There is a lot of back and forth about how overtime should be handled. Scoring a TD is an automatic win but if you kick a FG, the other team gets a shot.
Arguments can be made to support whatever your position is on whether this is fair.
I would propose to handle overtime differently. Each overtime period would be set for a fixed amount of time. A shortened period (5 minutes or 7 minutes, etc). This way, you play it out like it is just an extension of the end of the 4th quarter.
In the regular season, if both teams are still tied at the end of the shortened period, then it ends in a tie. If it is playoffs, you play for an additional period.
It is just an idea... the current format just does not sit well with me.
Sudden death is fine but after each team gets possession.
That game was decided on a coin toss and that is just fucked up.
All it takes to ensure both sides get to touch the ball at least once in OT is playing defense. No sympathy if you can't hold a team to a FG with the game on the line
Quote:
to ensure both sides get to touch the ball at least once in OT.
Sudden death is fine but after each team gets possession.
That game was decided on a coin toss and that is just fucked up.
All it takes to ensure both sides get to touch the ball at least once in OT is playing defense. No sympathy if you can't hold a team to a FG with the game on the line
Fair enough. I do have a lot of sympathy.
I still think both defenses should be on the field at least once before the deciding factor.
In any case, the Bills let the Chiefs score a field goal in 13 seconds. I was rooting for the Bills and that was just devastating.
I assume then that you prefer going back to true sudden death, with even a field goal ending the game on the first possession? That was the rule for a much longer time than the current format. Or no overtime at all, since that was the original rule?
If one likes the current format, so be it. But it's silly to say we should keep a rule just... because. Improvements to the game should always be sought after, even if they change longstanding procedures.
Sudden death is fine but after each team gets possession.
That game was decided on a coin toss and that is just fucked up.
There is only one outcome where a team does not get the ball in OT: allowing a TD. Get a stop, force a turnover, hold your opponent to a FG - any of those result in you getting the ball back.
The #1 defense lost that game both at the end of regulation and again in OT, much more than the coin toss.
Both teams should have to make a stop to win though.
Even if the rule was different, the outcome would not have been.
Let's play it out (with both teams touching the ball)
Chiefs score. Do we think there defense is stopping the Bills from scoring? Probably not!
So now we're tied in OT with the Chiefs getting a 2nd possession.
Does anyone in here think that the Bills defense is stopping Mahommes from getting into fg range??
Quote:
Rules are rules and they've worked for a very long time.
I assume then that you prefer going back to true sudden death, with even a field goal ending the game on the first possession? That was the rule for a much longer time than the current format. Or no overtime at all, since that was the original rule?
If one likes the current format, so be it. But it's silly to say we should keep a rule just... because. Improvements to the game should always be sought after, even if they change longstanding procedures.
The rules have changed in a way which makes it more difficult for defenses. That said the current rule is not hateful. There is no reason to change unless you are giving both teams an equal number of possessions.
Why should one team have to "learn to play defense" and not the other?
If nobody wins in the first 5 minutes, you have the kickers alternate 40 yard field goals. If both make them, you move back 5 yards and try again. You keep moving back until someone wins. If both miss on the same yardage attempt, each team picks a QC coach and they fight to the death at the 50 yard line.
Eh, in the NHL playoffs the OT rules are different than regular season. Full 5v5 and full periods until a goal is scored.
I definitely don't mind the NFL OT rules for the regular season, but agree that in the playoffs both teams should get a possession.
I'd be mad if it was the Giants but there's nothing wrong with the rule.
Agreed. Can't just keep changing things to favor the QB's even more. When does it end?
You can fair catch a pooch kick and take no time off the clock.
It is the other teams job to keep them out of the endzone if they lose the toss.
A 5-minute drive for a FG is all it would take to make sure your opponent stays off the field. Using last night's game as an example, I'm pretty sure KC scored with 10:45 remaining, and the scoring play was 1st-and-goal from the 8 yard line.
If it was a 5 minute OT period, KC could have just gone into victory formation twice and kicked a FG with time expiring.
I don't hate the idea of ensuring that both teams get the ball once no matter what, but does anyone think the outcome would have been different? Let's say Buffalo does get the ball, and they do score a TD to tie the game back up. Is there much doubt that KC would have just marched down the field again?
And if you do change the rule to ensure both teams get a possession, what happens if the first team to get the ball throws a pick-6? Is the game then over? Shouldn't the opposing defense get a chance to match their opponent also?
Here's a link to some interesting OT stats (it's from 2020, but contains some good info).
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
flip! IT was deciced by the ST coach that did no have his team pooch kick and burn at least 4 secs ... It was lost by a DC and defense that played not to lose ...
You can fair catch a pooch kick and take no time off the clock.
True, but if you kick it to, say, the 5 or even 10 yard line an the receiving team takes a fair catch to preserve the clock, you're gaining some yardage in the process vs. a touchback.
The only thing worse than a touchback in last night's scenario would have been kicking the ball out of bounds.
Quote:
flip! IT was deciced by the ST coach that did no have his team pooch kick and burn at least 4 secs ... It was lost by a DC and defense that played not to lose ...
You can fair catch a pooch kick and take no time off the clock.
True that why the kick is HIGH and SHORT so eitrher start under the 25 or try and make a play ... so still to the kicking teams advantage ... now the team has a further distance to travel.
Classy.
If changed to a each team is allowed a possession. I'm sure the winner of the coin toss will defer. This allows an advantage to a team that knows what it has to accomplish. Allowing the use of all 4 downs, and whether it has to kick a FG or score a TD.
Knowing you have to play a full period in OT makes the game more like the end of regulation. Which we saw in yesterday's games is thrilling.
Quote:
You want to win? Win. Like Stafford did. Rules are rules and they've worked for a very long time.
Rules are rules but your reference to Stafford is confusing.
What did he do yesterday? Do you mean win in regulation?
Yes, win in regulation. Buffalo took a chance on a coin flip and lost. Maybe they should have gone for two when they were up 2 with 13 seconds left.
Quote:
In comment 15571342 rnargi said:
Quote:
Rules are rules and they've worked for a very long time.
I assume then that you prefer going back to true sudden death, with even a field goal ending the game on the first possession? That was the rule for a much longer time than the current format. Or no overtime at all, since that was the original rule?
If one likes the current format, so be it. But it's silly to say we should keep a rule just... because. Improvements to the game should always be sought after, even if they change longstanding procedures.
The rules have changed in a way which makes it more difficult for defenses. That said the current rule is not hateful. There is no reason to change unless you are giving both teams an equal number of possessions.
Yes,Mike, I preferred the original sudden death. Particularly when George Carlin compared it to baseball, lol!
If the game ended in a 10 - 10 tie I'd agree.
But modern playoff teams are more likely to engage in a shootout, and then the comment "decided by a flip of a coin" seems to apply. (KC couldn't stop Jones either.)
If nobody wins in the first 5 minutes, you have the kickers alternate 40 yard field goals. If both make them, you move back 5 yards and try again. You keep moving back until someone wins. If both miss on the same yardage attempt, each team picks a QC coach and they fight to the death at the 50 yard line.
Big difference between NFL and NHL.
You want the better team to eventually win.
There are far fewer field players on a hockey team. The goalies defend against the teams on the field at the end.
In a FG shootout the result depends on one specialized player out of 22 starters (plus SS) on the team. Not nearly as representative.
+1
To the extent that you're solving a problem with this, do you really think the outcome of the game last night would have been any different?
Buffalo probably does go right down the field and scores the game, and then KC probably answers right back again.
And we'd have people complaining that KC got the ball twice but Buffalo only got it once.
Quote:
If the first drive results in a TD. it’s not that hard…
To the extent that you're solving a problem with this, do you really think the outcome of the game last night would have been any different?
Buffalo probably does go right down the field and scores the game, and then KC probably answers right back again.
And we'd have people complaining that KC got the ball twice but Buffalo only got it once.
KC would never get the ball back. Buffalo would have gone for 2. Anyone with semblance of a brain knew Buffalo was done defensively. if Buffalo scores, their best shot to win was getting 2 yards with Josh Allen.
I know yesterday was unfortunate because the Bills didn't get the ball in what was an all-time great shootout. I know that the NFL is more offensive oriented than ever.
But on average, it is still heavily in the defenses favor that they'll atleast stop the offense from scoring a TD. That 32% number above is also taking into account all drives. The number for drives started after a kickoff is even less than that number.
I would still heavily consider a scenario where both teams get the ball regardless of the situation. I'd vote "YES" on that. But I also don't think the OT rules are totally flawed, the defense still needs to step up. But obviously in games like last night, that is unlikely to happen.
Quote:
If the first drive results in a TD. it’s not that hard…
To the extent that you're solving a problem with this, do you really think the outcome of the game last night would have been any different?
Buffalo probably does go right down the field and scores the game, and then KC probably answers right back again.
And we'd have people complaining that KC got the ball twice but Buffalo only got it once.
Last I checked the defense has a say in the outcome. Stop the other teams offense or cause a turnover.
People need to realize this is a team game. The defense is critical to winning. The rules are fine. They made it so the team with first possession has to score a TD or the other team gets possession.
Quote:
In comment 15571601 Dave in PA said:
Quote:
If the first drive results in a TD. it’s not that hard…
To the extent that you're solving a problem with this, do you really think the outcome of the game last night would have been any different?
Buffalo probably does go right down the field and scores the game, and then KC probably answers right back again.
And we'd have people complaining that KC got the ball twice but Buffalo only got it once.
KC would never get the ball back. Buffalo would have gone for 2. Anyone with semblance of a brain knew Buffalo was done defensively. if Buffalo scores, their best shot to win was getting 2 yards with Josh Allen.
That's very possible. I've thought about that, too. But Buffalo wasn't exactly gaining an edge with ST strategy last night (like the kickoff at the end of regulation), so we can't necessarily assume they'd have made the right choice there, although I do agree with you that going for two would be the call.
But the flip side is that if the rule was different, and both teams are guaranteed a possession, would KC defer and then they'd be the ones going for 2 to win? And in that case, isn't the coin toss still deciding the game?
This
The defense yesterday was abysmal
Quote:
In comment 15571645 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15571601 Dave in PA said:
Quote:
If the first drive results in a TD. it’s not that hard…
To the extent that you're solving a problem with this, do you really think the outcome of the game last night would have been any different?
Buffalo probably does go right down the field and scores the game, and then KC probably answers right back again.
And we'd have people complaining that KC got the ball twice but Buffalo only got it once.
KC would never get the ball back. Buffalo would have gone for 2. Anyone with semblance of a brain knew Buffalo was done defensively. if Buffalo scores, their best shot to win was getting 2 yards with Josh Allen.
That's very possible. I've thought about that, too. But Buffalo wasn't exactly gaining an edge with ST strategy last night (like the kickoff at the end of regulation), so we can't necessarily assume they'd have made the right choice there, although I do agree with you that going for two would be the call.
But the flip side is that if the rule was different, and both teams are guaranteed a possession, would KC defer and then they'd be the ones going for 2 to win? And in that case, isn't the coin toss still deciding the game?
Maybe. I dont think there is an easy answer to any of it. I think it was just a situation where pretty much th ecoin flip winner decided the outcome.
Ive toyed with the idea of playing a 5th quarter, but I am not sure the answer is there either.
The thing that sucked last night is OT was about a anti-climatic as possible. Which kind of ruined what was a great game. I hate the college version as well.
OT just seems to be whatever you decide, it causes problems.
Quote:
In comment 15571647 GNewGiants said:
Quote:
In comment 15571645 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15571601 Dave in PA said:
Quote:
If the first drive results in a TD. it’s not that hard…
To the extent that you're solving a problem with this, do you really think the outcome of the game last night would have been any different?
Buffalo probably does go right down the field and scores the game, and then KC probably answers right back again.
And we'd have people complaining that KC got the ball twice but Buffalo only got it once.
KC would never get the ball back. Buffalo would have gone for 2. Anyone with semblance of a brain knew Buffalo was done defensively. if Buffalo scores, their best shot to win was getting 2 yards with Josh Allen.
That's very possible. I've thought about that, too. But Buffalo wasn't exactly gaining an edge with ST strategy last night (like the kickoff at the end of regulation), so we can't necessarily assume they'd have made the right choice there, although I do agree with you that going for two would be the call.
But the flip side is that if the rule was different, and both teams are guaranteed a possession, would KC defer and then they'd be the ones going for 2 to win? And in that case, isn't the coin toss still deciding the game?
Maybe. I dont think there is an easy answer to any of it. I think it was just a situation where pretty much th ecoin flip winner decided the outcome.
Ive toyed with the idea of playing a 5th quarter, but I am not sure the answer is there either.
The thing that sucked last night is OT was about a anti-climatic as possible. Which kind of ruined what was a great game. I hate the college version as well.
OT just seems to be whatever you decide, it causes problems.
Last night was such a perfect storm, and had such a wild few minutes in regulation, that OT was bound to be somewhat anticlimactic, most likely.
But I'm not going to shed any tears for the losing team that could have executed better on specials and defense at the end of regulation to prevent the situation where their offense didn't get one last chance to bail them out again.
If nobody wins in the first 5 minutes, you have the kickers alternate 40 yard field goals. If both make them, you move back 5 yards and try again. You keep moving back until someone wins. If both miss on the same yardage attempt, each team picks a QC coach and they fight to the death at the 50 yard line.
Wtf... lol