Denver Post "OT rules unfair" LMAO

[burrrton]

Just make it so each team gets a posession regardless of the outcome from the first team.

Why let a team off the hook for failure?

[Long Time Fan]

It wasn't "unfair" that we only had the ball for 17 minutes against San Diego- why should OT be an exception?

Use logic man (I mean that in a kind way, I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings). This isn't that slippery, it was the game play that sentenced us to 17 min TOP (Was that really our TOP in that game-Wow!), it is the OT RULES that sentenced the donkeys to no possession.

Very simple, let game play dictate outcome not the rules that are inherently flawed. This is why a rule change must be discussed.

[Long Time Fan]

Its interesting that no one has brought up the single game that comes to mind where a team with no offensive possession won a game, playoff game no less, in overtime.

[kalibane]

Why should we have to bring that game up? We're all Seahawk fans.

[burrrton]

it is the OT RULES that sentenced the donkeys to no possession.

There is no such rule that said "Denver shall not have a possession". It was their defense's play that dictated that.

This isn't that slippery, it was the game play that sentenced us to 17 min TOP

And it was Denver's game play that sentenced them to zero offensive plays in OT.

Very simple, let game play dictate outcome

Agreed. You seem to think defensive play shouldn't count, though.

[burrrton]

Its interesting that no one has brought up the single game that comes to mind where a team with no offensive possession won a game, playoff game no less, in overtime.

Wouldn't that undermine your point a little, since it could be argued that our defense might have thought they deserved their shot in OT to even things up?

[Hawktown]

if either team cannot finish in the 4th then i see no reason to not give them another quarter to sort it out. hell go all the quarters you need! OR end in a tie if that is what they want after a 5th quarter.

Where i understand where you are going with that Burrton i then have to disagree. Both teams O and D would have a fair shot at winning the game so booth teams O would have a chance to POSSESS the ball and both teams D would as well have a chance to defend. 15 minutes is all I ask. That amount of time would allow both teams to POSSESS the ball at least once and the game could end at the end of the quarter just like winning it in the 4th quarter.

Obviously this is all opinion and NO ONE here should make statements that are made as fact.

[Long Time Fan]

Wouldn't that undermine your point a little, since it could be argued that our defense might have thought they deserved a shot in OT to even things up?

You make a very interesting point that I had not considered.

I enjoyed the discussion. Good give and take all around. I will leave this discussion believing that there are two sides to this argument. I hope that the Seahawks never have this overtime rule work against them, but I will be curious to see if it changes points of view around here.

[Hawktown]

maybe they should just see whose quarterback can hit the pylon first from the 50 or see who's kicker can hit the most field goals from the 35 in 60 seconds???

[burrrton]

I hope that the Seahawks never have this overtime rule work against them, but I will be curious to see if it changes points of view around here.

As I've said, I don't think any of these suggestions are outrageous- it's just that they're only giving you the illusion of greater "fairness", not any actual, non-negligible improvement in that regard.

However, if you think our defense getting the ball crammed down their throats on Denver's first OT possession would have changed my mind on this, you're mistaken.

I'd have been crabby for sure, but I'd have been crabby about my team failing against the opponent, not about some imagined "unfairness" to them.

That's what "sudden death" overtime is, after all.

[mykc14]

I enjoyed the discussion. Good give and take all around. I will leave this discussion believing that there are two sides to this argument. I hope that the Seahawks never have this overtime rule work against them, but I will be curious to see if it changes points of view around here.

It would not change my POV either. If we can't stop the other team's O from driving down the field and scoring a TD against us then we deserve to lose. It is up to our D at that point to take advantage of their opportunity to stop the offense and put our O in a position to win the game.

[Uppercut]

If the roles were reversed and Denver won the toss and drove down for a TD the same sport-writers would be having an orgasm over what a great comeback he put together!

[THX-1138]

If the roles were reversed and Denver won the toss and drove down for a TD the same sport-writers would be having an orgasm over what a great comeback he put together!

This this this all day every day this.

Every football game starts with a coin toss. That is fair. OT starts the same way. That is fair. And as I (and others here) have stated, the NFL utilizes the "Sudden Death" overtime rules. Sudden Death is Sudden Death. It isn't every body get's a chance and everyone goes home with a trophy. If you don't want to end up in an OT situation then either win, or lose, the game, because for the past 1,000 years it's been sudden death. Really all the D has to do is get a 3 and out or just not let the other guys convert a 3rd down and get the ball back. If you can't do that then I guess we figured out who the better team was.

