Worst rule in the NFL

**Jeremiah W** · 09-11-2009, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by pyite32

I would like to see equal posessions like college. But I would like to see them start the drives outside of Field goal range. Start the drives at the 50 instead of 25.

I really do not like taking the kickoff game and the time on the clock elements away.

Also there are so many chances to win in regulation, you deserve to lose in overtime for not getting it done in 60 minutes anyway.

The rule has been the rule for a long time and no one seems to cry about it when the team they want to win gets it done in OT.

I would still just put 4 or 5 mins back on the clock, but sudden death is more than fair and is better than a tie at the end of regulation.

**effo5231** · 09-11-2009, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Everyone should get at least one chance. Team who wins the toss wins the game 40% of the time.

So based on that statistic... I'm better off NOT getting the ball first. How does that support the argument that the rule should be changed?

**Rochardrik** · 09-11-2009, 12:44 PM

OR, make'em score 6... no field goals! Not perfect, but better... no?, yes?

**Jeremiah W** · 09-11-2009, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Rochardrik

OR, make'em score 6... no field goals! Not perfect, but better... no?, yes?

The Ravens may have never won an over time game under Billick if a FG was not good enough.

**Rochardrik** · 09-11-2009, 12:47 PM

[QUOTE=Jeremiah W;160470]

Also there are so many chances to win in regulation, you deserve to lose in overtime for not getting it done in 60 minutes anyway.

How does this make sense? Both teams are guilty of this....Neither deserve to win... By this logic, there should be no overtime? right?

**Rochardrik** · 09-11-2009, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Jeremiah W

The Ravens may have never won an over time game under Billick if a FG was not good enough.

Funny! but how true! But still it would more often than not give both teams the ball at least once... right?

**Jeremiah W** · 09-11-2009, 12:51 PM

[QUOTE=Rochardrik;160483]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah W

Also there are so many chances to win in regulation, you deserve to lose in overtime for not getting it done in 60 minutes anyway.

How does this make sense? Both teams are guilty of this....Neither deserve to win... By this logic, there should be no overtime? right?

There should be ot, just no complaining if you lose. If you let a team tie you after 60 min, it should feel like a fail that may be made up for with summer school. A loss hurts worse than a win feels good, so a tie is almost a loss.

**Jeremiah W** · 09-11-2009, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Rochardrik

Funny! but how true! But still it would more often than not give both teams the ball at least once... right?

I do not know all the percentages, but I think both teams get a possesion more often than not and the coin flip winner only holds a slight edge (3-5%).

**Dena Raven** · 09-11-2009, 12:55 PM

In Baseball the game continues on the same if the game goes into extra innings, same thing in Basketball. They should continue playing the game. A shortened period would work for me.

**Rochardrik** · 09-11-2009, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Dena Raven

In Baseball the game continues on the same if the game goes into extra innings, same thing in Basketball. They should continue playing the game. A shortened period would work for me.

I think I agree!

**Mista T** · 09-11-2009, 01:05 PM

I like the sudden death OT rules. Johnny U & friends put the NFL on the map with the first dramatic sudden death win.

**Jeremiah W** · 09-11-2009, 01:10 PM

Hockey and soccer also, but in a fight they go to the judges.

I understand the idea of not wanting to extend the game any longer than needed. The sudden death angle really does make it a different game, but I always liked it. it just adds so much importance to every down.

Also I was a defensive player that felt like something went wrong if we did not go 3 and out and get the O good position no matter what point in the game it was.