Exactly. They should be able to try and equalise, and if they can't then so be it.
NFL Thread
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Exactly. They should be able to try and equalise, and if they can't then so be it.
feck boston
Don't you think that the 2nd team getting the ball would have an advantage knowing they have to go on 4th down. It can never be totally equal, somebody always has an edge.
not totally equal but better than this. or here's an idea. they just play another quarter, regardless of score
I am fine by that. Just don't think it is as big of a deal as everybody makes it to be. If your defence sucks, you deserve to lose also.
Best way to decide it would be a a “kick out”
The kickers on each teams get 5 tries from 50 yards, whoever makes most wins, then sudden death. Basically same rules as a penalty shootout. That way it can justify their salaries
The kickers on each teams get 5 tries from 50 yards, whoever makes most wins, then sudden death. Basically same rules as a penalty shootout. That way it can justify their salaries
It's not even close to the same advantage. The team in possession first just has to go for it and assume the opposition will score with their possession.
The current system is like deciding a world cup final after extra time by flipping a coin and if the team who calls correctly score their first penalty they win the cup.
I suggested it earlier tbf and nobody was bothered then. But because the Pats won...
get a grip.
but that only applies to one team in the current system
Salty?
buddy, ive been harping on this for years. even in the earlier game. the world doesnt revolve around your posts
look at me, just saying that because i knew that several hours later the patriots would win in overtime and not because its an opinion i hold
Couple good conference championship games today. Saints got robbed though with some questionable officiating. Looking forward to this Super Bowl. Pats likely roll.
Good for you. Don’t take things so personally man.
What's the likelihood of scoring a td on a drive? Less than 30%? It is only meaningful in cases when both teams would score a td, happens less than 10% of times. And if it is changed there is advantage to other direction.
Change is probably slightly better, but the outrage is unproportional.
you quoted me, fella. im just responding to you.
its just that there are better systems out there and most everyone knows it and we are stuck with a bad one for no good reason.
What a horrible idea.Yeah and you took exception to my post initially. Who cares.
I’m not really bothered, I’m just going to enjoy the win!
Patriots would have an even high success rate with this, imagine how much Belichick would have the boys practicing this shit
Yeah and when they continue to win everyone will want the rules changed again
It’s fairer than a coin toss
I love listening to Tony Romo too. The way he called that play to Gronk was mad
I love listening to Tony Romo too. The way he called that play to Gronk was mad
He's the new Dandy Don Meredith but needs a nickname. How about Terrific Tony Romo?
I know that this is a football forum but NFL is the best sporting league in the world. My weekends are going to be so boring now
First team gets possession and they have one drive to score a touchdown. Kicks don't count and no extra points. Whether or not the first team score, possession is given to the second team who have the same one drive to try and score. This continues on a one drive, sudden death basis until one team scores and the other doesn't.
There's no real advantage to either side. No reason for one side not to take a risk on fourth down and no huge advantage to winning the toss. It's simple as feck and would remove the total anticlimax of endings like tonights.
There's no real advantage to either side. No reason for one side not to take a risk on fourth down and no huge advantage to winning the toss. It's simple as feck and would remove the total anticlimax of endings like tonights.
Reddit says “Tony Romstrodamus”
People are forgetting that KC gave up 3 separate 3&10 3rd down conversions too. If they weren’t so bad they could have had their chance to win it.
Kansas were awful in the first period and they deserved to lose just for that.
I think you're struggling to look beyond the teams involved tonight to see the shitness of the rule.
The Kansas defence wasn't good enough but they were never given an opportunity to redeem that with their offence. Had the Patriots attack not been good enough on their drive, they would've been given a chance to rectify matters with their defence, simply because they won a coin toss.
Romo is so good, he is proper old school though. He seemed really uncomfortable with Mahomes throwing 50 yards on 3rd and 2 plays
new england gave up 31 points in one half. fact is that one team had a chance to win it in overtime and the other didnt based on a coin flip
They also had 3 chances to stop them and get the ball back but failed.
again, only one team had to be in that situation and it was not due to skill or whatever. it was due to a coinflip
New England had multiple opportunities to score a touchdown. If they had failed should they have automatically lost the game?
That would actually be a fairer rule - the coin toss winner gets the first drive. Score and you win, fail to score and you lose. It's still super shit but it's fairer than one side getting two chances and one side getting none.
Tbf both teams had an equal chance of getting the opportunity in the first place. NE won the toss, just have to deal with it.
You’re making it out like KC were robbed, they just weren’t good enough.
Everyone bar Patriots players and fans were robbed of a satisfying ending. Both sides would have an equal chance of winning a coin flip before kick off so why bother playing the game?