|
Post by damngumby on Jan 22, 2019 3:36:06 GMT
This has been the rules since what? Forever? 2012 is hardly forever. The rule has always been that if the team that first posesses the ball scores X points, they win ... and the other team's offense is SOL. Prior to 2012, X > 0. In 2012 they raised X to 6, making it much harder for OT to end on the first possession. If there comes a day when enough teams are marching down the field and scoring touchdowns on the first possession, then they might change the rules again.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 22, 2019 3:36:41 GMT
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. 1st, your "sudden death" argument is FULL OF SHIT because NFL changed the OT rules so that OT isn't always sudden death anymore. But NFL has kept the rule that coin flip determines winner of game and winner of coinflip doesn't have to play defense. So the argument "Play defense" is also FULL OF SHIT because the team that wins the coin flip doesn't even have to play defense in OT. So basically, to win OT all you have to do is call the correct flip of the coin.
|
|
|
Post by marsexplorer on Jan 22, 2019 3:39:32 GMT
The rule has always been that if the team that first posesses the ball scores X points, they win ... and the other team's offense is SOL. Prior to 2012, X > 0. In 2012 they raised X to 6, making it much harder for OT to end on the first possession. If there comes a day when enough teams are marching down the field and scoring touchdowns on the first possession, then they might change the rules again. I have never been a fan of sudden death. More of a timed period type of guy.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 22, 2019 3:40:55 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.
They don't have to play a full OT quarter and they don't have to whine about players getting hurt and too much strain. The solution is simple. Make it a beat the clock situation. If a team wins the coin flip, and scores a TD on the 1st drive, then take the time of possession for that drive, subtract 1 second, and give the team losing the coin flip that much time to score a TD. So if the team winning the coin flip scores a TD on their 1st drive in say 6:30 seconds, put 6:29 seconds on the clock and that's how much time the team losing the coin flip has to score a TD. If they score a TD, they win. If they don't, they lose. That guarantees each team at least 1 offensive possession in OT and also keeps the game from continuing forever so there wouldn't be too much strain on the players.
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Jan 22, 2019 3:47:11 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.
They don't have to play a full OT quarter and they don't have to whine about players getting hurt and too much strain. The solution is simple. Make it a beat the clock situation. If a team wins the coin flip, and scores a TD on the 1st drive, then take the time of possession for that drive, subtract 1 second, and give the team losing the coin flip that much time to score a TD. So if the team winning the coin flip scores a TD on their 1st drive in say 6:30 seconds, put 6:29 seconds on the clock and that's how much time the team losing the coin flip has to score a TD. If they score a TD, they win. If they don't, they lose. That guarantees each team at least 1 offensive possession in OT and also keeps the game from continuing forever so there wouldn't be too much strain on the players. And if both offenses score, does the team that win the coin flip get the ball again and only have to score a field goal to win?
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 22, 2019 3:58:09 GMT
So basically, to win OT all you have to do is call the correct flip of the coin. Since most of the OT games have not been won on the first possesion, you are wrong. Again.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 22, 2019 4:06:10 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? 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. No, it has nothing to do with the Pats being good and everything to do with the Pats just getting a lucky bounce of the coin. If the Chiefs had won the coin toss, the Chiefs would've marched down the field and scored a TD on the 1st drive and won. just like how the Cowboys did in Week 14 s the Eagles when the Cowboys won the OT coin toss and marched down the field and scored a TD on the 1st drive. Marching down the field and scoring a TD is EASY, especially in this era when defenses aren't allowed to hit the QB and when any opponent who plays against the Pats will routinely get called for bogus roughing the passer penalties that give the Pats 15 free yards and automatic 1st downs.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 22, 2019 4:11:01 GMT
They don't have to play a full OT quarter and they don't have to whine about players getting hurt and too much strain. The solution is simple. Make it a beat the clock situation. If a team wins the coin flip, and scores a TD on the 1st drive, then take the time of possession for that drive, subtract 1 second, and give the team losing the coin flip that much time to score a TD. So if the team winning the coin flip scores a TD on their 1st drive in say 6:30 seconds, put 6:29 seconds on the clock and that's how much time the team losing the coin flip has to score a TD. If they score a TD, they win. If they don't, they lose. That guarantees each team at least 1 offensive possession in OT and also keeps the game from continuing forever so there wouldn't be too much strain on the players. And if both offenses score, does the team that win the coin flip get the ball again and only have to score a field goal to win? No, that's the whole point of the Beat the Clock scenario. If team A wins the coin toss and scores a TD on the 1st possession in 6:30 seconds, then give Team B 6:29 seconds to score a TD. If team B scores a TD in 6:29 seconds or less, then they've beaten the clock (i.e. they've scored a TD faster than Team A did) so Team B wins. If Team B doesn't score a TD in 6:29 seconds, then Team A wins. It's simple. Both teams get at least 1 offensive possession in OT. And the game doesn't continue forever.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 22, 2019 4:13:05 GMT
The rule has always been that if the team that first posesses the ball scores X points, they win ... and the other team's offense is SOL. Prior to 2012, X > 0. In 2012 they raised X to 6, making it much harder for OT to end on the first possession. If there comes a day when enough teams are marching down the field and scoring touchdowns on the first possession, then they might change the rules again. I have never been a fan of sudden death. More of a timed period type of guy. Agreed. Especially in this era when defenses are no longer allowed to play defense and any team that plays against the Pats will routinely get called for bogus roughing the passer penalties that give the Pats a free 15 yards and automatic 1st downs, the game should not be decided by simply a lucky bounce of the coin.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 22, 2019 4:22:19 GMT
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. I like the way college plays overtime better than the pros. It's more decisive. And more entertaining for the fans.
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Jan 22, 2019 13:37:13 GMT
This is a non-issue. Every team has the same rules. The Eagles were in overtime this year against the Cowboys and never saw the ball. That was with a bogus call extending the drive. One the other hand, Brees got the ball first in overtime on the same day and threw a pick. Defense also plays the game and KC had many opportunities to stop the Patriots. They didn't. The end.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 22, 2019 13:49:28 GMT
This is a non-issue. Every team has the same rules. The Eagles were in overtime this year against the Cowboys and never saw the ball. That was with a bogus call extending the drive. One the other hand, Brees got the ball first in overtime on the same day and threw a pick. Defense also plays the game and KC had many opportunities to stop the Patriots. They didn't. The end. They can play by the same rules and those rules can still be stupid. Whatever one particular game shows you doesn't forgive a bad set of rules necessarily. You don't have rescind the results of a game to acknowledge that a less convoluted approach to the rules might be better.
|
|