- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 8,097
- Reaction score
- 15,456
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Alas, somehow, some way, reason prevailed. It turns out, even if a team loses a coin toss, it still “has a chance” to possess the football. (The fact that the coin toss winners end up winning just 52.7 percent of the time might have made that an already-established point.) All that’s required is holding the opponent to a field goal, or forcing a punt, or forcing a turnover, or making a fourth-down stop. Any one of those avenues will lead to the poor team that didn’t “have a chance” to get the football.
In other words, a football team has to play football moderately well in order to win a football game. What a novel concept.
Defense’s job to stop those plays just like it was the defense’s job to stop those plays in the prior 60 minutes (clock time) of football.
While I agree with the bolded the only way your true sudden death works is if they stop favouring offenses. They need to make a concession to the defense. Allowing contact within 10 yards would be my suggestion.
Teams can throw jump balls looking for pass interference review with the new rules and get a cheap field goal.
I think this is why I like the current system ultimately. I agree with @KontradictioN in principle in regards to the "You had 60 minutes to win it. Whatever injustice fate has in store for you is tough sh*t." I'm not shedding any tears for teams in the past that got screwed by it for sure.
But with the rules tipping the way they have been for the past decade, I think it's a good thing that there's a bit of a trade off for starting with the ball. Obvious pro: You can end the whole thing right now, no questions, with a touchdown. Downside: If you get stopped, your opponent gets a much easier road to victory on their response. Still puts the onus on the defense to play some damn football. But doesn't end a game on a ticky-tack PI call, or a 35 yard drive, which (while again, not crying for the team that couldn't seal the deal in regulation) leaves a weird taste in a lot of fans mouths.
They keep making it more difficult to play defense in the name of "safety". Time to give the defense something that wouldn't compromise "safety".???
The final score of the Super Bowl was 13-3. The rules may favor the offense, but that doesn't mean that defense is dead in this league. It is still possible to play defense. If any fan base should know that, and have it fresh in their memory, it is this one.
Good. Now go back to sudden death.
Be careful what you wish for. The end of regulation in both the Snow Bowl and SB51 play out much differently under those rules.I really like the idea of sudden death but just playing on from the end of regulation. Not coin toss. The team that has the ball just continues with it whatever down and distance. I don’t see how anything could be more fair than this, and it would make the fourth quarter even more strategic.
Be careful what you wish for. The end of regulation in both the Snow Bowl and SB51 play out much differently under those rules.
Regards,
Chris
I think the rules are fine as is. I had an idea of how to fix it to make everyone happy but I doubt it will ever be passed cause it probably seems a bit 'school yard'.
The idea is simply keep the same rules, except the teams bid on position with the visiting team able to bid first. The bidding is done by saying you'll take the ball at such a yard marker.
For instance.
Visitors: We'll take the ball at the 20
Home: We'll take it at the 15
Visitor: We'll take it at the 10... ect...
The first team to say they'll take it at the 1 yard line gets it or if the other team decides to let them take the ball at such a yard marker. This way no one would complain.
Even if the visiting team says they'll take it at the 1 on the first bid, if you can't stop a 99 yard TD drive at home you deserve to lose.
I think the rules are fine as is. I had an idea of how to fix it to make everyone happy but I doubt it will ever be passed cause it probably seems a bit 'school yard'.
The idea is simply keep the same rules, except the teams bid on position with the visiting team able to bid first. The bidding is done by saying you'll take the ball at such a yard marker.
For instance.
Visitors: We'll take the ball at the 20
Home: We'll take it at the 15
Visitor: We'll take it at the 10... ect...
The first team to say they'll take it at the 1 yard line gets it or if the other team decides to let them take the ball at such a yard marker. This way no one would complain.
Even if the visiting team says they'll take it at the 1 on the first bid, if you can't stop a 99 yard TD drive at home you deserve to lose.
I really like the idea of sudden death but just playing on from the end of regulation. Not coin toss. The team that has the ball just continues with it whatever down and distance. I don’t see how anything could be more fair than this, and it would make the fourth quarter even more strategic.
Defense’s job to stop those plays just like it was the defense’s job to stop those plays in the prior 60 minutes (clock time) of football.
Tell that to the Rams in the Super Bowl.With all the rule changes these days it’s easy to get a FG
That may not be so far fetched this season.I’ve always suggested Roger Goodell decides the winner. Would be the fairest way.
I really like the idea of sudden death but just playing on from the end of regulation. Not coin toss. The team that has the ball just continues with it whatever down and distance. I don’t see how anything could be more fair than this, and it would make the fourth quarter even more strategic.