Only one rule I have a problem with...is When the reciver jumps but gets pushed out it could be called a catch... that is the most bogus rule... beside roughing tha passer.

Not that I'm necessarily opposed or for this idea, but I wonder if playing a flat 15-minute OT period -- not sudden death -- has ever been considered?

 

I like the college version of OT... So I stand alone on the one?? :confused:

Not that I'm necessarily opposed or for this idea, but I wonder if playing a flat 15-minute OT period -- not sudden death -- has ever been considered?

 

 

I like college's OT simply because someone has to win.

 

Even with a 15 minute period you could still end up with a tie.

Only one rule I have a problem with...is When the reciver jumps but gets pushed out it could be called a catch... that is the most bogus rule... beside roughing tha passer.

 

 

 

Its called a force out. I love it when my team gets it for them, but I hate it if it goes against who I'm rooting for.

The OT should be fixed to both teams getting a posession from the 50.

I think sudden death is fine in the NFL. The team with the ball first does NOT win a majority of games. I know this was discussed on here before, it might be slightly over 50% but I think it was below it. Also, I think the NFL feels that you should have a good enough defense to get a stop---scoring is much lower than it is in college.

I would like to see a rule to stop coaches from calling timeouts right before the ball is snapped on a late field goal attempt. If the coach is standing there waiting for the holder to give the signal to snap it and the coach calls a timeout, the officials shouldn't give it to them.

Some of these rules seem overdue

I think sudden death is fine in the NFL. The team with the ball first does NOT win a majority of games. I know this was discussed on here before, it might be slightly over 50% but I think it was below it. Also, I think the NFL feels that you should have a good enough defense to get a stop---scoring is much lower than it is in college.

 

 

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue pushed to change the rule because of the growing trends in overtime. There were a record 25 overtimes in 2002. Ten of those games were decided by teams that scored on the first possession in overtime. Since 1994, those percentages have been quietly growing.

 

 

This doesn't take into account that out of those remaining 15 games, the team that got the opening kickoff still could've won after a couple of posessions......the rule needs to be changed....in 2002 alone there were 10 games decided without a team even getting a shot in OT.

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue pushed to change the rule because of the growing trends in overtime. There were a record 25 overtimes in 2002. Ten of those games were decided by teams that scored on the first possession in overtime. Since 1994, those percentages have been quietly growing.

 

 

This doesn't take into account that out of those remaining 15 games, the team that got the opening kickoff still could've won after a couple of posessions......the rule needs to be changed....in 2002 alone there were 10 games decided without a team even getting a shot in OT.

 

That is still only 40% that won on the first shot. If you get a three and out from the 25 and there is a punt that results in a 35 yard net, now they have the ball on the 40 (maybe 20 yards, or more, better off than the first team). Is this unfair? I would say teams with a good defense and special teams have a distinct advantage in overtimes.

What percentage of drives result in scores in the NFL? I'm guessing, but I would bet it's less than 50%. If that's the case and less than half of the teams score on the first possession then who has the advantage?

^ You're not understanding...that means that 40% of the teams had the game dictated by a coin toss, that's not right, in any way shape or form.

^ You're not understanding...that means that 40% of the teams had the game dictated by a coin toss, that's not right, in any way shape or form.

It wasn't decided by a coin toss. It was decided by their lack of defense or special teams.

It wasn't decided by a coin toss. It was decided by their lack of defense or special teams.

 

 

If you do not have the opportunity to have one possession after the other team scores it is NOT fair, period. The opposing team's D needs to be tested in OT, too.

Both teams should be given a chance. This is the NFL, even if you kneel the opening kick of OT, 40 yards of offense is all it takes to potentially win the game on a FG, that's too easy. Either end the "sudden death" approach or make it more like college but with a longer field, 50 yds or so.

I think the full 15 OT is an interesting concept.

 

Now as for the feet. I think it's the NFL bc they're PRO's, and I think it takes an amazing amount of focus,concetration, and talent on each and every play to use both feet. Therefore I think it should remain two feet.