New NFL OT rules

[Gard]

[Rant mode: ON]





This is just a continuing sign of the pansy-ification of the NFL. The owners and the league are giving in to pressure from the media. The networks are still butt-hurt because they didn't get their golden boy matchup for the Super Bowl (never mind that the guys the DIDN'T want to be there not only won the game, but did so convincingly - and they had the biggest TV audience in HISTORY to watch it).

This should be called the Brent FAR-VUH rule, because it's totally about the fact that "he didn't get a fair chance to win in overtime".



Fair? This is FOOTBALL! There ain't no "fair" in football! You BEAT the other team, or the other team BEATS you.

Y'know what folks, here's my general take:

Don't want to lose in overtime? WIN IN REGULATION! (Hey, Brent, don't throw the ball to the guys in the other uniforms! Dumb@$$...)

Still in overtime, lost the toss? TRY NOT LETTING THE OTHER TEAM SCORE, IT'S CALLED DEFENSE, MAYBE YOU HEARD OF IT?! (oh...and giving up a 40 yard kickoff return to open OT is pretty poor too...)

The three phases of the game - offense, defense, AND SPECIAL TEAMS (kickoffs, field goals, punts, extra points) are equally important to the outcome of the game, and this change just negated the importance of ONE of these supposedly equal parts (special teams) completely. It also minimizes the importance of another (defense), and makes just one (offense) "the most important". This is not a good thing for the game, IMO.

This rule change, and it being only instituted in the playoffs, is a huge mistake.

Do you know how many playoff games have been decided in overtime by a field goal (which is the ONLY thing the rule addresses)?

3

THREE!?!?!

EVER.


Why the rule change? None of the "reasons" given add up.

I'm ticked off, if you hadn't noticed. Why? Because there was no need for this to change, other than the FAR-VUH-ites thinking their golden boy would have somehow pulled out a miracle if given a chance. They all forget that HE was the one that put the game into overtime with his stupid play.





[Rant mode: OFF]

[Deluge Of Sound]

So what's the new ruling?

[Gard]

Sorry, I'm so spitting mad about this that I forgot to include a link:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ime/index.html

[Eric Perry]

You call it the Favre rule, but the Vikings owner voted AGAINST it. I'm just sayin'!

[Deluge Of Sound]

The new rule, which will be in effect for the NFL's postseason only, allows the team that loses the coin flip at the start of overtime to have a possession unless a touchdown is scored -- either offensively or defensively -- on the first possession.

Ok, I'm with Gard. That's really weak.

[Gard]

Originally Posted by Eric Perry

You call it the Favre rule, but the Vikings owner voted AGAINST it. I'm just sayin'!

He knew the fix was in, and in voting against it, he didn't jeopardize it's passing, and it helped them look good (i.e. "...oh, no, we didn't want that rule, not at all" aka "Don't throw me in that briar patch!" )

[Eric Perry]

You left your tinfoil hat at the door.

[Gard]

Originally Posted by Eric Perry

You left your tinfoil hat at the door.

...ok, maybe I'm being a little hyperbolic, but check it out:

Never was an issue UNTIL now? This happened twice in the past (...interestingly, your Steelers were on the losing side of one of the only 3 to ever happen in '02 against the Titans, 31-34... ), prior to the NFC Championship game this past season. No one made such a ludicrous rule change then, did they? Why not?

How am I not supposed to see it as something specific about THIS game? It didn't happen every season, it hasn't been a real issue until NOW.

Well, why now? What's different? Why weren't the Steelers and their fans screaming for blood in '02? What about '01 when the Raiders lost on an OT field goal to the Patriots???

NOW it's an issue?

[PSPookie]

I know the timing seems suspicious but the sports pundits have been yapping about the unfairness of sudden-death OT for a long time.

I do agree that it's quite lame to have a rule that only applies to the playoffs. Then again, you can have ties in the regular season but not in the playoffs.

[Gard]

Originally Posted by PSPookie

I know the timing seems suspicious but the sports pundits have been yapping about the unfairness of sudden-death OT for a long time.

I do agree that it's quite lame to have a rule that only applies to the playoffs. Then again, you can have ties in the regular season but not in the playoffs.

Notice the bold and underlined portion of your post.

This change was more for THESE jerkoffs than anyone else. They don't like the rules. The players and coaches were just fine with it. As a fan, I didn't have an issue with it either (my team lost an OT game this past season, they also won one when the opposing team won the coin toss), if the Saints had lost the NFC Championship game on a field goal, I would have been unhappy, but I WOULDN'T be screaming for a rule change - the rules are the rules, win by 'em or lose by 'em.

