Yes sir e bobbi. I don't think anyone is going to kick a FG on 1st, 2nd or 3rd down, well, maybe 3rd down in case of a bad snap, but surely not 1st or 2nd.

mmmmhhmmm pictures!!

---

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have my own proposal for a better OT system, but I think this new rule is garbage, mainly because they claim they are changing the rule in the name of "fairness". There is nothing fair about football. Unless they have plans to eliminate home field advantage, especially in the playoffs, and any other advantage a team has then they can't claim anything in the name of "fairness". Teams rarely have the same number of possessions in regulation, and the actual time of possession is usually completely favoring one team over the other. So why not change that? Have innings instead of quarters, that way each team has an equal amount of attempts for points. It's only fair.

---

It's funny you should mention that, because I was going to say that I think the sport that has it exactly right, when it comes to overtime, is baseball. When you go into extra innings, the game continues on exactly as it has before; no rule changes, no coin toss, no fuss. Both teams get a chance to score, and if at the end of the extra inning, the score is still tied, the game continues as before.

The problem for football is that if an exact analogue of this system were implemented, it would mean playing an entire quarter every time a game went into overtime. If the game were still tied at the end of the extra quarter, yet another quarter would be played. The question would then be raised: how is possession determined in overtime? I see three possibilities: 1) The game continues exactly where it left off, as it does at the beginning of the second and fourth quarters. 2) Possession reverts back to the team who received the opening kickoff in the first quarter (i.e., you open the quarter with a kickoff). 3) You flip a coin for it, essentially starting a new game. I think I would favor the first option, but if an entire quarter were to be played anyway, it wouldn't be all that important.

At the very least, both teams should receive a kickoff. The current rule is so strained: "Well, if a team recovers its own onside kick, the game reverts to sudden death, because both teams had a chance to touch the ball, right?" I hate sudden death.

---

Either you are joking or I cannot follow your logic at all. Do you really believe that fairness has nothing to do with football? I don't get that at all. You mention time of possession. That's not determined by a coin flip, it's determined by which team does a better job of maintaining possession of the ball.

I think this thread is proof that a lot of people mistrust any kind of change, not matter how reasonable.

---

I forgot to add that I'm completely comfortable with ties happening in the NFL. I don't know why the league is so averse to them.

Obviously, ties must be eliminated in the postseason, but I see no reason to eliminate them in the regular season.

---

The league is averse to ties because fans are averse to them. I think you are in the minority here. There are few sports in which ties are accepted by a majority of fans, and football is definitely not one of them. Actually, in most sports, ties are by definition impossible.

---

Why are fans so averse to ties?

---

We want to see a victor. Me personally??? I could care less to watch a good game.. I want to see a team SLAUGHTER the other. Perferably my team doing the slaughtering.. But anyway, I plain want to see a clear cut winner.

---

Slaughters are boring. There is no drama to them. Why would I pay a bunch of my hard-earned money to watch the functional equivalent of half or three-quarters of a game?

---

It's different, I think, between people who watch as fans of the game and people who watch as former players of the game.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed a challenge as a player.. But as long as I was winning, perferably in slaughterhouse fashion, I enjoyed it more.

Of course, that's just my neanderthal thinking.

---