|
Post by movieliker on Jan 21, 2019 14:46:47 GMT
is so much depended on the coin toss. Once Patriots won the coin toss, you know a great chance they will win it. I think the other team should be given a possession to comeback. I know the game is grueling. Maybe this adjustment is for the playoff only. What others think? I have a bigger problem with how they handle bad ref calls. With instant replay, more calls need to be up for review.
|
|
|
Post by shadyvsesham on Jan 21, 2019 16:32:37 GMT
I agree, think of the old way. Get in FG range, end it.
What I'd do is first team gets it, scores. If they go for 2 and get it, game over. They hit the 7.....next....
Other team gets the ball. THEY must score a TD and go for 2. NO going for the tie, you must score a TD and 2 to win.
|
|
|
Post by OrsonSwelles on Jan 21, 2019 16:52:52 GMT
I'm not really sold on a 'sudden death' type of OT in football. Potentially only one team's offence and the other team's defence are involved. Both teams should at least get a chance to step on the field for both sides of the ball, unless of course the defence scores on the opening drive.
That said, why is there a coin flip at all especially in the playoffs? The home team should get the choice automatically.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 21, 2019 18:01:05 GMT
is so much depended on the coin toss. Once Patriots won the coin toss, you know a great chance they will win it. I think the other team should be given a possession to comeback. I know the game is grueling. Maybe this adjustment is for the playoff only. What others think? I have a bigger problem with how they handle bad ref calls. With instant replay, more calls need to be up for review. It's not that more calls need to be up for review. It's the inconsistency with how replay calls are handled. The rule has always been if there's not conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field then the call on the field stands. For example, if a runner or receiver's foot is near the sideline and the call on the field is that he stepped out of bounds, the only clear conclusive evidence would be if they see some green between the player's foot and the sideline. If they don't see any green, then they have to go with the call on the field. Same case with PEDelman's muffed punt. The call on the field was that PEDelman touched the ball so the only clear conclusive evidene to overturn the call is if they can prove that there was actually some space between PEDelman's thumb and the ball. And clearly no angle of replay conclusively showed that there was actually space between PEDeman's thumb and the ball. So the correct call would've been for the call on the field to stand. But once again, Roger Goodell ordered the refs to overturn a Pats' turnover in a postseason game.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 21, 2019 18:05:25 GMT
I have a bigger problem with how they handle bad ref calls. With instant replay, more calls need to be up for review. It's not that more calls need to be up for review. It's the inconsistency with how replay calls are handled. The rule has always been if there's not conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field then the call on the field stands. For example, if a runner or receiver's foot is near the sideline and the call on the field is that he stepped out of bounds, the only clear conclusive evidence would be if they see some green between the player's foot and the sideline. If they don't see any green, then they have to go with the call on the field. Same case with PEDelman's muffed punt. The call on the field was that PEDelman touched the ball so the only clear conclusive evidene to overturn the call is if they can prove that there was actually some space between PEDelman's thumb and the ball. And clearly no angle of replay conclusively showed that there was actually space between PEDeman's thumb and the ball. So the correct call would've been for the call on the field to stand. But once again, Roger Goodell ordered the refs to overturn a Pats' turnover in a postseason game. But not all ref calls are up for review. More should be. Especially when they decide who goes to the Super Bowl. Like that non-call in the Saints/Rams game.
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Jan 21, 2019 18:14:43 GMT
I have a bigger problem with how they handle bad ref calls. With instant replay, more calls need to be up for review. It's not that more calls need to be up for review. It's the inconsistency with how replay calls are handled. The rule has always been if there's not conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field then the call on the field stands. For example, if a runner or receiver's foot is near the sideline and the call on the field is that he stepped out of bounds, the only clear conclusive evidence would be if they see some green between the player's foot and the sideline. If they don't see any green, then they have to go with the call on the field. Same case with PEDelman's muffed punt. The call on the field was that PEDelman touched the ball so the only clear conclusive evidene to overturn the call is if they can prove that there was actually some space between PEDelman's thumb and the ball. And clearly no angle of replay conclusively showed that there was actually space between PEDeman's thumb and the ball. So the correct call would've been for the call on the field to stand. But once again, Roger Goodell ordered the refs to overturn a Pats' turnover in a postseason game. youtu.be/tSeudTM-amIClearly doesn't touch a thumb if you look at the different angles. CLEARLY
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on Jan 21, 2019 22:47:11 GMT
No. We do not want more calls being reviewable. FFS the last 5 minutes of that KC/ Pats game took forever due to 3 reviews. Do we really want pass interference calls going upstairs? I think the TV calls should be made quicker. The replay judge sees it once in normal, once in slow motion. Only question he needs to answer is "is that an obviously bad call?" If no, then the ruling stands and get on with the game. If yes, then you can look at other angles. They need to get away from the idea that you can make perfect decisions using video. You can't. That's been proven in every sport for all the time video reviews have existed.
