orange79
Internet Sleuth
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 42,506
- Like
- 132,715
If it's the same possession, which in this case it wouldn't be, because they turned over the ball.No, because they can get a new set of Downs in OT.
If it's the same possession, which in this case it wouldn't be, because they turned over the ball.No, because they can get a new set of Downs in OT.
I guess I was zoomed in on the “new set of downs” dialogue, and not the possession argument. What you say makes sense to me. I was just refuting a seeming assertion (albeit not your assertion) that the team on offense, in their possession, cannot get a fresh set of downs.Yeah, but they never lost possession in that case because the fumble is voided with acceptance of the penalty.
With no penalty, we clearly had possession of the ball. Which means if we fumbled and Wake gets it back, that's another possession.
OT rule says each team gets a possession.
It's too bad we didn't get to the 5th OT because then it's a 2 point conversion contest, which happened in VT vs UNC this year. Doesn't it sound so exciting??? (points gun toward head, pulls trigger).
Huh? I'm not a gambler (I assume the guy who noted the anamolly knows his stuff though), and I am not a mathematician, but I do not see how being 2 touchdowns below the over with 50 seconds left in the game is "a relatively good chance" of reaching the over.
Of course, going to overtime makes it more probably, but there were several outcomes that still could have happened to avoid the over - one team doesnt score, and the other makes a field goal, or one team doesnt score and the other gets a touchdown. Hell, if Trill just fell down, they dont beat the over.
fair enoughjust saying it was a heckuva lot higher than "virtually no chance" like i was responding to.