IR Rule Change

[Mondio]

You seem to be taking a lot of time discussing something you don't care about I say that jokingly because for the most part I agree with you.

It's because I care that people recognize they aren't fixing anything and they need to admit it dammit. They're just making it different with new things to try and make more fair. I hate it. I just want them to realize that in the end, the game is over, it's time to find a winner. Line up and beat them with whatever unit you have on the field.

I also agree about the regular season. Let them tie, go home and play next week.

I feel the same way about the Super Bowl. I don't blame either playoff loss against seattle or the cards on the OT rules. I actually prefer that OT be played with a bit more angst with the players. I want their backs against the wall. I want it to be do or die. I want them to feel that pressure and so do I as a fan. I want my offense to score a TD and I want our defense to bury them and get a strip sack and run it in for the winning TD. in OT, just line up and beat 'em and go home. Or don't, and go home. I want the feeling that every play can win or lose the game at that moment. I don't need another game within the game. and I don't need "fair" because it isn't going to happen.

 

[sschind]

It's because I care that people recognize they aren't fixing anything and they need to admit it dammit. They're just making it different with new things to try and make more fair. I hate it. I just want them to realize that in the end, the game is over, it's time to find a winner. Line up and beat them with whatever unit you have on the field.

I also agree about the regular season. Let them tie, go home and play next week.

I feel the same way about the Super Bowl. I don't blame either playoff loss against seattle or the cards on the OT rules. I actually prefer that OT be played with a bit more angst with the players. I want their backs against the wall. I want it to be do or die. I want them to feel that pressure and so do I as a fan. I want my offense to score a TD and I want our defense to bury them and get a strip sack and run it in for the winning TD. in OT, just line up and beat 'em and go home. Or don't, and go home. I want the feeling that every play can win or lose the game at that moment. I don't need another game within the game. and I don't need "fair" because it isn't going to happen.

One man's fix is another man's F up. However your adamant assertion that changes won't make things better just different is simply your opinion. You are arguing this like it is a fact that some people just have wrong but it is not. What make OT better or worse is an opinion and the only fact is that it will be different and for some people these differences would be better.

I was always fine with sudden death for the playoffs and I still am but if they were going to make changes I would have preferred they go a bit further than what they did and allow each team a possession regardless of what happens on the first one. To me that was just a cop out and an attempt to make it look like they did something. As far as the shortening it to 10 minutes for player safety I say BS. If they really wanted player safety they would do away with the Thursday games unless they came after a teams bye which means none for the first 4 weeks and none for the last 4 weeks (or whatever) and we all know that would cost too much money so it won't happen.

 

[Mondio]

One man's fix is another man's F up. However your adamant assertion that changes won't make things better just different is simply your opinion. You are arguing this like it is a fact that some people just have wrong but it is not. What make OT better or worse is an opinion and the only fact is that it will be different and for some people these differences would be better.

I was always fine with sudden death for the playoffs and I still am but if they were going to make changes I would have preferred they go a bit further than what they did and allow each team a possession regardless of what happens on the first one. To me that was just a cop out and an attempt to make it look like they did something. As far as the shortening it to 10 minutes for player safety I say BS. If they really wanted player safety they would do away with the Thursday games unless they came after a teams bye which means none for the first 4 weeks and none for the last 4 weeks (or whatever) and we all know that would cost too much money so it won't happen.

i know one mans better is not everyone's. BUt bringing this all the way back, my statements were all regarded to this original article that compared baseball and basketball of all things, to football, which is absolutely laughable.

and then massages some stats and conveniently leaves out the details to try and lead a reader to his desired outcome, which is junk journalism IMO. Give me info, i can find my own way thank you very much.

and then put forth college OT rules as his solution. Like that negates the advantage of the coin flip that he asserts determines the winner 100% of the time, when in reality it's just over 50. and he never considers the advantage a team has in going on offense 2nd, which is also, just over 50%.

So while the perception between 1 person and the next might make one "better", it's really changed nothing in terms of reality or advantage. It's just different. That's my point.

