Why does every idiot think new OT rules are tough?

Pat McCrotch · 01-09-12, 03:51 AM

it must be u fukkin stupid yanks that think this ot rule is ok,

someone please explain how its fair?

why arent the other side given a chance to score a td too????

in the uk ot means both having a 50/50 chance,

fukin stupidity

balls2wall · 01-09-12, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by BetterBizness

Do you see these idiot announcers making it sound WAYYY more complicated then it is..

A FG can be Matched by a FG... TD wins it...

REAL FKING TOUGH!

The announcers get on my nerves in pretty much every game I watch. They miss and get so much stuff wrong it gets to me.

balls2wall · 01-09-12, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Pat McCrotch

it must be u fukkin stupid yanks that think this ot rule is ok,

someone please explain how its fair?

why arent the other side given a chance to score a td too????

in the uk ot means both having a 50/50 chance,

fukin stupidity

IMO, the new rules are fair. They did it so that a team can't get the ball first and complete two or three passes and kick a 45 yard fg to win it.With that in mind, the current rules make perfect sense.

I think they got it right.

Pat McCrotch · 01-09-12, 01:14 PM

why not just see who wins after 15 mins of play?

that was fine to me,

poochiecollins · 01-09-12, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by BetterBizness

Do you see these idiot announcers making it sound WAYYY more complicated then it is.. A FG can be Matched by a FG... TD wins it... REAL FKING TOUGH!

That's largely for the reasons that most of the audience is lowly educated, and for something to talk about. A lot of the inane talking you see on ESPN is filler, which they can do since enough people watch.

Originally posted by Pat McCrotch

it must be u fukkin stupid yanks that think this ot rule is ok, someone please explain how its fair? why arent the other side given a chance to score a td too???? in the uk ot means both having a 50/50 chance, fukin stupidity

Oh look, a jealous Brit of the U.S. -- never seen one of those before (If you weren't, you wouldn't think about the U.S. so much. We don't sit around talking shit about other First World countries.). To answer your question, it's because that would take up an inordinately long amount of time in a football game and would infrequently change the outcome. The coin toss-winning team wins ~60% of the time the past decade since scoring has increased, which means that the outcome is only affected 1 of 10 overtime games by it. There are issues of wearing out and injuring players that the resolution isn't as simple as "have equal number of possessions both teams." Stats also get inflated. That said, I don't like the current overtime format and I would like to see a shorter format that's fairer than the existing one.