A lot of people were bitching about the NFL’s overtime rules after the Green Bay Packers lost to the Arizona Cardinals.
Outsiders felt deprived that after a fantastic finish to regulation by Aaron Rodgers and the Packers, Rodgers didn’t even touch the ball in overtime. Packers fans and players felt pissed that they lost in overtime two postseasons in a row without touching the ball.
Those are the rules, of course.
Don’t let the other team score a touchdown on their first possession and no one has to feel deprived.
Is the rule fair? Well, that’s debatable.
What I think pretty much everyone can agree upon is that it would be more exciting for fans if overtime rules were equitable, i.e. both teams had a chance to touch the ball.
Everyone but old Ginger Gap Tooth, of course.
Packers president Mark Murphy, who is a member of the league’s competition committee and voted against exactly such a proposal last year, is still against changing overtime rules.
“As much as it pains me, both of those games we stop ’em, we have a chance to win,” Murphy said. “Give those teams credit, they made the plays to score.”
Yes.
Great rationale.
Status quo rationale.
“It is what it is and that’s the way it is!”
[shrugs shoulders]
Amazingly, the very same kind of rationale that has the Packers in their current rut.
Or he said “And I said to myself, this is the business we’ve chosen; I didn’t ask who gave the order, because it had nothing to do with business”
I’m not complaining about current overtime rules. Our defense gave up a touchdown in a pretty pathetic fashion. At least a team can’t win in OT by getting a few first downs and kicking a field goal without the opponent getting a shot.
That being said, why don’t they consider just having an extra OT quarter and play until time runs out? This sudden death who ever scores first scenario is used in sports like hockey and soccer where possession of the ball/puck changes quite frequently to where you can’t argue about not getting a chance offensively. Basketball OT goes until the clock runs out. Baseball has extra innings where both offenses get a chance to score. Winning a football game in OT without the other team getting possession is like playing half of an extra inning.
Because injuries, that’s their reasoning. Fatigue creates sloppy play wc=hich leads to injuries. This OT business is a pretty tough issue given the current state of the NFL. I think it’s okay the way it is. Our defense just needs to learn how not to choke after playing their asses off.
I wasn’t exactly proud when Rodgers was whining, and he was whining. I love Rodgers, but wtf good is gonna come from that? It won’t change a thing except people’s perception of you. Lets say, it was the Packers who scored like that on the 1st possession in overtime and won the game, do the Packers then claim it was unfair because the Cardinals didn’t touch the ball?
Cheese has it right. When you get torched for 75 yards, because no one is within 30 feet of Fitzgerald, you might fucking lose and probably should just shut your mouth. That coupled with some of the poorest tackling attempts i’ve ever seen since Tramon Williams (see Sam Shields).
I’ll never watch that replay and not get pissed, for the rest of my life.
Change the rules because the Pacjets lost? That’s loser talk.
RIP Frank Pantangeline….or maybe not!
Packer Bob is one of those guys who proudly wears his NFC North Division Champion hat and he’s a little salty he didn’t get one this year.
Murphy you’re officially a fucking idiot. No surprise.
It does appear that way. Not a whole lot of anything but glad handing up to this point . . .