Tweet
anyone watching ESPN? the league is looking into a rule change for overtime in only the playoffs...the change would be, if a team gets the football first and scores a touchdown, the game is over. if they score a field goal, the other team has a chance to answer with a possession. If both teams score a field goal then the next team to score wins...follow?
-
-
Re: Proposed overtime rule change
This is coming up for a vote next week i believe -
Re: Proposed overtime rule change
Overtime is fine the way it is. Who cares if a losing team never got to possess the ball? I'm pretty sure defense is just as much a part of the game as offense."Miami played pretty damn good today and still got their ass kicked."Comment
-
Re: Proposed overtime rule change
sounds ******ed to me.
How about just play a quarter, if no one scores play another quarter.
or give each team a possession. If no one scores give each team another possession
KISS... Keep It Simple Stupid
Comment
-
Re: Proposed overtime rule change
agreed, but just hold the team to a field goal then. if two teams are in a dog fight in the playoffs going shot for shot scoring and end in a tie, do you think it should basically come down to a coin toss?Originally posted by ThurmalComment
-
Re: Proposed overtime rule change
I like the quarter idea. I hate the college football matching possession idea.Originally posted by ddaryl
I think the intent is good- basically, give each team an equal shot. I think the proposed implementation is terrible. It's far too complicated.Comment
-
Re: Proposed overtime rule change
Complicated? You have a low threshold for confusion then.Originally posted by OpIv37
PTR10 Commandments of the D
1. Never stop Rocking.
2. Legalize all drugs.
3. Quit your day job.
4. All Religion should be taxed.
5. Cut down on carbohydrates.
6. F**k her gently.
7. Never believe what people tell you after a show.
8. Always take a spoon full of Metamucil after a heavy day of eating.
9. Get at least 9 hours of sleep a day.
10. Eatin' ain't cheatin'.
Comment
-
Re: Proposed overtime rule change
I never said I was confused. I said the rule was complicated.Originally posted by PromoTheRobot
Remember, these are the same refs who botched a simple coin toss in overtime a few years back, prompting fool-proof rule changes. Do you trust them to sort out something like this? I certainly don't.Comment
-
Re: Proposed overtime rule change
The solution is so freaking easy. After the opening kick off in OT, no more kicks are allowed. Period. No punting. No FGs."'Clean up your room.', 'Stand up straight.', 'Pick up your feet.', 'Take it like a man.', 'Be nice to your sister.', 'Don't mix beer and wine, ever.'. Oh yeah, 'Don't drive on the railroad track.'"
"Eh, Phil. That's one I happen to agree with."Comment
-
Re: Proposed overtime rule change
I kind of like this, but I would make 1 change......you should be allowed to kick FGs (NO PUNTING ALLOWED). Here is the reason:Originally posted by MikeInRoch
If you win the toss, you will have a decision to make. Do you take the ball first and just assume you will go down and score without being stopped OR do you give up the ball and hope your defense will get a quick 4 downs and out and give yourself GREAT field position (maybe already in FG range).
EITHER WAY, LEAVE IT AS FIRST SCORE WINS!!!
Actually it adds a little strategy to OT and will make you think twice about accepting the ball first. Good defensive teams may actually choose to play defense and risk never seeing the ball if they get scored on. Good offensive teams may choose to roll the dice that they can move the ball and not get stopped on 4th down already in FG range. This method may be enough to scare teams off from automatically taking the ball first in OT.
The only thing I don't like about it is that it does take the kickoff return out of it for the 2nd team and eliminates punting (changes the way the game is normally played), but that can be overlooked and won't be missed. That is why I think this method would be great. Do you take the ball and risk getting stopped in FG range for the other team or do you play defense hoping to get a stop so you can get a quick FG chance. Seems like this could work. Would make teams think twice.Last edited by sven233; 03-19-2010, 11:58 AM.Comment
-
Re: Proposed overtime rule change
interesting.... entriugingOriginally posted by MikeInRoch
could work
:brilliant:
Comment
-
Re: Proposed overtime rule change
They should do it like hockey .... a football shootout!!
Each team gets at least three turns where there's just a QB, WR and one defender. From their own 40-yard-line, the QB throws a bomb to receiver to score a touchdown on one play. The receiver cannot catch the ball before the 20-yard line.
Bombs! Entertainment!!!
:brilliant:
Seriously, I think the proposal is a good idea. I've never been in favor of changing the OT rules, but this is an ok compromise because winning with a FG on the first possession is pretty cheap."It is better to be divided by truth than to be united by error." -- Martin Luther
"Those who appease the crocodile will simply be eaten last." -- Winston Churchill
2003 BZ Pick Em Champion
2004 BZ Big Money League ChampionComment
-
Re: Proposed overtime rule change
I like the rules in their current state...no change is needed.Comment
-
Re: Proposed overtime rule change
Then, by that logic, the other team's defense should also be measured.Originally posted by ThurmalComment
-
Re: Proposed overtime rule change
A change is needed since the odds have changed. Before '93 the odds of winning in OT were 46.8% for both the loser and winner of the coin toss. Since '94 the odds went up to almost 60% for the winner in OT. The change is due to moving the kickoff back 5 yards in '94 and the increased talent of kickers in the NFL. The NFL will never admit it but they'd rather have a game decided by a TD instead of a FG.Comment
Comment