Half of what makes football entertaining for me is overcoming adversity, make OT unfair, line up and earn it. I don't think shortening it to 10 minutes is doing anything really either. but this is part of why I wish they'd just drop it. Set the rules and let the talking heads talk about stuff all day long, but just leave it. I think OT is fine right now. I thought it was fine with sudden death. It could be fine with college OT. They all have pro's and con's, but just decide the freaking rules and play by them already. It's not going to be "fair". One team is on defense, one is on offense, the game has to end somehow. One team will have the ball more. One will have it with more favorable conditions. one will have to deal with a bad bounce or 2 or 3.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

i know one mans better is not everyone's. BUt bringing this all the way back, my statements were all regarded to this original article that compared baseball and basketball of all things, to football, which is absolutely laughable.

You keep bringing that up as if it is an end all that beats all to totally discredit the author, was he implying that the 3 sports were the same or just comparing the way the 3 sports break a tie? Should the NFL only think inside of its own box on how to conduct business? Or should it keep an eye on other Sports to possibly learn something?

"It’s like baseball allowing the first run to decide an extra-inning game without both teams coming to bat. It’s like basketball overtime games being decided on only half the court, with only one team having a chance to shoot."

 

[Half Empty]

Couldn't remember when the thread left the tracks of the title. Turns out, it was post #2.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Couldn't remember when the thread left the tracks of the title. Turns out, it was post #2.

LOL.....I noticed that earlier, since I was the OP on the thread. Maybe I should have seen it coming and just said "Rule Changes"......then we could have talked about the new celebration rules too.

I guess there seems to be a lot more interest in how the NFL conducts OT than there is in the IR rule.

At least it hasn't switched to Fire Capers or the Life of Jeff.....yet.

 

[Mondio]

You keep bringing that up as if it is an end all that beats all to totally discredit the author, was he implying that the 3 sports were the same or just comparing the way the 3 sports break a tie? Should the NFL only think inside of its own box on how to conduct business? Or should it keep an eye on other Sports to possibly learn something?

"It’s like baseball allowing the first run to decide an extra-inning game without both teams coming to bat. It’s like basketball overtime games being decided on only half the court, with only one team having a chance to shoot."

of course I keep bringing it up, because apparently you think they're even remotely comparable. are possessions in basketball like possessions in football? other than shot clock/play clock they are nothing alike. a basketball teams sees 90-100 possessions in a single game. A football teams average a 1/10th of that and the flow of the game is entirely different. I'm not even going to get into the field position aspect of the game or the 42 thousand other glaring differences. But yes, let's look to basketball to make it more fair, LOL

Baseball? come on Different in every way. and I don't bring it as the be all and end all to discredit him, it's a part. The other part is his massaging of the stats, to lead a reader to a desired outcome.

and still the point is, right now, the coin toss winner wins in 1 or multiple possessions just over 50% of the time. In college, the team going on defense first wins just over 50% of the time.

So forget basketball, forget baseball, forget this guy only gives stats he likes to lead readers, you tell me, how this makes it more fair?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Again, I don't think anyone is trying to hoodwink you into thinking the 3 sports are the same. I and others are merely pointing out how other sports try to level the playing field to make overtime as fair as possible. You seem to think the NFL has done the best that it can to accomplish that, I just disagree with you. I think this is the time we agree to disagree.

 

[Mondio]

it's obvious we disagree. and if you could score points off strike outs or diving catches or robbed home runs or tackle baserunners short of 1st base to allow your pitcher to move up 30 feet from the mound to pitch to the rest of the batters you'd probably see different rules too.

you keep saying that OT can be more fair, ok, tell me how. I'm still waiting for that. The writer of the article didn't do it. All he did was change the statistics of small favor to the offense to a small favor for those going on defense first. It didn't level anything. It just changed strategies and shifted a slight statistical advantage.

In a sport as confrtontational as football, with all it's rules and nuances and aspects to winning, how do you make OT more "fair".

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Again, I would favor a system that allowed each team one offensive possession in OT. Just eliminate the ability for a team to win by scoring a TD on the first possession. While I don't like the coin toss, this change would at least give the team that wins it something to think about, failure to score a TD on the opening possession could give the other team the chance to win with a just a FG or tie it back up with a TD. I still think most teams would elect to receive. Personally, I would do away with the coin flip and continue the OT session like the start of a 2nd or 4th quarter, switch sides and play on from where the ball was at the end of regulation.

 

[sschind]

Couldn't remember when the thread left the tracks of the title. Turns out, it was post #2.

IR/OT what's the difference its just letters. Of course if I was having brain surgery I guess I would prefer someone with MD after their name rather than CPA

 

[sschind]

LOL.....I noticed that earlier, since I was the OP on the thread. Maybe I should have seen it coming and just said "Rule Changes"......then we could have talked about the new celebration rules too.

I guess there seems to be a lot more interest in how the NFL conducts OT than there is in the IR rule.

At least it hasn't switched to Fire Capers or the Life of Jeff.....yet.

I think everyone just assumed you meant to type OT instead of IR and went from there. I know I did .

As far as the IR rules I'm OK with adding another player to the return list but I think any more would start to defeat the purpose. Since anyone injured after the first day of training camp is ineligible for the PUP list I think something should be done to allow for a player in those situations so they don't lose an entire season. Adding a second player does this and I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of other "exception for TC injuries. but I'm am also fine with this.

Oh yeah, and fire Janis and Capers time is just about up.

 

[Mondio]

And if both teams kick FGs or score TDs then what? Then the next score wins? How is that any different than now?

 

[sschind]

Again, I would favor a system that allowed each team one offensive possession in OT. Just eliminate the ability for a team to win by scoring a TD on the first possession. While I don't like the coin toss, this change would at least give the team that wins it something to think about, failure to score a TD on the opening possession could give the other team the chance to win with a just a FG or tie it back up with a TD. I still think most teams would elect to receive. Personally, I would do away with the coin flip and continue the OT session like the start of a 2nd or 4th quarter, switch sides and play on from where the ball was at the end of regulation.

I'm not a fan of this idea You have an end of the half and an end of the game for a reason and I think they should be different from the end of the quarter. It makes the two minute drill irrelevant at the end of the game. No need to hurry to get into position with 20 seconds left and you need another 20 yards because if you don't get it they just give you more time. IMO there should be some sort of consequence for not being able to get the job done in 60 minutes.

Its takes away clock management as an important aspect of the game at the end if... Hmmm maybe this wouldn't be such a bad idea after all.

 

[sschind]

And if both teams kick FGs or score TDs then what? Then the next score wins? How is that any different than now?

If both offenses have a extra chance to score and both defenses have an extra chance to stop the opposing offense and if both or neither get the job done them we say you couldn't get the job done in 60 minutes so we gave you an EXTRA chance and you couldn't get the job done then either so we are done giving you extra chances Defense, now its up to you to stop them if you want to give your offense another chance and offense, its up to you to score if you don't want to give the other team another chance.

The difference is both offenses and both defenses are given an extra chance and not just 1 team.. This helps alleviate the offensive and defensive inequalities on some teams. Yes if it is still tied it reverts back to sudden death but the reason I am OK with that is because I'm not opposed to sudden death in the first place as some people are. I'm like you in that the game should be won in 60 minutes. If it isn't in some instances we need to have something EXTRA to determine a winner. I see giving each O and each D and extra chance as being fair, or at least as fair as it need to be IMO.. I don't like the idea of extra but in some cases it is needed so if we are going to give one team an extra we should give both teams an extra. I do not see the need to keep giving teams extras just to make sure they had the same number of extras as the other team which is the crux of my differences with WIMM. You are guaranteed 1 extra chance on O and 1 extra chance on D and if that isn't enough so be it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

IMO there should be some sort of consequence for not being able to get the job done in 60 minutes.