This rule sucks. End of discussion. The reason for this rule is not the betterment of the game, but it is for the egos of guys like Pete Prisco, Peter King, Jim Rome, Jim Florio, et al.

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

So in OT, some ways of scoring by one team will end the game. Other ways of scoring, or any scoring by the other team, won't.

That just complicates the game in a stupid way.

It should be either the first score in OT wins the game and the game is over, or play a full OT period and the game ends at that point, the team that scored more wins. Don't base it on a list of conditions.

[Gard]

Originally Posted by Bob Lee (QSC)

So in OT, some ways of scoring by one team will end the game. Other ways of scoring, or any scoring by the other team, won't.

That just complicates the game in a stupid way.

It should be either the first score in OT wins the game and the game is over, or play a full OT period and the game ends at that point, the team that scored more wins. Don't base it on a list of conditions.

^this.

Scenario:

Team A wins coin toss to begin OT, gets the kickoff, proceeds to turn the ball over (interception, fumble, whatever...) and Team B scores on defense. According to the rules, the game cannot end until Team B has had an offensive possession. Team A must then kickoff (...wait, whut...) to Team B; Team B then kneels down 4 times, and walks off the field with the win.

Sound like a satisfying result to YOU?

[pointbass]

I don't like it, personally, but it might have been easier to accept if it applied to all games, regular & post-season. All the barking about percentages of games decided by an OT quick FG are from regular season games, not (as Gard stated above) post-season games.

For those that say the OT coin flip is unfair, there is a simple answer .... don't let the team that won the coin toss make a first down ....

[Jeff K]

My opinion is that if they were going to change it, they should have done this:

Create basically a "5th Quarter", but keep it sudden death. The team that has the ball at the end of regulation would still have the ball going into the overtime period. (Just like at the end of the 1st or 3rd quarters.) Their field position would be at the same point they were at when time expired in the 4th quarter.

This would prevent the team with the ball late in the 4th quarter from taking a knee and playing for OT because they would just be messing up their own field position by doing so (wasting a down in effect).

If they continue their drive and win the game, it's over. If the other team's defense is strong enough to stop the drive, then THEY get a crack at ending it.

[LilRay]

OH MAN!

There's not a "this is stupid" smilie big enough for how ignorant this is.

I see this as a part of turning Football from an "actual" game to more along theatrical lines ala WWF wrestling.

And what's with the "postseason only " garbage. How bout if the dumba$$ rule is ok for the playoffs use it during regular season play? Isn't your record/performance how you "get to" the postseason anyway???? I believe such a rule would affect this, or am I being too "logical" for NFL rulemakers.

How bout ending throw away passes (receiver must be within specific range of the arc of the ball, no more 15 row endzone bombs)?

How bout returning pass interference to 15 yards insteead of "spot foul".

How bout no more kneeldowns.

Football "used" to be a manly game. Now as each new set of rules are passed, it's slowly turning into a Soap Opera.

Tinfoil hat or not,



God Bless, Ray

[Pilgrim]

The new rule is stupid. Unless both teams get the chance to score, the rule stinks.

It's a step - but not enough.

The college OT rule is 100000% better.

[electracoyote]

Originally Posted by pointbass

it might have been easier to accept if it applied to all games, regular & post-season.

For those that say the OT coin flip is unfair, there is a simple answer .... don't let the team that won the coin toss make a first down ....

+1

At least the league is trying to do something different. A lot of fans are tired of a coin toss, big throw, and FG ending an otherwise great game, and the loser doesn't even get to touch the ball. That's very anti-climatic and not entirely with the spirit of fair competition.

[jazzbo]

Originally Posted by Gard

Do you know how many playoff games have been decided in overtime by a field goal (which is the ONLY thing the rule addresses)?

3

THREE!?!?!

EVER.

More stats please. Raw numbers don't impress me. I'm struck to learn that only three playoff games have been decided by a field goal. How many is this out of? I honestly don't know. Show me numbers.

[Gard]

Originally Posted by jazzbo

More stats please. Raw numbers don't impress me. I'm struck to learn that only three playoff games have been decided by a field goal. How many is this out of? I honestly don't know. Show me numbers.

Three OVERTIME playoff games decided by a field goal. Sorry if there was anything unclear in my statement.

I listed all in a post earlier.

There have been many other games decided by a field goal or less, in regulation!

I got my info from this video:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-networ...-pros-and-cons

...about 3/4 of the way through.

[MatticusMania]

I always thought it was Brett Favre, and not Brent.