NFL must change OT rules

[Across The Field]

tough shit

So you have no defense for it then. Got it.

 

[BigKen]

Take my lumps? I'm not a Chiefs fan lol.

Saints had the ball first in OT today.

Losing a game due to a coin toss is just so trash to me.

The least you can do is allow the opposing offense to get the ball if a team starts OT with a TD on their first possession.

If the Saints had scored a TD in OT, you'd be celebrating and the OT rule would be just fine. The Saints did the unthinkable, Brees had an INT in OT and the Saints could not stop the Rams from getting into FG range. Everyone hates the OT rule today because their team didn't win. Worse, the Patriots did.

 

[NEhomer]

Are all NE fans complete dumbasses?

Well I can hold a conversation and that's something that's eluding you.

If you get the ball first in OT and you face a 4th and 10 at your own 40yd line, are you going to punt? Yes.

If you're second to possess the ball down 7pts in the same situation, are you going to punt? No.

That's the difference that would need to be accounted for. I don't see why that's not blatantly obvious to you and some others.

 

[Across The Field]

If the Saints had scored a TD in OT, you'd be celebrating and the OT rule would be just fine. The Saints did the unthinkable, Brees had an INT in OT and the Saints could not stop the Rams from getting into FG range. Everyone hates the OT rule today because their team didn't win. Worse, the Patriots did.

To be fair, people have been bitching about the OT rule long before yesterday.

 

[redseat]

To be fair, people have been bitching about the OT rule long before yesterday.

They have but they are getting even louder after last night

 

[BigKen]

Great point ,at this stage including preseason, these teams have played 22, 23 games and don't have a 90 man roster like in college and not 19 yr old kids

What's worse is that they have a 53 man roster and can only use 46 of them. Why does the league have that rule where 7 players must sit out every game?? That's a rule that I could see changing.

 

[Across The Field]

Well I can hold a conversation and that's something that's eluding you.

If you get the ball first in OT and you face a 4th and 10 at your own 40yd line, are you going to punt? Yes.

If you're second to possess the ball down 7pts in the same situation, are you going to punt? No.

That's the difference that would need to be accounted for. I don't see why that's not blatantly obvious to you and some others.

Again, teams decide their own playcalling. You act as if 4th and 10 is just a gimme. Here's what you're missing: If the team that gets the ball first punts on 4th and 10, the game would remain tied if the second team also faces 4th and 10, and they're likely punting also. If the first team scores a TD, they likely weren't facing 4th and 10, so your hypothetical makes no sense.

 

[Across The Field]

They have but they are getting even louder after last night

Sure, not going to deny that at all.

 

[redseat]

Sure, not going to deny that at all.

I have to commend Slater for calling heads.. I was yelling at him to say tails....

if 60 minutes you can't win it's up to dumb luck at that point

 

[Across The Field]

I have to commend Slater for calling heads.. I was yelling at him to say tails....

if 60 minutes you can't win it's up to dumb luck at that point

When a trip to the Super Bowl is on the line, fans deserve better than dumb luck. Again, I see no reason that both teams shouldn't get a chance to score.

 

[WizardHawk]

Call it what you want man, but the rule changes had little to do with KC losing that game...3rd and 10 is not a gimme in the NFL, even with the new rules. KC faced that 3 times and yielded the 1st all 3 times.

Don't blame rules for that.

Don't be like the retarded nole dipshit. No one blamed anything, nor suggested anyone was robbed. It just whould be nice to see a few tweaks.

That was a classic championship game that would have been cool to keep going. That's not the same thing you characterized here.

I was 100% in the don't change overtime rules camp until about the last 10 years as the league has eroded defense in the name of player safety. If you are going to gut that side of the ball saying play defense or go home in overtime rings more hollow.

Entirely fine with those that like it the way it is. Id just personally be in favor of a minor tweak. That's all.

 

[LetsGoPats]

When a trip to the Super Bowl is on the line, fans deserve better than dumb luck. Again, I see no reason that both teams shouldn't get a chance to score.

Or maybe The Chiefs should have scored more than 0 points in the first half?

 

[Old Lion]

This is absurd.

When the game is tied, you must act one way. When you're down 7 with nothing to lose, you act another. They're not equal situations.

That happens now too. If the first team gets a FG the second team has 4 downs with nothing to lose. Your argument doesnt hold water for staying the same.

Stop being disingenuous.

Although I can understand your point in that his system allows for such a situation. Maybe allow only 3 downs only and then a mandatory punt or FG try for each team while each getting the ball equal amounts of times. Thats the fairest way to do it.

 

[Old Lion]

Are all NE fans complete dumbasses?

Just the ones who live in Douchachesetts.

 

[Across The Field]

Or maybe The Chiefs should have scored more than 0 points in the first half?

Pretty irrelevant, considering the 31 second half points.

 

[thedddd]

I could get on board with this. At least in the playoffs. Plus go back to the 15 minute OT in the regular season. Fuck ties. I'd rather have a field goal shootout than a damn tie.

Hell if the NHL can eliminate ties why can't the NFL?

 

[LetsGoPats]

Pretty irrelevant, considering the 31 second half points.

No a whole half of football is not "irrelevant."

What is irrelevant, however, are tears shed over the rules that are in place for both teams. I know you really, really wanted the Pats to lose, but sorry -- they didn't. They were the better team.

You're going to be just fine.

 

[NEhomer]

Again, teams decide their own playcalling. You act as if 4th and 10 is just a gimme. Here's what you're missing: If the team that gets the ball first punts on 4th and 10, the game would remain tied if the second team also faces 4th and 10, and they're likely punting also. If the first team scores a TD, they likely weren't facing 4th and 10, so your hypothetical makes no sense.

I can't state it in any simpler terms and you're just being contrarian. You can just keep whining about the rule.

 

[Across The Field]

No a whole half of football is not "irrelevant."

What is irrelevant, however, are tears shed over the rules that are in place for both teams. I know you really, really wanted the Pats to lose, but sorry -- they didn't. They were the better team.

You're going to be just fine.

I couldn't care less that it was the Patriots that won, dude. I'm not a Chiefs fan. The rule is nonsensical regardless of the teams playing.

 

[Across The Field]

I can't state it in any simpler terms and you're just being contrarian. You can just keep whining about the rule.

I made a perfectly coherent counter to your argument that makes 100% sense. It's not my fault you can't understand it.