If I had my way, they would flip ends of the field at the end of regulation, just like they do between quarters. Play would continue where it left off at end of regulation. This way both teams already know what the deal is. No luck is involved. You already know your situation. If you are at midfield and driving when the clock expires, OT starts right there. You score with no time left at the end of regulation to tie, you kick off just like normal to start OT.
First to score wins. It remains part of the initial flow of the game and isn’t a side quest to complete unrelated to how the game was going. It might lead to more OT games overall as teams may be less likely to kick the long field goal to try to win at the end of regulation, but that’s fine with me. Carlton > On Jan 24, 2022, at 3:38 PM, 'Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV > <[email protected]> wrote: > > My ideas would speed up the regulation game, and reduce the possibiility of > OT. > -- Play-clock violation = loss of down, not yardage > -- Replace half-the-distance penalties with TDs or safeties, as applicable > -- Award TDs for defensive pass interference in end zone > -- If an interception (in-field and beyond line of scrimmage) is not > advanced, next play is at previous line of scrimmage > -- In regular-season games, tie = loss for both teams, not half-and-half, > 'cuz neither team won > I am still in favor of the CFL's "single" after TDs coming south, as I have > been since seeing my first rouge scored thanks to ESPN generations ago, but > won't pursue it here. B > > PGage, to David Lynch and moi, Jan 24th: > I despise the College rule. > > I was not crazy about moving to the current rule, but it was justified by the > large advantage the receiving team has in scoring a FG. A team that played > decent defense and stopped a TD often still lost. That is no longer true, and > I think the current rule works pretty well. If you don’t want to lose on the > first TD of OT, win in regulation, of okay better defense. > > Now, the alternative that does make sense is that, in the post-season, play > extra quarters (maybe at shorter intervals), like the NBA does. That would > risk the first game of a postseason schedule day bleeding over against the > second, which they really don’t want, plus football is hard enough that the > injury risks associated with potentially 20 or 30 minutes of additional play > may be significant. > > As a Chiefs fan who felt royally screwed after the 2018 (January 2019) AFC > championship came down to a very similar-feeling OT win by the Patriots, not > even being on the other side of that equation has changed my opinion that the > first possession shouldn't be sudden death. I think the current system is > fine for the regular season, but I'd like to see both teams given a chance on > offense/required to play defense when there's more at stake. > > For me, it would just be a matter of changing the current rule to be the game > not ending on the first drive in the event of a field goal or a touchdown by > the team on offense. No need to go all the way to college style overtime, > which I've seen some propose. > > If one has to do with Overtime, I reject it sight unseen. It sucks for the > Bills that Josh did not get to touch the ball in OT, but defense is part of > the game too… > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/509602A9-B823-4A39-9338-44D40C44FB52%40gmail.com.
