diehard03 said:
1. it's a significant change in rules to give the ball to each team on the opposing 25 yard line. You can't just put the ball down, and say "well, everythings the same but that!" when teams count on using field position as part of the their strategies. Let's not do the internet thing where you think that i am saying that teams can line up offsides in OT if they want to.
That's not a change in the RULES. Teams snap from the 25 yard line with a first and 10 at other points during the game. Everything is the EXACT same in the first quarter as it is in the OT period when this happens. Since both teams have equal opportunities to start their OT possessions from the 25, neither are put at a disadvantage in terms of field position. If a team wants to make field position an issue in OT, its simple: their defense should create negative plays for the offense. Otherwise, it should have played better in regulation so OT wouldn't have been needed. Anytime a team has first and 10 from their opponents 25, all field position issues are the same, be it the first quarter or in OT. If the defense lets them drive to their 25 in the first, they've given up field position just like if they get to OT, they've given up the ability to use an entire game of field position to win, because they didn't win in 4 quarters. It is really a pretty easy concept.
Either way, this isn't a change in the rules any more than starting the third quarter with a kickoff after ending the second quarter in the middle of a team's possession. You didn't start the second quarter that way, right? So by your "logic," it is changing the rules. If not, why not?
OT creates a different starting point than the other quarters have. It is no more complicated than that. There are no rules CHANGES in OT; it is simply how things are done just like other transitions. There are other examples of this: on a try (extra point), defense intercepts, is running back for a TD, defensive teammate holds, official flags, play ends. Result? Penalty declined BY RULE. There's no mark off, replay of the down, take on the next play, nothing. No choice whatsoever. This is an odd occurrence that doesn't happen in most other cases. But it happens here. Other minor examples: defensive pass interference can only occur between the time the pass is thrown to when it is complete/incomplete (i.e. ball in the air). However, offensive pass interference can occur anytime between the snap and end of pass. Fair? Unfair? Neither -- just different. Football is like this which makes it a great game.
Quote:
Quote:
edit: just for clarity...I think just giving the ball the each team at the 25 is a fundamental enough change to be like your hiking the ball over the goal.
I think that's absurd, but whatever.
Quote:
2. This "hope' is the the "generate some sort of result" I am talking about. it's forced and is a disservice to both teams playing the game.
There's no disservice. No team in NCAA history, as far as I'm aware of, has walked off the field refusing to play OT. They want to win. Every team involved in a tie prior to the 1995 or 96 rule chance would have wanted this. They may not agree with the way its done per se, but they want to play to win.
Quote:
3 & 4:. Well, that's just your opinion, man. That's the thing about opinions: their validity is not a majority vote decision. I am fine with ties. Neither team earned a victory or a loss based on the play in regulation. I don't think we should amend the rules just to force a winner to appease our American-ness.
I'm OK with your opinion here though I disagree with it, but as stated there's no amendment. Just different rules applied at different times.
