New NFL OT rules
Ray OHara
other team gets the ball.
a TD still ends the game sudden death and after the first possesion an FG
does too.
Michael
what a stupid shit half baked piece of crap that rule is. after
regulation runs out, it should still be a football game with the same
rules. just play a shortened period with each team getting one time
out. no stopage at the two minute warning. a short period of 6 to 8
minutes would ensure both teams got a crack at the ball. no sudden
death. if the game is still tied at the end of one extra period, than
it ends in a tie
Johnctx
How do you really feel?
:)
I am with you. How about this? No OT in regular season and in the play
offs have 2- 5 minute OT periods reversing the field after each one.
Play it until it is over.
Ray OHara
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4a6f1b51-ba86-4cdc...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
=======================================================================
a team can easily hold the ball for 8 minutes.
MZ
I don't know about "easily". If a team holds the ball for 8 minutes,
then they deserve to win.
I like John's idea -- no OT for the regular season. In the playoffs, 8
minutes should be fine.
Michael
john... that would be good in the sense that it is fair. it is also
goon in the sense that it spares players additional exposure, so it
limits injury and exhaustion. the down side is that is deprives fans
of the intence excitement of over time play.
MZ
Yeah, but you'll see more teams go for the win at the end of the game
instead of the tie.
Deadmeat
As of now, the rule only applies to playoff games, so no ties.
Ritchie
I cant believe that 28 out of 32 owners voted for these new OT rules!
Sean Payton (N.O. coach) stated that he is pissed that the new rules
passed. Maybe its because he realizes that if the new rules existed
Farve and company would have been in the SB instead of them cause on
next possession in OT Minny would have most likely marched right down
field and scored a TD. I like to call this the Brett Farve rule,
although it was stated that the Minny owner voted against it.
Johnny Morongo
Nice, but you really have to have more than a 5 minute period. A team
with a ground and pound O (ahem) could easily eat up five minutes of
time, especially if there were no more than one time out allowed, and
maybe a "one minute warning."
Ray OHara
"Ritchie" <ritch...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fb5ff98-a5d3-43a7...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
========================================================================
I like it.
and Favre would have just tossed an INT gain.
marcman
No kiding?
You mean Fucktard OHara got it wrong??
I'm shocked I tell ya, SHOCKED!!!
Johnctx
Like this game?
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2009/10/bengals_defeat_browns_23-20_in.html
:)
I just feel they should get it right when it matters. How different are
games if you are playing to prevent a tie if you need the win in regular
season?
Johnctx
No you play the two 5 minute periods? Then two more.....
Johnny Morongo
No, make it one 8 minute OT at the end of which a tie is a tie, unless
it's a championship game. Then it's first to any kind of score, TD, FG,
or S.
Deadmeat
The way they had it was just fine. It was something like 51/49 in favor
of who won the toss. They tweaked it a little, but at least they didn't
make it horrible.
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
> it ends in a tie
What if it is a playoff game?
mr dude (dons his Captain Obvious costume)
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
>
. It was something like 51/49
> of who won the toss.
Ummmmmmmmmmmm...NO!
mr dude
Michael
>
> :)
>
> I just feel they should get it right when it matters. How different are
> games if you are playing to prevent a tie if you need the win in regular
>
> - Show quoted text -
follow that post up with a herm edwards quote...
"hello..."
Ray OHara
"Deadmeat" <no...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4babfb5b$0$31980$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
I have no problem with the game being a tie at regulation and no OT .
but I like the new rule better than the old rule.
and maybe we'll see the team winning the toss defering knowing that a FG
doesn't beat you and if you can get a stop a FG can win the game for you.
Johnctx
The only reason I think they should switch sides is related to the wind.
I like your idea of moving to sudden death.
Did I just write that?
Glenn Greenstein
> Ray OHara wrote:
> > "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
Honestly, I don't want to see games ending in ties. I like the rules
the way they were. If your ST can't hold them on their side of field
and your D can't keep them out of FG range guess what, they just beat
you on 2 out of the 3 factors that win and lose games and you deserve
to lose.
They just turned football into baseball. It may actually be a an
advantage now to kick off in OT.
Hank
>
> Honestly, I don't want to see games ending in ties. I like the rules
>
As I understand it, opening drive field goal, very next responding
drive field goal . . . And if so, at that point, it's a tie but just
a temporary tie, because the very next team that scores anything, wins.