Originally posted by Psycho PenguinI'm fine with this because of the field goal element - I do believe if you've given up a touchdown that your defense, and therefore your team, lost, but a field goal attempt can rely on too many lucky breaks for it to really be the deciding factor. Curious timing on this one, though.
I hate sudden death rules. If it is a 49-49 game and neither defense shows up, why should the 1st touchdown suddenly end it?
Because the rules say so. If you give up a touchdown in overtime, you lost. That's like saying if it's 49-49 and the other team scores a TD as time expires, why is the game over? Why can a team go 18-0 and lose the world championship to a 14-5 team they already beat?
I love this rule change--I've wanted something like it for years. If I had my druthers, I'd expand it not only to the regular season, but to ALL field goals in overtime. To me, the issue isn't primarily that only one team got possession. The main issue is that it's just too easy to just kick a FG and win the game. During regulation play, you can't win by *just* kicking a FG. You have to either kick a FG and then play defense, or you have to get the FG while managing the clock so that you get it off as time expires. But in OT, you can just take your time and kick the FG at your leisure. OK, I'm not saying it's like making an extra point, but it's not as difficult as it should be, and there's a real lack of drama to it. Having to either get the TD or make a defensive stop afterward puts drama into things.
BTW, this is also why the idea of just continuing the game from where time ran out is a bad idea. Getting the ball at your own 20 in a tie game with 1:48 left to play is tremendously exciting now; you've got to get downfield quickly, taking the clock and your number of remaining timeouts into account with each play. Under that rule, all you have to do is get your team into FG range and make sure it takes at least 1:48. That's a LOT less exciting. If anything, it would make more sense to have the team with the ball at the end kick off--except that would be unfair to a team that got the ball back with only a little time left on the clock.
Originally posted by wmatisticI must have missed all those tie games where teams didn't play it safe under the current system late in the second half.
Superbowl XXXVIII? Patriots got the ball with 60 odd seconds left, drove into FG range and wwon the game in regulation against the Panthers. Under the "just keep the ball at the end of the 4th" system they could've taken as long as they wanted to get into figgie range and the game would've been poorer for it IMO.
Superbowl XXXVI ended with a 90 second, 53 yard drive leading to a winning FG as well.
Basically I like the two-minute offense being run to break ties. It adds excitement, happens often, and would be scuppered if you just let teams carry on playing into OT.
As changes go, I'm OK with what they've done. I don't mind it not being extended into the regular season, but I'm one of those wacky Europeans that would have no issue with games finishing as ties in the regular season.
Originally posted by JJDI think it's funny that the coaches are complaining about having to "make more decisions." Um, HELLO. Your JOB is to MAKE DECISIONS. And you are highly compensated for that. Get over it. (Unless you're Andy Reid, in which case, bon chance, even though you were already screwed.)
Hey now! No need.
Andy Reid actually has no trouble making decisions on clock-management, it's just that the decisions he makes are invariably terrible. Last season though he did manage to go for two-point conversions on more than one occasion when it wasn't utterly bonkers, so at least he's learning. Baby steps....
Godspeed, men of the 2nd Bn, 127th Infantry, 32d "Red Arrow" Brigade, Wisconsin Army National Guard! Victory in Iraq!
Originally posted by CRZIf the score is tied at the end of a 15-minute overtime period, or if [the overtime period's] initial possession has not ended, another overtime period will begin, and play will continue until a score is made, regardless of how many 15-minute periods are necessary.
Whoa! So...no more ties? Ever? (At least in the playoffs, unless this gets adopted for the regular season, too...)
I think the Bengals right now are looking at how many guys have threatened to sit, and how many actually follow through, and acting accordingly. Now if a week before the season starts Johnson is nowhere to be found, they might be more likely to deal.