Chef Jim Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 I heard the reason Ralph voted no was because seeing it is in regard to playoffs only it didn't pertain to the Bills. I gotta agree with him on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 So what happens if the team winning the coin toss scores a FG, then does an onside kick and recovers it, then doesn't score? Does the other team still get their chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wagon Circler Posted March 24, 2010 Author Share Posted March 24, 2010 Actually, it makes no sense to vote against a rule change that you favor. Saying you don't want the rule in any games if it can't be in all games shows a....lack of forethought, not to mention ill logic. There is no harm in the playoff "trial" of the rule. Seeing it work in some games will lead to its adoption for all games. That's how the NFL works. So they didin't even bother to wake Ralph to put in a vote with the other owners? And Chan and Buddy thought theirs was solid thinking? Yup, we're gonna be just fine with these 3! Sounds kind of like the way Congress votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 I'm with you---there is nothing that will be unexpected as a result of this very straightforward change. So it doesn't matter that it isn't implemented for the playoffs. But I also agree that it should be for ALL games. Doesn't change the fact that it made no sense for Buffalo to vote against it if Gailey thinks it's a good rule change. Absolutely no sense. Rules changes should first be tried in pre-season, then the regular season, then the playoffs. That was the point of voting no, along with 3 other teams who made the playoffs last year, one of them getting burned by the old system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 I hate the new OT rule change...just play defense, dammit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 So what happens if the team winning the coin toss scores a FG, then does an onside kick and recovers it, then doesn't score? Does the other team still get their chance? I believe that ends the game. An onside kick counts as a change-of-possession. Seems like an unlikely tactic, but that would be one hell of a balls-out play to win the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 So what happens if the team winning the coin toss scores a FG, then does an onside kick and recovers it, then doesn't score? Does the other team still get their chance? Unequivocally, no. It's not a guarantee of a possession. It's a guarantee of a chance at a possession. If a first possession team scores a FG and does a successful onside kick - game over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 College still has it best - how exciting was that OK/Boise OT a few years back? The only change would have to be move the ball start back to the 40 or 45 to get it out of the range of NFL kickers. Thats a true do-or-die OT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clippers of Nfl Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Maybe Ralph didn't understand that this only applies to teams in playoff games... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clippers of Nfl Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 The NFL's change is almost what I'm proposing, but letting the OT end if the first team scores a TD is dumb. by the way i have always argued this point. lets say you lose the coin flip. GAME IS NOT OVER YET!!!! SHOULDNT YOUR DEFENSE GET YOU OUT OF THE JAM???? im sorry. im so used to the old ot rule...(that i was ok with) call me a biden if you must! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Let's see if I have this straight. The competition committee has messed with the rules to make it easier for teams to score (moving the kickoff back to get returns, tying the hands of the defense to benefit the offense, etc.). Now, they are complaining that it is too easy to score. Who is to blame for that? Maybe the very people now trying to change more rules to counteract the rules they changed? Here is a thought: change it back to the way it was. Don't add more rules to counteract the rule changes you made previously. Stop messing with the game. Player safetly is one thing. This is just ridiculous. Peter King and the OT reformists like tossing out the "60% of all coin toss winners win the game," while failing to mention that only 28% of the coin toss winners actually win on the first possession. Now, they just want to do it in the playoffs, where in the entire history of the NFL, only three times has the coin toss winner won on a field goal on the first possession. Obviously, this is a major catastrophe that needs to be rectified. Stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobillsinytown Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 I know it's a small thing, but I saw that the Bills were one of four teams to vote against the new overtime rule.How do you vote against a reasonable solution to an overtime rule everyone knew was unfair? Seriously, do the Bills ever vote FOR anything new? Ralph continues to reinforce his old codger status. Whhat's the excuse this time? Not enough time to study it again? Lost our bifocals, did we? The rule was designed to give both quarterbacks the ball in an overtime game. I think it was reactionary because of what happened in last year's playoffs. But I also think that the league will end up either changing it again or repealing it. The league is fairly open minded about this kind of stuff and isn't afraid to experiment. By the way....their "no" vote has nothing to do with age. What about the other teams that voted no? Maybe we should check the ages of their owners and staff. Sometimes, age=wisdom, and Ralph turned out to be right about the collective bargaining agreement that he voted against, and that is now threatening to seriously damage the game. I guess I'm going with the "old codger". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Rules changes should first be tried in pre-season, then the regular season, then the playoffs. That was the point of voting no, along with 3 other teams who made the playoffs last year, one of them getting burned by the old system. There is no need to "try" or test this rule. What would be the unintended consequences? None. That is no the reason the Bills gave for voting no anyway. They wanted it for the whole season---which guys who voted yes have said also---but that wasn't on the ballot. They realize that a good rule change is better than no rule change. Voting no still makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 The problem with a preseason test-run is that virtually no preseason games go into overtime, since coaches don't want to play them anyway, they always ignoring chances for game-tying field goals and go for 2. It's too bad the NFL doesn't have a minor league to try it out in. I think the NHL worked out the shootout/OTL system in the AHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Also, whereas Buddy reportedly let CG decide the team's vote, Ralph actually put the vote in when it counted. Only owners get to vote and there were no coaches or GMs in the room. Guess they wheeled Ralph in and put the pen in his hand for the "X". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 In this morning's Cincy Enquirer, owner Brown said there was some discussion about changing schedules to have division teams play each other in week 17, so as to provide incentive to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufcomments Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 First of all I did not think that anything was wrong with the OT in the pros. First team that scores wins, that's why it was called sudden death. Special teams is 1/3 of the game. If 3 points in OT wins the game so be it. You had 60 mins. to win the outscore the other team in regulation. I think this is a dumb ass rule and not to do it in the regular season does not make sense. what if you score a safety on D in OT?? Does the other team still get a chance to score? This is not good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 The vote was a collective hissy fit 'cause of the way Peyton Maning and, more recently, Brett Favre were ushered out of the postseason w/out the chance to get onto the field. Now there's proof positive that the NFL is a QB driven league. "Our QB didn't get to play and they lost. Waaaaaaaaaaah!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Also, whereas Buddy reportedly let CG decide the team's vote, Ralph actually put the vote in when it counted. Only owners get to vote and there were no coaches or GMs in the room. Guess they wheeled Ralph in and put the pen in his hand for the "X". The video on NFL.com would seem to suggest otherwise. As Vikings owner Zygi Wilf announces his intention to vote against the rule change, Wade Phillips is sitting in front of him. Believe you'll also see Gailey during the clip. http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 There is no need to "try" or test this rule. What would be the unintended consequences? None. That is no the reason the Bills gave for voting no anyway. They wanted it for the whole season---which guys who voted yes have said also---but that wasn't on the ballot. They realize that a good rule change is better than no rule change. Voting no still makes no sense. First of all I did not think that anything was wrong with the OT in the pros. First team that scores wins, that's why it was called sudden death. Special teams is 1/3 of the game. If 3 points in OT wins the game so be it. You had 60 mins. to win the outscore the other team in regulation. I think this is a dumb ass rule and not to do it in the regular season does not make sense. what if you score a safety on D in OT?? Does the other team still get a chance to score? This is not good. Exactly. Two sets of rules for the regular season and playoffs is dumb, and I'm sure the other 3 (playoff teams) would say the same. There is no reason they couldn't have voted for it to be the permanent rule change. Also, whereas Buddy reportedly let CG decide the team's vote, Ralph actually put the vote in when it counted. Only owners get to vote and there were no coaches or GMs in the room. Guess they wheeled Ralph in and put the pen in his hand for the "X". You'd do well if you were half as coherent and mobile as Ralph is now, when you're 80. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts