NFL Off Topic

[steelerfan]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Here's a situation where it would suck though. 1st and and goal at 1 yard line when the game ends because a team is out of TOs. Not too fair then, IMO.

I don't think too many teams drive to the 1 and let the clock run out in a tie game. They could kick a FG before getting to the 1 and avoid the OT altogether.

I understand what you are saying though. However, the "advantage" of letting a team continue a drive is far less than the advantage (and stupidity) of randomly deciding who gets the ball and then creating more rules because your random selection of who got the ball is deemed unfair when they proceed to win.

#TheScriptIsDead

[wco81]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I'd rather they spend more time on the other proposed rule changes, like challenging any play, than new OT rules.

They affect far more games than OT rules.

[redsox4evur]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Although in the final minutes leading to that situation, both teams are aware that the game will continue after the clock hits 0:00. So I think it is as fair as any other method.

This would however eliminate the clock management aspect of the game in some situations. Team A has the ball at their own 20 with a minute to go in a tie game.....no real need to rush or call time outs or get out of bounds etc.

Yea my thing was more of your second paragraph. A team working its way down field and get to the 1 yard with 1 second left and no timeouts. Then in a sudden death OT that team has to a chip shot to win the game.

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: NFL Off Topic

How about the team with the ball last gets to decide if they want to kick off or receive for OT? Then play it as the rules are now. Or maybe start the team with last possession at their own 20 and carry over down and distance to eliminate teams running out the clock.

The main issue is with the coin toss and deciding who gets possession first and who gets to respond. This would eliminate the 50/50 coin toss, while keeping the strategy of receiving or kicking off. The secondary option gives the last possession team incentive to manage the clock and get chunks of yardage so they're not stuck punting from their 20 if they ended regulation on a 4th down or something like that.

Your first scenario would likely result in a team not going all out to win the game in regulation. Just running the clock out.

The second scenario penalizes teams with good KRs.

[Kaiser Wilhelm]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I do not like the idea of the game just picking up where it left off. The needs to reset to be truly fair.


The game is sixty minutes. It should be played like the game is sixty minutes. The game should reset. The coin flip isn't the problem. THe problem is the golden goal. Eliminate the golden goal and play out fifteen minutes of extra football. Both teams will likely have an opportunity to score. The exception being if the offense somehow manages to eat up 15 minutes on one drive which is exceptional.

[slickdtc]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Your first scenario would likely result in a team not going all out to win the game in regulation. Just running the clock out.



The second scenario penalizes teams with good KRs.

I'm a lot more comfortable with KR's being phased out of meaning (in OT only) then with both teams getting a possession as is proposed.

I agree the best solution is that a period of 10 or so minutes needs to be played. It still allows the coin flip to determine who gets possession first (essentially, even though there's still a choice), but it satisfies the group wanting possessions without artificially creating possessions. The NFL needs to make sure this overtime period is commercial free or at least very limited commercial wise in order to not elongate games more then they already are.

For the record, I'm okay with ties. I actually kind of like them in the NFL because they're basically .5 of a win and .5 of a loss. Makes tiebreakers at the end of the season so much easier to figure out!

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I'm a lot more comfortable with KR's being phased out of meaning (in OT only) then with both teams getting a possession as is proposed.

I agree the best solution is that a period of 10 or so minutes needs to be played. It still allows the coin flip to determine who gets possession first (essentially, even though there's still a choice), but it satisfies the group wanting possessions without artificially creating possessions. The NFL needs to make sure this overtime period is commercial free or at least very limited commercial wise in order to not elongate games more then they already are.

For the record, I'm okay with ties. I actually kind of like them in the NFL because they're basically .5 of a win and .5 of a loss. Makes tiebreakers at the end of the season so much easier to figure out!

I get what you're saying even though I've never liked both teams getting a possession.

I think they should just leave it as it is and table it until next year. Guys like Irsay are just throwing crap against the wall.

[kingkilla56]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Why? Everyone knows what the current OT rules are. If you don't want to leave your fate up to a coin toss, play for the win in regulation. Don't run out the clock because you're frightened you might turn the ball over more easily on a pass even though that's more likely to gain more yards and put you in scoring position. You do everything to advance the ball and score points the whole game, except when it matters most. It goes completely against the competitive nature of sports.

I keep bringing up hockey because they have rules in place that actually REWARD playing for OT. You get a point even if you lose in overtime/shootout. You read that right: you still get rewarded for losing. It's great you got to OT, that's really exciting, but you shouldn't get anything for it. Rewarding conservative tactics isn't good for anyone except to artificially enhance the standings or game. The NHL can claim a great many of their teams finished above .500 and that the league is so competitive and rife with parity, because OT/SO losses are not calculated into the regular L column. But late in the season, when you're chasing a team for the playoffs, those teams in playoff position continually play for OT just to gain a point. Teams may be a few points back of a playoff spot, but in reality they're much farther back then it seems because there's more opportunity for points-winning outcomes then no points.

So I'm not a fan of the faction that cries that they didn't get a chance to respond to the other team's score, because you KNOW you won't when you enter into OT. You had a chance in regulation! It's an after-the-fact reaction. When's the last time a team voluntarily downed the ball on the goal line and kicked a FG so the other team could get a chance to respond? Never.

Only the loser's side is heard and is trying to be addressed now. The winner doesn't care because they won. They don't need to bitch and cry about the great injustice of it.

Play to win the game. /Herm

Of course, not all games end with a team playing for OT and being conservative. Maybe they should've gone for it on 4th down earlier in the game, though. Again, conservative behavior or poor play earlier in the game puts you in these positions. Why should I have sympathy for teams that sit on the ball or didn't play well?

This is alot of rambling. Considering that after this post you actually started having conversations about potential rule changes to OT, you realize why "the rules are there bro, deal with it" is a silly response to this conversation.

[Boltman]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Does it really matter if they're in the box watching for holding on every critical play if they still have only have two or three challenges at their disposal? Let them challenge everything, give them three challenges and win a fourth one if they get all three right. If a coach wants to waste his challenges on holding calls on a critical play in the fourth with 10 minutes left, so be it.

What's most amazing was that you had challenges, challenge, challenges all above each other on the left.

In tapatalk anyways.

And not anymore that I quoted you either *sigh*

[TheMatrix31]

Re: NFL Off Topic

How about just playing 8:00 and whoever is up after that extra time wins? And if not then you keep going.

I could do without all the gimmick nonsense.

[55]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Leave. Overtime. Alone.

[mestevo]

Re: NFL Off Topic

@VegasMyNews3
#BREAKING LAS VEGAS (AP) - Ex-NFL safety Darren Sharper charged with rape in Vegas after being accused in 3 other states.

[NDAlum]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Possible mental issue?

Maybe he'll peg it on concussions

If I'm a defense attorney I'm 100% going there

[N51_rob]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Possible mental issue?

Maybe he'll peg it on concussions

If I'm a defense attorney I'm 100% going there

Wouldn't that also mean admitting that you did it, which if the jury doesn't buy it or its not allowed could back-fire.

[Bmore Irish]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Sounds like Sharper plans to take a plea deal.