Jump to content

BillsFan130

Community Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,603

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by BillsFan130

    3 Rules I want to see changed based on Yesterdays Games

    in The Stadium Wall Archives

    Posted

     

    I love your logic: "game has to end some time" so in a game where the offensive team does almost all the scoring, all the time, you give 1 team a chance to have the ball on offense, but not the other.

    Seems fair.

     

    Sure the game has to end...and almost all football games are going to end, in that first OT period. For the one every 15 years that doesn't (Denver/Baltimore a few years ago; instant classic), cool, it's history in the making.

     

    What, you're anxious to get to your manicure appointment? Who doesn't want to see a double OT in a conference championship game anyway!?

    Yes but football games are won by scoring more points than the opposition, and almost all scoring, all the time, is done by the offense. So if only 1 team touches the ball on offense, they have a massive competitive advantage given to them by....the flipping of a coin. That's BS.

     

    Secondly, most of the thinking that goes into the other rules governing NFL playoff overtime are grounded in the concept "We are starting a new, second football game."

     

    If that is true, then the new game should not be allowed to end after a single offensive possession, because that is not how football games are played, won, or lost.

    I see your points but i disagree that if you win the coin toss with these new overtime rules that you are given a massive competitive advantage. With the old rules fair enough but with the new rules I have actually seen teams who have won the coin toss kick off first. Bill belichick did that too peyton manning last year. If you have a good defense it can actually be an advantage too get the ball 2nd because if you stop them, you will have better field position plus only needed a field goal too win. Just my personal opinion. I just hate when people think all the rules should revolve around offence (including the nfl for the most part)

     

    I like all the baffled questions you throw out there, like there's no possible solution to this crazy problem. Except that college has had this in place as long as I've known - if you return the PAT try (whether via blocked kick or fumble/INT return) all the way to the other end zone, you get 2 points. The team that scored the TD still kicks off as normal. The team that scored the TD can also waive the PAT try, which happens when a team scores a TD to go up 1 or 2 with no time on the clock. I would be fine with the NFL adopting this rule, but I'm also fine with them keeping it as-is.

     

    And for the record, both teams can score on punts and kickoffs. In the specific instances of muffed punts and onside kick attempts, it's pretty tough for the kicking team to score, but still possible according to the rules. A lot easier on a muffed punt - if the returner muffed it on the 5, and the ball went back into the end zone, the kicking team could score a TD by falling on it. For an onside kick, the kicking team would need the receiving team to clearly possess the ball after it travels more than 10 yards, then fumble, then the kicking team would have to recover the ball and run it in for a TD. Unlikely, but possible.

     

     

    I love the current OT rule, and would hate to see it changed. I was rooting for Green Bay yesterday, but felt no sympathy when they just let Seattle waltz in for a TD like that. I hate the college OT rule and don't even like watching college OTs. It's artificial suspense created by spoon-feeding teams the ball on the 25. Doesn't really look like football to me. It's a lot like PK shootouts in soccer, but with more moving parts.

     

    Once the ball travels 10 yards, it's the same rules-wise as any other kickoff - the receiving team can advance and either team can possess the ball. It's true that the kicking team can't directly recover the ball and advance it - they just get the ball at the spot of recovery in that scenario. But like I posted above, once the receiving team possesses the ball, a fumble is then fair game for either team to score off of.

     

    I'm not sure on what the rule is if the ball goes >10 yards and is touched (but not possessed) by the receiving team. I could see it going either way as to whether the kicking team could then advance it or not. But ultimately it doesn't matter, because there's already a way for both teams to score on any kickoff, onside or not.

    Agreed, i would hate if they NFL adapted college like overtime rules

    Remembering Kyle Orton

    in The Stadium Wall Archives

    Posted

    unfortunately ill remember kyle orton by that one play where he could have ran for the 1st against Denver but slid too take a sack. I liked him but I don't think he really cared too much about winning. He fattened his bank account and cared about his health. (can't hate too much on that I guess)

×
×
  • Create New...