And if the Hawks had failed to win in overtime I would have felt that they got what they deserved. I'd rather lose the game than to keep on playing and increase our chances of having players get injured.

[HumanCockroach]

Just make it so each team gets a posession regardless of the outcome from the first team.
Example:
Team A gets the ball and scores (FG or TD) and then kicks off where the other team gets its chance.
If they are tied after this then the game ends in a tie.
If Team A gets the ball and doesn't score, Team B gets a posession and a chance to score.
If they don't score either then it's a tie, but a FG could win it in either situation.

Except in your example team B has a CLEAR advantage, as they know whether they have to score a TD to tie ( meaning they would go for it no matter what on a fourth down, where as team A wouldn't) they would know whether they have to score, and how much. It also, would create the SAME exact scenario people are moaning about, with the CURRENT and PREVIOUS system,, which is one score wins the game. You aren't changing anything in this situation, nothing. It is IDENTICAL as team whatever, could then simply claim that their offense didn't get a "chance" and it isn't fair.

Example: Team A drives down the field and scores TD, because of the moaning Team B now has a chance, drives down converting multiple fourth downs that team A had no idea they even needed to attempt and scores a tying TD, Team A then takes the ball on the following drive and kicks a game winning FG, HOW is this any different ? It isn't, because team A STILL wins regardless, the outcome is the same as if team A had scored a TD on the initial drive, but they did so with a FG. Team B has the advantage because they KNOW what they need and as such, knew to play the series differently ( much the same way you don't see teams trailing by six with four seconds left kicking FG's, because they KNOW what is needed).

BOTH teams have an opportunity, why that is so hard for people to grasp is beyond me. Teams don't have to play flawless defense to get their offenses on the field, in fact they can allow points, they just can't allow a TD, anyone thinking that that is too much to ask of an NFL Defense, is following some pretty bad teams.What percentage of offensive series result in points? Not that many, and yet, somehow, with the game on the line, it is to much to ask an NFL Defense to hold the opposing team to a FG? You guys have got to be kidding.

Hell, why stop there? Team A returns the overtime kickoff to the five, fumbles the ball into thend zone being covered by team B who marches down the field and scores the TD, Team A's offense has yet to get on the field ( unless people are willing to admit that special teams is also part of the TEAM just like the defense) so now to be "fair" team B needs to kick the ball off again. Seehow ludicrous this train of thought is? Would this be brought up if Denver had picked the ball off returned it twenty yards and then fumbled the ball back to Seattle on the return? Manning still wouldn't have gotten on the field, and wouldn't have gotten his "fair" chance. SMDH. Denver's 100 million dollar defense, did not do their jobs, the end, they do not, nor does Manning deserve preferential treatment. No one in Denver or anywhere else would be whining if they took the opening kick and driven for a TD to win the game, not a one, why? Because its Peyton Fricking Manning, that's why.

[Hawktawk]

Except in your example team B has a CLEAR advantage, as they know whether they have to score a TD to tie ( meaning they would go for it no matter what on a fourth down, where as team A wouldn't) they would know whether they have to score, and how much. It also, would create the SAME exact scenario people are moaning about, with the CURRENT and PREVIOUS system,, which is one score wins the game. You aren't changing anything in this situation, nothing. It is IDENTICAL as team whatever, could then simply claim that their offense didn't get a "chance" and it isn't fair.

Example: Team A drives down the field and scores TD, because of the moaning Team B now has a chance, drives down converting multiple fourth downs that team A had no idea they even needed to attempt and scores a tying TD, Team A then takes the ball on the following drive and kicks a game winning FG, HOW is this any different ? It isn't, because team A STILL wins regardless, the outcome is the same as if team A had scored a TD on the initial drive, but they did so with a FG. Team B has the advantage because they KNOW what they need and as such, knew to play the series differently ( much the same way you don't see teams trailing by six with four seconds left kicking FG's, because they KNOW what is needed).

BOTH teams have an opportunity, why that is so hard for people to grasp is beyond me. Teams don't have to play flawless defense to get their offenses on the field, in fact they can allow points, they just can't allow a TD, anyone thinking that that is too much to ask of an NFL Defense, is following some pretty bad teams.What percentage of offensive series result in points? Not that many, and yet, somehow, with the game on the line, it is to much to ask an NFL Defense to hold the opposing team to a FG? You guys have got to be kidding.

