherently UNEVEN. Why do the 'slow' people get benefits and not those who are simply bad at reading? </p>
<p>I know someone who a week span to take the SAT. yes, a week. He takes the test in his school and does two sections a day. Sure, the kid couldn't break an 1100, but that is hardly the point (Unless I'm trying to prove that extra time = stupidity). What is even more ridiculous is that colleges are not informed of these poor disabled children. And C'mon extra time on the ACT. really?</p>
<p>I love hearing kids with extra time for the SAT say. "It's been statistically proven that with extra time people tend to rethink their answers and change them for the worse." YES, NOW EXTRA TIME IS A DISADVANTAGE. </p>
<p>Alright well that is my rant, and I'm sure this topic has been brought up already but I don't care. So discuss.</p>
<p>And before someone comes in here and says "I have extra time and got a 2400"..Stupid=extra time was not my point. The only absolute is that there is no absolute.</p>
<p>I hate Extra Time too. Without extra time, I would have liked the US to advance past the Round of 16 considering we had Timmy Tourettes Howard in goal for PKs while Ghana had Richard Kingson.</p>
<p>Not really Timmy’s fault on either of those goals (maybe a little bit on the first, it could have been saved if he had judged the angle a little bit better). Reeecardo Clark (+ Bob Bradley for starting Clark) had a terrible turnover on the first goal and then KP Boatang just made a sick shot.</p>
<p>Second goal was just really awful defending by the US’s backs and a great pass.</p>
<p>US had so many chances in that 2nd half…it was disappointing they lost, but Kingson did play a hell of a half, so you gotta give it up to the Ghanans.</p>
<p>I have no clue. I wanted Holden in b/c he was playing great at the time (plus he’s just better than Ricardo) but alas. And that really screwed over the US too…if you remember, they subbed out Clark sometime in the 1st half. You can’t afford to use subs in the first half during an international game b/c you only get 3 of them.</p>
<p>If they don’t have to use that sub in the 1st half, they get one more pair of fresh legs in during extra time (Herculez Gomez or Edson Buddle) and have a much better chance of knotting things up at 2 to send it to PKs.</p>
<p>True, that was a poorly managed game. Wasting a sub on a guy who I feel should only be used if every other midfielder was gone.
Stuart Holden is legit. I like his play.</p>
<p>Stop using every opportunity as an insult. Your pompous, not witty/clever/humorous, and come off as in immature idiot. Please, refrain from posting.</p>
<p>Also not a good ■■■■■ </p>
<p>I don’t care my thread was hijacked. Whatever. People read it.</p>
<p>Well you appeared disappointed with the direction of the thread in post #10.
Wasn’t ■■■■■■■■, I am actually sorry for ruining your topic. If you don’t care about the hijacking, then fair enough. Have a good day.</p>
</p>