|
|
|
Post by Geddy on Jan 21, 2019 22:56:27 GMT
is so much depended on the coin toss. Once Patriots won the coin toss, you know a great chance they will win it. I think the other team should be given a possession to comeback. I know the game is grueling. Maybe this adjustment is for the playoff only. What others think? I agree as perhaps the NFL should adopt the CFLs over time rule which is more fairer.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jan 21, 2019 23:40:12 GMT
USGA should've had them fly to Pebble this morning to play 18.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jan 21, 2019 23:44:09 GMT
is so much depended on the coin toss. Once Patriots won the coin toss, you know a great chance they will win it. I think the other team should be given a possession to comeback. I know the game is grueling. Maybe this adjustment is for the playoff only. What others think? I agree as perhaps the NFL should adopt the CFLs over time rule which is more fairer. #76 of 100 that the NFL should adopt from the CFL, not least having 2 bye weeks.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 21, 2019 23:47:04 GMT
is so much depended on the coin toss. Once Patriots won the coin toss, you know a great chance they will win it. I think the other team should be given a possession to comeback. I know the game is grueling. Maybe this adjustment is for the playoff only. What others think? I agree as perhaps the NFL should adopt the CFLs over time rule which is more fairer. The CFL also allows non calls to be reviewed.
|
|
|
Post by Xeliou66 on Jan 22, 2019 0:26:32 GMT
I think that both teams should get a chance in OT, I don’t like how much of it depends on the coin toss either.
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Jan 22, 2019 0:37:13 GMT
OMG people, it doesn't depend on the coin toss anymore. Play defense! Stop the other team on one single drive! You'd think the team that wins the toss gets the ball on the other team's one yard line. Play defense!!!
|
|
|
Post by marsexplorer on Jan 22, 2019 0:50:30 GMT
OMG people, it doesn't depend on the coin toss anymore. Play defense! Stop the other team on one single drive! You'd think the team that wins the toss gets the ball on the other team's one yard line. Play defense!!! You are missing the point. Why shouldn't both team's defenses have to make a stop? It's completely unfair.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 22, 2019 1:27:31 GMT
OMG people, it doesn't depend on the coin toss anymore. Play defense! Stop the other team on one single drive! You'd think the team that wins the toss gets the ball on the other team's one yard line. Play defense!!! You are missing the point. Why shouldn't both team's defenses have to make a stop? It's completely unfair. Agreed. The "Play defense" argument is weak argument because only 1 team is required to play defense in OT. Both teams should get at least 1 offensive possession in OT. The way it is now, it's equivalent to an extra-inning baseball game where if the visiting team scores in the top half of the 10th inning, then the game is over and the home team never gets to bat in the 10th inning. And then people would argue, "Well, pitching is part of the game." Sure, pitching is part of the game, but both teams are required to pitch in extra innings. In the NFL, only 1 team is required to play defense in OT.
|
|
GiantFan1980
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@scifi1980
Posts: 3,418
Likes: 4,482
|
Post by GiantFan1980 on Jan 22, 2019 1:46:01 GMT
No sudden death. Both teams have to play out the full OT period. If it's still tied, make them play another quarter until SOMEBODY has the lead at the end of the OT period! Course that opens up the whining about players getting hurt and being too much of a strain on them. Overtime ending on a field goal= the other team might not even get the ball Overtime changed to a touchdown ending it unless it's a field goal in which case the other team gets a turn to top it= still unfair because the opposing team still might not get a turn with the ball if the team who wins the coin toss goes first and gets the touchdown. Make both teams play for the duration of the overtime period until the final whistle and whoever has the highest score wins= Too dangerous and running the risk of injuring players unnecessarily. There is no perfect solution. Play better in regulation.
I would still prefer option 3.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 22, 2019 1:55:13 GMT
OMG people, it doesn't depend on the coin toss anymore. Play defense! Stop the other team on one single drive! You'd think the team that wins the toss gets the ball on the other team's one yard line. Play defense!!! You are missing the point. Why shouldn't both team's defenses have to make a stop? It's completely unfair. This has been the rules since what? Forever? The problem isn't the overtime rule. Marching down the field and scoring a touchdown is hard. Most of the time both teams get an opportunity to play offense. The problem is, the Patriots are just too darn good! The new rule should be, whenever the Patriots win the coin toss, they win the game. Everyone can go home.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 1:56:58 GMT
Here's the answer.
It doesn't fall back on some Dippy Coin Toss from 1978.
You want the ball first in OT?
Whoever scores first wins?
Here's what you do:
|
|
|
Post by marsexplorer on Jan 22, 2019 2:15:41 GMT
You are missing the point. Why shouldn't both team's defenses have to make a stop? It's completely unfair. This has been the rules since what? Forever? 2012 is hardly forever.
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Jan 22, 2019 2:20:01 GMT
You are missing the point. Why shouldn't both team's defenses have to make a stop? It's completely unfair. Agreed. The "Play defense" argument is weak argument because only 1 team is required to play defense in OT. Both teams should get at least 1 offensive possession in OT. The way it is now, it's equivalent to an extra-inning baseball game where if the visiting team scores in the top half of the 10th inning, then the game is over and the home team never gets to bat in the 10th inning. And then people would argue, "Well, pitching is part of the game." Sure, pitching is part of the game, but both teams are required to pitch in extra innings. In the NFL, only 1 team is required to play defense in OT. Your baseball analogy is full of shit because baseball isn’t sudden death. Football always has been until the recent rules tweaking, but it is still a hybrid of sudden death. You people act like every single drive results in a score and the defenses allow the offenses to just waltz down the field at will. How many drives end by punts, turnovers, and loss of downs? More than end in touchdowns. Maybe Andy Reid and his DC just suck at calling defenses. Maybe Tom Brady is pretty good at what he does. The college overtime rule is completely stupid and is up there with shootouts in the NHL as being the dumbest ways to end a game. So I say again - play a little bit of defense JUST LIKE THE RAMS DID.
|
|