NFL overtime rule

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Excuse me Mr. McNabb, oops! I mean Zig, NFL regular season game CAN end in a tie... after a 15 minute sudden death overtime.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the rule, college overtimes are very silly, yet I will admit they are exciting.

yes, i know they can. my question is, why play an extra quarter if it can end in a tie anyway? the players are all beat to hell by seasons' end anyway, i doubt they'd cry over losing an extra quarter in a regular season game.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Equal opportunity is letting both teams have the ball and making both teams have to stop the other. Making one team have to stop the other is not equal. I don't understand how anyone can rightfully argue that it is equal. You are saying that all they have to do is make a stop...well not make both teams have to do that same thing? Why is that onus only on one team? And I couldn't disagree more that nobody has come up with a better idea than what's currently in place. I've read several ideas that I think are much better than the current system. I've thought about it some more and I'd let each team have the ball once. Either your defense stops them and you make them punt and you get it or if they score, you get in on a kickoff. After each team has had it once, now, first to score wins. And on any touchdowns, no kicking the extra point. Have to go for two.

And why is the baseball talk laughable? If you give up a run in the top of the 10th, the game should be over right? I mean, all the home team should have to do is get a stop and then take advantage of their own chance right? If they can't get a stop in the top of the 10th, why do they deserve a chance in the bottom? It's the same thing as the football overtime currently is.

it is not the same thing at all.. just off the top of my head, the defense in baseball is not able to score at all. Defenses in football are able to put the ball into their hands and into the endzone. Shoot there are some teams in the league who's defenses score more (or it seems that way at least!) than the offense! its just oranges and apples sir.

all you have to do is stop the team from getting 10 yards in three downs & they will punt.. the whole game is built around that aspect.

Only 1/4th of games are won by the team who won the toss and drove down and scored. The stats even prove that there is no reason to change anything.

I give up though, have a great day!!

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

While we're at it, we should probably stop giving the home team the final at-bat in baseball. If after 8 1/2 innings, the road team has the lead, game over. Why should we give the home team equal opportunity? Same thing if it goes to extra innings. If on the first pitch of the 10th, the home pitcher gives up a home run, game over. Sudden death baseball. Makes as much sense as any silly sudden death football talk. It's only sudden death when both teams are given the same opportunity. You get some game like the Jets/Pats game where neither team could stop the other one. The Jets didn't earn that victory any more than the Patriots did. If the coin had gone the other way, the Pats likely would have had the victory. A coin flip should not determine who wins a professional sporting event. It shouldn't even factor in at all. If they want to do it that way, why even play the games at all? Let's just flip coins at the beginning and whoever wins, wins the games.

You're a moron. Grow a sack. I'm sure you're going to tell me that you know 6,000 NFL insiders who agree with you, but you're still an idiot.

If you actually watched the Jets/Pats game, you'd remember that on the first two plays of the Jets' drive, the Jets did less than nothing, and looked awful doing it. Then, on 3rd & 15, Favre made a great pass to Dustin Keller and he dove for a first down. Then the Patriots completely crapped themselves and allowed the Jets to drive down the field.

Again, I reiterate:

IF YOUR DEFENSE IS THAT WEAK, YOU DON'T DESERVE TO WIN. STOP F.UCKING COMPLAINING AND GET A BETTER TEAM.

Jesus Christ.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You're a moron. Grow a sack. I'm sure you're going to tell me that you know 6,000 NFL insiders who agree with you, but you're still an idiot.

If you actually watched the Jets/Pats game, you'd remember that on the first two plays of the Jets' drive, the Jets did less than nothing, and looked awful doing it. Then, on 3rd & 15, Favre made a great pass to Dustin Keller and he dove for a first down. Then the Patriots completely crapped themselves and allowed the Jets to drive down the field.

Again, I reiterate:

IF YOUR DEFENSE IS THAT WEAK, YOU DON'T DESERVE TO WIN. STOP F.UCKING COMPLAINING AND GET A BETTER TEAM.

Jesus Christ.

I you!

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You're a moron. Grow a sack. I'm sure you're going to tell me that you know 6,000 NFL insiders who agree with you, but you're still an idiot.

If you actually watched the Jets/Pats game, you'd remember that on the first two plays of the Jets' drive, the Jets did less than nothing, and looked awful doing it. Then, on 3rd & 15, Favre made a great pass to Dustin Keller and he dove for a first down. Then the Patriots completely crapped themselves and allowed the Jets to drive down the field.

Again, I reiterate:

IF YOUR DEFENSE IS THAT WEAK, YOU DON'T DESERVE TO WIN. STOP F.UCKING COMPLAINING AND GET A BETTER TEAM.

Jesus Christ.

Class personified.

The funniest thing about this post is that you are saying that the Patriots DIDN'T deserve to win because their defense is so weak. That would seem to suggest that the Jets DID deserve to win.......even though their defense was just as weak.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Equal opportunity is letting both teams have the ball and making both teams have to stop the other. Making one team have to stop the other is not equal. I don't understand how anyone can rightfully argue that it is equal. You are saying that all they have to do is make a stop...well not make both teams have to do that same thing? Why is that onus only on one team? And I couldn't disagree more that nobody has come up with a better idea than what's currently in place. I've read several ideas that I think are much better than the current system. I've thought about it some more and I'd let each team have the ball once. Either your defense stops them and you make them punt and you get it or if they score, you get in on a kickoff. After each team has had it once, now, first to score wins. And on any touchdowns, no kicking the extra point. Have to go for two.

And why is the baseball talk laughable? If you give up a run in the top of the 10th, the game should be over right? I mean, all the home team should have to do is get a stop and then take advantage of their own chance right? If they can't get a stop in the top of the 10th, why do they deserve a chance in the bottom? It's the same thing as the football overtime currently is.

If your argument is really for equality then no game should end unless each team gets an equal number of possessions during the game. I mean, how can it be fair if one team gets 10 possessions and the other only gets 9? Shouldn't the other team get one more chance in regulation? Unless you are willing to endorse that idiotic idea then how can you campaign for equal possessions in overtime?

The closest to a concession that I'd be willing to give on the issue would be the idea that in overtime the kicking team kicks off from the 40 instead of the 30. Make that rule and I bet the receiving and kicking team win 50% of the time in the long run.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

If your argument is really for equality then no game should end unless each team gets an equal number of possessions during the game. I mean, how can it be fair if one team gets 10 possessions and the other only gets 9? Shouldn't the other team get one more chance in regulation? Unless you are willing to endorse that idiotic idea then how can you campaign for equal possessions in overtime?

The closest to a concession that I'd be willing to give on the issue would be the idea that in overtime the kicking team kicks off from the 40 instead of the 30. Make that rule and I bet the receiving and kicking team win 50% of the time in the long run.

You don't have to have the same number of possessions. But if each team gets a chance with their offense and their defense, they have no complaint after that. Like in basketball, you play offense and you play defense. If your defense can't secure offensive rebounds and your opponent gets 10 shots on a single trip downcourt, you have no complaint because you had the opportunity. But to tell one team "you get a chance because of how the coin landed" but tell the other team "you get a chance ONLY if you can stop the other team" is not fair.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Class personified.

The funniest thing about this post is that you are saying that the Patriots DIDN'T deserve to win because their defense is so weak. That would seem to suggest that the Jets DID deserve to win.......even though their defense was just as weak.

No, but I wouldn't have cried like a bitch about the OT rules if the Patriots won the toss and shoved it in the Jets' assbasket one play after another on 3rd down. I would've blamed the shitty Jets defense for not being able to get a single clutch stop. The Pats defense choked monumentally on that drive, yet we're supposed to blame the coin.

And your baseball analogy is moronic because it's impossible for a team to score while pitching.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Equal opportunity is letting both teams have the ball and making both teams have to stop the other. Making one team have to stop the other is not equal. I don't understand how anyone can rightfully argue that it is equal. You are saying that all they have to do is make a stop...well not make both teams have to do that same thing? Why is that onus only on one team? And I couldn't disagree more that nobody has come up with a better idea than what's currently in place. I've read several ideas that I think are much better than the current system. I've thought about it some more and I'd let each team have the ball once. Either your defense stops them and you make them punt and you get it or if they score, you get in on a kickoff. After each team has had it once, now, first to score wins. And on any touchdowns, no kicking the extra point. Have to go for two.

And why is the baseball talk laughable? If you give up a run in the top of the 10th, the game should be over right? I mean, all the home team should have to do is get a stop and then take advantage of their own chance right? If they can't get a stop in the top of the 10th, why do they deserve a chance in the bottom? It's the same thing as the football overtime currently is.

So under your system, both teams get the ball. If they both score and convert the conversion, then you go to sudden death? Then you are right back in the same boat as you are in now. What's so great about that system?

The baseball debate is absolutley ridiculous. The last time I checked the team in the field couldn't score any runs. Just moronic!

[King Glorious]

Whether you can score runs or not on defense in baseball is irrelevant. The whole argument of those that are against OT in football is based on the defense stopping the other team and they are saying that if they can't stop the other team, they don't deserve to win. I'm saying that if you can't stop the other team from scoring a run, why should you get a chance on offense? It's the same thing. If defenses in the NFL scored as much as offenses, then I'd agree. But a team getting a defensive score is an abnormality so it's incorrect to imply that the defensive team has just as much chance to score as the offensive team.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Whether you can score runs or not on defense in baseball is irrelevant. The whole argument of those that are against OT in football is based on the defense stopping the other team and they are saying that if they can't stop the other team, they don't deserve to win. I'm saying that if you can't stop the other team from scoring a run, why should you get a chance on offense? It's the same thing. If defenses in the NFL scored as much as offenses, then I'd agree. But a team getting a defensive score is an abnormality so it's incorrect to imply that the defensive team has just as much chance to score as the offensive team.

I just don't get your argument. In football both teams either have equal possessions or one possession more. Even if you fumble the kickoff it is still a possession. So if you want to even possessions in OT then how can you possibly think it is fair for a game to end in regulation on a last second FG for a team who is on their 10th possession when the other team has only had 9. Shouldn't that team get an untimed drive to come back to make it fair? And do you realize how ridiculous that would be?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

I like taking the kickoff away in overtime. Never thought of that one.
And defenses can score. That's why I never objected much to the current OT rules.

You don't need to take it away, just let teams kick off from the 40 in OT and you get the same result with more excitement. You could just boot the kickoff into the endzone or you could try and kick it high to the 10 and pin then inside the 20.