OT - Scott Van Pelts solution to fix overtime

[nc0gnet0]

And AZ got be rewarded for keeping it out of his hands. All is as it should be. If you want to get picky about fair and equitable, maybe there should be a Hail Mary rule.

Or a common sense rule about how the face masking penalty should be applied during a desperation six lateral play in which the defender just happens to graze the Face mask of a mama's boy?

 

[Don't Care]

Green Bay should have let Rodgers play cornerback if they were so worried about keeping him on the field.

 

[Urblock]

10 minute OT and if still tied flip a coin. What could go wrong?

 

[Pegger]

Is overtime broken? No.

Is it perfect? No.

Should we change rules every time someone gets on their rag and starts reading the suggestion box? No.

I like the way it is. Personally all the talk about how GB should have went for 2 is really exciting. Someone's going to do it soon and that's going to be one crazy down of football.

 

[dbldrew]

why not just make it equal possessions? Seems like it will stop all the crying

 

[mecha]

was there any mention of the coin toss in this thread? Packer fans insist to me that something should be done about that. *rolls eyes*

there was nothing wrong with the old way, the way it was for like 90 years. under Roger Goodell's watch it's been all about just constantly fucking with rules for no reason.

 

[JimJohnson]

Terrible. If Arizona gets a TD, and then GB gets a chance, they have an unfair advantage because they have a 4th down to use whenever they want. It could be 4th and 50, and GB would still go for it because they have no choice. Arizona didn't have that ability. So it's a horseshit suggestion by Van Pelt unless GB only gets 3 downs to move down the field.

 

[AustinIllini]

If this happened to the Bears, no one would give a crap. Screw the Packers. The rules are fine. It's way better than the coin toss.

You want to fix it? Play a full quarter without sudden death or leave it the way it is.

 

[ruprecht]

And everyone should get a participation ribbon.

 

[Packer Fan]

His point is stupid. The whole point of OT should be sudden death, first one to score wins. Would you like them to change the NHL OT rules too?

You can't compare the two sports at all. The have a faceoff in hockey and then normal play resumes. It's all fair. They don't flip a coin and give one team an advantage.

Why not make baseball sudden death? Why play the bottom half of the inning if the visiting team gets a run? Sudden death in basketball perhaps? Sudden death is just not perfect for all sports, football included. It's not hockey. Half of me thinks that people just like to say the stupid phrase.

After reading many thoughts on football's overtime possibilities, I think I have concluded that the current rules are the best they will come up with. Why Van Pelt brought up Tom Brady, I don't get that. They elected to kick. And that right there is some proof that not getting the ball first can have its benefits. One stop, short field, kick the winner. Both scenarios can have an advantage depending on the game.

 

[Camden Cutler]

does the defense count for nothing?

 

[botfly10]

The problem with that line of logic, is it still leads to sudden death. They are just adding more steps before reaching sudden death. Why add more shit before you hit sudden death when both teams just finished 60 minutes of goddamn football?

Everyone is ignoring the most important point of the whole fucking issue - namely that BOTH TEAMS JUST PLAYED A WHOLE FUCKING GAME. Both teams had many, many opportunities to score touchdowns. This new talk about OT acts like that wasn't an entire 60 minutes preceding it. Its bullshit.

There is no reason to guarantee both teams a possession. Giving Aaron Rodgers more playing time is NOT a fucking compelling reason to change the NFL rulebook. Its fucking horeshit.

Packers and their fans should be livid. Furious. But not at the fucking rules. They need to direct their anger where it fucking belongs.... defensive breakdown in OT and problems with both their O and D during regulation. Fucking horseshit.

 

[Packer Fan]

Everyone is ignoring the most important point of the whole fucking issue - namely that BOTH TEAMS JUST PLAYED A WHOLE FUCKING GAME. Both teams had many, many opportunities to score touchdowns. This new talk about OT acts like that wasn't an entire 60 minutes preceding it. Its bullshit.

Nobody is ignoring that. Both teams had ample opportunity and they came up equal. BOTH TEAMS JUST PLAYED A WHOLE FUCKING GAME. Better end it quick whether it is fair or not.

 

[botfly10]

Nobody is ignoring that. Both teams had ample opportunity and they came up equal. BOTH TEAMS JUST PLAYED A WHOLE FUCKING GAME. Better end it quick whether it is fair or not.

The point is, nobody "deserves" possessions. If you don't get the coin flip and want the ball, take it. Football has always been about imposing your will on the other team.

If the D scores a TD, its also game over.

You want the ball, take it.

 

[Packer Fan]

The point is, nobody "deserves" possessions. If you don't get the coin flip and want the ball, take it. Football has always been about imposing your will on the other team.

If the D scores a TD, its also game over.

You want the ball, take it.

I think we are in agreement here. I'm just getting sick of hearing that you should win it in regulation therefore it doesn't matter what the OT rules are. I think the rules are fine. McCarthy could have went for 2. The Packers could have held the Cardinals to nothing or a FG. GB had plenty of opportunity before and after OT began.

 

[Mongo_76]

I suspect that if it was the Packers/Rodgers that went down the field and scored on their first OT possession, the media angle/agenda would be much different.

I suspect all we'd be hearing about is how amazing Rodgers, the super human, put the team on his back and lead his crippled team down the field and single-handedly won the game.

There would be no discussion about Palmer not getting a chance.

The narrative would be very different.

 

[vincentvega]

I suspect that if it was the Packers/Rodgers that went down the field and scored on their first OT possession, the media angle/agenda would be much different.

I suspect all we'd be hearing about is how amazing Rodgers, the super human, put the team on his back and lead his crippled team down the field and single-handedly won the game.

There would be no discussion about Palmer not getting a chance.

The narrative would be very different.

This is exactly the point. Spot on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[botfly10]

Terrible. If Arizona gets a TD, and then GB gets a chance, they have an unfair advantage because they have a 4th down to use whenever they want. It could be 4th and 50, and GB would still go for it because they have no choice. Arizona didn't have that ability. So it's a horseshit suggestion by Van Pelt unless GB only gets 3 downs to move down the field.

Thats actually an excellent point.

 

[botfly10]

I think we are in agreement here. I'm just getting sick of hearing that you should win it in regulation therefore it doesn't matter what the OT rules are. I think the rules are fine. McCarthy could have went for 2. The Packers could have held the Cardinals to nothing or a FG. GB had plenty of opportunity before and after OT began.

Yeah, I wasn't bitching at you specifically. Just bitching about the buzz coming out of that game.

 

[Packer Fan]

Thats actually an excellent point.

It a point but under those rules Arizona would likely choose to kick if both teams had a chance with the ball. And in windy conditions if you choose to kick the other team gets their choice of end to defend. It's depends on the circumstance. I don't think Van Pelt's suggestion is all bad, I just don't think it is any better than what they have now.