Not necessarily. The team who gets the ball in the 1st quarter for example doesn't have an advantage. In fact, teams routinely elect to kick and then receive in the 2nd half.
NFL 2016/17
- Thread starter Rado_N
- Start date
- Status
Not necessarily. The team who gets the ball in the 1st quarter for example doesn't have an advantage. In fact, teams routinely elect to kick and then receive in the 2nd half.
Amen.
Its completely sound.
If you score a TD in the 1Q, the game doesn't end either.
It's odd... and I get paid to coach the sport.
I think the stats show deferring often gets you 1 more possession than the opposition.
And who did Aaron Hernandez play for?
Ha! Hell, the 90s Cowboys had half their team strung out on coke and banging hookers in the "white house" near Valley Ranch. I'll take a few mavericks on my team if they're helping win championships! No murders please.
Dont get me wrong, I know the rules are set. I know the players know the rules are set.
Thats not whats being argued.
What im saying is, I dont agree with it and it should be more like college football
Thats because.... both teams end up having a possession as a result
I'm off to bed but I will leave you lot with this little gem. What a night.
Teams winning the toss only win 51 or 52% of the time, so it's not a huge advantage
About 74% of the time both teams get possession.
About 74% of the time both teams get possession.
Well you did say cheaters cheat which implies...
Its just pretty bizarre that people are questioning the rules as if they were just discovered this evening.
QB at this level is much more about how you use your brain than sheer athletcism. That's how you get guys like Peyton Manning who are successful even though they are horrible athletes compared to other positions, which are usually dominated by black guys.
That those footballs were deflated on purpose.
Dude... you're saying that black guys can't think well enough to play NFL quarterback.
Jim kelly built a club in his basement for players and select others to avoid "public incidents"
Ooops
It's definitely an advantage to coin toss winning team but hey it's not new and I do enjoy it when I'm not rooting for either team.
Also, this choke job hopefully takes some heat off that bloody Butler interception.
This is a little awkward.
Also, this choke job hopefully takes some heat off that bloody Butler interception.
This is a little awkward.
No it isn't. just like everyone knows the rules of the electoral college going in but it's not fair:
I vaguely remember reading something on the CAF about Anderson and Nani (?; perhaps others too) having orgies and stuff.
You said that. Not me.
Black guys can obviously perform that role well. I'm saying that QB is not a position that relies on crazy athleticism so more people of more ethnic backgrounds can perform. It's the toighest position so kudos to anyone of any race who can handle it.
Or they've always thought the rules were unfair and now that the spotlight is on them it might be a decent time to discuss them.
Yup.
They are fair as well. Unless of course you lose, then you can claim they aren't. But anyone who chooses to participate know the conditions required to win.
You said that. Not me.
Black guys can obviously perform that role well. I'm saying that QB is not a position that relies on crazy athleticism so more people of more ethnic backgrounds can perform. It's the toighest position so kudos to anyone of any race who can handle it.
I ain't wrong. And before you and others start tripping out, I was simply answering the poster's question.
Saying the rules are unfair doesn't take anything away from New England. They played under the rules and won. But that doesn't mean they can't be made more fair.
Yes, right after a dramatic loss. Very convenient. If they were truly interested, they should be campaigning for a rules change throughout the year, not 10 seconds after the superbowl ends.
So the likes of Brady and Manning are more cerebral is it ?
So then on the flip side, you're saying white guys aren't athletic enough to play WR or RB... after a game where Edelman made one of the best catches in Super Bowl history, Danny Amendola scored a TD, and both are playing for a team that produced Wes Welker.You said that. Not me.
Black guys can obviously perform that role well. I'm saying that QB is not a position that relies on crazy athleticism so more people of more ethnic backgrounds can perform. It's the toighest position so kudos to anyone of any race who can handle it.
Sure, there are trends as to how many people of an ethnicity go into playing a certain position, but those trends have more to do with who kids look up to when they're just learning to play the game than they do with how well (if at all) a certain ethnicity is biologically predisposed to playing a certain position.
Let's not forget... the College National Championship was won by a black QB throwing a TD pass to a white WR. And the losing team was also QB'd by a black guy.
You're being absurd. Everyone who thinks the rules are unfair is only saying it because they are mad about losing? I'm a lions fan. I don't have a stake in this. The overtime rules are unfair. They always have been. Even the NFL acknowledged this by making them slightly less unfair a few years ago.
You don't always have to protest something all year long in order to be against it.
This is like blaming protesters for not voting when...ah, nevermind...
Well, the NFL has changed the rules twice in this effect so one more tweak would make it much better (i.e. ensuring both teams get at least one possession in OT).
First rule - NFL added an OT session many decades ago. It was labeled 'sudden death' which mean the first score regardless of how it occurred would end the game. Which means tonight's game would have seen NE just run the ball a few times after getting deep in Atlanta territory and boot a winning FG (most likely, could have missed obviously) which kinda took away the climax of the win possibility.
Second rule (or first change) - Tweaked the rule to ending the game in OT on an initial drive that resulted in a touchdown. If a field goal the opposition gets a chance.
This is a stupid rule. Make it both sides get a possession or go back to the old way, which was also stupid.
Note: If the receiving team lost on a turnover, or turnover and lost thereafter, then that was their possession, obviously.
First rule - NFL added an OT session many decades ago. It was labeled 'sudden death' which mean the first score regardless of how it occurred would end the game. Which means tonight's game would have seen NE just run the ball a few times after getting deep in Atlanta territory and boot a winning FG (most likely, could have missed obviously) which kinda took away the climax of the win possibility.
Second rule (or first change) - Tweaked the rule to ending the game in OT on an initial drive that resulted in a touchdown. If a field goal the opposition gets a chance.
This is a stupid rule. Make it both sides get a possession or go back to the old way, which was also stupid.
Note: If the receiving team lost on a turnover, or turnover and lost thereafter, then that was their possession, obviously.
They are completely fair. To argue otherwise is suggest they are somehow rigged by chance. You still have to actually play the game well to win it. You can win the toss, throw a pick and lose the game. You can punt and have the opposition return the punt for a TD and lose the game. You still have to actually do the necessary things to win it - and the Pats did. Crusading about unfairness moments after the SB ends is pretty pathetic, even more so for anyone who has known about these rules going into the evening.
Yep pretty much agreed with these statements
NFL changed the OT rules recently to make it "slightly more fair" but doesnt mean its totally fair.
Its been argued many times that the current iteration still could use tweaking.
Atlanta had one other OT game this year, lost to the Chargers. Anyone know who won the OT coin toss?
How is it pathetic? Do you hear yourself? The rules are unfair, no matter when someone happens to point it out.
Crusading now? wow.
I'm fairly certain the point was brought up by a foreign observer asking about the rules, which brought up the discussion over their fairness.
I fail to see how it is "pathetic" to give an opinion when asked a question about said rules.
- Status