If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   In something that you can no longer see in baseball, basketball, or hockey, NFL game ends in tie. We're a rule-change away from this being the last tie in American major sports   (sports.yahoo.com) divider line 75
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

1983 clicks; posted to Sports » on 16 Nov 2008 at 7:25 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-11-16 05:16:22 PM  
the tie still goes to the runner in baseball
 
2008-11-16 05:18:35 PM  
So, they are in a tie for sucking?

/j/k somewhat
 
2008-11-16 05:23:15 PM  
Here's to that rule change never being implemented.
 
2008-11-16 05:31:02 PM  
I like the way college OT is played.
 
2008-11-16 05:32:56 PM  
I'm guessing that The Eagles were probably favored to win this game. What I've always wondered is what would happen if a "pick 'em" game ended in a tie. Would the house win all bets?
 
2008-11-16 05:36:45 PM  
mikemoto: Would the house win all bets?

Thats why you have the spread.
 
2008-11-16 05:37:01 PM  
BGates: I like the way college OT is played.

I don't. It's a stupid gimmick, on par with penalty kicks in soccer. Overtime in any sport should be done as close to the same way as the rest of the game was played in regulation.

I mean, college OT is fun to watch, but then later you think about it and you realize that, hey, letting a game go to a final of 74-73 after it was like 28-28 at the end of regulation is kind of stupid.
 
2008-11-16 05:43:04 PM  
jake_lex: BGates: I like the way college OT is played.

I don't. It's a stupid gimmick, on par with penalty kicks in soccer. Overtime in any sport should be done as close to the same way as the rest of the game was played in regulation.

I mean, college OT is fun to watch, but then later you think about it and you realize that, hey, letting a game go to a final of 74-73 after it was like 28-28 at the end of regulation is kind of stupid.


My personal preference would be for a "six point" rule in overtime. If a team scores a touchdown, the game is over and they are awarded the win. If they kick a field goal, and hold the other team scoreless, then kick another field goal, they win. This would prevent these sort of anti-climactic OT wins with a chip shot field goal.
 
2008-11-16 05:52:29 PM  
mikemoto: What I've always wondered is what would happen if a "pick 'em" game ended in a tie. Would the house win all bets?

No. It's the same as when a team favored by three wins by exactly three points. You get your bet back.
 
2008-11-16 06:04:45 PM  
What is the big deal. It is the first time a game has ended in a tie in six freakin years. Who the F cares.
 
2008-11-16 06:12:38 PM  
sponkster: What is the big deal. It is the first time a game has ended in a tie in six freakin years.

That's why it's a big deal.
 
2008-11-16 06:57:16 PM  
I understand the rarity is a big deal, but the thought that something must be done to never let this happen again is what I am talking about. Who cares if there is a tie. In the end there are tie breakers already in place to decide who goes to the playoffs, has home field advantage etc.
 
2008-11-16 07:18:03 PM  
as an eagles fan, i have no problem with letting the rule stand as is.
 
2008-11-16 07:22:22 PM  
Hockey adopted the lamest ever rule (the one that soccer has), the shootout.

The gay-ification of the manliest sport has ensued.

Just let them play OT periods until someone scores (like the playoffs).

So what if they're tired? Man up, ladies. It's what the game's all about.

This is their full time job. It's not like they have to be all rested the next day to go do something else physically demanding.

Shootouts are just wrong on every level.
 
2008-11-16 07:26:46 PM  
"I didn't know that," said McNabb, who played a leading role in keeping it tied.

Priceless.
 
2008-11-16 07:32:03 PM  
In Hockey, ties happened every single day.

In the Nfl they happen like once every 6 years.
 
2008-11-16 07:32:55 PM  
CINCINNATI (AP)-Donovan McNabb expected to keep playing until someone scored, no matter how long it took. Mercifully, the NFL's rules set a time limit on terrible play.
==============

Heh. OWNED by the Associated Press!
 
2008-11-16 07:33:21 PM  
jake3988: In Hockey, ties happened every single day.

