New OT Rules

[CRedskinsRule]

I think it's one of those cases where the rule is more complicated than the actual play on the field. If you score a TD you win. No more long FG's, or playing for long FG's so the other team doesn't get a shot.

Also, mods could you add PROPOSED to the thread title, it probably is a bit misleading. Thanks

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I think it's one of those cases where the rule is more complicated than the actual play on the field. If you score a TD you win. No more long FG's, or playing for long FG's so the other team doesn't get a shot.

I like the idea but here's a hypothetical situation that I think would need to be ironed out: Say the Redskins get the ball to start OT of a 21-21 game and drive down the field but get stuck at like 4th and 10 on the Giants' 20. Could they kick the FG to go up by 3 (this obviously wouldn't end the game since it's not a TD) and then hope to hold the giants to no score on their possession? This way the Skins scored first but it wasn't a TD so the game continues, but then after each team has had the ball the score is Skins 24-21. Game over?

Does that make any sense?

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

I like the idea but here's a hypothetical situation that I think would need to be ironed out: Say the Redskins get the ball to start OT of a 21-21 game and drive down the field but get stuck at like 4th and 10 on the Giants' 20. Could they kick the FG to go up by 3 (this obviously wouldn't end the game since it's not a TD) and then hope to hold the giants to no score on their possession? This way the Skins scored first but it wasn't a TD so the game continues, but then after each team has had the ball the score is Skins 24-21. Game over?

Does that make any sense?

i think your right. that is what the critism i qouted above was reffering too. the skins get the ball first, drive down to the giants 20, kick a fg.

since it was a fg and not a td, the giants would get the ball back either having to:

1) kick a fg to cont playing (until someone scores a td) or
2) they score a td, game ends, giants win 26-24 or
3) the giants are not in field position to kick a fg, go for it on 4th down, dont convert, skins win 24-21

the criticism the i bolded above is that it may be unfair to teh skins to allow the giants to get the ball back knowing that if they are not in fg position, they can go for it on 4th down thus giving them the benefit of being able to rely upon an extra down to advance the ball and score.

[Lotus]

I agree with Matty and Sammy's comments above.

If you didn't win it in regulation, you don't have much room to cry about how overtime went down.

And if you didn't stop the other team in overtime, blame your defense, not the rules.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Lotus

And if you didn't stop the other team in overtime, blame your defense

this is why it's not fair

football is played with 2 sides of the ball primarily and a third unit used in "special" circumstances

it shouldn't come down to just one team doing it properly

we had something interesting in wrestling.. 1st ot period whoever scored first.. if there was no score then the 2nd OT ended up with someone in advantage (one wrestler top, one bottom), whichever held their opponent or escaped/reversed in that short period won

you can argue that adding another OT period would be ridiculous, but so is 5 periods to wrestling