Going for two in ot makes no sense
It is the rule!
The whole rules for OT make no sense. Why change the way the game is played for overtime? Just play an entire quarter.
Don't understand the logic?
If it is important sorry for the thread
I think it reduces the likelihood of a tie after 2OT's as single point converts are more likely to be made than a 2 pointer.
I like the OT but would like to see them move it back to the 45 or even mid-field. Dont like that they start in field goal range. Teams should have yo get a 1st down at least to put themselves into FG range. Would also like them to give touchdowns choice of single or 2 points. Interesting choices.
In fact, I would get rid of the point after period and I think this is eventually coming.
So we should eliminate the foot from football? I don't think so.
Pat Lynch(the old guy)
The point after is a unique aspect that you don't see in other sports.
The Grey Cup was a perfect example of how the extra 2 points can impact the outcome in OT. It ends the game on a high note. Had Calgary scored, the game would have ended with a run or pass, as opposed to what could easily be called a rarely missed field goal.
Just as a point of clarification, they got rid of the single point convert in OT in an effort to eliminate more potential for ties. The reasoning being is that two-point converts have less chance of being successful than single point converts and thus there is a great chance that in an exchange of TDs, one team will only get six points out of it and the other eight points effectively breaking a tie.
There is a certain irony here that we're discussing points in an otherwise pointless thread...
If it's pointless to don't discuss it .simple
How about having penalty kicks to decide a championship? Soccer is a joke! :lol: The winning team had no shots on goal in regulation time. I don't know if my heart could take that kind of excitement! :roll:
Pat Lynch(the old real football guy)
Field Goal Shootout... :rockin: [/sarcasm]
Almost not sarcasm Rix, as starting at the 35 essentially makes it a field goal shootout, doesn't it? The only advantage I see, is that the mini-games give a greater likelihood of a winner being decided quickly as either one or the other can make at least a field goal. I don't recall the outcome of the regular season Ottawa-Calgary tie, but obviously, they matched scoring drives in both mini-games.
For the regular season, it is probably okay, but IMO, for play-offs or the Grey Cup, there should be an overtime period first, then the mini-games. Although, I have to say, it was an exciting finish this year!
There should be an extra "half" played before the mini-games. Or at least another quarter. But when it all comes down to it, the mini-games are probably the best option to an undecided game. Much rather watch that then have them come up with something stupid like starting on the 35, each kicker gets a shot, if they tie, move back 5 yards, until someone misses. Something tells me that this was probably put on the table during a brainstorming session on the OT format. lol.