In the Nfl they happen like once every 6 years.


This. And that's why the rule should not be changed.

Are we going to make a radical change to the rules of the game to prevent a tie in the 2014 season?
 
2008-11-16 07:36:50 PM  
mikemoto: jake_lex: BGates: I like the way college OT is played.

I don't. It's a stupid gimmick, on par with penalty kicks in soccer. Overtime in any sport should be done as close to the same way as the rest of the game was played in regulation.

I mean, college OT is fun to watch, but then later you think about it and you realize that, hey, letting a game go to a final of 74-73 after it was like 28-28 at the end of regulation is kind of stupid.

My personal preference would be for a "six point" rule in overtime. If a team scores a touchdown, the game is over and they are awarded the win. If they kick a field goal, and hold the other team scoreless, then kick another field goal, they win. This would prevent these sort of anti-climactic OT wins with a chip shot field goal.


That's not so bad, but I don't think the NFL overtime rule is as broken as people say it is.

I mean, look at it: if you lose the toss, there's no excuse for you to not boot the ball through the end zone and have the opposing team start on the 20. The outer range of most NFL kickers requires you to get to at least the 35 yard line, but for a realistic shot at a FG, it's probably more like the 30 or even 25. So even if we go with the 35, that means you must stop the opposing team from advancing the ball 45 yards, and probably more like 50.

If you can't do that, you lose. Good day sir!
 
2008-11-16 07:38:19 PM  
I'm for either a sudden death OT that doesn't end after a single period.
Or (if you want fairness... really, I don't mind it in some cases), we can have a system where, if one team scores, the other team has a chance to score back... they get kicked to, and basically get one more possession to tie the score or take the lead (if, by chance, a defense recovers a fumble and turns it back over, the offense gets to keep the ball).

If the offense takes the lead on that possession (however they may do it), the other team gets another possession to tie or take the lead. Let games continue like this until one team scores more points and gets the defensive (or special teams) stop. It would make for some awesome finishes and be more fair in overtime to both teams (no more winning games with only one team getting a possession).
 
2008-11-16 07:38:57 PM  
The OT/SO loss pity point in the NHL is terrible. Bring back the tie! It's a part of the game. Playing for the tie has been very important in the NHL's past with playoff runs. I can remember seeing some excellent games where a team struggled to get the tie and by doing so knocked another team out of the playoffs.

First hockey game I ever saw was a tie, too. What's the big deal? Oh wait, the marketing department is writing the rulebook in the NHL now.
 
2008-11-16 07:40:50 PM  
They just pointed out on NBC what McNabb said about not even knowing ties were in the rule book. Also that he and the Eagles had played Atlanta in the playoffs the year Atlanta got the last tie before today. Apparently McNabb didn't notice the Falcons had something like a 9-6-1 record when they played....
 
2008-11-16 07:43:09 PM  
It doesn't need a radical rule change, it only needs a small one. If it's still tied at the end of OT, award the win to the visiting team.

As a general rule in Vegas, home field is basically worth 3 pts, all other things being equal. So if you're the home team and you can't win by even 1 pt after 5 quarters, you deserve to lose.

Most OT games don't go anywhere near the 15 minutes, but in those that do, this rule would make for some interesting tactical finishes as the home team becomes desperate to score and the visiting team only needs to run out the clock.
 
2008-11-16 07:47:10 PM  
Hockey is not an 'American major sport'.
 
2008-11-16 07:47:42 PM  
A "drastic change" is awarding Overtime Losses in this sport, and finding a way (I like my suggestion :P) to make sure a team wins.
 
2008-11-16 07:56:44 PM  
Sorry, Subby, but ties can occur in baseball. If weather or a power outage forces a game to be called with a tie score after five full innings, all stats count and the game is a tie. The game will be made up--in its entirety--if needed because of playoff implications.
 
2008-11-16 08:03:22 PM  
festus: Hockey adopted the lamest ever rule (the one that soccer has), the shootout.

The gay-ification of the manliest sport has ensued.

