NFL Overtime rules ... you guys okay with this? I don't understand ...

animate

Okay, gimme your feedback. I want to know if you feel that NFL OT rules are "fair" or "okay" ...

I don't like it at all. I think it's stupid.

The game was great entertainment ... I personally would like to have seen Atlanta win ... but NE winning it is amazing evidence of their greatness.

But here's the thing:

- game ended in a tie. A tie!
- sure, NE staged an epic comeback. But Atlanta staged an epic beatdown ... for part of the game until NE stormed back.
- the game was tie, in regulation. A tie!
- OT comes ... and a coin flip. A coin flip! that NE wins. They get the choice to either attack or defend ... what moron would defend when the rule is that if you score a touchdown it's all over and the other team has zero chance to respond?

Is that right? Am I missing something?

In the NBA, if a game ends in a tie, there's OT. Doesn't matter if one team is playing great, builds a 30 pt lead ... then the other team catches fire and scores 30 points unanswered. It ends in a tie.

Then .... the team that stormed back wins a coin flip! They get to shoot a free throw and they sink it. They win the NBA championship! The other team has no opportunity to shoot a free throw because the other team already went first based on a coin flip and sunk theirs. Game over ... it's history.

Or hockey. Game ends in regulation in a tie. One team wins a coin flip and gets to shoot first in a penalty-shot situation. They score ... and win the Stanley Cup! The other team has no chance to shoot and tie it up.

I don't understand why football has these apologists ... I don't get it.

So, what's your opinion?

phineas

They're perfect.

Either play for 3 like a fag and lose, or play for 7 and talk shit

dnc

You give up a TD when you can't give up a TD you deserve to lose. I love it. Infinitely better than college shittastic play forever rules.

animate

phineas said:

They're perfect.

Either play for 3 like a fag and lose, or play for 7 and talk shit

man, I don't get this.

I'd rather Atlanta and New England play in OT at least fair possessions and beat the crap out of each other ... take turns taking shots. Whomever has more points - wins! Doesn't that make sense?

I just don't think that a freakin' coin flip leads to a possible conclusion like this.

If NE is still hot ... they will score and win in OT.

If Atlanta rebounds like NE did in regulation they may win in OT.

The better team wins ... not who wins the coin flip first ...

dnc

animate said:

Okay, gimme your feedback. I want to know if you feel that NFL OT rules are "fair" or "okay" ...

I don't like it at all. I think it's stupid.

The game was great entertainment ... I personally would like to have seen Atlanta win ... but NE winning it is amazing evidence of their greatness.

But here's the thing:

- game ended in a tie. A tie!
- sure, NE staged an epic comeback. But Atlanta staged an epic beatdown ... for part of the game until NE stormed back.
- the game was tie, in regulation. A tie!
- OT comes ... and a coin flip. A coin flip! that NE wins. They get the choice to either attack or defend ... what moron would defend when the rule is that if you score a touchdown it's all over and the other team has zero chance to respond?

Is that right? Am I missing something?

In the NBA, if a game ends in a tie, there's OT. Doesn't matter if one team is playing great, builds a 30 pt lead ... then the other team catches fire and scores 30 points unanswered. It ends in a tie.

Then .... the team that stormed back wins a coin flip! They get to shoot a free throw and they sink it. They win the NBA championship! The other team has no opportunity to shoot a free throw because the other team already went first based on a coin flip and sunk theirs. Game over ... it's history.

Or hockey. Game ends in regulation in a tie. One team wins a coin flip and gets to shoot first in a penalty-shot situation. They score ... and win the Stanley Cup! The other team has no chance to shoot and tie it up.

I don't understand why football has these apologists ... I don't get it.

So, what's your opinion?

Also your comparisons are complete bullshit. You just equated driving the length of the field in the NFL to making a free throw or a penalty shot.

allpurpleallgold

Atlanta had a chance. Get a stop.

animate

dnc said:

animate said:

Okay, gimme your feedback. I want to know if you feel that NFL OT rules are "fair" or "okay" ...

I don't like it at all. I think it's stupid.

The game was great entertainment ... I personally would like to have seen Atlanta win ... but NE winning it is amazing evidence of their greatness.

But here's the thing:

- game ended in a tie. A tie!
- sure, NE staged an epic comeback. But Atlanta staged an epic beatdown ... for part of the game until NE stormed back.
- the game was tie, in regulation. A tie!
- OT comes ... and a coin flip. A coin flip! that NE wins. They get the choice to either attack or defend ... what moron would defend when the rule is that if you score a touchdown it's all over and the other team has zero chance to respond?

Is that right? Am I missing something?

In the NBA, if a game ends in a tie, there's OT. Doesn't matter if one team is playing great, builds a 30 pt lead ... then the other team catches fire and scores 30 points unanswered. It ends in a tie.

Then .... the team that stormed back wins a coin flip! They get to shoot a free throw and they sink it. They win the NBA championship! The other team has no opportunity to shoot a free throw because the other team already went first based on a coin flip and sunk theirs. Game over ... it's history.

Or hockey. Game ends in regulation in a tie. One team wins a coin flip and gets to shoot first in a penalty-shot situation. They score ... and win the Stanley Cup! The other team has no chance to shoot and tie it up.

I don't understand why football has these apologists ... I don't get it.

So, what's your opinion?

Also your comparisons are complete bullshit. You just equated driving the length of the field in the NFL to making a free throw or a penalty shot.

not really ... tied at regulation.

Driving the length of the field and getting a score. Other team failed to get the stop. That's fine.

How come the other team doesn't get the chance to do the same?

Based on who won the coin flip?

dnc

animate said:

dnc said:

animate said:

Okay, gimme your feedback. I want to know if you feel that NFL OT rules are "fair" or "okay" ...

I don't like it at all. I think it's stupid.

The game was great entertainment ... I personally would like to have seen Atlanta win ... but NE winning it is amazing evidence of their greatness.

But here's the thing:

- game ended in a tie. A tie!
- sure, NE staged an epic comeback. But Atlanta staged an epic beatdown ... for part of the game until NE stormed back.
- the game was tie, in regulation. A tie!
- OT comes ... and a coin flip. A coin flip! that NE wins. They get the choice to either attack or defend ... what moron would defend when the rule is that if you score a touchdown it's all over and the other team has zero chance to respond?

Is that right? Am I missing something?

In the NBA, if a game ends in a tie, there's OT. Doesn't matter if one team is playing great, builds a 30 pt lead ... then the other team catches fire and scores 30 points unanswered. It ends in a tie.

Then .... the team that stormed back wins a coin flip! They get to shoot a free throw and they sink it. They win the NBA championship! The other team has no opportunity to shoot a free throw because the other team already went first based on a coin flip and sunk theirs. Game over ... it's history.

Or hockey. Game ends in regulation in a tie. One team wins a coin flip and gets to shoot first in a penalty-shot situation. They score ... and win the Stanley Cup! The other team has no chance to shoot and tie it up.

I don't understand why football has these apologists ... I don't get it.

So, what's your opinion?

Also your comparisons are complete bullshit. You just equated driving the length of the field in the NFL to making a free throw or a penalty shot.

not really ... tied at regulation.

Yes, you compared a TD drive to hitting a free throw or a penalty shot. Not sure how you could possibly deny that.

animate

dnc said:

animate said:

dnc said:

animate said:

Okay, gimme your feedback. I want to know if you feel that NFL OT rules are "fair" or "okay" ...

I don't like it at all. I think it's stupid.

The game was great entertainment ... I personally would like to have seen Atlanta win ... but NE winning it is amazing evidence of their greatness.

But here's the thing:

- game ended in a tie. A tie!
- sure, NE staged an epic comeback. But Atlanta staged an epic beatdown ... for part of the game until NE stormed back.
- the game was tie, in regulation. A tie!
- OT comes ... and a coin flip. A coin flip! that NE wins. They get the choice to either attack or defend ... what moron would defend when the rule is that if you score a touchdown it's all over and the other team has zero chance to respond?

Is that right? Am I missing something?

In the NBA, if a game ends in a tie, there's OT. Doesn't matter if one team is playing great, builds a 30 pt lead ... then the other team catches fire and scores 30 points unanswered. It ends in a tie.

Then .... the team that stormed back wins a coin flip! They get to shoot a free throw and they sink it. They win the NBA championship! The other team has no opportunity to shoot a free throw because the other team already went first based on a coin flip and sunk theirs. Game over ... it's history.

Or hockey. Game ends in regulation in a tie. One team wins a coin flip and gets to shoot first in a penalty-shot situation. They score ... and win the Stanley Cup! The other team has no chance to shoot and tie it up.

I don't understand why football has these apologists ... I don't get it.

So, what's your opinion?

Also your comparisons are complete bullshit. You just equated driving the length of the field in the NFL to making a free throw or a penalty shot.

not really ... tied at regulation.

Yes, you compared a TD drive to hitting a free throw or a penalty shot. Not sure how you could possibly deny that.

Context.

I'm comparing one overtime (NFL) to denying a chance for one team to do the same as the other team - based on who won the opportunity via coin flip.

Touchdown drive ... penalty shot ... free throw ... in that way it's all the same. Context.

Would it be fair if that winning penalty shot or free throw was based purely on who won the coin flip? They get sudden death ... based on a coin flip? That's not right.

What do you think about the coin flip? Is that okay?

If someone thinks that a coin flip deciding who goes first in sudden death - is okay ... well, I don't agree with that ... but whatever.

TierbsHsotBoobs

allpurpleallgold said:

Atlanta had a chance. Get a stop.

Or kick a FG in the fourth quarter.

Or don't blow a 28-3 lead.

Meek

two things:

1) It is likely that the NFL didin't even knew what the Super Bowl OT rules were more than 3 minutes before they made some intern flip through the rules book near the end, so this was more of an experiment until it gets changed or not. Vegas actuaries will apprise Commissioner Goodell of the likelihood of a tie happening again.

2) In this case, the rules wouldn't have mattered... as you begin overtime with Tom Fucking Brady getting stronger and madder and more focused while little Maddy Ice gets more tired and confused there just isn't any realistic way that NE doesn't win the game no matter what in OT.