If it keeps going to field goals, which is likely due to the level of exhaustion that the teams will be facing after 60 minutes of playing, then the first two FGs are going to be meaningless to begin with.
but it gets rid of the easy fg strategy, which is what people have a problem with, thats the point of the whole thing, not to make it a perfect world or cure cancer, its all about the team who wins the flip doesnt need to play the whole field cuz under the current rules certain aspects of the game are removed, the new rule keeps them in play untill after the 2 possesions, then its into the current quick end go home for dinner format.
Leave the OT rules alone, they're fine. It's not an "easy FG" unless the other team fucks up, in which case they deserve to lose.
Because If team A scores a FG then B has to also or they lose. If A scores a FG and B scores a TD then B wins... It's actually a very simple concept. No over thinking and very fair. Exactly. But the problem is that Losing the Coin Toss gives a team an unfair advantage whether they fuk up or not. In order to eliminate that you give the other team 1 possession also
royal, even tho you are agreeing with me, even you are missing the point, the rule does not GIVE the other team a guranteed possesion, it simply eliminates the first team from being able to play half a field, thats the injustice, the first team will try for the six points just like during regulation time. If they get it, game over no possesion for the other team, and still fair.
I wasn't speaking on your argument, I was actually commenting on mine from earlier that Cakes was commenting on. I was agreeing to the fact that it doesn't have to be rocket science. :wink:
They have had 60 minutes of fair play to win the game already. After that point, I could care less about the coin toss deciding everything. The whole game is not about offense. If your defense is worth it, you better be able to stop a drive. As I said before, if you want to make it actually fair, go with the college rules but add kickoffs. Make a team win by coming up with a defensive stop. It gives you more football and it lets the defense share the pressure along with the offense.
Yes, I understand. If Team A scores a FG, then Team B has to also score at least a FG or they lose. Yes, if Team A scores a FG and Team B scores a TD, then Team B wins. It is not rocket science. I understand what you want with overtime. That said, you still keep overlooking something. What if the teams match scores? Can you address that for me? If the teams both score FGs or both score TDs on their first overtime possessions, then you want the system to revert back to sudden death. The advantage then lies with whichever team gets the ball next. Yes, your system would work if the teams do not match scores on their opening possessions. Your system does not work if they match scores.
That's not what RoyalTee was talking about. RoyalTee was conveying that the receiving team could score a TD and the other team would have a chance to match that score. If RoyalTee stated that he wants the team scoring the first TD to win, then I would not be having this back-and-forth with him.
Relook at RoyalTee's first post in this thread and then my replies to that post. Early in the thread I outlined three overtime formats that I would be okay with. RoyalTee then mentioned a 4th proposal and I didn't think it was a good one. Addendum- in other words, RoyalTee does not like the proposal bandied about in the AP article which can be seen in post #1 of this thread.
because for them to match scores then the first team would have to have scored only 3, giving the second team a chance on offense to win the game, its in their hands at that point, they either get down there and score 6 for the win, fail and lose or socre 3 for the tie and force sudden death "There each offensive squad has controlled their own destiny in the OT period, enough is enough lets get this game over with, get the players home, sudden death is now in effect and its the second teams own fault that their offensive unit could not get to the endzone for the game winning TD, they had their shot." ( thats an irritated nfl official who is trying to stop the hate mail about the unfairness of ot rules) regardless of your defensive unit being able to do their job and stop the offense, the offense is still the unit that controlls what happens in the game, because they are the ones who snap the ball and decide where it goes, giveing both teams that opportunity seems fair to me, to a point.
How about if we just move the OT KO to the 35 yard line (pre 1994 rules)? It would make teams work that much harder to get the "easy FG".
lets bring that up at the meeting next month..jk bills relax. lets keep the debate to the actual proposal that is going to be discussed by the guys who make the decisions, any idea we come up with is irrelevant.
Uggh. C'mon guys, work with me here just a little bit. That is not the RoyalTee proposal. RT wants one possession for each team. That is not the format that the competition committee will be considering in March. I am okay with the plan mentioned in the AP article. RoyalTee is not okay with that. You and CatoTheElder are mixing up my comments on all this stuff.
Anything we have to say is irrelevant either way. I am actually very interested in other posters' opinions and ideas on how/if the league should change the OT rules.
What time is next month's meeting? Who's bringing the beer? jk I really think that the NFL version of the NHL's "shootout" system is a big mistake. I think that the game exists as the combination of three facets (Offense, Defense, and Special Teams). If you want to win a game, you need to do well in all phases, not just highlight the most exciting to the layfan. If a team loses the OT coin flip, then have two opportunities to stop the opposition (ST and D). If they can't get it done, then they don't deserve the win, IMO.
not true, we are discussing something that could actually happen, it holds the same weight as discussing a proposed and possible trade, the pros and cons to each and how it would effect the team, i dnt post on here to dream, i like to discuss things that might actually happen, if the first post had been that the nfl was considering what bills fan had said, i would have been posting my thought about that.