Just let them play OT periods until someone scores (like the playoffs).

So what if they're tired? Man up, ladies. It's what the game's all about.

This is their full time job. It's not like they have to be all rested the next day to go do something else physically demanding.

Shootouts are just wrong on every level.


In regulation, I think its perfectly acceptable to have a shootout. The reason you DON'T continue to play 5-on-5 never-ending OT hockey is because for alot of the season you have back-to-back-to-back days you have to play. Playing in a 3 OT game, and then having to FLY to another arena for a game the next (or, more than likely, SAME) day gives the other team an unfair advantage. Aslong as they dont impliment shootouts into the Playoffs... its all good.
 
2008-11-16 08:06:46 PM  
Wiki'd:
A tie game does not count as an official game in the standings unless it is finished later or replayed; however, individual player statistics from tie games are counted.

I always view games in baseball that don't count in the standings as, well, not actually games.

/just MHO
//ties count in the NFL
 
2008-11-16 08:08:35 PM  
zippolight2002: In regulation, I think its perfectly acceptable to have a shootout.

Still vehemently disagree.

This is their JOB.

If they can't man up and win (either team) in regulation time, then they need to grind it out until someone does in OT.

It doesn't matter if they have a game the next day (and that doesn't happen very often in the NHL).

I do OT at my gig from time to time, it's the nature of the beast in publishing. I am expected back in the next day at the usual time.

I do it. It's part of my job.
 
2008-11-16 08:13:09 PM  
Your_Huckleberry: They just pointed out on NBC what McNabb said about not even knowing ties were in the rule book. Also that he and the Eagles had played Atlanta in the playoffs the year Atlanta got the last tie before today. Apparently McNabb didn't notice the Falcons had something like a 9-6-1 record when they played....

The last tie was between Atlanta and PITTSBURGH.

But yeah, he should now the friggin rule.
 
2008-11-16 08:14:26 PM  
jake3988: In Hockey, ties happened every single day.



Ties in hockey haven't happened in several years.
 
2008-11-16 08:16:35 PM  
Bengals might have screwed themselves out of a number one draft pick by not sucking quite enough.
 
2008-11-16 08:17:50 PM  
KiwDaWabbit: Bengals might have screwed themselves out of a number one draft pick by not sucking quite enough.

I've had girlfriends like that.

But not for long.
 
2008-11-16 08:21:59 PM  
RQB1018: Your_Huckleberry: They just pointed out on NBC what McNabb said about not even knowing ties were in the rule book. Also that he and the Eagles had played Atlanta in the playoffs the year Atlanta got the last tie before today. Apparently McNabb didn't notice the Falcons had something like a 9-6-1 record when they played....

The last tie was between Atlanta and PITTSBURGH.

But yeah, he should now the friggin rule.


Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?
 
2008-11-16 08:23:56 PM  
Why not just play OT until the clock expires and if no one is ahead, it's a tie? Kinda how it was in hockey.

festus: I do OT at my gig from time to time, it's the nature of the beast in publishing. I am expected back in the next day at the usual time.

you also aren't getting beaten up at your job all day and then traveling to a new city to get beaten up some more the next night. A game like the 6 or 7 OT games in the playoffs would f*ck those teams over for weeks, they'd be playing rested opponents with no rest; you'd have teams just dumping games to get the hell off the ice so they could actually make it to their next game. Plus it f*cks over fans, who don't want to sit around for 9 hours for a game that is 1/82nd of the season and relatively meaningless.
 
2008-11-16 08:30:31 PM  
festus:

I do OT at my gig from time to time, it's the nature of the beast in publishing. I am expected back in the next day at the usual time.

I do it. It's part of my job.


A couple things, though:

1. Athletes don't only work on game day. Obvious and a little patronizing to bring up, I admit, but the correlations between whatever job you (I presume) or I work don't really exist in that sense.

2. You working extra hours on one particular day is not a very high added risk for your physical well-being. What I mean is that you probably aren't going to tear a ligament in your brain which makes you unavailable to work for the next 3 months. Or, if that did happen, it's much easier (probably) to find a replacement close to your ability level for you than a professional athlete. Although don't tell the Detroit Lions that.

