Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

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

animate
animate Member Posts: 4,245
in NFL Talk
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?
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • phineas
    phineas Member Posts: 4,732
    They're perfect.

    Either play for 3 like a fag and lose, or play for 7 and talk shit
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • animate
    animate Member Posts: 4,245
    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 ...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • allpurpleallgold
    allpurpleallgold Member Posts: 8,771
    Atlanta had a chance. Get a stop.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • animate
    animate Member Posts: 4,245
    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?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • animate
    animate Member Posts: 4,245
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Meek
    Meek Member Posts: 7,031
    edited February 2017
    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.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PineapplePirate
    PineapplePirate Member Posts: 4,643
    The GOAT won just get the fuck over it already. There is a reason he is the GOAT.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Mosster47
    Mosster47 Member Posts: 6,246
    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.

    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?
    College kids needs a short field, equal chance OT. They are slaves that work 14 hour days.

    The current NFL OT is really fucking stupid. They should be like every single other pro sport in the planet that uses a clock in a knockout scenario and play a timed OT.

    15 more minutes. If it's still tied after that the first score wins.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleJ
    PurpleJ Member Posts: 37,643 Founders Club
    I think each team should pick 5 guys to take an extra point. Like a shootout or something.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    PurpleJ said:

    I think each team should pick 3 guys to take an extra point. Like a shootout or something.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • priapism
    priapism Member Posts: 2,304
    The team with the most intimidating Haka dance should be declared the victor.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gladstone
    Gladstone Member Posts: 16,419
    surprised so many here are fans of the NFL OT
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RoadDawg55
    RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,135
    Gladstone said:

    surprised so many here are fans of the NFL OT

    What's wrong with it? The old OT when a FG could win it was shitty.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    Gladstone said:

    surprised so many here are fans of the NFL OT

    Both of the formats are bad. The NCAA format leads to massive number of overtimes while the NFL format has the one team with possession possibility.

    What really matters is that the losing team in either format has nothing to whine about because they had 60 minutes to win the game outright in the first place.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleJ
    PurpleJ Member Posts: 37,643 Founders Club
    TierbsHsotBoobs said:

    PurpleJ said:

    I think each team should pick 3 guys to take an extra point. Like a shootout or something.

    No. 5 shooters like in REAL football.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    PurpleJ said:

    TierbsHsotBoobs said:

    PurpleJ said:

    I think each team should pick 3 guys to take an extra point. Like a shootout or something.

    No. 5 shooters like in REAL football.
    Why do you hate hockey?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BennyBeaver
    BennyBeaver Member Posts: 13,346
    Gladstone said:

    surprised so many here are fans of the NFL OT

    I'm surprised your surprised.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • tenndawg
    tenndawg Member Posts: 1,161
    animate said:

    Okay, gimme your feedback....

    So, what's your opinion?

    You make a Summer's Eve smell fresh and clean douche argument...

    None of your examples are even remotely relevant...

    Truth be told, if Atlanta got the ball, Matty "Rice" would have choked like an Asian child...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RoadDawg55
    RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,135
    I probably wouldnt mind a 10 minute OT where most points wins, but I like the pressure and strategy of making a team get a stop. Does a team play it safe in FG range and throw/risk a TO? Will the opening team go for it on 4th and one in the red zone because a TD wins it?

    It's fun and puts a lot of pressure on the coaching because there are so many things to consider.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter