Re: Owners pass Overtime rule proposal
 

So basically, I am reading this right. That the team that loses the toss, has more of an advantage, than the team that wins. Because, unless the winning team scores a touchdown, the game is still going.

Re: Owners pass Overtime rule proposal
 

Wow...I had a whole line of thinking on this topic, and then I thought back to 1971. I was in American Gov't. class and our teacher had us playing a game called, "Who can beat Nixon?" She said that one of our test grades would be determined by how we finished the game. I don't remember much about how the game was played, but I do remember that who became Nixon was decided at the beginning of the game by a coin toss, and if you lost the coin-toss you were Nixon because he had a decidable disadvantage during the game.

Guess who lost the coin-toss tournament. Right. So...I proceeded to tell the teacher that she could not do that. She said, "I cannot do what?"
I said, "You can't give me a test score that is determined in any way by a coin-toss." She said, "It's my class, and I can do whatever I want." At that point, I said, "You most certainly are the teacher of this class...that part is true. However, the part where you said you can do whatever you want is simply not true. If you decided that you wanted to kill everyone in here, could you do that?"

It was at that point that she invited me to go visit the asst. principal...which was what I wanted. He just happened to be the same guy that use to be the head football coach and someone I could relate to...not that it mattered in this case.

Anyway, Romping Ray backed me up, the teacher resorted to tears, and later a mental institution...and I didn't have to take a D- because I lost a game...which I did, btw.

Anyway, with all that in mind, and I know it was a lot...I still think that they should leave it alone. It's worked for all these years and people have had to live or die by it...so why change it now.

I think that we, as Saints fans, should be most offended because is it me or does it seem like they are making the change now because the team that got to and ultimately won the SB was not the team they wanted?

Re: Owners pass Overtime rule proposal
 

Good way to look at it, CL! No wonder you won the activity award!

Re: Owners pass Overtime rule proposal
 

yea.....as long as i continue to respond to everything im going to continue to have this award

Re: Owners pass Overtime rule proposal
 

Yes...I coveted the award and also had my time with it...right up until I realized that it could also be thought of as the "no-life" award. :)

Re: Owners pass Overtime rule proposal
 

That's the one point that's really bothering me and what our resident genius stockman311 did not get in my posts. Is the new rule effectively guaranteeing possession of the ball? "Getting a chance on offense" means the offense has to have possession of the ball, and the offense doesn't get possession of the ball until after the special teams get the ball. A successful onside kick negates possession to the offense and therefore the offense doesn't get a chance, unless they are now going to outlaw onside kicks at the beginning of OT, which would be a direct stab at the Saints for both winning in OT on the first offensive possession in the NFCCG and kicking an onside kick in the SB.

Re: Owners pass Overtime rule proposal
 

The NFL should be happy. It is my opinion that the best team in football won the SB. Period.

Show me somebody who disagrees, and I will show you someone who did not watch every Saints game.

Re: Owners pass Overtime rule proposal
 

No. The worst time to change something like that is right AFTER it went against you. They got burned by the rule last time and knew odds were that the next time it might have gone in their favor. Changing the rule was the same as closing the barn door after the horse got away.

Re: Owners pass Overtime rule proposal
 

Let me try and break this down one more time for you since you don't appear to be getting it. The NFL thought the team that LOST the coin toss was not being treated fairly by not touching the ball on offense. Therefore this new OT was desingned to make it MORE FAIR for the team that loses the toss. By that very nature, it becomes LESS FAIR for the team that wins the coin toss. However, since 100% of the teams that won the toss chose to take the ball, and since 53% of teams that won the toss won the game under the old format, and 70% of those games were decided by a field goal, they wanted to make it less likely that a game would be decided by a kickoff return, pass interference call, field goal, game over. Understand?

As for Canton, he we go again with you. NO, kickers have not been removed from the game. If TEAM A kicks a field goal on their FIRST POSSESSION, then that score can win the game. TEAM A must play DEFENSE. Which means your other assertation is incorrect as well. In fact both teams kickers and both teams defenses will be MORE involved in overtime than the previous OT. Let's try thinking before typing from now on gents. It's not that hard.

Re: Owners pass Overtime rule proposal
 

By the way, Saints fans should be ECSTATIC about this rule change. In overtime if the Saints win the coin toss, we get to take our ELITE QB against a completely worn out defense and win the game with a TD, which we score more of than any other team in the NFL by the way.

If the Saints lose the toss, we now know that a team has to go 80 yds against us to beat us. And if the other team only kicks a field goal, we know we can win the game with a TD or tie it with a FG.

I don't like the new OT rule. I love it. If I were the Rams, with a crappy QB, I would hate it. I'm sure the Viqueens voted against it because they are either going to have a QB that plays great early in games and craps his pants in the clutch, or they are going to have Tarvaris Jackson.