Wagon Circler Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 I know it's a small thing, but I saw that the Bills were one of four teams to vote against the new overtime rule. How do you vote against a reasonable solution to an overtime rule everyone knew was unfair? Seriously, do the Bills ever vote FOR anything new? Ralph continues to reinforce his old codger status. Whhat's the excuse this time? Not enough time to study it again? Lost our bifocals, did we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 1. Ralph was 100% right about the Collective Bargaining Agreement and was 1 of only 2 owners to stand up to it. 2. Chan Gailey put in the Bills vote against the new overtime rule, only because he wanted to see the rule in the regular season as well. He didn't feel the rules should change for the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloboyinATL Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 1. Ralph was 100% right about the Collective Bargaining Agreement and was 1 of only 2 owners to stand up to it. 2. Chan Gailey put in the Bills vote against the new overtime rule, only because he wanted to see the rule in the regular season as well. He didn't feel the rules should change for the playoffs. If true, that is great information and a very valid reason to vote against. I guess even a partial change is a good start but if it is a bad rule in the post season, it's a bad rule in the regular season too. As far as I can recall, that is the only NFL rule that is different in the post season than it is in the regular season. Anyone know of any others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 If true, that is great information and a very valid reason to vote against. I guess even a partial change is a good start but if it is a bad rule in the post season, it's a bad rule in the regular season too. As far as I can recall, that is the only NFL rule that is different in the post season than it is in the regular season. Anyone know of any others? Overtime. Games can't end in a tie in the post season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Overtime. Games can't end in a tie in the post season. They couldn't before the rule change, either. It looks to me like the NFL hasn't learned from the NHL. You don't change rules for the postseason. That's just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 It should be (and always should have been) an extra 10 minute period. No sudden death. It's not like there are tons of OT games every weekend. And if the argument is "they want to end the games ASAP," then just flip a coin and declare the winner the winner of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthtobrint Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Apparently the competition committee is worried about the player safety risk in the regular season from the one extra possession in the very few games that go to overtime. They may finally choose to use the same rule for the regular season, but that is yet to be determined. If anything, they should implement it right away in the preseason to see if this system works and fix any problems that surface. The new rule is a step up from the old, but it still changes the way the game is meant to be played. If, for instance, the first team with possession scores a field goal, then the other team essentially has four downs knowing they must score or the game is over. Even the new rule affects coaching strategy. Just make an eight minute overtime period and play actual football... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Why not just give both teams a possession each in OT, and then equal possessions after that if the score still remains tied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Maybe Ralph didn't understand that this only applies to teams in playoff games... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOBILLS78 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Chan Gailey put in the Bills vote against the new overtime rule, only because he wanted to see the rule in the regular season as well. He didn't feel the rules should change for the playoffs. I didn't see that anywhere. That's interesting. Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heels20X6 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Why not just give both teams a possession each in OT, and then equal possessions after that if the score still remains tied? That makes too much sense and therefore cannot be considered. In the CFL, they do it that way but after two possessions, if it's still tied, then its a tie. It's happened a few times actually, so they're looking to revise that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 I didn't see that anywhere. That's interesting. Link? I was on WGR yesterday. No linky. They said that Buddy Nix gave the call to Chan Gailey to make on behalf of the Bills. He voted no because he wanted a consistant rule through out the regular season and playoffs. He had nothing against changing the actual rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heels20X6 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 I was on WGR yesterday. No linky. They said that Buddy Nix gave the call to Chan Gailey to make on behalf of the Bills. He voted no because he wanted a consistant rule through out the regular season and playoffs. He had nothing against changing the actual rule. Great...you've ruined a chance for people to whine about how old Ralphie is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 I was on WGR yesterday. No linky. They said that Buddy Nix gave the call to Chan Gailey to make on behalf of the Bills. He voted no because he wanted a consistant rule through out the regular season and playoffs. He had nothing against changing the actual rule. You're right Ray. I heard the same thing. In fact, I found a link to the article they were discussing: Tim Graham at ESPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 2. Chan Gailey put in the Bills vote against the new overtime rule, only because he wanted to see the rule in the regular season as well. He didn't feel the rules should change for the playoffs. That's what I heard as well. and it makes sense, why change it only for playoffs? As a coach, you're kind of going into the playoffs blind this season with no experience with the new rule. Does a team kick on 3rd down any more? or do they go for the first and try to end the game, rather than extend it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 That makes too much sense and therefore cannot be considered. In the CFL, they do it that way but after two possessions, if it's still tied, then its a tie. It's happened a few times actually, so they're looking to revise that. The NFL's change is almost what I'm proposing, but letting the OT end if the first team scores a TD is dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 That's what I heard as well. and it makes sense, why change it only for playoffs? As a coach, you're kind of going into the playoffs blind this season with no experience with the new rule. Does a team kick on 3rd down any more? or do they go for the first and try to end the game, rather than extend it... Actually, it makes no sense to vote against a rule change that you favor. Saying you don't want the rule in any games if it can't be in all games shows a....lack of forethought, not to mention ill logic. There is no harm in the playoff "trial" of the rule. Seeing it work in some games will lead to its adoption for all games. That's how the NFL works. So they didin't even bother to wake Ralph to put in a vote with the other owners? And Chan and Buddy thought theirs was solid thinking? Yup, we're gonna be just fine with these 3! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Actually, it makes no sense to vote against a rule change that you favor. Saying you don't want the rule in any games if it can't be in all games shows a....lack of forethought, not to mention ill logic. There is no harm in the playoff "trial" of the rule. Seeing it work in some games will lead to its adoption for all games. That's how the NFL works. So they didin't even bother to wake Ralph to put in a vote with the other owners? And Chan and Buddy thought theirs was solid thinking? Yup, we're gonna be just fine with these 3! Just what do you think they'll "see" in the playoffs that makes it not (yet) worth implementing during the regular season? Will something magically pop-up that they didn't expect, and is the playoffs the first time you want to see that happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Actually, it makes no sense to vote against a rule change that you favor. Saying you don't want the rule in any games if it can't be in all games shows a....lack of forethought, not to mention ill logic. There is no harm in the playoff "trial" of the rule. Seeing it work in some games will lead to its adoption for all games. That's how the NFL works. So they didin't even bother to wake Ralph to put in a vote with the other owners? And Chan and Buddy thought theirs was solid thinking? Yup, we're gonna be just fine with these 3! Really? Lets's do a no harm playoff "trial" run of the rule? Why not try, let's see....oh maybe, pre-season? might be a little more harmless IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Just what do you think they'll "see" in the playoffs that makes it not (yet) worth implementing during the regular season? Will something magically pop-up that they didn't expect, and is the playoffs the first time you want to see that happen? I'm with you---there is nothing that will be unexpected as a result of this very straightforward change. So it doesn't matter that it isn't implemented for the playoffs. But I also agree that it should be for ALL games. Doesn't change the fact that it made no sense for Buffalo to vote against it if Gailey thinks it's a good rule change. Absolutely no sense. Really? Lets's do a no harm playoff "trial" run of the rule? Why not try, let's see....oh maybe, pre-season? might be a little more harmless IMO... See above---it doesn't matter when they start it--there is no mystery to it. Changing the rule for the entire season wasn't on the ballot. It was a choice of some change or no change. For any voter who thought the rule change was a good thing, there is no logical argument for voting against it's implementation in the most important games of the season. "All or nothing" is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts