NFL Mulling Change to Sudden Death Overtime Format
by Christopher Gates on Feb 28, 2010 9:26 AM CST
in NFL
94 comments
As Vikant posted in the FanPosts last night, there is a proposal on the table to change the current format of overtime in the National Football League. Anyone that saw the NFC Championship Game. . .or, really, any other OT NFL game over the past, say, three decades or so. . .can tell you that the NFL's current overtime format is awful and is a complete joke, and the proposal that's out there certainly is an interesting one. (Link via Pro Football Talk)
The jist of the proposed overtime rule is that each team would get a possession unless the first team with the ball goes down and scores a touchdown. If the team that got the ball first in overtime went down and scored a field goal, their opponents would get an opportunity to play offense. If they scored a field goal, it would then go to sudden death. . .if they failed to score, the team that played offense first would win. However, if the team that got the ball first in overtime scored a touchdown on their first possession, then the game would be over.
In short, a team couldn't get the ball first in overtime, move the ball downfield with the assistance of three or four absolute horse crap calls from the officials. . .including, say, a pass interference call where two players don't even make physical contact with each other. . .kick a field goal from about 40 yards out, and prevent a team with an offense that they really hadn't stopped all night from having the ball in the extra session.
Hypothetically, of course. I mean, I can't remember the last time a situation like that actually happened.
The word is that the NFL would like to try this system in the post-season first to see if it would be effective for all the games, which doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me. The regular season games should be contested under the same rules as the post-season games, in my opinion. Otherwise, what's the point? Regular season games can end in ties (right, Donovan?), but post-season games obviously can't, so there's a difference right there.
But, honestly, this proposal is light years better than what the NFL currently has for an overtime format, and I sincerely hope that it gets pushed through, even if it is just for the post-season for right now. This is definitely something to keep an eye on as the off-season moves along.
0 recs |
94 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I dunno how I feel about this
On the one hand, I love it, because we lost in OT and it would have given us a strong chance of winning. On the other, I don’t think OT needs to be changed so much. Teams have as good a chance as the other of getting the first possession. It’s a 50-50 chance. Basically, I think they should just leave the rules as it is.
I think that’s the issue at stake; that winning in OT is strongly predicated on who wins a coin-toss. Sure, it can go 50-50… but that’s a heck of a way to decide who goes to the Super Bowl.
Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!
I think the statistics point to it being 50% of who wins...
Coin toss doesn’t dictate who wins generally. Yes, it happens, and it happened to Minnesota, but I think it’s actually pretty much 50/50.
That said, I want the format to change. Honestly, I prefer first team to score six points wins. That way, if the defense gives up a field goal, each team gets a possession and a chance to win.
Skol Vikings!
Woot Woot!
Not to be an a$$, but....
where did this statistic come from? Any webpage or source info to back that up?
Damn it all...
You could of done your own google search, but since the rules of etiquette demand linkage…
This was the most recent info I could quickly find:
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/02/why-nfl-overtime-needs-to-change.html
Over the past decade, there were 158 OT games, including playoff games. In 58 of the 158 OTs, or 37%, the coin flip winner won on their first possession while the loser never touched the ball.
Sorry
didn’t mean to piss you off. I just don’t have time to google every statistic that gets posted on this site.
It was tongue and cheek...
You have to have some skepticism with all the mularkey posted on the interwebs. I knew I should have linked when I first commented, but hoped that at this point in the OT debate such a basic fact was well known.
The problem I have with the 6 point thing is
that the game can still end after one possession. Which is what the entire arguement against the current OT rules are. That the team who wins the toss can win on the first possession without giving the other side a chance. The only way to prevent this would be to change it from 6 points to at least 9, because then each team would be guaranteed a possession in overtime. But then you may as well start having 5…. would quarters be the right word?… to the game since that’s an awful lot of scoring that would need to be going on.
FG vs TD
I don’t think anyone would complain too much if one team marched 80+ yards down the field and scored a TD to end to the game. That would be considered earned. But those stupid whimpy 40 yard FGs are whats pissing everyone off. With just a decent kickoff return (to say, the 35) the “lucky” team that wins the coin flip need only drive about another 30 yards to win the game. Driving 30 yards isn’t exactly a test of superiority. But as I said before, driving 80 yards and punching it in is something that should be commended.
That's what I'm saying.
It can be one possession, but a team would have to have a huge play, or march down the field and score right away. So playing for 30 yards of field position and kicking a field goal isn’t the only goal of the offenses.
Skol Vikings!
Woot Woot!
Idk I guess I just feel that if a team moves into FG range they earn the right to score those points and end it. I mean the defense has to stand up and do their job in OT just like they do in regulation. It just seems to me like making it so OT can’t be won on a “whimpy” 40 yarder is like saying that teams shouldn’t win in regulation on “whimpy” 40 yard FGs either.
Still
to prove you’re the better team, you should have to make a defensive stop as well
From the only TRUE North division
by thewild_viking_twins on Feb 28, 2010 4:19 PM CST up reply actions
Alternatives
After 60 minutes of football, why not have some other way to decide. Fewest fumbles? fewest penalties? Have the refs decide who played a better game? Or even Idol style. A ten minute window for people to ext who played a better game…don’t tell Jerry Jones or it will be another $ making scheme for him, and there will be all kinds of OTs.
If it takes a touchdown then what you’ll see is teams still getting to the 30 and instead of kicking a FG taking three shots into the endzone hoping for a dumb PI call to get the ball to the 1, if not kick the FG. No that’s a dumb rule.
yeah i mean you have 4 qtrs to win the game
if some over the hill qb didnt throw a pick at the end of the fourth qtr then OT wouldnt have been needed.
But in all seriousness what does OT have to be “fair”. What is fair is that the rules give you 60mins to win the game. Anything after that should be sudden death. It made perfect sense when they first brought it into play and it still make sense today
What the French?! Toast!
Championship justification
I think the integrity of the entire game rides on the ability to, after the SuperBowl, legitimately be able to say that the team that hoist the Lombardi trophy is the best team in the league. Anything that causes someone to say “Those [Super Bowl winners] were pretty good but I don’t think they were the best….” is an opportunity for improving the accuracy of the system. Or at least needs to be examined with the goal of removing any doubt of who “the best” actually is.
By the way, for reference, I believe this to be true and necessary in any sport. Thus why I hate the NBA so much. That game is as tainted as I have ever seen.
Over The Hill QB?
as compared to what? A big-eared overrated star on the helmet QB whose gaining a bigger reputation as one of the biggest post season chokers of all time?
in all likely hood
the new rule would not come to a test at all if it is not used in the regular season. How many playoff games go to OT? Besides us in 98 and this year has it happened? I think the OT rules suck, and much prefer the college rules, but I can see why the NFL would not adopt those rules. This would be a good change and hope they put it in the regular season.
it is better to be thought of as dumb then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Ben Franklin
by montana vikes fan on Feb 28, 2010 11:11 AM CST reply actions
Good point
Regardless whether this rule stinks or proves an awesome fix, we won’t know the answer for years and years because thats how long it will take to actually encounter a few playoff games that use it.
It's a crock
As far as I feel, it’s a “we’re doing something for the playoffs to make us feel better” rule. This or any proposal should be all season long, just not the playoffs. I did like the O.T. idea that if a team scores be it FG or TD, the other team has a shot at tieing it up again. If it don’t happen, too bad. Also, you score a TD and game over? I’m just not liking this at all.
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk."
"You men are only risking your lives, while I am risking an almost-certain Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor!"
"We have clearance Clarence. Roger Rodger, what's our vector Victor?"
Why is this so complicated?
Why can’t they just do it like basketball. If its tied at the end of regulation you go to OT. Decide how many minutes you want OT to last, and whoever has more points when the clock hits zero wins.
they do that already
its called regulation. Its called the NFL is giving you 60mins to win. What is more fair than that?
What the French?! Toast!
No
I am saying that OT doesnt have to be fair. You have 60mins to win, and sudden death is a perfect way to finish the game. I never got the idea to change OT. Though there are some good ideas out there but mostly likely itll just get changed for the worse.
Bad ideas would be to adopt college rules or make it a full qtr like basketball.
I just think the vike fans are still bitter which might be justified or not. OT is fine leave it alone
What the French?! Toast!
The original rule was written back in 70’s when the NFL was driven by RB’s and strong defenses.
Nowadays the NFL is driven by QB’s, and most of the rules favor the offense so it doesn’t take much to get into FG position and win the game.
I agree that they shouldn’t play the whole qtr, but winning because of a FG on the opening drive isn’t exactly fair.
The other team should be allowed 1 possession to either match the FG, or score a TD to win…..IMO
but its fair for a team to do the exact same thing
with 2mins left in the game? Team B takes 8mins ties up the game and with 2mins left Team A drives 30yds after a nice kick return to kick a “whimpy” 40yd fg to win the game…
so if thats ok why does it change in OT… i just dont understand
What the French?! Toast!
OT is a new game. The score is basically 0-0
Both offenses should be given 1 possession. Losing by a FG can still happen, but the point is, both teams should be allowed at least 1 possession. This removes the benefit of winning the coin toss, no-matter what, you get 1 possession.
Example 1:
Team A wins the coin toss, and scores a FG on it’s 1st drive.
Team A would then kick to Team B, but Team B doesn’t score….game over, Team A wins.
Example 2:
Team A scores a FG on it’s 1st drive, followed by Team B scoring a FG on it’s 1st drive. The first team to score after that wins the game.
Example 3:
Team A wins the coin toss, but doesn’t score on it’s 1st drive. They punt to Team B resulting in Team B scoring……game over, Team B wins.
meh
i guess im one of the few that feel OT shouldnt have to be “fair” and whats fair is that each team had 60mins to win the game.
What the French?! Toast!
That's cool,
Everybody has a different opinion of what the NFL should do.
No-matter what the NFL decides, there’s going to be people who aren’t happy about it. :)
Who cares if the other team wins the coin flip? If the defense does their job, then the opponent’s offense shouldn’t get within field goal range. If the defense doesn’t do that, then that team deserves to lose. Simple as that. OT rules are fine as is.
Like Medicine Ball said below, there’s a reason why teams elect to Receive VS. Kick in OT.
Receiving guarantees you 1 possession on offense. Winning the coin toss doesn’t guarantee a win, but it most certainly gives you the upper hand in a sudden death scenario.
Yes, it gives an upper hand
I won’t argue that. But the upper hand could go either way, which seems pretty fair to me. But the changes proposed are still sudden death, in a way. Which is why I think, if they’re going to change it, they may as well make it first to 9 points or more instead of 6. Then each team is guaranteed a possession.
Why not change it so at the beginning of the game, the winner of the coin toss gets to play with 12 men on the field at all times, while the loser can only play 11.
It doesn’t have to be fair. As long as the defense doss their job, fine.
by medicineball on Mar 3, 2010 10:58 AM CST up reply actions
Exactly
If we lost the coin flip, would I love for the offense to get on the field? Hell yes. But I would want it to come from the defense stopping them, whether its preventing a first on third down or a turnover of some kind. They are paid to stop the opponent’s offense from scoring. If they can’t, the game deserves to be lost.
He means
that rather than it being sudden death OT, it’s just simply OT. Which is an interesting idea, even though I disagree with it. I happen to like Sudden Death myself, and it does help prevent some extra injuries from occuring typically. We all saw an example of this with Griffin. If there was no OT that game, we wouldn’t have had to worry about whether he can start next season or not.
Football is a far more violent game than basketball is, and I’m sure that’s part of the reason the OT rules are sudden-death rather than an extra period.
I am with those that say: Leave the game alone!
However, if there must be a change, then this is exactly what i’d like to see done. A first possession field goal doesn’t necessarily win it, but the game isn’t never-ending. It sucks, but the horse crap call scenario can never really be taken out of the game.
my solution...
while any type of ot change is an improvement, this is my solution:
flip coin to see who gets ball first: no choice involved, heads you go, tails you go
there is NO kicking involved at all
each team gets the ball on the 50 yard line
touchdowns and two point conversions are scored only
if team fails to score, the yardage is noted, and other team would have to get past that point only to win……simple, and if you think it through, it would be damned exciting!
"Somewhere in Minnesota, a child becomes a Vikings fan and wonders if they will win a Super Bowl in their lifetime"
Wow
That really does sound like a blast to watch! It adds so many new layers of strategy to the game. Like, do I want to try to score the points and be done with it? Or plod ahead for as many yards as I can and then hope my defense holds them to less? I’m really loving this idea. Think I’ll start a bandwagon.
OT Needs To Be Changed
They need to do something with OT. The way it works now is completely ridiculous, with teams settling for a field goal for a win. Each team should have a possession, period. And not like the stupid college rules either, where a 14-14 game at the end of regulation ends up being a 42-38 final. Stupid!
The game starts just like a regular game. After each team has had a possession, if it’s still tied, it continues. If one team has the lead, it’s over. Simple.
The Minnesota Vikings - Undefeated in the Playoffs at Lambeau Field!
What exactly is wrong
with settling for a FG to win? Why does the ammount of points scored matter at all? If it’s so wrong for a team to win by a FG in OT, how is that any different from a team winning by a FG in regulation? Should the Pats have to forfeit their SB titles because they “settled” for a game winning FG instead of going for a TD?
The idea of a field goal being a compromise doesn’t work well with it also being a game winner. There is an arguement to keep the game the way it is.
Which I agree with
I don’t think the rules should change. A FG is a FG, points are points, and sudden death is better than ‘first to 6’ I think.
First off, I also agree that we should not use the college version of overtime. But that being said, something tells me that you wouldn’t see a ton of points scored in that format should the NFL adopt it. It is an age-old adage that scoring actually gets more difficult when entering the red zone because the defense has to cover less ground. And unlike college football, the NFL defenses are much more capable of shutting teams down, especially situationally.
needs to be changed but
unlike basketball, the physicality of football means that an additional 15 minute quarter could mean injury. I like the college system, but in the nfl i think the yardage should be upped. maybe adopt a nhl style system: each team kicks the ball to the other once. (onsides are allowed!?!?!!!) upon scoring the first team kicks back to the other, if no score, still a kick like they scored (30 yd line) repeat until uneven score.
the problem with this though is that this gives advantage to offense, and no reward to defense.
i hate the coin flip drive it 40 yards and kick it for the win scenario, but its difficult to think of a better way…..
I like the proposed change
It’s a good compromise between adding a full 5th ‘quarter’, and doing nothing at all.
But I think they should put the rule into effect for the entire next season, provisionally, having it automatically expire at the end if a post-Super Bowl review doesn’t determine it works well. The reason is that you just don’t get that many OT games during the season, and you need every single one to really get a decent analysis group for drawing a conclusion.
While they’re at it, they can move the Pro Bowl back to a couple weeks after the Super Bowl, and put it in Hawaii again too.
Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!
I agree
if they’re going to make this OT change, it should be across the board. Both post and regular season. Otherwise it doesn’t make any sense.
On a somewhat off-topic note: I actually like the probowl the week between the Championships and the SB. It gives me some football to watch. I mean, after the SB I don’t care so much, but this year I was actually kind of hungry for the probowl unlike in the past.
still a couple months to late
"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you!"
I like it a lot
I like this proposal a lot. I’ve been wanting the NFL to adopt “modified sudden death” for over 10 years. This would be much a better overtime rule than the current rule or the college rule.
The current NFL favors offense. Offense now has a decided advantage in the rulebook over Defense. Thus, the sudden death rule, as it stands in the NFL today, is no longer fair. Whoever wins the coin flip has an advantage, but a coin flip should not give either team any advantage. The fact that the Saints home crowd cheered when the Saints won the coin toss—and they had reason to—is just one more item of proof that the current overtime rule is unfair. Winning the coin toss should not give either team any advantage.
Ideally, the rule change would be “guaranteed possession” pure and simple. Each team should get at least one possession. Each team would have one chance of a possession that they would lose if they lost a fumble on the punt or kickoff, or if they gave up an onside kick. Once both teams have had a chance, the team with the higher score should win. If it is still a tie (maybe each team has kicked a field goal, or neither team scored), the game should continue, and should then enter into true sudden death.
This rule change should be extended to all regular season and postseason games.
For the preseason, though, there shouldn’t be any overtime. If the score is tied at the end of the fourth quarter, the game should be a tie.
The NFL should go ahead and make this change. Even if it is just one small step, as in the current proposal, any move toward “modified sudden death” would be an improvement.
I don’t know if this would have helped the Vikings beat the Saints. Maybe or maybe not. What this rule change would do is assure the players, the teams, the fans, and everyone that each team has an equal shot to win in overtime.
Winning the cointoss doesn’t give any extra advantage, aside from the fact they have a chance to end the game in one possession. Which I feel is more than acceptable. It’s still offense vs defense. Just like we were saying when people were bitching about us “running up the score” against the Cowboys: If you don’t like it, stop them. Hell, just look at the Pack-Cardinal game. That Cardinal’s defense stopped the Pack, and won on the defensive side of the ball in OT. They didn’t need to win the coin-toss. Our D couldn’t do that, and so it seems like OT is suddenly an issue.
I’ll take Sudden Death OT, where each team has a 50-50 chance of getting first possession, than an NBA OT session where there’s a chance our players could get unnecessarily hurt.
Why were the Saints fans cheering when they won the coin toss? Why do any fans cheer when their team wins a coin toss in overtime?
Because that team will have a distinct advantage.
It’s the same reason why you would never win the coin toss and then kick off. A coin flip gives one side a leg up.
by medicineball on Feb 28, 2010 10:29 PM CST up reply actions
The only advantage
they get is the possibility of being able to win on that possession. That’s all. Otherwise its still the same offense vs defense you see in regulation. And really its no different than a team getting the ball with enough time for one last possession and a chance to win the game with a FG in regulation.
The only advantage is having a much better chance to win. That is a huge advantage, and a coin flip should not swing the game like that.
by medicineball on Mar 3, 2010 11:00 AM CST up reply actions
The thing is that the coin flip is fair
Each team has the exact same chance to get the ball first. What happens after is just football. If the defense does its job, then there is really no issue.
the rules are stacked against the defense
Defensive holding, the rules protecting the quarterback, and the rule that allows receivers to catch balls that hit the ground. All these rules help the offense to the point where picking up 30 yards is a lot easier than in the past. Furthermore, in the past decade, the NFL has enforced these pro-offense rules more.
A coin flip is not fair anymore. It’s not fair to say “Hey go out there and just play defense,” because it’s not a level playing field anymore.
Our Luck...
We would be the 1st team to lose under the new overtime rule in a game we would have won under the old rule!!!!
I agree with Dsludo
Make OT 8 mins, 10 mins or whatever mins. This should give each team chances to score. I do not want anything like the college OT system. Changing to, if 1st team in OT scores a TD, the game is over. But if they score a FG, the other team gets a chance is ridicilous.
Yes shortened version of quarter would work and give both teams a chance at the ball...
10 minutes shoild do it….and not kill either team…nor the fans!!!
I would rather be IN the Arena than watching from the stands...That is my life!
* Read Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" if you need further explanation...
by vikingfanfrom afar on Mar 1, 2010 10:05 AM CST up reply actions
10 minutes
can be a big difference. Hell, look at Cedric Griffin. It was under one minute of OT that he got hurt. I can see the merit in having an “extra-quarter” rather than sudden death, but there’s alot more risks in it too which, I think, outweigh the benefits.
Sorry...
I didn’t go through each comment, so I might be restating somebody else’s opinion here, but my idea is this: Each team gets a possession on offense. At the end of each possession, if the score is still tied, then it’s a tie ballgame.
Do you propose those teams then...
merge rosters and compete jointly against their next opponent? Think it out. You have to have a winner in playoff football.
I think
he means for the regular season. Which is… basically what the OT is now lol.
But you’re right, that wouldn’t work in playoffs, which is why they keep going.
You're right,
I did mean regular season. Of course it won’t work in the playoffs; give me a little credit here, sheesh! lol
It's Simple
You play a full extra quarter. Team ahead wins, if tied total offense yardage, minus penalty yardage wins. Each team would have had several chances to score points. No one can cry about coin flips or sudden death or easy field goals. It doesn’t hurt the integrity of the league. If teams don’t score or remained tied then it is only fitting that team that gave up the fewest yards in the overtime be declared the winner.
You need more tie breakers than that.
There is a chance teams could allow the same number of yards, be penalized equally (unless its the Vikes).
No people would still bitch
because one team would end up with an extra possession likely, due to having won the coin flip. What you would have to do to make it absolutely fair is have TWO entire extended quarters, so that each team has a chance to start the quarter off. That would be the most completely fair means of dealing with OT. And its ridiculous.
Does anybody know:
Does the 50-50 or whatever stat mean that 50% of teams that win the coin toss score on their FIRST possession, or just that they win the game? I think that is an important distinction. I’m guessing it is the former, or else people wouldn’t make such a big deal.
the only good solution is to play a timed period, whether that is 8 or 10 or 12 minutes. This new stuff is weird, and sort of arbitrary to me. At least regular sudden death is cut and dry, none of this “if this then that, but if this + that then something else.” It just reeks of reactionary decision making. I think it is Peter King’s fault.
