New OT rule is approved for postseason

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

You’re welcome 

 

what if there is a Pick 6 on the opening drive?

does one get the ball on an INT?

 

[1ManRaid]

1 hour ago, What a Tuel said:

Awesome! It is only right and should have been changed back when the Pats beat the Chiefs.

 

Or back when they implemented the "FG doesn't auto-win" rules for postseason, and Tim Tebow immediately went and showed that rule didn't go far enough.

[Shake_My_Head]

1 hour ago, wjag said:

Can't wait to figure out the unintended consequences of this rule and which coaches figure out how to manipulate it for their advantage.

What are you saying?  That if the team that wins the coin toss scores, they should just let the other team score as well, so they can then get the ball back and win it on the third posession??  😵

[wjag]

2 minutes ago, Shake_My_Head said:

What are you saying?  That if the team that wins the coin toss scores, they should just let the other team score as well, so they can then get the ball back and win it on the third posession??  😵

 

No the most obvious one stated, is to let the other team go first.  If they score a TD, then you know you need a TD and will go for it on 3rd and long or 4th and long.  If you know they only scored a FG, then you have the option of going for a FG or a TD.  Seems like it will always be easier coaching decisions to go second.  But then again, I don't know and I don't coach.

[Max Fischer]

Don't get why this isn't also for regular season. I assume they don't want games going on forever but you could institute two possessions and then a tie. 

[BillsFan4]

I’m not sure this is really that much less controversial.

 

Lets take the Bills - KC game for example:

 

KC gets the ball to start OT. Score a TD.

 

Bills get the ball. Score a TD.

 

KC gets the ball. Scores a TD or kicks a FG. Wins.

 

 

I don’t know, I guess I’m not seeing how that would be all that much better. It’s obviously less controversial if Buffalo gets the ball then doesn’t score a TD. But if they score a TD then KC wins on a TD or especially a FG, it would still feel like BS that Buffalo didn’t get a chance to match (again).

 

I think sudden death until one team fails to match the score of the other team would’ve made sense. So say KC scores. Buffalo scores. Then KC kicks a FG. Buffalo gets the ball back and if they score a TD they win. If they kick a FG, then KC gets the ball again. If neither happens buffalo obviously loses.

 

Or just playing a 10 minute OT like the Bills proposed. 

[stevestojan]

You just know this is going to bite us in the ass this year. Probably at the AFC Championship game. We score a TD in OT then lose. 

[MJS]

45 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

 

That makes sense too... Actually this could get interesting. 

 

If you take the ball 1st, you would get a potential 3rd possession if both teams score a TD. However, if you don't score a TD you are on the line to get beat by 1 play. A lot depends on the type of game. 

 

If it's a KC/BUF type game then you probably take the ball 1st since defense was not being played. But it's extremely unusual to see a TD-TD-TD type game. 

 

But in most games, I would still expect teams to choose to kick, because then they know what they need to win. 

You will never see a team choose to kick ever unless it is an extreme weather game and direction is more important.

 

I'm having trouble following your logic. If you take the ball and score, you can then prevent the other team from scoring to win the game, or if they do score, you have the first try at a sudden death score to win the game.

 

If you kick the ball, your opponent can go score, and then the pressure is on you to match them. Even if you do match them, you then give them the first shot of a sudden death score to win. No team is ever, ever going to take that risk.

10 minutes ago, Max Fischer said:

Don't get why this isn't also for regular season. I assume they don't want games going on forever but you could institute two possessions and then a tie. 

I believe it's because of the stats. If you look at the regular season overtime numbers, getting the ball first gives you only a small advantage, and usually the team doesn't win on that first possession. It usually takes multiple possessions to win.

 

The numbers are a lot different in the playoffs. The coin toss winner has a considerable advantage. I'm guessing this is because in the playoffs you have much higher instances of elite QB's and offenses in general.

 

So, I bet they are fine with the slight advantage in the regular season, but felt like they needed to do something to take away the considerable advantage in the playoffs.

[stevestojan]

Make it really interesting and have both kickers take turns attempting to hit the upright or cross bar. First to hit wins, with “last ups” for the kicker who goes second. 

 

Here’s why this works: Kickers are the leading point scorers on every team, this takes the coin toss out of it, it eliminates the fear of players getting exhausted if they go to multiple overtimes, puts a little extra thought into drafting kickers, late game decisions will be made based on your kicker being able to do a parlor trick, and someone’s foot will decide the outcome so we can stop having Brits tell us that soccer is the real football. 
 

I believe this is a win/win/win/win/win/win. 
 

 

[Patrick Duffy]

34 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

what if there is a Pick 6 on the opening drive?

does one get the ball on an INT?

 

That would be the ball game

[LABILLBACKER]

1 hour ago, 17islongenough said:

Sorry not a fan of the updated rule.   The winner of the coin toss still has an advantage 

Yes the winner of the coin toss has a huge advantage. If you win the toss of course you receive the ball. The whole point is to Immediately put your opponents "exhausted" defense right back on the field. Allowing your defense some rest. If both teams score tds, the first possession team can now win it with a sudden death fg. Deferring is not bright.

[Freddie's Dead]

Good to see the "We have to ***** the Bills before we change the rule" doctrine is still alive and well in the NFL!

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, KDIGGZ said:

When is the re-do game vs KC planned? Surely they saw how we got screwed and will give us another chance with the ball?

 

I think they saw how the Bills blew the lead in regulation and said "nah...that doesn't get a second chance".

[LABILLBACKER]

6 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

Good to see the "We have to ***** the Bills before we change the rule" doctrine is still alive and well in the NFL!

.....nothing changes.....

[LyndonvilleBill]

1 hour ago, Steptide said:

You may be right, but that's not necessarily a bad thing either. Personally I hate these ot conversations. Everyone has an opinion and nobody seems to agree when it comes to ot. Ideally I'd love the bills to always win in regulation 

Just take it out of all their hands and go with special teams and soccer style. FG's starting at the 30, move back 5 yards after each successful kick. Punters are football players too. ROTFL!!!😱🤣🤣🤣

[msw2112]

I don't think the OT rule screwed the Bills against the Chiefs.  The Bills screwed themselves.  That said, the rule change is an improvement over the existing rule.

[JustHewIt]

1 hour ago, MJS said:

You will never see a team choose to kick ever unless it is an extreme weather game and direction is more important.

 

I'm having trouble following your logic. If you take the ball and score, you can then prevent the other team from scoring to win the game, or if they do score, you have the first try at a sudden death score to win the game.

 

If you kick the ball, your opponent can go score, and then the pressure is on you to match them. Even if you do match them, you then give them the first shot of a sudden death score to win. No team is ever, ever going to take that risk.

If the Chiefs got it first and scored a touchdown and kicked and XP, then we would have driven down, scored, and went for a 2PC to win.

If the Chiefs got it first and kicked a FG, we'd drive it down with the knowledge of what we needed to do in certain scenarios to either extend the game or win it.

If the Chiefs got it first and turned the ball over, we'd know we can go more conservative only needing to get into FG range to win it.

If you possess the ball first, what do you do when it's 4th and 8 from the 20 yard line?  That's a lot harder to answer than it is for the team that's going second.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

1 hour ago, transient said:

You mean the Tampa game where they ignored the PI on Diggs in the endzone that would have allowed the Bills to win in regulation, but then in OT called a PI on Wallace when Mike Evans was pulling him into himself by the back of Wallace's helmet. This OT rule would obviously have requisite designed "Brady offsets" inherent in the way it's enforced.

The OT rule doesn’t change refs. 

[TheFunPolice]

1 hour ago, MJS said:

You will never see a team choose to kick ever unless it is an extreme weather game and direction is more important.

 

I'm having trouble following your logic. If you take the ball and score, you can then prevent the other team from scoring to win the game, or if they do score, you have the first try at a sudden death score to win the game.

 

If you kick the ball, your opponent can go score, and then the pressure is on you to match them. Even if you do match them, you then give them the first shot of a sudden death score to win. No team is ever, ever going to take that risk.

I believe it's because of the stats. If you look at the regular season overtime numbers, getting the ball first gives you only a small advantage, and usually the team doesn't win on that first possession. It usually takes multiple possessions to win.

 

The numbers are a lot different in the playoffs. The coin toss winner has a considerable advantage. I'm guessing this is because in the playoffs you have much higher instances of elite QB's and offenses in general.

 

So, I bet they are fine with the slight advantage in the regular season, but felt like they needed to do something to take away the considerable advantage in the playoffs.

 

Others have answered it already, but if you take the ball 1st you're in a conundrum every 4th down, whereas the other team can play 4 down football, unless you don't score at all. There's a lot of strategy involved that makes it interesting.

 

I could totally see the logic in taking the ball 1st, but I could also see the advantage of having it second.

 

If I win the toss and kick, it's because I know that if you score a TD  I'm going for 2 if I score a TD as well. I also have 4 downs every drive, for sure. 

 

Plus, my chances of getting 2 yards for 2 2 PT conversion with my best players are better than the chances of my exhausted defense preventing you from getting a FG (or more) on your second OT drive. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by TheFunPolice

[Buffalo_Stampede]

I have a question. What happens if the team kicking off in overtime recovers an untouched ball in the end zone for a TD? Is the game over? Example below.