The_Admiral Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Duderino's got it. I'd also reiterate that increasingly liberal interpretations of pass interference are skewing the NFL into an offense-first league. Matching possessions with kickoffs is my preferred system. No sudden death after a certain point, because that defeats the purpose. There would be outcomes that instantly end the game, like an interception on a matching possession following a score, but games wouldn't end in the "top of an inning," so to speak, without a bottom.I dont like the fact that the opposing team doesnt get a chance at offense, if the first team scores on their 1st drive. I also hate ties.I don't like that either; that's a fundmental flaw of the game. And I hate ties too! Not just tie game outcomes, but having to wear ties. They're constricting. When I have to dress up, I go to great lengths not to wear a tie. I'd go with the Don Johnson t-shirt under jacket look if it were socially acceptable. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Duderino's got it. I'd also reiterate that increasingly liberal interpretations of pass interference are skewing the NFL into an offense-first league. Matching possessions with kickoffs is my preferred system. No sudden death after a certain point, because that defeats the purpose. There would be outcomes that instantly end the game, like an interception on a matching possession following a score, but games wouldn't end in the "top of an inning," so to speak, without a bottom.I fail to see in logic in the last part of your post. Yes, after one team scores, they can intercept it right back on the other teams matching possession, BUT at least the other team got the chance at scoring. If they throw an interception, that's their mistake, and it may in fact cause them to lose the game. And you can't compare that to ending a baseball game in the "top of an inning." That makes absolutely no sense.I've always been in favor of the college rule, pushed back to the 40-50 yard lines. But have become rather fond of the "1 possession each then sudden death" scenario. Either of those 2 would be fine with me, with the "win by 4" rule as the 3rd best option. Either way, I'm for reducing the overtime period by half, too. In which case, a 5th "half" period would be my 4th preference, with it being that amount of time played and whoever's leading at the end of the period, wins.But I just can't get behind keeping it as is. I never have and never will like the current OT. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HedleyLamarr Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Keep the sudden death OT. It makes every play pivotal. There's nothing more exciting than knowing that every single play could be the tie-breaking play.If you're allowed to win a 60-minute game by the score of 3-0 (And it's still possible in this era...we had a 3-0 game last year), why would you suddenly need to be required to score 4 points to win a game in overtime?And is it really that much fairer to put in the "each gets one possession, then sudden death" OT setup? So instead of a team getting one possession to the other team's none, you're giving a team two possessions to the other team's one. Either keep the sudden death as it is now, or go completely equality and give each team an equal number of possession. How can someone whine about sudden death not being fair.....then propose an OT format that includes sudden death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDR Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Duderino's got it. I'd also reiterate that increasingly liberal interpretations of pass interference are skewing the NFL into an offense-first league. Matching possessions with kickoffs is my preferred system. No sudden death after a certain point, because that defeats the purpose. There would be outcomes that instantly end the game, like an interception on a matching possession following a score, but games wouldn't end in the "top of an inning," so to speak, without a bottom.I fail to see in logic in the last part of your post. Yes, after one team scores, they can intercept it right back on the other teams matching possession, BUT at least the other team got the chance at scoring. If they throw an interception, that's their mistake, and it may in fact cause them to lose the game. And you can't compare that to ending a baseball game in the "top of an inning." That makes absolutely no sense.I've always been in favor of the college rule, pushed back to the 40-50 yard lines. But have become rather fond of the "1 possession each then sudden death" scenario. Either of those 2 would be fine with me, with the "win by 4" rule as the 3rd best option. Either way, I'm for reducing the overtime period by half, too. In which case, a 5th "half" period would be my 4th preference, with it being that amount of time played and whoever's leading at the end of the period, wins.But I just can't get behind keeping it as is. I never have and never will like the current OT.I think that's what he was saying. There are outcomes (like Team A scoring and intercepting Team B on their follow up possession, or, Team B returning a Team A pick for a TD) that would end the game instantly, but at least both teams had the chance to get the ball, and it wouldn't end in the "top of an inning," meaning the way it is in the NFL now would be like in MLB if an extra inning game ended in the top of the 10th while not giving the home team the chance to tie. If you further the MLB analogy, why isn't it Sudden Death there, with the argument being "well, if your bullpen can't stop their hitters you don't deserve to win." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjrbaseball Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I have no objections to the way it is now. Just get rid of ties in the regular season - use the same rules as the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 McCall: what I was saying is that Team A gets the first possesion and scores a field goal. Team B gets possession next, but turns the ball over. That's the end of the game. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HedleyLamarr Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 There are outcomes (like Team A scoring and intercepting Team B on their follow up possession, or, Team B returning a Team A pick for a TD) that would end the game instantly, but at least both teams had the chance to get the ball, and it wouldn't end in the "top of an inning," meaning the way it is in the NFL now would be like in MLB if an extra inning game ended in the top of the 10th while not giving the home team the chance to tie. If you further the MLB analogy, why isn't it Sudden Death there, with the argument being "well, if your bullpen can't stop their hitters you don't deserve to win."When's the last time you saw a home team in baseball score a run in the top half of an inning?Equating a sudden death OT format in football to extra innings in baseball is, well, stupid. You know damn well that the two sports can't be compared, in terms of offensive possessions. Baseball is the only sport where the defense can't put points on the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 If you want to get pedantic--and I sure do!--the defense can't score in any other sport, since they become the offense with possession of the ball. But practically speaking, an offense is built to score points, a defense is not; if a defensive corps does score points, it's gravy. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgesL Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I say just do it like the NCAA. I like it better than sudden death, because both teams will get the football, then and there it will be a fair fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 But then there are no kickoffs. You can't take that phase of the game out. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDR Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 There are outcomes (like Team A scoring and intercepting Team B on their follow up possession, or, Team B returning a Team A pick for a TD) that would end the game instantly, but at least both teams had the chance to get the ball, and it wouldn't end in the "top of an inning," meaning the way it is in the NFL now would be like in MLB if an extra inning game ended in the top of the 10th while not giving the home team the chance to tie. If you further the MLB analogy, why isn't it Sudden Death there, with the argument being "well, if your bullpen can't stop their hitters you don't deserve to win."When's the last time you saw a home team in baseball score a run in the top half of an inning?Equating a sudden death OT format in football to extra innings in baseball is, well, stupid. You know damn well that the two sports can't be compared, in terms of offensive possessions. Baseball is the only sport where the defense can't put points on the board.Did I say that? If the road team hits a solo home run in the top of the 10th, in sudden death rules, the game would end in the top of the 10th without the home team getting a chance to tie. Not to mention the fact that I was simply explaining somebody else's (the Admiral's) analogy. And I fail to see how stupid it is. It's not like hockey where both teams have an equal opportunity to be on the offensive. Yes, defenses in football can put points on the board, but defensive points are fewer and farther between than offensive points. What's more likely to happen? A team drive down and kick a field goal? Or a team pick off a pass and return it for a TD? The NFL record for defensive TDs is 10 in a season. The team with the least total FGs this year, I think, was Kansas City with 16. A lesser person might say that insinuating the sudden death rules in the NFL were completely fair because the defense has the opportunity to put points on the board, too, is, well, stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In 5..4..3..2..1 Posted January 31, 2009 Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 YOU CAN'T TAKE SPECIAL TEAMS OUT OF THE EQUATION. Then it becomes a gimmick ,a sham ,a mockery , a shamockery of the game of football. That's the one thing that sucks about the college version . It's kind of like settling a tie after OT in hockey when they go to the shootout. You play regular hockey more than 60 minutes then you end up having a shootout to break the tie it's just stupid. Play football, that involves 3 parts Offense ,Defense and Special Teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HedleyLamarr Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 There are outcomes (like Team A scoring and intercepting Team B on their follow up possession, or, Team B returning a Team A pick for a TD) that would end the game instantly, but at least both teams had the chance to get the ball, and it wouldn't end in the "top of an inning," meaning the way it is in the NFL now would be like in MLB if an extra inning game ended in the top of the 10th while not giving the home team the chance to tie. If you further the MLB analogy, why isn't it Sudden Death there, with the argument being "well, if your bullpen can't stop their hitters you don't deserve to win."When's the last time you saw a home team in baseball score a run in the top half of an inning?Equating a sudden death OT format in football to extra innings in baseball is, well, stupid. You know damn well that the two sports can't be compared, in terms of offensive possessions. Baseball is the only sport where the defense can't put points on the board.Did I say that? If the road team hits a solo home run in the top of the 10th, in sudden death rules, the game would end in the top of the 10th without the home team getting a chance to tie. Not to mention the fact that I was simply explaining somebody else's (the Admiral's) analogy. And I fail to see how stupid it is. It's not like hockey where both teams have an equal opportunity to be on the offensive. Yes, defenses in football can put points on the board, but defensive points are fewer and farther between than offensive points. What's more likely to happen? A team drive down and kick a field goal? Or a team pick off a pass and return it for a TD? The NFL record for defensive TDs is 10 in a season. The team with the least total FGs this year, I think, was Kansas City with 16. A lesser person might say that insinuating the sudden death rules in the NFL were completely fair because the defense has the opportunity to put points on the board, too, is, well, stupid.Basketball, hockey, and football are all trasitional-possession sports, where either team can score at any given moment during the game. In baseball, the team on defense can't score any runs.That's why it's stupid to compare baseball to football...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc... Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Here is the other reason I hate the idea of the 4 point rule. Lets say, in OT, The Helena Handbaskets drive down the field and get stopped at the 25 yeard line. They kick a field goal anyways making the score 23-20. The Fort Wayne Newtons take there turn on offense and go 3 and out. It goes back and forth and time runs out on the clock. Does the game go back to a tie because the Helena Handbaskets didnt score 4 points? You really cant go to a 2nd OT especially in the regular season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Basketball, hockey, and football are all trasitional-possession sports, where either team can score at any given moment during the game.In theory, they can, but in football, the personnel is so divergent between offense and defense. Defenses can score, but they're not built to score. In basketball, it's the same five guys whether one has the ball or not. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDR Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Basketball, hockey, and football are all trasitional-possession sports, where either team can score at any given moment during the game.In theory, they can, but in football, the personnel is so divergent between offense and defense. Defenses can score, but they're not built to score. In basketball, it's the same five guys whether one has the ball or not.Yeah, I mean, if you're gonna get all over me for a baseball analogy that wasn't my own, you at least have to concede that you cannot compare the transitional-possession nature of basketball and hockey with that of football. Nearly all changes of possession in football bring a stoppage of play and new personnel. And most aren't even from offense to defense. It goes through the Special Teams unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epiphanic Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 ...The Helena Handbaskets...I have nothing to add that hasn't been said before, but that made me giggle. "In the arena of logic, I fight unarmed."I tweet & tumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totc Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 BringBackTheVet I would never like to see them just place the ball at the 40, that takes special teams out of it and that is 1/3 of the game. That would be worse than what you have now.Actually, I'd like it at the 35. That way, you have:NATIONAL FEDERATION: Start at the 15NCAA: Start at the 25PRO: Start at the 3510-yard increments. And if a team goes 3-and-out with no gains, a 53-yarder ain't a guarantee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In 5..4..3..2..1 Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 Wow! How close were we to seeing the Overtime controversy play out yesterday. I can tell you something would have been changed for sure if the Steelers had lost that game on a field goal by the Cards on the first possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiasco! Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 All I want is no more ties in the preseason or regular season.But a tie in the playoffs, that's cool? LinkedIn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.