billsfan89 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Good the NFL overtime system was flawed and this fixes it. No one could ever give me a good reason as to why the old system was better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 The overtime rules SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN changed in the first place, for postseason or regular season. The sudden death overtime rules were fine. I think it was very close to 50/50 on who won the game, receiving team or kicking team. Plus defense is just as important as offense, so if your defense can't stop the offense from getting in field goal range, then you should lose the game. My final point on this is (and tell me if you agree: Under the new rules....say TEAM A (the receiving team) goes down and kicks a FG. TEAM B (the kicking team), with a chance to tie or win, gets into FG range and kicks a FG tying the game. TEAM A gets the ball again, and drives and kicks a FG. Game over. Now TEAM B will still complain they had 1 less possession than TEAM A, so nothing is really resolved through the rule change. On top of that, TEAM B will effectively be playing with 4 downs to get into scoring position, because punting would end the game. TEAM A, on the other hand is effectively playing with 3 downs, because they start with the ball. This gives team B an unfair advantage IMO. I have one of those BIlls fan sickening feelings that the Bills will be the first teams to lose a game under these new rules, in a game where we would have won under the previous rules. I think your wrong about the defense, etc. A game should not be decided by a team just being able to get into field goal range. Normally they would keep going until they scored a touchdown. However, the bolded part is something I never thought of and unless I'm not thinking of something, would give Team B an advantage......However, I think that might be OK, because Team A had the advantage that they could have scored a touchdown and ended the game without Team B ever touching the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANCOCK Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 im glad this is now in effect in the regular season.. the goal is to score 6 points PERIOD.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 im glad this is now in effect in the regular season.. the goal is to score 6 points PERIOD.. I really think so. I never thought of the point above, but this is still the most fair way........A team winning the game with a 30 or so yard drive I have never thought was fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweatpantsjoe Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I wonder if they'll adopt a sort of shootout in the case of a tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buff_bills4ever Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Why didn't they just turn overtime into an extra 10 minute quarter? Seems fairer then this nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 The overtime rules SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN changed in the first place, for postseason or regular season. The sudden death overtime rules were fine. I think it was very close to 50/50 on who won the game, receiving team or kicking team. Plus defense is just as important as offense, so if your defense can't stop the offense from getting in field goal range, then you should lose the game. My final point on this is (and tell me if you agree: Under the new rules....say TEAM A (the receiving team) goes down and kicks a FG. TEAM B (the kicking team), with a chance to tie or win, gets into FG range and kicks a FG tying the game. TEAM A gets the ball again, and drives and kicks a FG. Game over. Now TEAM B will still complain they had 1 less possession than TEAM A, so nothing is really resolved through the rule change. On top of that, TEAM B will effectively be playing with 4 downs to get into scoring position, because punting would end the game. TEAM A, on the other hand is effectively playing with 3 downs, because they start with the ball. This gives team B an unfair advantage IMO. I have one of those BIlls fan sickening feelings that the Bills will be the first teams to lose a game under these new rules, in a game where we would have won under the previous rules. I was sickening to see how teams were playing for field goals in OT under the old system. This system is much more exciting as it rewards you going for a TD. I was just sick of teams getting inside the 20 running it twice for 5 yards then kneeing it to center the ball and kick a field goal. Rewarding "settling" for a field goal is a disgusting way to end a game when one team doesn't have the ability to touch the ball. Now lets say The Bills get the kick off and kick a field goal, The Vikings get the ball back and kick a field goal. Then the Bills kick a field goal to win. The Vikings wouldn't have that much of a right to complain because they should have scored a TD to win the game. Granted the Vikings getting an uneven times to score but they had a fair shot to win the game on both the offensive and defensive sides of the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 But now Donovan McNabb will really be confused ... Seriously though, I'm getting old so I may just not remember ... Did the playoff version come into play yet? If not, why would the league adopt a rule change that has never been shown to help anything? Also ... Trying out new rules in the playoffs was a backwards way of doing it anyway. Put your practice rules in preseason like they did with the position of the umpire. You could even ask a couple of teams to artificially tie in preseason to see how it works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Why didn't they just turn overtime into an extra 10 minute quarter? Seems fairer then this nonsense. This is really the easiest way to fix it...if it even needed fixing. I'm still on the side of sudden death OT (they play 60 minutes before this, remember), but if we're going to continue to get the whiners, then the only "fair" way to end a tie game is to just play another non-sudden death quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaattMaann Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 But now Donovan McNabb will really be confused ... Seriously though, I'm getting old so I may just not remember ... Did the playoff version come into play yet? If not, why would the league adopt a rule change that has never been shown to help anything? Also ... Trying out new rules in the playoffs was a backwards way of doing it anyway. Put your practice rules in preseason like they did with the position of the umpire. You could even ask a couple of teams to artificially tie in preseason to see how it works out. hahahahah, love the Donovan comment....brilliant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 1332991484[/url]' post='2424891']Good the NFL overtime system was flawed and this fixes it. No one could ever give me a good reason as to why the old system was better. A big part of what made football such a good sport is the immediacy of the game and the importance of every drive. You had one day, each week and only a few weeks (when you think about it) to watch. You get 4 downs, move forward or give up your possesion. Make it to the playoffs, you get one game - win or go home. Overtime, any one play could end then game. All these new rules are just watering down the sport, if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Sorry, but with game tailored toward the offensive side of the ball, when you have a 35-35 shootout where neither team can stop the other and you receive the ball in OT and you return the kick to the 40, all you need is 25 yards to get into field goal range. It's a little lopsided when it's all contingent on who wins a coin flip. I am not cool with a lot of the things the NFL does, but I am way on board with the new overtime rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prissythecat Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) The overtime rules SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN changed in the first place, for postseason or regular season. The sudden death overtime rules were fine. I think it was very close to 50/50 on who won the game, receiving team or kicking team. Plus defense is just as important as offense, so if your defense can't stop the offense from getting in field goal range, then you should lose the game. My final point on this is (and tell me if you agree: Under the new rules....say TEAM A (the receiving team) goes down and kicks a FG. TEAM B (the kicking team), with a chance to tie or win, gets into FG range and kicks a FG tying the game. TEAM A gets the ball again, and drives and kicks a FG. Game over. Now TEAM B will still complain they had 1 less possession than TEAM A, so nothing is really resolved through the rule change. On top of that, TEAM B will effectively be playing with 4 downs to get into scoring position, because punting would end the game. TEAM A, on the other hand is effectively playing with 3 downs, because they start with the ball. This gives team B an unfair advantage IMO. I have one of those BIlls fan sickening feelings that the Bills will be the first teams to lose a game under these new rules, in a game where we would have won under the previous rules. I think you are a bit off base. Didn't the NFL change the rules because statistics showed that winning the coin toss resulted in a clear advantage? I quickly tried looking up some percentages on the web and found the from wiki answers (there are likely better ones out there but this is what i got on short notice) ____________________________________________________________________________________ The NFL has had 325 overtime games since the rule was adopted in 1974. The results: Both teams have had possession 235 times (72.3%). The team that has won the toss has won 169 times (52.0%). The team that has lost the toss has won 141 times (43.4%). 223 games were decided by a field goal (68.6%). 86 games were decided by a TD (26.5%). One game was decided by a safety (0.3%). There have been 15 ties (4.6%). Source: NFL *It seems fair but these numbers are somewhat misleading because in 1994 a rule changed moved the kickoff back 5 yards to the 30 yard line (those numbers were based on data from 1973-2003). Since then, it's been about 60%. Prior to the rule change, the coin toss had no predictive value for deciding who would eventually win the game. Since 1994, the coin flip winner has a clear advantage. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Edited March 29, 2012 by prissythecat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I was sickening to see how teams were playing for field goals in OT under the old system. This system is much more exciting as it rewards you going for a TD. I was just sick of teams getting inside the 20 running it twice for 5 yards then kneeing it to center the ball and kick a field goal. Rewarding "settling" for a field goal is a disgusting way to end a game when one team doesn't have the ability to touch the ball. Now lets say The Bills get the kick off and kick a field goal, The Vikings get the ball back and kick a field goal. Then the Bills kick a field goal to win. The Vikings wouldn't have that much of a right to complain because they should have scored a TD to win the game. Granted the Vikings getting an uneven times to score but they had a fair shot to win the game on both the offensive and defensive sides of the ball. There goes the first replier's argument against.... Especially with the New NFL, where the rules are bent over backwards in favor of the offenses and which will only see get more and more pronounced as the Rules Committee castrates defenses, changing the overtime rules so both teams have a guaranteed touch of the ball was only fair. Teams are now incentivized to score a touchdown, which was easier last year than it has ever been, what with three QBs eclipsing Marino and two years removed from Brady having 50+ TDs. What's wrong with encouraging touchdowns in OT as much as they have in regulation, if high scores are what they want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 But now Donovan McNabb will really be confused ... Seriously though, I'm getting old so I may just not remember ... Did the playoff version come into play yet? If not, why would the league adopt a rule change that has never been shown to help anything? Also ... Trying out new rules in the playoffs was a backwards way of doing it anyway. Put your practice rules in preseason like they did with the position of the umpire. You could even ask a couple of teams to artificially tie in preseason to see how it works out. Great line about Donovan! Yes, the Tebow touchdown in the Pittsburgh game was on the first play of overtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 . . . A game should not be decided by a team just being able to get into field goal range. . . . You should be happy with the newest revision to the overtime rules: Finally an OT rule for the fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjg1993 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 is there a difference between a "crackback block" and a "crack block." I guess you don't see many crack blocks in the NFL, so its not a big deal. But if they outlawed it in college/high school, it would change a lot. Hope it doesn't trickle down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick in hartford Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 12 men on the field is now a dead ball foul, smells like Krafty to me....super bowl, third to last play, 19 seconds left, brady burns 11 seconds throwing deep to Hernandez knowing he had the flag. Bet Krafty was thinking how nice it would have be if he had that time back...just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefenseWinzChampionshipz Posted April 12, 2012 Author Share Posted April 12, 2012 is there a difference between a "crackback block" and a "crack block." I guess you don't see many crack blocks in the NFL, so its not a big deal. But if they outlawed it in college/high school, it would change a lot. Hope it doesn't trickle down... I used to live on a crack block but nyc's former mayor Giuliani cleaned the streets up nice. "crackback block" imo would probably be the streets where they are promoting that the crack is back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 12 men on the field is now a dead ball foul, smells like Krafty to me....super bowl, third to last play, 19 seconds left, brady burns 11 seconds throwing deep to Hernandez knowing he had the flag. Bet Krafty was thinking how nice it would have be if he had that time back...just sayin' It's a good idea to close that loop-hole now. Giants could have (and probably should have), played 12 men again on the next play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts