billsfan89 Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 The NFL Over time rule is stupid (The part where you could score on a field goal and the other teams O and D don't ever go on the field). Yet as much as people hate it (The fans at least) they never seem to want to change it at all. I think the day they change the rule is when a Super Bowl goes into OT and a team goes down and hits a 45 yard field goal for the win without the other teams O touching the ball. He is a simple solution to the NFL's stupid overtime system. Just let each team have one touch of the football. If you go down and score a field goal the other team gets a chance to tie it or win it with a TD. It not only solves the problem of punishing a field goal but lets the other teams offense have a say in the out come of the game. Once both teams have had a offensive possession than it becomes sudden death first to score wins. Its not perfect but its a lot better than the system we have right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChimp Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 You: Preacher Me: Choir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 The NFL Over time rule is stupid (The part where you could score on a field goal and the other teams O and D don't ever go on the field). Yet as much as people hate it (The fans at least) they never seem to want to change it at all. I think the day they change the rule is when a Super Bowl goes into OT and a team goes down and hits a 45 yard field goal for the win without the other teams O touching the ball. He is a simple solution to the NFL's stupid overtime system. Just let each team have one touch of the football. If you go down and score a field goal the other team gets a chance to tie it or win it with a TD. It not only solves the problem of punishing a field goal but lets the other teams offense have a say in the out come of the game. Once both teams have had a offensive possession than it becomes sudden death first to score wins. Its not perfect but its a lot better than the system we have right now. I like your idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 not really because the moment it ends it will be considered by everyone to be the best super bowl ever even if it wasnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 The NFL Over time rule is stupid (The part where you could score on a field goal and the other teams O and D don't ever go on the field). Yet as much as people hate it (The fans at least) they never seem to want to change it at all. I think the day they change the rule is when a Super Bowl goes into OT and a team goes down and hits a 45 yard field goal for the win without the other teams O touching the ball. He is a simple solution to the NFL's stupid overtime system. Just let each team have one touch of the football. If you go down and score a field goal the other team gets a chance to tie it or win it with a TD. It not only solves the problem of punishing a field goal but lets the other teams offense have a say in the out come of the game. Once both teams have had a offensive possession than it becomes sudden death first to score wins. Its not perfect but its a lot better than the system we have right now. Totally disagree....If you lose the coin toss in OT, then stop the other team from scoring and then you get the ball with a chance to win. OT rule is fine just the way it is. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 not really because the moment it ends it will be considered by everyone to be the best super bowl ever even if it wasnt You are right.........That won't do any good. And, I hate the OT rule - my plan would be that you can win it with a TD on the first drive, but if you score a field goal, the other team gets the ball. If they don't score, you win. If they score a TD, you lose. If they score a field goal, well then they had their chance, and you can win it now with a field goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Why not make it simple... If a team immediately wins off the coin toss (drive or return)... Why not give the other team a chance to tie or win... It would stop the stupid BS what PITT did by going for the kick on 1st down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrygnome Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 The overtime rule is not broken. Can anyone here really say Tennessee deserved to win, or with that bills-like prevent zone coverage that they would have stopped Pitt had they needed to do a second drive? The Steelers ate the Titans D alive through the fourth quarter, and they refused to make a change. That's why they lost, and would have lost no matter how many possessions each team had. It amazes me that the same people who have been pinning a majority of the Bills struggle on a lack of pass rush/defensive effectiveness immediately think that only an offense has the right to win or loose a football game. Games are won and lost on BOTH sides of the ball, even special teams. It happens every week in the NFL. That's why the overtime rule is fine the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 Totally disagree....If you lose the coin toss in OT, then stop the other team from scoring and then you get the ball with a chance to win. OT rule is fine just the way it is. JMO No because 60% of the time the team that wins the coin toss ends up winning the game. The current system rewards teams for playing for a field goal. 60% is too high a percent to be ignored a coin toss shouldn't have that much to say about the outcome of a game. I never get that logic of well why don't you just stop them defense is part of the game. So than why shouldn't the other teams D have to play after all isn't it part of the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 The problem is that too many people think that life is supposed to be fair and everyone is supposed to give you a chance. Well guess what... if you want the ball in overtime go out there and get it. Don't stand around whining that its not fair you want the ref to give you the ball too. The Titans had plenty of chances to get the ball and score. They didn't. Now you want to just give them the ball because they somehow deserve it? Why not change the playoffs and the Superbowl to a series? Ya know it's not really fair if some team just has a bad day. I'll tell ya why because football is do or die, not do or try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 The overtime rule is not broken. Can anyone here really say Tennessee deserved to win, or with that bills-like prevent zone coverage that they would have stopped Pitt had they needed to do a second drive? The Steelers ate the Titans D alive through the fourth quarter, and they refused to make a change. That's why they lost, and would have lost no matter how many possessions each team had. It amazes me that the same people who have been pinning a majority of the Bills struggle on a lack of pass rush/defensive effectiveness immediately think that only an offense has the right to win or loose a football game. Games are won and lost on BOTH sides of the ball, even special teams. It happens every week in the NFL. That's why the overtime rule is fine the way it is. The Steelers should have had some incentive to go for a TD instead of kicking on 1st down. Also the Titians should have at least had a chance to tie up the game. In last years playoffs the Chargers beat the Colts in OT without Peyton Manning having stepped on the field is that a good system. Did the Titians deserve to win I don't know but I think Kerry Collins should have been give 1 drive to tie up the game. If Defense matters why didn't the Steelers D have to step out on the field. If a football game is decided on all sides of the ball why not let both teams have their offenses and defenses out on the field to determine the outcome of the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 The problem is that too many people think that life is supposed to be fair and everyone is supposed to give you a chance. Well guess what... if you want the ball in overtime go out there and get it. Don't stand around whining that its not fair you want the ref to give you the ball too. The Titans had plenty of chances to get the ball and score. They didn't. Now you want to just give them the ball because they somehow deserve it? Why not change the playoffs and the Superbowl to a series? Ya know it's not really fair if some team just has a bad day. I'll tell ya why because football is do or die, not do or try again. That's ass backwards logic. Having a coin toss determine the out comes of games is better than letting the players out on the field do that? Also the fact that it rewards teams for kicking field goals and gives no real incentive to score TD's isn't reflective of real football at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaSnow Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Why not just use the same format as college football? To make it a bit more interesting, you could even start both teams off a bit further back but it isn't necessary. Or (and this is the one I prefer) use the basketball system, and just play the quarter all the way out. If it's still tied at the end, go another one. For the record, I like the initial poster's idea as well and definitely think it would be an improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 Why not just use the same format as college football? To make it a bit more interesting, you could even start both teams off a bit further back but it isn't necessary. Or (and this is the one I prefer) use the basketball system, and just play the quarter all the way out. If it's still tied at the end, go another one. For the record, I like the initial poster's idea as well and definitely think it would be an improvement. I don't think that college football's OT is reflective of real football either and is a bit gimmicky to work on the pro-level. The reason they don't play out a full quarter is due to TV stations not wanting games to overlap. But I think adding an extra possession to the mix in case of a first drive score wouldn't make that many games that much longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrygnome Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 If Defense matters why didn't the Steelers D have to step out on the field. If a football game is decided on all sides of the ball why not let both teams have their offenses and defenses out on the field to determine the outcome of the game? Because all sides already did that for 60 minutes. It's called regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 Because all sides already did that for 60 minutes. It's called regulation. So why is that a good reason to only let half the players decide the out come of a game? and have a coin toss give one team a 60% chance of victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GripnRip Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 A field goal should result in a kickoff and 1 possession for the other team, a TD should end the game. Basically a "win by more than 3" type tiebreaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 not really because the moment it ends it will be considered by everyone to be the best super bowl ever even if it wasnt No because if it was a team with a big enough fan base (The Cowboys or Pats*) that lost than we would never hear the end of it. It would finally let the players get pissed off about the OT rule as well as get a fan base to be very vocal about the need for a rule change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 So why is that a good reason to only let half the players decide the out come of a game? and have a coin toss give one team a 60% chance of victory. Where did the other half go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 A field goal should result in a kickoff and 1 possession for the other team, a TD should end the game. Basically a "win by 2" type tiebreaker. If that were the compromise than I would take it. But it would still be a little unsettling to never having seen a teams offense out on the field but I could live with it better if the teams D gave up a TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts