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.
I like it as well
Yeah, right now I have to agree with this.
Obviously both teams were scoring no matter what the situation.....unusual but entertaining (mostly I guess).
Teams yesterday forgot how to play situational football.
Rules are rules but your reference to Stafford is confusing.
What did he do yesterday? Do you mean win in regulation?
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.
And fuck no to the college OT rules.
If you really want to make it fair you need to give teams an equal number of possessions with the home team having the choice of whether to kick or receive. Get rid of the coin flip in OT.
Leave as is and let the coin toss decide the game?
I agree with your comment. They know to keep them out of the end zone. But by OT both defenses are gassed and only one side gets exposed at the end.
I dunno. I'm just thinking out loud.
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.)