s********k 发帖数: 6180 | 1 先进攻一方只是飞狗不算获胜,要给进攻权给对手,如果对手也成功飞狗,那对手胜。
但是先进攻一方TD,那么立即获胜。有点意思,game plan更难了。 |
b*****u 发帖数: 1978 | 2 而且,如果防守方得到 INT 或者 捡起fumble,还要考虑到底要不要往前跑 ---- 一
旦fumble back,对方只要 飞狗 就结束比赛,本队进攻组没机会出场了。 |
s********k 发帖数: 6180 | 3 bye week的team现在正在仔细研究这个了,不知道这个规则还有没有漏洞。
【在 b*****u 的大作中提到】 : 而且,如果防守方得到 INT 或者 捡起fumble,还要考虑到底要不要往前跑 ---- 一 : 旦fumble back,对方只要 飞狗 就结束比赛,本队进攻组没机会出场了。
|
h*********r 发帖数: 10182 | 4 那后进攻的不就占优势吗?
因该打满15分钟,最后比分决胜负。如果还平,就FG决胜,像足球点球决胜一样。从20
码开始,每踢一次加5码。 |
s********k 发帖数: 6180 | 5 后进攻不见得占优势。第一先进攻方要TD你就没辙,第二就算你拿到球权也有可能被放
下来。只不过相对而言先进攻的优势减少了。尤其是先进攻方FG,那么后一方相当于每
次都有4th进攻机会,反正不用也是死,4次10码推进直到飞狗就行。
20
【在 h*********r 的大作中提到】 : 那后进攻的不就占优势吗? : 因该打满15分钟,最后比分决胜负。如果还平,就FG决胜,像足球点球决胜一样。从20 : 码开始,每踢一次加5码。
|
s********k 发帖数: 6180 | 6 想了想,先进攻的如果进入red zone,然后3th short,其实也应该选择go 4th而不是
飞狗。反正对方都要拿到球权而且一旦对方飞狗自己就死。何必不痛不痒搞FG,直接拼
命TD。恩,还挺复杂的,不过有意思了,应该会出现一些经典赛后口水场面
【在 s********k 的大作中提到】 : 后进攻不见得占优势。第一先进攻方要TD你就没辙,第二就算你拿到球权也有可能被放 : 下来。只不过相对而言先进攻的优势减少了。尤其是先进攻方FG,那么后一方相当于每 : 次都有4th进攻机会,反正不用也是死,4次10码推进直到飞狗就行。 : : 20
|
m*******r 发帖数: 3635 | 7 大学的那种加时规则看起来不是挺好的吗?为什么不用 |
a******n 发帖数: 4290 | 8
那样其实也不好。
说不定要比赛比到第二天早上。
【在 m*******r 的大作中提到】 : 大学的那种加时规则看起来不是挺好的吗?为什么不用
|
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 9 It removes the entire special team play -- kicking, punting, receiving --
from the game. What's good about that?
【在 m*******r 的大作中提到】 : 大学的那种加时规则看起来不是挺好的吗?为什么不用
|
l******d 发帖数: 1633 | 10 我看到的是两方各一飞狗后,开始突然死亡,而不是后进飞狗的那方获胜。
【在 s********k 的大作中提到】 : 先进攻一方只是飞狗不算获胜,要给进攻权给对手,如果对手也成功飞狗,那对手胜。 : 但是先进攻一方TD,那么立即获胜。有点意思,game plan更难了。
|
|
|
b**j 发帖数: 20742 | 11 还是可以block FG啊。
【在 B*****e 的大作中提到】 : It removes the entire special team play -- kicking, punting, receiving -- : from the game. What's good about that?
|
g**********y 发帖数: 14569 | 12 这个应该是正解,后踢进直接就赢,有点匪夷所思。
【在 l******d 的大作中提到】 : 我看到的是两方各一飞狗后,开始突然死亡,而不是后进飞狗的那方获胜。
|
b*******r 发帖数: 6655 | 13 就是没人放狗搜一下, 这个是去年超级杯以后就决定的旧闻, 仅仅是在飞狗以后比赛
并不自动结束,
还要把球权交给对方而已,其它保持不变. 失球一方飞狗成功则继续比赛, 所以仍然
是先进攻有利得
多, TD则大局已定, 飞狗也不输, 先防守方则必须玩命TD,否则飞狗打平仍然得交出
球权.
【在 l******d 的大作中提到】 : 我看到的是两方各一飞狗后,开始突然死亡,而不是后进飞狗的那方获胜。
|
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 14 Fine, but it takes field position out of play, whereas the very essence
of the game is gaining/losing territories.
【在 b**j 的大作中提到】 : 还是可以block FG啊。
|
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 15 Playing D first has its advantage too, knowing what the other side has put
up (asssuming it's not a game-winning TD), and they will go on 4th down if
need be, which instills an entire different mentality for the 1st 3 downs.
During a penalty shoot-out in soccer, the coin-toss winning team usually
chooses to defend first and shoot later, for the same logic.
【在 b*******r 的大作中提到】 : 就是没人放狗搜一下, 这个是去年超级杯以后就决定的旧闻, 仅仅是在飞狗以后比赛 : 并不自动结束, : 还要把球权交给对方而已,其它保持不变. 失球一方飞狗成功则继续比赛, 所以仍然 : 是先进攻有利得 : 多, TD则大局已定, 飞狗也不输, 先防守方则必须玩命TD,否则飞狗打平仍然得交出 : 球权.
|
l******d 发帖数: 1633 | 16 如果先进攻方FG,先防守方在获得球权后没有得分(没有FG or TD),比赛要继续么?
【在 b*******r 的大作中提到】 : 就是没人放狗搜一下, 这个是去年超级杯以后就决定的旧闻, 仅仅是在飞狗以后比赛 : 并不自动结束, : 还要把球权交给对方而已,其它保持不变. 失球一方飞狗成功则继续比赛, 所以仍然 : 是先进攻有利得 : 多, TD则大局已定, 飞狗也不输, 先防守方则必须玩命TD,否则飞狗打平仍然得交出 : 球权.
|
s********k 发帖数: 6180 | 17 Sorry,这个是正解。刚才看错了。
【在 g**********y 的大作中提到】 : 这个应该是正解,后踢进直接就赢,有点匪夷所思。
|
s********k 发帖数: 6180 | 18 还有一点不太明白:如果先进攻方被INT,对手打了个飞狗,比赛还要继续还是就结束?
【在 s********k 的大作中提到】 : Sorry,这个是正解。刚才看错了。
|
L*******r 发帖数: 5448 | 19 那显然就是先进攻方赢了啊
【在 l******d 的大作中提到】 : 如果先进攻方FG,先防守方在获得球权后没有得分(没有FG or TD),比赛要继续么?
|
o*******6 发帖数: 6113 | |
|
|
e*w 发帖数: 1185 | 21 game is over in this case.
束?
【在 s********k 的大作中提到】 : 还有一点不太明白:如果先进攻方被INT,对手打了个飞狗,比赛还要继续还是就结束?
|
x******2 发帖数: 4034 | 22 那扔球的裁判肯定被压成肉饼了
【在 o*******6 的大作中提到】 : 也可以考虑在中场跳球决定球权啊
|
e*w 发帖数: 1185 | 23 这种情况怎么算:
A队punt,B队碰到球了但没接住,被A队recover了,A队然后来了个FG,B队还
有机会进攻吗?还是比赛结束了?
【在 s********k 的大作中提到】 : 先进攻一方只是飞狗不算获胜,要给进攻权给对手,如果对手也成功飞狗,那对手胜。 : 但是先进攻一方TD,那么立即获胜。有点意思,game plan更难了。
|
l******d 发帖数: 1633 | 24 我觉得是比赛结束。B队算是有过一次possession了。
【在 e*w 的大作中提到】 : 这种情况怎么算: : A队punt,B队碰到球了但没接住,被A队recover了,A队然后来了个FG,B队还 : 有机会进攻吗?还是比赛结束了?
|
m*******r 发帖数: 3635 | 25 哦,那倒是,是比较复杂啊
【在 B*****e 的大作中提到】 : It removes the entire special team play -- kicking, punting, receiving -- : from the game. What's good about that?
|
t*******n 发帖数: 417 | 26 这个规则有点脑残。假设双方来回拉锯10个回合不得分。第十一个回合飞狗还不算赢,
ft
【在 s********k 的大作中提到】 : 先进攻一方只是飞狗不算获胜,要给进攻权给对手,如果对手也成功飞狗,那对手胜。 : 但是先进攻一方TD,那么立即获胜。有点意思,game plan更难了。
|
l******e 发帖数: 12192 | 27 这个不好
应该是双方至少都有一次possession,然后就突然死亡。
【在 t*******n 的大作中提到】 : 这个规则有点脑残。假设双方来回拉锯10个回合不得分。第十一个回合飞狗还不算赢, : ft
|
t*******n 发帖数: 417 | 28 这个规则有点脑残。假设双方来回拉锯10个回合不得分。第十一个回合飞狗还不算赢,
ft
【在 s********k 的大作中提到】 : 先进攻一方只是飞狗不算获胜,要给进攻权给对手,如果对手也成功飞狗,那对手胜。 : 但是先进攻一方TD,那么立即获胜。有点意思,game plan更难了。
|
b*******r 发帖数: 6655 | 29 over
If a field goal is made on the first possession of overtime, the other
team gains possession. If that team scores a touchdown, game over. If it
kicks a field goal to tie, then the next team to score wins. The only way
the game ends on the first possession is if that team scores a touchdown
or if the defense forces a safety or returns a turnover for a score
【在 l******d 的大作中提到】 : 如果先进攻方FG,先防守方在获得球权后没有得分(没有FG or TD),比赛要继续么?
|
b*******r 发帖数: 6655 | 30 现行规则就是确保双方至少都有一次possession,然后就突然死亡。
【在 l******e 的大作中提到】 : 这个不好 : 应该是双方至少都有一次possession,然后就突然死亡。
|
|
|
l******e 发帖数: 12192 | 31 这样就make sense了
【在 b*******r 的大作中提到】 : 现行规则就是确保双方至少都有一次possession,然后就突然死亡。
|
b*******r 发帖数: 6655 | 32 即使多一些确定性, 防守永远是被动的,
足球罚点球的时候选择先罚后罚基本是平等的, 就是双方同时罚点球也互相不影响,
都是孤立事件.
与场上攻防转换完全不同.
【 在 BigBlue (#15) 的大作中提到: 】
put
if
downs. |
m******m 发帖数: 11847 | 33 这还差不多
【在 l******d 的大作中提到】 : 我看到的是两方各一飞狗后,开始突然死亡,而不是后进飞狗的那方获胜。
|
r**********g 发帖数: 22734 | 34 usfl的规则就是这样,nfl也是与时俱进
下一个要改的就是什么有forward movement算incomplete pass,四分卫手上敲下来就
是fumble
【在 m******m 的大作中提到】 : 这还差不多
|
M******k 发帖数: 27573 | 35 你没看懂吧,只要双方各自有过一次球权,剩下的就是突然死亡了。
【在 t*******n 的大作中提到】 : 这个规则有点脑残。假设双方来回拉锯10个回合不得分。第十一个回合飞狗还不算赢, : ft
|
k******a 发帖数: 2436 | 36 A lot of wrong info or half truth in this thread.
If the receiving team has a turnover the game becomes suddendeath.
If the receiving team can not score in the first possession the game becomes
suddendeath.
If the kicking team scores a safety in the first possession the game is over.
【在 s********k 的大作中提到】 : 先进攻一方只是飞狗不算获胜,要给进攻权给对手,如果对手也成功飞狗,那对手胜。 : 但是先进攻一方TD,那么立即获胜。有点意思,game plan更难了。
|
k******a 发帖数: 2436 | 37 No that is not true.
The receiving team can score a td in opening drive.
The kicking team can score a safety in the receiving team's opening drive.
The receiving team may not score but punt and get the ball back due to punt
return turnover. In these cases only one
team had possession and the game is either over or becomes sudden death.
【在 b*******r 的大作中提到】 : 现行规则就是确保双方至少都有一次possession,然后就突然死亡。
|
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 38 Not true. Since the very action of punting itself is considered giving up
possession of the ball, one can argue that the punt-receiving team already
has possession once -- they simply lose it immediately by not catching it
cleanly.
punt
【在 k******a 的大作中提到】 : No that is not true. : The receiving team can score a td in opening drive. : The kicking team can score a safety in the receiving team's opening drive. : The receiving team may not score but punt and get the ball back due to punt : return turnover. In these cases only one : team had possession and the game is either over or becomes sudden death.
|
k******a 发帖数: 2436 | 39 if the receiving team only touches the ball (e.g. the ball touches the head
of a player) they do not have control of the ball thus not a possession by
football terms. In that situation the ball is live and anyone can try to get
possession.
The same situation is if the punt at the end of the opening drive is blocked
, muffed, or somehow failed, and the ball touches a player of the receiving
team but they may never have possession. That is also a live ball and both
team have equal rights to get it.
In both cases, it becomes a sudden death game.
【在 B*****e 的大作中提到】 : Not true. Since the very action of punting itself is considered giving up : possession of the ball, one can argue that the punt-receiving team already : has possession once -- they simply lose it immediately by not catching it : cleanly. : : punt
|
w****1 发帖数: 2887 | 40
我怎么记得踢点球,都是希望先踢的呢。压力留给别人。
【在 B*****e 的大作中提到】 : Playing D first has its advantage too, knowing what the other side has put : up (asssuming it's not a game-winning TD), and they will go on 4th down if : need be, which instills an entire different mentality for the 1st 3 downs. : During a penalty shoot-out in soccer, the coin-toss winning team usually : chooses to defend first and shoot later, for the same logic.
|
|
|
m*r 发帖数: 37612 | 41 踢fg还要每个队员都踢才行,否则就是kicker pk了
20
【在 h*********r 的大作中提到】 : 那后进攻的不就占优势吗? : 因该打满15分钟,最后比分决胜负。如果还平,就FG决胜,像足球点球决胜一样。从20 : 码开始,每踢一次加5码。
|
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 42 My point is as soon as the ball is punted (across the LOS),
the defense team already has possession of the ball because the offense has
already given it up by the motion of punting.
If the defense/punt-receiving team subsequently muffs it, drops it, touches
it, WHATEVER, it's simply another change of possession, equating a turnover.
Heck, the defense can simply choose not to touch a punted ball at all, and
it's still their possession after it comes to a stop. I would say they have
a LOT of control of the ball in that situation, wouldn't you? They need to do NOTHING except AVOIDING the ball.
head
get
blocked
receiving
【在 k******a 的大作中提到】 : if the receiving team only touches the ball (e.g. the ball touches the head : of a player) they do not have control of the ball thus not a possession by : football terms. In that situation the ball is live and anyone can try to get : possession. : The same situation is if the punt at the end of the opening drive is blocked : , muffed, or somehow failed, and the ball touches a player of the receiving : team but they may never have possession. That is also a live ball and both : team have equal rights to get it. : In both cases, it becomes a sudden death game.
|
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 43 Why would you say that? consider
(1) We always hear the offense claiming "we'll take whatever the defense
gives us." Never the other way around, right?
(2) In 60 minutes of regulation, if an offense manage to score in 5, or
maybe 4, of 12 offensive drives, that's considered a success.
4 out of 12. In other words, in general, an offensive drive does NOT result in scoring; defense wins.
【在 b*******r 的大作中提到】 : 即使多一些确定性, 防守永远是被动的, : 足球罚点球的时候选择先罚后罚基本是平等的, 就是双方同时罚点球也互相不影响, : 都是孤立事件. : 与场上攻防转换完全不同. : 【 在 BigBlue (#15) 的大作中提到: 】 : put : if : downs.
|
b*******r 发帖数: 6655 | 44 Which party is more likely forced to do something, not by its choice?
offense or defense?
the success rate has nothing to do with passive or active. Basketball is
the easiest to score. Soccer is the most difficult. But defense is always
passive, waiting something to happen, and has far less freedom.
defense
result in scoring; defense wins.
【在 B*****e 的大作中提到】 : Why would you say that? consider : (1) We always hear the offense claiming "we'll take whatever the defense : gives us." Never the other way around, right? : (2) In 60 minutes of regulation, if an offense manage to score in 5, or : maybe 4, of 12 offensive drives, that's considered a success. : 4 out of 12. In other words, in general, an offensive drive does NOT result in scoring; defense wins.
|
M******k 发帖数: 27573 | 45 但是这个是突然死亡法带来的风险,和新规则无关啊.
have
to do NOTHING except AVOIDING the ball.
【在 B*****e 的大作中提到】 : Why would you say that? consider : (1) We always hear the offense claiming "we'll take whatever the defense : gives us." Never the other way around, right? : (2) In 60 minutes of regulation, if an offense manage to score in 5, or : maybe 4, of 12 offensive drives, that's considered a success. : 4 out of 12. In other words, in general, an offensive drive does NOT result in scoring; defense wins.
|