Hell, why stop there? Team A returns the overtime kickoff to the five, fumbles the ball into thend zone being covered by team B who marches down the field and scores the TD, Team A's offense has yet to get on the field ( unless people are willing to admit that special teams is also part of the TEAM just like the defense) so now to be "fair" team B needs to kick the ball off again. Seehow ludicrous this train of thought is? Would this be brought up if Denver had picked the ball off returned it twenty yards and then fumbled the ball back to Seattle on the return? Manning still wouldn't have gotten on the field, and wouldn't have gotten his "fair" chance. SMDH. Denver's 100 million dollar defense, did not do their jobs, the end, they do not, nor does Manning deserve preferential treatment. No one in Denver or anywhere else would be whining if they took the opening kick and driven for a TD to win the game, not a one, why? Because its Peyton Fricking Manning, that's why.

+1

I like that logic.Nice breakdown of how these new fair rules would look in actuality. Only difference would be a 5 hour game.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a merry Christmas.If Seattle hadn't had an absolute defensive collapse in the final minute we wouldn't be talking about it. If Denver's rebuilt D hadn't gotten smoked by RW we wouldn't have been talking about it. It was a great game won by a great QB and its being sullied up with this overtime fairness nonsense.

[burrrton]

And, is a far cry better than the old sudden death, where a long field goal could win it.

Exactly- there was a valid argument it wasn't fair that the game could be won with little more than a decent KO return and 1 decent completion. Having to put the ball in the endzone, which is not an easy prospect, solves that.

There are a lot of other solutions that would be just as fair (with quibbles), but I don't think the argument the current system *isn't* fair holds much water.

[HumanCockroach]

You know, with all the times I've had to watch the "old" system cost this team a victory, and even though I hated losing, and in far more important games, it never once crossed my mind that it was not "fair", guess I'm just one of those Weirdo's that believe that what a team does on the field ( defense,offense,ST) are of equal importance, and as such, there has never been a moment that I felt like it was unfair if the Hawks lost, because in my mind ( small as it may be) they had 60 minutes to get the job done, and shouldn't have put themselves in that position anyway ( nor should the other team have).

Personally, I appreciate good defense ( a major reason I love this team so much) but I am in the rapidly dwindling group of fans that still remember somewhat what REAL football was like, not this watered down bastardised version of it today, where everyone needs a "chance" ( which they have) to put up more fantasy stats.

Not interested in fast break, non stop scoring games and don't care to see 77 to75 scores in the least.

[Hawktown]

I would still have to disagree. I STILL have not heard a good argument to why an extra quarter would not be the most "fair" to BOTH teams. Injuries are not an excuse to me, these guys get paid A LOT of money to WIN games. They should play on and win by the time the clock runs out just like in the 4th quarter. why make OT different?

Let me remind you that i am fine with how it is but i disagree that is the most "fair" way to go about it.

If the league wants sudden death then so be it, I would prefer an extra quarter. All a matter of opinion not something you all should just rag on people for not agreeing to your side, that is your admission of your right i"m wrong, throwing the fact of opinion out the window. sorry don't work with me, especially on a subject of opinion.

And please stop with the Manning crap, at least in this forum, because no one in here ever defended that forehead.

Fair is 100% equal not you do it this way and i'll do it the other way and we will see who comes out on top.

[HumanCockroach]

You've heard *many* good reasons, you just don't like them. Like you said, just because someone else's opinion is different than your own, doesn't give you the right to toss them out, and yet there you are doing it in the same post that you are admonishing others for dismissing your "fair" solution.

Hell, why not just play another full game on Monday to decide the game, give em another full sixty minutes. That is the only "fair" thing to do. SMDH.

As for the "no one is saying this because it's Manning" whatever man, this ENTIRE debate, both here and nationally started SPECIFICALLY because people had their panties in a bind over the fact that Manning didn't get a *chance* ( which he certainly did, to bad his team mates didn't do their jobs). No one b@tchedetched when Tebow knocked the Steelers out of the playoffs ( don't remember you doing so, maybe my memory is going) nor did you or anyone else complain after Wilson gave the Bears no chance two seasons ago ( again, nothing from the media, fans or you) so however you want to slice it, either directly or indirectly, this is indeed 100% about a "golden boy" not getting his somehow, entitled shot.

Something tells me if Manning did indeed get the ball, take it down and score a TD, that there would be NO topic what so ever discussing this on this board, in the national media, nor would you be discussing it, so in fact it IS indeed about Manning, you just don't realise it.

[burrrton]

Injuries are not an excuse to me, these guys get paid A LOT of money to WIN games.

They sure as hell are by the union, though.

I STILL have not heard a good argument to why an extra quarter would not be the most "fair" to BOTH teams.

Well, ignoring doubts that the union would sign off on it, I see the basic failing of your suggestion, the reason it isn't any more fair than what we have, as two things:

1. It treats offense and defense as separate teams, as if they're in different uniforms and each deserving an equal chance to come out on top (they're not).

2. It assumes the offense scoring a TD is so likely and/or easy to achieve that it's unfair to use such an achievement on the first offensive possession as worthy of a W (it isn't).

Fair is 100% equal

*sigh*

Against SD, we only had the ball for ~17 minutes. Was that "UNFAIR" to us, or was it incumbent on our D to get off the field?

If you agree it's the latter (which I hope you do), why was it "fair" to expect our D to get off the field, but "unfair" to ask that of Denver's?

[Uppercut]

Another Seahawk controversy! Another rule change comin. Jeez

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nbc-yahoo-sports/hit-on-wes-welker-not-currently-illegal--but-it-could-be-in-2015-223131610-nfl.html

[burrrton]

Another Seahawk controversy! Another rule change comin. Jeez

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nbc-yahoo-sports/hit-on-wes-welker-not-currently-illegal--but-it-could-be-in-2015-223131610-nfl.html

So now "defenseless" player will be both those who catch a pass, almost catch a pass, and don't come close to catching a pass.

Makes sense.

[Hawktown]

You've heard *many* good reasons, you just don't like them. Like you said, just because someone else's opinion is different than your own, doesn't give you the right to toss them out, and yet there you are doing it in the same post that you are admonishing others for dismissing your "fair" solution.

Hell, why not just play another full game on Monday to decide the game, give em another full sixty minutes. That is the only "fair" thing to do. SMDH.

As for the "no one is saying this because it's Manning" whatever man, this ENTIRE debate, both here and nationally started SPECIFICALLY because people had their panties in a bind over the fact that Manning didn't get a *chance* ( which he certainly did, to bad his team mates didn't do their jobs). No one b@tchedetched when Tebow knocked the Steelers out of the playoffs ( don't remember you doing so, maybe my memory is going) nor did you or anyone else complain after Wilson gave the Bears no chance two seasons ago ( again, nothing from the media, fans or you) so however you want to slice it, either directly or indirectly, this is indeed 100% about a "golden boy" not getting his somehow, entitled shot.

Something tells me if Manning did indeed get the ball, take it down and score a TD, that there would be NO topic what so ever discussing this on this board, in the national media, nor would you be discussing it, so in fact it IS indeed about Manning, you just don't realise it.

No offense HC, but i did in fact accept all of your opinions many times in this thread even and only posed my opinion on the matter, without insult. I then started seeing posts from the opposition stating your wrong and how you just can't see how people would come to the conclusion opposite of yours and things of the like. I never once discounted anyone's opinion. I even directly posted to your opinion stating that i see your point and posed my opinion on the matter.

I may have missed some posts but i really don't, again IMO, see an opinion that makes a REAL reason for an extra quarter to not be the most fair scenario. Again my opinion, not that i just don't like them.

Again as for the whole manning thing, you are right this did come up because of the broncos for manning, whatever. It is a topic that came up so I posed my opinion on the matter. I have always felt this way about the OT rule but never really posted here in the past though i have followed the PI since 2009 and then to here. Nor do i like to argue because you will eventually get people who start to insult for opposing their opinion just as what happened here. That frustrates me when I am trying to have a civil conversation. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

I have also stated that i am fine with however the majority rules to play OT, is cool with me, and they need to play within the rules. I just disagree with the current setup. I won't argue it unless it became a topic. Who really wants to bring this subject up, it is really a small topic not in detrimental need of change as your statistics you have posed to me will show. See i haven't discounted any of what anyone has said.

No hard feeling as i do think and know that most of you in here are much more football smart than I am. I don't even know exactly how OT works in College or HS.

[Hawktown]

OK, but if you add another quarter, and it is still even, you are back to square one. In the current scenario, if you can score a TD you win, and if you can prevent one, you have a chance to win. Seems fair to me.

That is, IMO, when you end in a tie. We all would like to try to eliminate a tie somehow but at least they would get another quarter to hash it out.Again, just in the same manner you would try to win in regulation.

[burrrton]

I may have missed some posts but i really don't, again IMO, see an opinion that makes a REAL reason for an extra quarter to not be the most fair scenario.

It's no more "fair" by any standard of the NFL, but it increases risk of injury, takes longer, and so on.

That is, IMO, when you end in a tie.

That doesn't work for the playoffs, and I'm guessing they don't want to change the rules of the game when the postseason hits.

[Hawktown]

[quote][/quote]Well, ignoring doubts that the union would sign off on it, I see the basic failing of your suggestion, the reason it isn't any more fair than what we have, as two things:

1. It treats offense and defense as separate teams, as if they're in different uniforms and each deserving an equal chance to come out on top (they're not).

2. It assumes the offense scoring a TD is so likely and/or easy to achieve that it's unfair to use such an achievement on the first offensive possession as worthy of a W (it isn't).

I will just have to agree to disagree so i do not come off as insulting as i am a respectful person in life and don't try to make enemies.

[Hawktown]

*sigh*

Against SD, we only had the ball for ~17 minutes. Was that "UNFAIR" to us, or was it incumbent on our D to get off the field?

If you agree it's the latter (which I hope you do), why was it "fair" to expect our D to get off the field, but "unfair" to ask that of Denver's?[/quote]

I think the TOP was completely fair in that game. The hawks had 4 quarters to get themselves in that position ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BALL.

[Hawktown]

It's no more "fair" by any standard of the NFL, but it increases risk of injury, takes longer, and so on.

That is, IMO, when you end in a tie.

That doesn't work for the playoffs, and I'm guessing they don't want to change the rules of the game when the postseason hits.[/quote]


I do understand the injury thing and taking longer and i do take that into account. I personally would not mind watching for longer and again, IMO, they get payed to play and win games, injuries happen, that's life.

Thanks for the reminder because, like a dummy, i did not think of the playoffs. I would then say let them play on until someone wins in the playoffs but hey that is not up to me.

[kalibane]

I wonder how much you're not going to mind watching longer games when the early game between the Cowboys and Giants goes to overtime and you end up missing the entire first quarter (or more since the OT period like 4th quarters will see more intentional clock stoppages and tend to be longer) of the Seahawks game because the overtime is needlessly 15:00 minutes long.

Also yes, injuries are part of the game and aside from the types of injuries that can cause long term degenerative effects (like concussions) safety isn't the only concern. Every extra injury erodes the quality of football as the season moves forward. It's the same reason why I'm so against the 18 game schedule. I have no desire for the champion to be determined by which team just got luckiest at avoiding injuries.

[burrrton]

The hawks had 4 quarters to get themselves in that position ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BALL.

Again, you're distinguishing between "SIDES OF THE BALL" as if they're separate entities deserving equal shots. They're not. The NFL doesn't care if the Seattle offense didn't get enough chances (or any chance at all for that matter)- that's on our defense, and this pattern is consistent through OT.

Denver had 4 quarters plus the time in OT. They failed when it counted. What could possibly be considered "unfair" about that?

I will just have to agree to disagree so i do not come off as insulting as i am a respectful person in life and don't try to make enemies.

I can take it, Hawktown, and I don't consider those with whom I bicker as "enemies", so no worries.

[HumanCockroach]

Hawktown, they DO get a full quarter ( 15 minutes in OT) the difference being, that they have to remain tied, Ties do, and have happened when teams fail to score the necessary points to win. Just like every game, a defense and an offense have to take the field, it is how the game starts and how the game ends. Both teams have equal opportunities to win the game during the course of the regular sixty minutes, and an additional 15, the ONLY difference being, that in the OT period, that the defense for one of the teams, has to play mediocre on the first series to allow their team a chance to win, or tie up the game . In college both teams get the ball on the twenty and proceed to attempt to score, if one scores a TD, than the second must score a TD or the game ends, likewise if they score a FG, until the second team fails to score what the first team does, or exceeds it. HonestlyOT rules for the NFL is NO different, except that they have to go further, aren't already in the red zone, and if the defense from the first team isn't solid enough to hold the offense to a FG or less, they lose.

It isn't like Denver's D didn't know what was on the line, the simply weren't good enough to stop it.

[Hawktown]

I hear ya HC and I appreciate the input.

[NorthHawk]

NorthHawk wrote:Just make it so each team gets a posession regardless of the outcome from the first team.
Example:
Team A gets the ball and scores (FG or TD) and then kicks off where the other team gets its chance.
If they are tied after this then the game ends in a tie.
If Team A gets the ball and doesn't score, Team B gets a posession and a chance to score.
If they don't score either then it's a tie, but a FG could win it in either situation.



Except in your example team B has a CLEAR advantage, as they know whether they have to score a TD to tie ( meaning they would go for it no matter what on a fourth down, where as team A wouldn't) they would know whether they have to score, and how much. It also, would create the SAME exact scenario people are moaning about, with the CURRENT and PREVIOUS system,, which is one score wins the game. You aren't changing anything in this situation, nothing. It is IDENTICAL as team whatever, could then simply claim that their offense didn't get a "chance" and it isn't fair.

Example: Team A drives down the field and scores TD, because of the moaning Team B now has a chance, drives down converting multiple fourth downs that team A had no idea they even needed to attempt and scores a tying TD, Team A then takes the ball on the following drive and kicks a game winning FG, HOW is this any different ? It isn't, because team A STILL wins regardless, the outcome is the same as if team A had scored a TD on the initial drive, but they did so with a FG. Team B has the advantage because they KNOW what they need and as such, knew to play the series differently ( much the same way you don't see teams trailing by six with four seconds left kicking FG's, because they KNOW what is needed).

BOTH teams have an opportunity, why that is so hard for people to grasp is beyond me. Teams don't have to play flawless defense to get their offenses on the field, in fact they can allow points, they just can't allow a TD, anyone thinking that that is too much to ask of an NFL Defense, is following some pretty bad teams.What percentage of offensive series result in points? Not that many, and yet, somehow, with the game on the line, it is to much to ask an NFL Defense to hold the opposing team to a FG? You guys have got to be kidding.

Hell, why stop there? Team A returns the overtime kickoff to the five, fumbles the ball into thend zone being covered by team B who marches down the field and scores the TD, Team A's offense has yet to get on the field ( unless people are willing to admit that special teams is also part of the TEAM just like the defense) so now to be "fair" team B needs to kick the ball off again. Seehow ludicrous this train of thought is? Would this be brought up if Denver had picked the ball off returned it twenty yards and then fumbled the ball back to Seattle on the return? Manning still wouldn't have gotten on the field, and wouldn't have gotten his "fair" chance. SMDH. Denver's 100 million dollar defense, did not do their jobs, the end, they do not, nor does Manning deserve preferential treatment. No one in Denver or anywhere else would be whining if they took the opening kick and driven for a TD to win the game, not a one, why? Because its Peyton Fricking Manning, that's why.

My way, each team gets a chance at an offensive series if required. If they fumble it, too bad - they had their chance.
That's what those who don't like the current system are railing against.

That's as fair as it can get and takes as much chance out of the equation as possible, even if the coin toss doesn't statistically mean much of an advantage.

I think that part of the frustration from some of the media was it was also a great game to watch and sudden death with a TD on the first possession is a little anti-climactic.

[HumanCockroach]

How is a fumbled KO return the same as "having their chance" ? Last I checked, Manning wasn't out there returning kicks.

Maybe the media should do some studying, so the can learn to appreciate all aspects of football, not just the QB and offense. ST is no different than defense, they are no the offense, and as such, they didn't "both receive a chance" should it be fumbled, no matter how you want to slice it, the offense would not be on the field, and someone would be whining about it. Defense/offense/ST consist of a team, each unit has a responsibility, if one unit doesn't do their job, the team can lose the game, why people want to change that, I haven't the foggiest.

Your way, you aren't making it "fair", you are handing a huge advantage to the team with the second possession, and it isn't confusing as to why that is ( IE they can go for it on fourth down from their own 1 if they are trailing, knowing exactly what is necessary to win, as explained earlier) all you are accomplishing, is handing even MORE of advantage to the second team, then they ALREADY have now, because of the Favre whining.

[NorthHawk]

How is a fumbled KO return the same as "having their chance" ? Last I checked, Manning wasn't out there returning kicks.

Maybe the media should do some studying, so the can learn to appreciate all aspects of football, not just the QB and offense. ST is no different than defense, they are no the offense, and as such, they didn't "both receive a chance" should it be fumbled, no matter how you want to slice it, the offense would not be on the field, and someone would be whining about it. Defense/offense/ST consist of a team, each unit has a responsibility, if one unit doesn't do their job, the team can lose the game, why people want to change that, I haven't the foggiest.

Your way, you aren't making it "fair", you are handing a huge advantage to the team with the second possession, and it isn't confusing as to why that is ( IE they can go for it on fourth down from their own 1 if they are trailing, knowing exactly what is necessary to win, as explained earlier) all you are accomplishing, is handing even MORE of advantage to the second team, then they ALREADY have now, because of the Favre whining.

They had possession of the ball. That they should cough it up is their wasted chance.
The 2nd team doesn't have more of a chance at all as both know the possible result of not scoring or getting only a FG. You could also say the Defense has an advantage if their team scored first because they know what they are defending. Knowing what they have to get on Offense and doing it are two different things.

Each had a chance to score a TD, but if one holds the other to a FG, while scoring a TD, then they win. It's fair and simple.
If they are both still tied after their respective possessions, they each get a point.

[HumanCockroach]

I'm done with this. Dismiss the value of defense, and pretend that the second team wouldn't be going for it on fourth down if they knew they had to have a TD to tie ( as a FG does nothing for them, which changes entirely drive plan because instead of needing ten yards to garner a first down on three plays, as the first team would operate under, they would be in "four down" situation the entire time) dismiss the theory that a defense at the NFL level SHOULD be able to hold the opposition to a FG with the game on the line ( as is supported by how rare it is to see a team put it in the end zone on the first drive), continue to insist somehow , that this isn't an issue because it was Peyton Manning ( which is silly because it has been in place for three years, and three games have ended this way, with not a single group of fans making a stink about it except Denver, which lead to the national media) be my guest pretending like somehow there isn't always a Defense against an offense, and is somehow in some peoples minds a weird sideshow. It isn't, it shouldn't be, and it dissapoints me that fans have fallen into the media driven belief that the only unit that matters, or should matter, or can win games is the offense ( oh, and I guess according to you the kick returner). SMH.

Seattle's defense, contributed just as much ( if not more) to that victory ( as they have for the last several seasons), Denver had a chance to do likewise and failed, whether people can acknowledge that or not, doesn't change that Denver had just as good of a chance to win the game, make a play, end the drive, or at the very least don't allow a TD ( as they did on eight previous drives)

[Hawktawk]

I have had it with the great gagger choke artist Manning. I'm sick of the whining. Hes got the great arm flapping Omaha flight deck and all but like Irsay said in the middle of an Oxycontin fueled rant he has very little hardware to show for it. It is telling that he even went there talking about the coin flip. It fits right in with his comments about having "protection problems" after a playoff loss back in the day. I dont ever remember Hass and certainly not Wilson ever throwing their O line under the bus. Hell Manning blamed his kicker for the Pittsburgh playoff loss for missing a 50 yarder trying to make up for Manning's F ups. Then after the SB blowout with him being the absolute worst player on the field he kept talking about we we we screwed up.NO great forehead it was you, all 3 of those turnovers were you. Even Copper dork had enough manhood after the NFC title game to say I MADE TOO MANY MISTAKES.Watching the film of last Sundays game I think if Seattle hadn't been in prevent mentality and jumped the routes they may have intercepted all 3 of the wobbling duck completions he threw on his wonderful TD drive.Manning is an ass and one of the most overrated QB's in the history of the league. And yes I have been drinking.....

[monkey]

All I know is, I HATED the old sudden death rules! They were AWFUL! Having the game come down to a coin flip + the least athletic player on the team (the kicker), and not even TRYING to score a touchdown? That was the PITS!

The new rules IMO are as close to perfectly fair as you can get. Now, instead of just trying to get into field goal range, teams are trying to get into the end zone, for the win. The fact that getting a stop, or holding the offense to a field goal, allows your offense a chance to re-tie or win the game outright, is about as fair as anything you can possibly come up with, while still giving the excitement of "sudden death".

IMO this system is terrific.
The idiots complaining today, would have been leading the cheers and praising the rules if Manning had been the one to engineer the game winning drive instead of RW3.

[c_hawkbob]

IMO this system is terrific.

By comparison, absolutely. I still say OT is unnecessary for regular season games.

The idiots complaining today, would have been leading the cheers and praising the rules if Manning had been the one to engineer the game winning drive instead of RW3.

+1x10(12)

[Uppercut]

Today the Saints scored a TD on their first possession in OT and beat TB. Have not heard an scowling yet from sportscasters.