I think the NFL is getting way too pussyfied in it’s rules regarding the QB. “In the grasp” (wasn’t Eli “in the grasp” during that magical SB play last year?), “unabated to the QB” means a vague reason for the ref to toss a flag, and furthermore, I personally believe that sudden death in OT is a joke.
I actually prefer the NCAA system. But that’s just me. People complain that it extends games into 3rd and 4th OT’s, but how often does that really happen?
Obviously not, or it would’ve been ruled a sack.
My response is that the the team that kicks off gets at least one possesion. You kick a field goal on the opening possession? Fine, the second team can score a field goal to tie and OT continues as sudden death OR they can get a TD to win. If the first team gets a TD, the second team has to score a TD and can go for 1 (forcing sudden death) or 2 to win.
What happens if the opening kickoff is returned for a TD? Should the team that kicked off get a chance to put their offense on the field even though the other team didn’t need their offense to score?
What if the team that kicked off gets a safety? Do they have to line up and kneel down just so that they had their “fair ups”? Remember, there is always a chance (however remote) that a kneel down could involve a botched exchange, resulting in the defense getting the ball. Does the game now end with the trailing team currently in possession of the ball?
Mixed Martial Arts - get rid of the 10-point-must system of scoring. It works fairly well in boxing (Lewis v Hollyfield explains why only “fairly”) but makes no sense in MMA.
If one guy scores a take-down and his opponent immediately gets up and lands a solid strike the take-down is scored more highly than the strike. What’s ignored is that the purpose of a take-down - with the exception of slams - is not to damage your opponent but to put them down, allowing you to move into a superior position for submissions or strikes. If you trip your opponent and as soon as his back hits the mat he’s on his feet and clocks you I say you lost the exchange.
If guy A beats the living hell out of guy B in round one (score 10-8) but guy B recovers and dominates rounds two and three (score 10-9) in a three round fight - which most are - then the score is 28-28 and it’s a draw.
I say either score it round by round as a simple 1-0 or go to the Japanese system of judging the fight as a whole. I prefer round by round just because it’s a little less subjective.
Olympic Boxing - re-adopt the 10-point-must system. This ludicrous system of only counting “clean” blows leads to boring fights and stupid decisions.
So you’re saying a fighter SHOULDN’T get extra credit for a completley dominant round?
Suits me.
Considering that the team who gets first possession only wins 53% of the time, how do you think giving the kicking team a guaranteed possession will change the odds?
If it were me, I’d ALWAYS kick. You kick, if your defense gets an early stop, you have a short field for the FG to win. If your defense doesn’t get a stop, you get a whole extra possession to try and tie it up.
Excellent thought experiment. Given your analysis, it is highly likely that with the “fair ups” rule, the team that kicks will win at very least 53% of the time, meaning it will be no more fair than sudden death. It would probably end up much less fair.
I bet you wouldn’t hear the same people arguing to go back to sudden death, despite their stated reason of unfairness being alive and well going the other way.
So it would devalue defense, overvalue offense, make the games take longer to play, and make the overtime format less fair. Other than that, yeah, sounds great.
Maybe I’m way off here but I’ve never liked overtime in any game (and sudden death overtime especially) - if the game ends in a tied score, split the points. As I understand it, overtime was simply a way for the networks to wring a little more (and more and more) airtime out of the game. Get rid of overtime in ANY game.
Yes. It works alright in professional boxing because of the larger number of rounds but in a three round fight 10-8 is far too much extra credit.
I’ve been thinking about this more, and it gets really ridiculous.
Let’s say you start with the ball. You basically have to play it straight, because field position is a huge issue. (As it should be.)
Now let’s say you kicked off, and your defense let up a touchdown. As just explained, the offense that just scored played it straight in getting that touchdown.
So now you get the ball, and you know you need a touchdown to stay in the game. Punting = loss. That means you get the benefit an extra down in your offensive drive, because you will always go for it on fourth no matter what. That means your offense has an advantage over the other guy’s. Doing a bad thing (letting up a touchdown) gives you an advantage (extra down each series.) That’s philosophically flawed.
I think I’m starting to understand exactly why NCAA overtime is structured the way it is. It may be the only fair way to set up an overtime for defensively-challenged teams, which are more common in college than in the pros.
Something else just occured to me:
You kick off in overtime, the other team scores. Now you get the ball and are driving. You throw an interception, but the guy who intercepted it fumbles the ball back to you. Do you get to still keep playing? To add another wrinkle, what if you returned the fumbled interception for a TD?
To what end? There are no commercials in overtime.
I have no idea if that’s true or not, but why should it matter? If it improves the game, it improves the game. Not every sport works on points anyway; there aren’t always points to split.
I think it’s a demonstrable fact that audiences, at least in the U.S., prefer sudden death outcomes to ties. And even if the majority disagreed with me on that one, a sudden death session is just more exciting. Football teams get lambasted when they play it safe and hope for a chance to win in OT. (It doesn’t really happen in other sports.) You’d only see more of that if overtime were eliminated.
That’s why there’s a recognized advantage to going second in NCAA overtime. Over 1995-2006 the team going second won 55% of the time, which is greater than the NFL going-first advantage.
(It “feels” more fair when you lose in college, however, because both teams had the ball. it feels unfair when you lose in the NFL without touching the ball. Also there is an unexplained loss of the going-second advantage between 2001 and 2006.
In college football, the ball is always live until the end of the play. You can tack on meaningless points (when already ahead) by returning a turnover for a score, but you can also fumble back to the offense. If the defense scores on the first possession of an overtime, the game is over because if you made the offense take the field they would just run four boring kneeldowns.
When an NFL game goes to overtime, there are no commercial breaks.
Not even when a team calls a timeout, or after a punt?
Why not just say the first team to score 6 pts. in overtime wins? Concise, easy to understand, it reduces the impact of the coin flip, and makes for more interesting strategy.
I could be wrong but I think your first idea is already a ruling but I’ve yet to see it implemented.
As for the second, I think you’ll find that often the referee does play the advantage rule