3. Your employer is probably not paying you between 1-12 million dollars a year and is therefore less concerned about his/her potential investment in you going down the tubes if you encounter an injury usual for your workplace.

4. It isn't profitable for anyone involved (players, teams, the league or the networks) to let a game go on seemingly forever. Alcohol has been cut off, viewers are lost and all other support staff (concessions, playing surface crew, etc) are probably starting to cash in on +8 hour overtime rules.

I'm being honest when I say this, if I've underestimated your position in your company or value to, I apologize. I'm used to talking sports to folks with menial jobs who are very replaceable, myself included. I do agree with you about gimmicky overtimes, but I don't think the justification against them can be found in comparing athletic professions to anything your average person does. While both are "technically" employees, the former is much more of a capital investment, like new machinery, than the latter.
 
2008-11-16 08:31:31 PM  
IAmRight: you also aren't getting beaten up at your job all day and then traveling to a new city to get beaten up some more the next night.

You make it sound like these guys are in GitMo.

This is a professional sport these guys signed up for. These guys are paid stacks of money to do their job.

Their job description is known. They go to work and it's rough stuff.

MAYBE (not very often) they have to jump on a plane and go do their job in another city the very next day. I'd have to look at the NHL schedule and see if that actually happens much, if at all.

Shootouts are just another slip-slide into mollycoddling pro athletes.

Old time hockey! Eddy Shore!
 
2008-11-16 08:33:22 PM  
jake_lex: BGates: I like the way college OT is played.

I don't. It's a stupid gimmick, on par with penalty kicks in soccer. Overtime in any sport should be done as close to the same way as the rest of the game was played in regulation.

I mean, college OT is fun to watch, but then later you think about it and you realize that, hey, letting a game go to a final of 74-73 after it was like 28-28 at the end of regulation is kind of stupid.


If that were the case the OT should play for a designated amount of time, not sudden death.
 
2008-11-16 08:36:11 PM  
RQB1018: jake3988: In Hockey, ties happened every single day.

Ties in hockey haven't happened in several years.


Today you learn the concept of the PAST FARKING TENSE.
 
2008-11-16 08:38:13 PM  
festus: Old time hockey! Eddy Shore!

No one played OT until someone scored, because that's a stupid idea.

bighasbeen: 4. It isn't profitable for anyone involved (players, teams, the league or the networks) to let a game go on seemingly forever. Alcohol has been cut off, viewers are lost and all other support staff (concessions, playing surface crew, etc) are probably starting to cash in on +8 hour overtime rules.

Mainly for this reason. Why would you want to create an environment where no one wants to be there? Do you really need to see people playing in front of an empty stadium because the fans have sh*t to do the next day because it's a Tuesday night and they're not going to just stay up all night watching a hockey game that may or may not matter in the standings by the end of the season?

There's a huge cost to continuing to play and no benefit.
 
2008-11-16 08:40:06 PM  
No! You can't change the rules until we see a 0-0 tie.

/Has a feeling the Bengals will also be involved in that.
 
2008-11-16 08:45:24 PM  
IAmRight: No one played OT until someone scored, because that's a stupid idea.

Regulation-length periods for OT. Not just an endless extra period.


bighasbeen: It isn't profitable for anyone involved

As a paying fan forced to pay more and more for a ticket every year, I perceive the value of a sporting event greatly diminished if, after watching a tightly played close game end in a tie, and then I'm subjected to a "shootout", I feel incredibly ripped off.

A shootout is to real hockey as HORSE is to basketball - a watered-down, ridiculous mockery of the game.

It's inane on so many levels, but mostly because a shootout scenario never happens during regulation time for hockey. You MAY very occasionally witness a breakaway (one of the most exciting moments in pro sports). But a shootout just doesn't happen.

You did hit the nail on the head though - profit.

The game has been Nanny-stated so owners can feel marginally safer in their investments.
 
2008-11-16 08:49:40 PM  
festus: Regulation-length periods for OT. Not just an endless extra period.

Yeah, but the point is that if you keep playing until it ends, then it's the same thing as an endless extra period. Except then you have to pay the Zamboni guy to stick around another few hours when he was going to go home and get laid that night.
 
2008-11-16 08:54:28 PM  
puffy999: I'm for either a sudden death OT that doesn't end after a single period.
Or (if you want fairness... really, I don't mind it in some cases), we can have a system where, if one team scores, the other team has a chance to score back... they get kicked to, and basically get one more possession to tie the score or take the lead (if, by chance, a defense recovers a fumble and turns it back over, the offense gets to keep the ball).


If the offense takes the lead on that possession (however they may do it), the other team gets another possession to tie or take the lead. Let games continue like this until one team scores more points and gets the defensive (or special teams) stop. It would make for some awesome finishes and be more fair in overtime to both teams (no more winning games with only one team getting a possession).




I have always wondered why they don't just say that once a team scores in overtime, the other team has one possession to outscore them. In other words to win without the other team getting a sniff of the ball you have to score a TD and a 2-pt conversion. Otherwise, they get one shot. It would extend the freakin game by one possession, and yet there would be less emphasis on the coin toss.
 
2008-11-16 08:58:32 PM  
IAmRight: Yeah, but the point is that if you keep playing until it ends, then it's the same thing as an endless extra period.

I can tell you're not Canadian.

There are these things called "intermissions" between periods. Even OT periods.

So, no, it's not the same thing at all.
 
2008-11-16 09:05:56 PM  
festus: There are these things called "intermissions" between periods. Even OT periods.

Yeah, I know. I've watched hockey a lot. Intermissions don't take time off how long it takes for the game to end. And, suprisingly, 15-20 minutes of break isn't enough for your body to recover after being on the ice off and on for the better part of 6 hours. So yeah, it is the same. Just like you still feel tired if you take an hour long nap at night instead of getting real sleep.
 
2008-11-16 09:09:09 PM  
IAmRight: So yeah, it is the same.

This guy would have lots to say about that.

i34.tinypic.com

We're not talking about badminton or touch football here.
 
2008-11-16 09:13:51 PM  
fark2105: puffy999: I'm for either a sudden death OT that doesn't end after a single period.
Or (if you want fairness... really, I don't mind it in some cases), we can have a system where, if one team scores, the other team has a chance to score back... they get kicked to, and basically get one more possession to tie the score or take the lead (if, by chance, a defense recovers a fumble and turns it back over, the offense gets to keep the ball).


If the offense takes the lead on that possession (however they may do it), the other team gets another possession to tie or take the lead. Let games continue like this until one team scores more points and gets the defensive (or special teams) stop. It would make for some awesome finishes and be more fair in overtime to both teams (no more winning games with only one team getting a possession).



I have always wondered why they don't just say that once a team scores in overtime, the other team has one possession to outscore them. In other words to win without the other team getting a sniff of the ball you have to score a TD and a 2-pt conversion. Otherwise, they get one shot. It would extend the freakin game by one possession, and yet there would be less emphasis on the coin toss.


As first and foremost a baseball fan, I agree with the concept of even opportunities to score, especially in any extended time. It would work in football, but Hockey is too fluid of a game for that. You could try a "5 minutes to score" thing but that reeks of blurnsball to me.
 
2008-11-16 09:20:11 PM  
festus: A shootout is to real hockey as HORSE is to basketball - a watered-down, ridiculous mockery of the game.

This. It would make more sense to just have a fight to settle ties - after all, fights happen in hockey a lot more often than penalty shots and clean breakaways, which is basically what shootouts are.

(Not actually advocating this, of course. But they should have at least 10 minutes of OT before they go to a shootout - 5 minutes isn't enough time to give anyone a real chance of scoring.)
 
2008-11-16 09:27:18 PM  
festus: This guy would have lots to say about that.

Funny, since the NHL didn't even have regular season overtime until 1983.
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report