Plus all this makes it seem as if offense is all that matters in the NFL. I would almost rather they did something like kick off from the 35 in OT, to limit big returns. Recap: I am OK with sudden death as it is, but would choose a timed period over anything else.
The new OT proposal did not explain one other possibility...
According to the new proposal:
The jist of the proposed overtime rule is that each team would get a possession unless the first team with the ball goes down and scores a touchdown. If the team that got the ball first in overtime went down and scored a field goal, their opponents would get an opportunity to play offense. If they scored a field goal, it would then go to sudden death. . .if they failed to score, the team that played offense first would win. However, if the team that got the ball first in overtime scored a touchdown on their first possession, then the game would be over
What if the first team that got the ball first in overtime went down and scored a field goal, their opponents would get an opportunity to score a touchdown instead of a field goal.
What then??? Just curious.
That is the point...
Each team would have had a chance to score. The team that scored a touchdown would be declared the winner (6>3).
That’s the weakness of the current proposal.
If the winner of the coin flip scores a touchdown on their opening possession, the game is over. The coin flip had a huge impact on the winner of the game. That’s bad.
by medicineball on Mar 3, 2010 11:02 AM CST up reply actions
They would have to drive the length of the field to get a TD.
If the D isn’t good enough to hold them to a FG they don’t deserve to win.
However if the possessing team gets a decent return they only need 30yards or so to get in field goal range. That isn’t fair to the D and if they are good enough to hold them to a FG they deserve a chance on offence.
Come back stronger than ever Brock!
It seems to me that they just need a better way of deciding who gets the ball first.
I say they put the ball on the 50 yard line and have the 2 teams line up on both 30 yard lines and when the whistle blows they all go for it with the team coming up with it getting first possession, then they can keep the sudden death rule. The only thing that changes is the random luck involved in the coin toss.
What?
How do they need a better way? What is more fair of deciding who gets first ball than the coin flip? Its a 50-50 chance.
Uhhhhh
By 50-50 chance, do you really mean dumb luck?
That isn’t football. That’s MMA or something.
by medicineball on Mar 3, 2010 11:03 AM CST up reply actions
Ok then
Maybe they get rid of field goals altogether. I would imagine that would cut down on the amount of games that even get to OT.
It certainly would
Which is why I’m honestly fine with winning by ‘just’ a FG, whether in regulation or overtime. Those 3 points can make all the world of difference.
keep football
Overtime should not be decided on some vastly differently rulebook, like soccer’s penalty kicks. It should be as close to the real game as possible.
If you get rid of field goals altogether, that would greatly increase the number of tie games, and some playoff games might go into double or even triple overtime. That’s too long.
Mmm...
How about the team that has the most first downs after 4 quarters gets the first possession, instead of out of dumb luck?
so the team that
scored all its points of D turnovers and got short fields or big plays and didnt get first downs should be penalized?
What the French?! Toast!
The object of the game of football is to score more points. If we throw in a “game statistic determines who gets the advantage in overtime” then scoring more points is no longer the pure object of the game.
Let’s say it’s the 4th quarter and you are behind by seven points and two first downs. Your receiver catches a pass and gets out into the open. But instead of scoring, the receiver has to go out of bounds at the 11 yard line so that the team can first pick up a first down and then score a touchdown. That just isn’t football.
by medicineball on Mar 3, 2010 11:05 AM CST up reply actions
I think
they should just have the home team get first ball in OT situations. That’d REALLY bring some homefield advantage.
Excellent point.
That is a good idea. Then everybody knows exactly what to expect if OT happens.
5th Quarter or same
I thnk they should keep it the same or have a full 5th quarter. Sure as shooting if they make the change that is suggested, the first one will be the 1st team getting a TD by a 100 kick return for a TD. Then there will be grumping again. The Saints may of had some help in OT, but our defense did not rise to the occassion either. The Saints won and hat’s off to them even though it hurts. Just like it hurt when a 15-1 super offense could not manage to get itself into field goal range not once but twice. I don’t like losing with the offense not getting the ball either, but keep it the way it is or give us a full 5th. I still love it that I think the only team to EVER elect to kick the ball away in sudden death overtime is the Lions and they lost without their offense ever seeing the ball. HAS TO GO DOWN AS ONE OF THE DUMBEST COACHING MOVES EVER. See Chilli’s not that bad.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Daily Norseman
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
