patsox Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 They shouldn't change the rules. It would be a knee jerk reaction. There's nothing wrong with the present ones. They're completely fair. If you don't stop the team that gets the ball first, then that's your fault. You couldn't score enough points in the game, you had an equal chance of getting the ball first, and then you couldn't stop them. It's fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 They shouldn't change the rules. It would be a knee jerk reaction. There's nothing wrong with the present ones. They're completely fair. If you don't stop the team that gets the ball first, then that's your fault. You couldn't score enough points in the game, you had an equal chance of getting the ball first, and then you couldn't stop them. It's fair.Actually, one could say that the team that calls the flip ultimately has an advantage. Cuz if they call it, win it, get the ball and score, the other team's offense doesn't have a fair shot. I was just joking with that, btw. But everyone says it's equal because the team starting on defense should be able stop the other teams offense, so it's fair. Well, the team starting on offense's defense doesn't have to worry about stopping the other team's offense, so in turn, it is a little uneven in fairness. It really does come down to who wins the flip of the coin, and to me, that's a little weak that a football game can be decided by the simple flip of a coin. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Maybe it's because baseball is the sport I live and breathe rather than football, but I really can't get behind this "GRAWWWWWWW IT'S COMPLETELY FAIR IF THEY CAN'T STOP 'EM!!!! FOOTBAW!!!!!" thing. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slightly shotgunned Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I said this before in the other thread and I think it should be said again.No team is ever guarteed a possession. Team A wins the toss, Team B recovers an onside kick and scores. Team A won the toss and lost without their offense ever seeing the field. Is that fair? Sure it is. Team A had two chances to get the ball; once on the kick, once while they were on defense. They failed, they lose. The end. Team B doesn't recover an onside kick, Team A marches down the field and scores. Is that fair? Not a popular answer, but yes it is. Team B had a chance to stop Team A's drive and they didn't. If Team B's offense doesn't see the field it's because Team B's defense failed, not because Team A won the toss.The only change I'd like to see is the elimination of the field goal in OT. Or at least, make it so a team has to get further than the opposing 30 to kick one. Say inside the 15? I mean, normal rules are already set up to aid the offense as much as possible, don't further punish defenses by giving the offense a shorter field to work with in OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perfect Zero Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I've heard everything from ensuring at least one posession to making it the first to six getting the win, but I think the best thing to do would be to cut the gimmicks. I think that overtime should be 15:00 long, and both teams play it out to the end with no special rules. If there is a tie after all of that, the game ends as a tie. I might be ok with taking 5 to 7:30 off the clock, but if the game ends in a tie, it wouldn't be the end of the world to me. It goes to show that both teams were equilly good/ poor on that given day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epiphanic Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 What's the point in having overtime if you're not gonna go all the way? I'm not opposed to ties, but if you're gonna have them, have them at the end of regulation.As I said earlier in the thread, if you're gonna go through the trouble of OT to determine a winner, then you play until there's a winner. And the more I think about this the more I'd prefer it to be "an extra period" of some length. If it's tied at the end of the period, play another one until it's settled. "In the arena of logic, I fight unarmed."I tweet & tumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief. Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 All I want is no more ties in the preseason or regular season.But a tie in the playoffs, that's cool?Those damn preseason ties! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi74 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 How about getting rid of full time kickers and punters and go old school with Wide Receivers, Guards and back-up Linebackers doing all of the kicking. How many OT games would end with the team winning the coin toss and then kicking a 45 yard field goal if someone like Lawrence Timmons or Sean Morey were kicking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 How about getting rid of full time kickers and punters and go old school with Wide Receivers, Guards and back-up Linebackers doing all of the kicking. How many OT games would end with the team winning the coin toss and then kicking a 45 yard field goal if someone like Lawrence Timmons or Sean Morey were kicking.Well the Eagles used MLB Mark Simoneau for extra points, and TE Mike Bartrum for kickoffs back in 2005.IIRC, Simoneau made his extra points, but sucked at the kickoffs so they subbed Bartrum in. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.