The consequence would be....a tie? I get your point, that if they couldn't figure it out in 60 minutes, why give them more time, but that doesn't work in the playoffs, since a winner has to be determined.

Sudden death is cool in my book, as long as both team have a shot at the ball first. Otherwise, just like the old rule, pure sudden death favors the team winning a coin flip.

Its takes away clock management as an important aspect of the game at the end if... Hmmm maybe this wouldn't be such a bad idea after all.

Not sure about that. Nothing would change as far as clock management goes (for the conversation) except in a tied game near the end of the 4th quarter. Right now if the game is tied with under a minute to go, do you really see teams taking wild chances at the end of the game? Usually just safe passes to try and get into FG position or a hail mary into the endzone on the last play. I imagine you see an equal number of kneel downs as you see a team risking a turnover. Under what I proposed, the team with the ball in a tied game, is going to play football like it is normally played, knowing time will be added to the clock. No advantage of a coin flip, just the thought of the wind and how it might aid a FG.

 

[Mondio]

If both offenses have a extra chance to score and both defenses have an extra chance to stop the opposing offense and if both or neither get the job done them we say you couldn't get the job done in 60 minutes so we gave you an EXTRA chance and you couldn't get the job done then either so we are done giving you extra chances Defense, now its up to you to stop them if you want to give your offense another chance and offense, its up to you to score if you don't want to give the other team another chance.

The difference is both offenses and both defenses are given an extra chance and not just 1 team.. This helps alleviate the offensive and defensive inequalities on some teams. Yes if it is still tied it reverts back to sudden death but the reason I am OK with that is because I'm not opposed to sudden death in the first place as some people are. I'm like you in that the game should be won in 60 minutes. If it isn't in some instances we need to have something EXTRA to determine a winner. I see giving each O and each D and extra chance as being fair, or at least as fair as it need to be IMO.. I don't like the idea of extra but in some cases it is needed so if we are going to give one team an extra we should give both teams an extra. I do not see the need to keep giving teams extras just to make sure they had the same number of extras as the other team which is the crux of my differences with WIMM. You are guaranteed 1 extra chance on O and 1 extra chance on D and if that isn't enough so be it.

it's still the same thing as we have now, you just added a possession. so lets make the game 70 minutes long instead, except one team will still have wind, or not or be heading into the endzone where the wind is circulating all over up top or that end of the field got chewed up by rain and mud.

and if both teams score TD's and then the 1st team kicks a FG, it's exactly the same as sudden death before. How many chances do we give them to be equitable? We're still just changing strategies and rules. In the end, you still have the same outcomes possible.

Look, the absolute best offenses in the league only score a TD 30% of the time. So it's not as if the defense doesn't have a chance. 3 and out and you're sitting very pretty to end that game with a single series after a punt. It's football.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

How many chances do we give them to be equitable?

It is obvious that you have concluded that the possibility of one possession by one team is equitable, so I am not sure why you keep asking the same question? I know you don't like to compare other sports, because in your mind they all are different than football, but name me one other sport that allows a tie to be broken with one team/player possibly getting the only shot at doing so.

I like this writers take:

Every sport has a different way of dealing with a game that ends in a tie. Some overtimes are wonderful and compelling, while others are boring and lame. Here’s a non-exhaustive ranking of sports overtime rules.

1. Baseball
   
2. Basketball
3. Hockey (full strength, 20-minute periods)
4. Tie
5. NCAA Football
6. Hockey (3 vs. 3)
7. Golf (sudden death holes)
8. Soccer (golden goal)
9. Replaying the whole game
10. Soccer (30 extra minutes followed by penalty kicks if still tied)
11. Hockey (4 vs. 4)
12. NFL (each team gets a possession unless the first team scores a TD)
13. Boxing and other judged sports (no overtime)
14. Tennis (tiebreaker)
15. Being hit by a zamboni
16. NFL (first team to score wins)

 

[Mondio]

It is obvious that you have concluded that the possibility of one possession by one team is equitable, so I am not sure why you keep asking the same question? I know you don't like to compare other sports, because in your mind they all are different than football, but name me one other sport that allows a tie to be broken with one team/player possibly getting the only shot at doing so.

I like this writers take:

Every sport has a different way of dealing with a game that ends in a tie. Some overtimes are wonderful and compelling, while others are boring and lame. Here’s a non-exhaustive ranking of sports overtime rules.

1. Baseball
   
2. Basketball
3. Hockey (full strength, 20-minute periods)
4. Tie
5. NCAA Football
6. Hockey (3 vs. 3)
7. Golf (sudden death holes)
8. Soccer (golden goal)
9. Replaying the whole game
10. Soccer (30 extra minutes followed by penalty kicks if still tied)
11. Hockey (4 vs. 4)
12. NFL (each team gets a possession unless the first team scores a TD)
13. Boxing and other judged sports (no overtime)
14. Tennis (tiebreaker)
15. Being hit by a zamboni
16. NFL (first team to score wins)

I bet if you go back and read real closely this time, you'll find a couple posts where specifically said it is not fair, it doesn't need to be and it can never be. So don't go putting words in my posts.

And I don't care about other sports in relation to football. The rules are nowhere near comparable. Hockey changes possessions faster than they do in basketball. It's a completely different game.

The players are different, the flow is different, the seasons are different. Everything is different. Maybe if by playing defense on basketball and holding someone on their end of the court for 5 seconds ahh forget it, they're so different I can't believe a person can't see how any comparison is ridiculous.

So far the "best" suggestion to make things "fair" is to give everyone a possession and then make it sudden death. Meaning it's basically just like now except instead of playing 2 halves, we're going to start a 3rd that will only consist of 2 possessions and then we'll just pick it up after that with a sudden death time period. That is so radically different and so much more equitable than one that plays 2 halves and then goes to sudden death

You're basically saying if 12 offensive possessions isn't enough to score more points and then going to sudden death is so unfair, but going to 13 offensive possessions and then going to sudden death is now fair.sounds like a lot of the same.

Unless you fundamentally change the rules of football for overtime, you're not going to get fair.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I bet if you go back and read real closely this time, you'll find a couple posts where specifically said it is not fair, it doesn't need to be and it can never be. So don't go putting words in my posts.

And I don't care about other sports in relation to football. The rules are nowhere near comparable. Hockey changes possessions faster than they do in basketball. It's a completely different game.

The players are different, the flow is different, the seasons are different. Everything is different. Maybe if by playing defense on basketball and holding someone on their end of the court for 5 seconds ahh forget it, they're so different I can't believe a person can't see how any comparison is ridiculous.

So far the "best" suggestion to make things "fair" is to give everyone a possession and then make it sudden death. Meaning it's basically just like now except instead of playing 2 halves, we're going to start a 3rd that will only consist of 2 possessions and then we'll just pick it up after that with a sudden death time period. That is so radically different and so much more equitable than one that plays 2 halves and then goes to sudden death

You're basically saying if 12 offensive possessions isn't enough to score more points and then going to sudden death is so unfair, but going to 13 offensive possessions and then going to sudden death is now fair.sounds like a lot of the same.

Unless you fundamentally change the rules of football for overtime, you're not going to get fair.

I acknowledge that you have posted about the equitableness of NFL OT many times. But you seem to use that as a reason for not trying to close the gap of the unfairness and anything else is just "different". Is a guaranteed offensive possession in overtime going to make things 100% fair, probably not, but I don't see how flipping a coin and letting the winner of that flip have possibly the only shot on offense is more equitable. What if they flipped a coin to start every quarter, would that be fair?

I know you don't see or agree with my point, but extending the game after the 4th quarter into a sudden death "5th quarter" is about as close as I can see to keeping with how football is played. I think we all have this preconceived mind block that when the clock ticks zero at the end of the 4th quarter, if the game is tied, we have to figure out a magic new/fair way to break that tie......keep playing the damn game just like they do at the end of the 1st or 3rd quarter, switch sides, add 10 minutes to the clock and first team to score wins. Advantage to the team that knew how to play 4 quarters and prepare for the possibility of OT. A team that scored on the last play of the 4th quarter might even decide that going for 2 and winning the game, beats the odds of kicking an XP and then have to kick off in a sudden death OT.

 

[sschind]

it's still the same thing as we have now, you just added a possession. so lets make the game 70 minutes long instead, except one team will still have wind, or not or be heading into the endzone where the wind is circulating all over up top or that end of the field got chewed up by rain and mud.

and if both teams score TD's and then the 1st team kicks a FG, it's exactly the same as sudden death before. How many chances do we give them to be equitable? We're still just changing strategies and rules. In the end, you still have the same outcomes possible.

Look, the absolute best offenses in the league only score a TD 30% of the time. So it's not as if the defense doesn't have a chance. 3 and out and you're sitting very pretty to end that game with a single series after a punt. It's football.

Making the game 70 minutes long would not solve anything you know that. If teams were still tied after 70 minutes we would be in the same position. I don't mind ties if there is no essential reason that a winner to be determined. You had X amount of time to score more than your opponent and you didn't so it goes down as a tie.

I don't like the idea of overtime, or as I like to call it extra chances to do what you couldn't do in the original allotted time frame but I realize that in the playoffs a winner needs to be determined so we need at least 1 extra chance.

Defense is one part of the team so it is not accurate to say that in sudden death only 1 team is guaranteed a chance to win but on any given team offenses and defenses are not always equal that is why, if we are going to give extra chances, I would prefer that each team's offense gets 1 chance to score and each teams defense gets a chance to stop the other teams offense. If both offenses score the same number of points or if both defenses stop the other offense then I say OK, you each had 1 extra chance now its the first to score wins. How many chances do we give them to be equitable? My answer would be 1 each. It's as simple as that. Is it better than the current system? I think it is which is why I would rather see it this way.

 

[rmontro]

Here's my tiebreaker:
Have each team elect one man of their choosing and let them arm wrestle for it.

 

[Mondio]

i'm not actually proposing a 70 minute game. I'd be fine adopting college rules if they wanted to, just as long as they adopted it and just leave it. It's the constant questioning with no real solution that different that bothers me. Giving each team 1 chance each sounds great. Until it's a thursday night game, or better yet you're the sunday team in the playoffs and then you have to turn around and play on a saturday, but you're last game went into 5 OT's because you traded FG's and then couldnt' score for the next 4 possessions and you played an extra half of football. it won't always be a problem, but player fatigue and length of games should absolutely be a consideration in any sport for developing OT rules, especially football.

I really am ok with each team getting an extra possession if that's what they want, but I don't think it changes anything other than they each get another chance. you're still going to have games decided when one team has had an extra possession in OT and there is no chance for a rebuttal by the other team. Is that better? for some I guess. to me, it's the same as we have now, except instead of 60 minutes of trying we're going to give you 60 minutes plus each a possession and then we revert back to what we had even before the TD in OT rule.

Either way, you have to line up and win. Unless of course we adopt the arm wrestling rule in which case i have an idea for a FA pick up. Or poker's mom if she's available ( I know I said I wouldn't, but I couldn't help it )

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Here's my tiebreaker:
Have each team elect one man of their choosing and let them arm wrestle for it.

Meet our new 4th string tight end, Vladimir!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Poppa San]

LOL.....I noticed that earlier, since I was the OP on the thread. Maybe I should have seen it coming and just said "Rule Changes"......then we could have talked about the new celebration rules too.

I guess there seems to be a lot more interest in how the NFL conducts OT than there is in the IR rule.

At least it hasn't switched to Fire Capers or the Life of Jeff.....yet.

You want? I can get it changed it for ya. I know this guy that knows people that do it all the time. I'll set up a meeting but there might be a fee.