Estro Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 Our own Ross Tucker wrote a great article detailing why these new OT rules suck. I whole heartedly agree: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2013-11-26/packers-vikings-tie-overtime-rules-ross-tucker Another point not made in the article: NFL declares that it's not fair if the first team gets the ball and kicks a FG to win the game. But if the first team scores a FG, the opposing team matches with a FG of their own, now the first team gets the ball for a second time and kicks a FG again to win. Couldn't the second team still argue that the other team had 2 opportunities and they only had one? That was always my main complaint about the new rule. If you're so concerned about equal chances, go win the damn game in regulation or play some damn defense in OT and get the ball back. After all defense is just as much a part of the game as offense right.
metzelaars_lives Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 Nope, the new OT rule is great. It's a perfect compromise. Obviously the old rule had to change- high scoring game, both teams moving the ball at will, all you needed was to get the ball to the other team's 35 to win. And obviously the NFL isn't going to go the route of college OT where a 35-35 game suddenly becomes 67- 61. So it is really a perfect compromise. I have thought about it much and evidently I am in disagreement with you and Ross Tucker- whose opinion I respect a fair amount- but there will never be a rule that everyone agrees upon. Oh well. I am willing to bet that most sensible posters will agree that it is in fact a pretty fair rule. Hey, if Green Bay wanted to win then they should've gone for it. It makes for a pretty interesting decision if you get the ball first.
Webster Guy Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 The number is 60%. I just saw a study from 8 nfl seasons and if you lose the coin toss you have only a 40% chance of winning. It was from 124 OT games. Most people, including me, feel that flipping a coin shouldn't play such a big role in a football game. You and Tucker think it should. I'd rather put the result on skill and playing the game instead of how a referee flips a coin.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 1) There is no perfect solution 2) The new rule is better than the old rule, IMO. 3) Tucker's piece is basically an op-ed and he uses no stats to back up his opinion and kind of ignores the fact that under the old rule, teams could play to a tie. The relevant question to me is this: Under the old rule, how many times did the team winning the coin flip win the game? The number is 60%. I just saw a study from 8 nfl seasons and if you lose the coin toss you have only a 40% chance of winning. It was from 124 OT games. Most people, including me, feel that flipping a coin shouldn't play such a big role in a football game. You and Tucker think it should. I'd rather put the result on skill and playing the game instead of how a referee flips a coin. Thank you. I think Tucker is wrong.
QB Bills Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 (edited) The overtime rule is dumb. First team to score should be the winner. The problem with the old rule was that they kept the kickoff play the same as in regulation. To make it fair, they should have changed it where getting the ball at the start of ot is not any more or less favourable than giving the other team the ball. For example, you win the toss and if you want the ball, you automatically start at your own 5 yard line. Or 10, or whatever is deemed to be that median area. If you don't want the ball, the other team starts with it at that same spot on their side of the field. No kickoffs, just a drive start at a set point on the field. Problem solved. Edited November 27, 2013 by QB Bills
Buftex Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 I like the new OT rules...a lot. No kickoffs, just a drive start at a set point on the field. Problem solved. Not a horrible idea, but as long as the kicking game is still part of the NFL, they really shouldn't eliminate it in overtime...but, there are those who feel the NFL is trying to phase the kicking game out...once that happens....
QB Bills Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 I like the new OT rules...a lot. Not a horrible idea, but as long as the kicking game is still part of the NFL, they really shouldn't eliminate it in overtime...but, there are those who feel the NFL is trying to phase the kicking game out...once that happens.... It is, but there is no way to keep the kicking game in ot and have it still be a fair shot to both teams. Unless you make ot two halves also and both teams take turns kicking off. Which nobody wants. It's a small concession to make in order to have a truly fair chance for both teams. Ross tucker is absolutely right. The new rules are not balanced.
PromoTheRobot Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 The current OT rules are an improvement but still dumb IMO. It's like a baseball extra innings, except letting the team that bats first win if they hit a home run. Same thing as ending the game on a TD. I don't care a lick about how you ought to stop them on defense. To me an even game gives each team the ball. Period. They do it in college and the world didn't end. No one had an aneurysm trying to keep track of possessions. I wouldn't do the way college does it with starting at the 25 but I would make sure each side has a possession before going into sudden death. PTR
reddogblitz Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 I liked it the way it was. what happened in the vikings game Sunday is exactly what I expected. A tie where both teams kick a FG. It wasn't broke and didn't need to be fixed IMHO.
Wayne Cubed Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 The number is 60%. I just saw a study from 8 nfl seasons and if you lose the coin toss you have only a 40% chance of winning. It was from 124 OT games. Most people, including me, feel that flipping a coin shouldn't play such a big role in a football game. You and Tucker think it should. I'd rather put the result on skill and playing the game instead of how a referee flips a coin. Agreed. There is no way a coin flip should determine the winner of a NFL game. If thats the way Ross thinks it should be played, why not let the first coin flip determine the game. Games tied at 0-0 to start, first team to score wins.
xsoldier54 Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 Nope, the new OT rule is great. It's a perfect compromise. Obviously the old rule had to change- high scoring game, both teams moving the ball at will, all you needed was to get the ball to the other team's 35 to win. And obviously the NFL isn't going to go the route of college OT where a 35-35 game suddenly becomes 67- 61. So it is really a perfect compromise. I have thought about it much and evidently I am in disagreement with you and Ross Tucker- whose opinion I respect a fair amount- but there will never be a rule that everyone agrees upon. Oh well. I am willing to bet that most sensible posters will agree that it is in fact a pretty fair rule. Hey, if Green Bay wanted to win then they should've gone for it. It makes for a pretty interesting decision if you get the ball first. The rule is confusing and stupid. If the team that wins the coin toss scores a touchdown, they win, if they don't score and the second team kicks a field goal, the first team still gets the ball back. It's stupid. Sudden death works best.
quikchomp Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 I like the new rule, it's more fair than the previous rule. And I don't see what the big deal with a tie is. After 75 minutes of play, neither team has shown to be better, so neither deserve to win, neither deserve to lose. Fair result.
GG Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 When there are overwhelming statistics that a simple coin flip affects the outcome of a game, then the rule must be changed. And thankfully it was.
Metal Man Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 The rule is confusing and stupid. If the team that wins the coin toss scores a touchdown, they win, if they don't score and the second team kicks a field goal, the first team still gets the ball back. It's stupid. Sudden death works best. I don't think this is the way it works. If the team that wins the toss doesn't score at all the game becomes sudden death. The only real difference from the old rule is that if the team who wins the toss kicks a field goal the other team gets one possession to try and beat or match it.
xsoldier54 Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 I don't think this is the way it works. If the team that wins the toss doesn't score at all the game becomes sudden death. The only real difference from the old rule is that if the team who wins the toss kicks a field goal the other team gets one possession to try and beat or match it. Still don't like it. I had a hard time explaining it to one of my friends and it seems that even I got it wrong. Reinforces my point that it is confusing. I don't recall anyone complaining about the old rule. Sudden death creates a sense of urgency right from the get go. This way one team can just settle for trying to hold the other team from scoring a touchdown, whereas before they had to be more on top of their game defensively. Don't like it at all.
Max997 Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 the main problem is FGs are too easy now for these kickers and teams only need to get a few first downs to get in range I think its time to shorten the width of the goal posts to make them a little harder to make
H2o Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 We should go with a OT setup similar to the NCAA, only I would have teams starting @ the 35 or 40 yard line so they have to put in a little work to get a solid FG attempt.
jletha Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 (edited) This article lost me with “every kid in little league gets a trophy”. The rule wasnt changed because the league wanted to make sure it didnt hurt the other teams feelings. Just because there were have been a couple ties doesnt mean this is a flawed system. If a game is very evenly matched then a tie may be a good result. The old system was ridiculous by not even giving the other team the ball a lot of times. I know American sports dont like ties at all but they do add a lot to playoff races and make for interesting scenarios down the road. Im not saying the system is perfect but it is much better than it was. If you're so concerned about equal chances, go win the damn game in regulation or play some damn defense in OT and get the ball back. After all defense is just as much a part of the game as offense right. Im sure teams haven't thought about this. Interesting approach, have you tried contacting the NFL regarding this? Edited November 27, 2013 by jletha
oman128 Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 there should be a winner and loser at the end of the game not a tie. At the end of 15 minutes they should bring out the Kickers put the ball at the 30 yard line and kick a field goal. if they both make it, then they move back 5 yards first person to miss their team loses.
BuffaloBill Posted November 27, 2013 Posted November 27, 2013 Maybe the rule change should be no field goals in OT. First team to get a Td wins. That's simple and it makes it far less likely that the coin toss determines the outcome. A nuance on the same theme is maybe a Fg can't win it on first possession but once both teams have had the ball once a FG can win in sudden death.
Recommended Posts