Charles Romes Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 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. The best idea I saw floated was that each team would enter a blind bid for the yard line they would start at, lowest yard line wins. Can you imagine the press fodder relative to these coaching decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris heff Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 Are the college rules for OT better? They are entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 How about this? At the opening kickoff coin toss before the game, if you win the toss you have two choices: (1) get the ball to start both halves; or (2) get the ball to start OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted November 27, 2013 Share 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. Confusing? I'd hate to see a movie with you- "wait, I thought he was with them?" And I'm not even sure you know the rule- TD scored, game over. If the first team scores a FG, the second team can match. If both teams score a FG (like on Sunday), it becomes sudden death. It's not the least bit confusing. Believe me, there will come a time when the Bills lose the toss, the other team has a decent kick return and then the Bills get a sketchy roughing the passer call and suddenly the other team is in FG range and you will understand why they implemented the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThurmasThoman Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 The NFL is strange in that they are the only professional sport in which the overtime rules differ from the way the game is played during regulation. In the NHL, they play until someone scores a goal, and its fair. In MLB, they play as many innings necessary until a team comes out ahead. And in the NBA, they play 5 minute periods until a team wins. The NFL needs to adopt one of two policies: The first one, which I favor, is to embrace ties. For some reason, they are looked at as terrible in American sports. This baffles me. They are half a win, and for two professional teams battling for 60 minutes, sometimes half a win is a win. For instance, this season, the Bills would have had a half against the Bengals, the Jets would have a half win against the Patriots, and the Dolphins would have a half win against the Bengals as well, making everyone at the bottom of the East 4-6-1. It adds complexity to the playoff race, and makes strategies in the fourth quarter much more interesting. The second one, which I feel should be used in playoffs, is to just play another 15 minute quarter. This adds the element of comebacks and clock management to the overtime period, something which is lacking. Imagine a team going up 14-0 in overtime and then losing? Again, I think that this scenario should only be used in the playoffs, but I would love to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 The NFL is strange in that they are the only professional sport in which the overtime rules differ from the way the game is played during regulation. In the NHL, they play until someone scores a goal, and its fair. In MLB, they play as many innings necessary until a team comes out ahead. And in the NBA, they play 5 minute periods until a team wins. The NFL needs to adopt one of two policies: The first one, which I favor, is to embrace ties. For some reason, they are looked at as terrible in American sports. This baffles me. They are half a win, and for two professional teams battling for 60 minutes, sometimes half a win is a win. For instance, this season, the Bills would have had a half against the Bengals, the Jets would have a half win against the Patriots, and the Dolphins would have a half win against the Bengals as well, making everyone at the bottom of the East 4-6-1. It adds complexity to the playoff race, and makes strategies in the fourth quarter much more interesting. The second one, which I feel should be used in playoffs, is to just play another 15 minute quarter. This adds the element of comebacks and clock management to the overtime period, something which is lacking. Imagine a team going up 14-0 in overtime and then losing? Again, I think that this scenario should only be used in the playoffs, but I would love to see it. An additional quarter would be fair as well but I couldn't see the player's union going for that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 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. This is exactly what the rule is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr1 Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 If the game is tied after the 4th quarter, the teams should play Boom Boom Balloon to decide a winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 (edited) 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. I disagree there. Kicking is part of the game, and you have been kicking the ball all through regulation time, so why would you eliminate in from OT? The team with the better kicker/special teams would have an advantage, just like the team with a the better QB has an advantage. How about this? At the opening kickoff coin toss before the game, if you win the toss you have two choices: (1) get the ball to start both halves; or (2) get the ball to start OT. That might, then, interfere with the natural course of the game...more teams playing for tie, becasue they know they are getting the ball to start OT. This is exactly what the rule is now. Which, I suppose, proves the notion that is confusing! How about modeling it after hockey...if the game ends in a tie after one OT, each field goal kicker has to go out and match field goals with the other! Make those guys earn their pay-check! :lol: Edited November 27, 2013 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterpan Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 Why does overtime have to be a sudden death scenario? Why not just play out a full quarter? That's how basketball does it and it would be fine for the NFL. If 15 extra minutes is too long, shorten it to 10 or 12, that's what the NHL does. All problems solved. I didn't like the old rules but these new ones sure isn't a 'solution' to the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prissythecat Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 Confusing? I'd hate to see a movie with you- "wait, I thought he was with them?" And I'm not even sure you know the rule- TD scored, game over. If the first team scores a FG, the second team can match. If both teams score a FG (like on Sunday), it becomes sudden death. It's not the least bit confusing. Believe me, there will come a time when the Bills lose the toss, the other team has a decent kick return and then the Bills get a sketchy roughing the passer call and suddenly the other team is in FG range and you will understand why they implemented the rule. I agree . The new rules are pretty straightforward. Not sure why there are a lot of folks out there complaining about them. Its a lot fairer than having a team win based on winning the coin toss and then kicking a FG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 That might, then, interfere with the natural course of the game...more teams playing for tie, becasue they know they are getting the ball to start OT. The opposite is true too. if I know I won't get the ball in OT, I am not going to kneel at the end and play for OT if there are 20 secs left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 In MLB, they play as many innings necessary until a team comes out ahead. The parallel to the old rule in the NFL would be if the visiting team scores at the top of 10th inning game is over. MLB acknowledges that both teams need to have an equal shot on offense to score. NBA & NHL rules aren't comparable because offensive possessions aren't as regimented as in football & baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 (edited) The opposite is true too. if I know I won't get the ball in OT, I am not going to kneel at the end and play for OT if there are 20 secs left. The likelihood of a team getting the ball to start both halves and have the game still go to OT would seem pretty low IMO. For most teams, that would be a solid 6 minutes of possession. The parallel to the old rule in the NFL would be if the visiting team scores at the top of 10th inning game is over. MLB acknowledges that both teams need to have an equal shot on offense to score. NBA & NHL rules aren't comparable because offensive possessions aren't as regimented as in football & baseball. I like the idea of having the same rule as basketball. Have a 10 minute OT. Team that is leading at the end wins. If no one scores or the score is the same after 10 minutes, it's a tie. I understand that in the NBA both teams have a fair advantage in possessions but 10 minutes is more than enough time for both teams to be able to score. Edited November 27, 2013 by The Wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 The thing I don't like about it is it changes the strategy to something that doesn't really happen in a game. If the first team kicks a FG, the other team will go for it on 4th down every time until they get into FG range. The first team did it without knowing it had to go for it on 4th down. It's just goofy. I like the old format. Yeah it may not be 100% totally fair, but you gotta end it somehow. The new way is not totally fair either. The WFL played an extra quarter and I remember watching a game where each team score 10 points or something like that and it still ended in a tie. Please, no college style overtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted November 27, 2013 Share 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. Do you have a link to that? I'm curious to see more of the numbers. How many of those games ended in OT because of kick return for a TD, or a long play for a TD... essentially plays that would end the game for the winner of the coin flip now. Personally, I liked the sudden death OT. It added drama and intensity, the same way a single game wins the Championship. But, fine, if that's not fair. However, the new way still has inherent biases. I say, do a basketball type OT.. maybe 8min periods? 10min? With no TV timeouts!! 5 seems too short, but a full quarter seems too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve O Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 As long as we're floating ideas, how about sudden death but you only get 3 downs in ot instead of 4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsoldier54 Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 Confusing? I'd hate to see a movie with you- "wait, I thought he was with them?" And I'm not even sure you know the rule- TD scored, game over. If the first team scores a FG, the second team can match. If both teams score a FG (like on Sunday), it becomes sudden death. It's not the least bit confusing. Believe me, there will come a time when the Bills lose the toss, the other team has a decent kick return and then the Bills get a sketchy roughing the passer call and suddenly the other team is in FG range and you will understand why they implemented the rule. I'm not the only one that finds it confusing. I have heard many others say the same thing and as for watching a movie, I have no trouble following plots thank you very much. It is a stupid rule. It still doesn't ensure that both teams get at least one possession, so why bother? Even your explanation was so long winded that it proves my point. Dumb rule. Sudden death from the get go was much more exciting and entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 I'm not the only one that finds it confusing. I have heard many others say the same thing and as for watching a movie, I have no trouble following plots thank you very much. It is a stupid rule. It still doesn't ensure that both teams get at least one possession, so why bother? Even your explanation was so long winded that it proves my point. Dumb rule. Sudden death from the get go was much more exciting and entertaining. Im not sure that his explanation was that long winded, when you take out his jokes about you.... "TD scored, game over. If the first team scores a FG, the second team can match. If both teams score a FG (like on Sunday), it becomes sudden death" the only thing i dislike on the new rule was the previously mentioned change in strategy on 4th downs that occurs if the first team get a FG part of me still thinks simply run it like you are transitioning from the 3rd to the 4th quarter (flip sides) and play sudden death from wherever you finished. sure it eliminates the 2 minute drill in a tied game, but i think it eliminates some weirdness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloboyinATL Posted November 27, 2013 Share 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. I think the first team on D should be rewarded for making a stop and therefore allowed to win by a field goal, the way it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts