Overtime Rule change for playoffs

[Pokerbrat2000]

Finally! The NFL is taking a step in the right direction to fix overtime, at least in the playoffs.

NFL owners approve modified overtime rule ensuring possession for both teams in playoff games

There are new rules for NFL overtime -- in the playoffs. League owners approved a modified overtime rule that ensures both teams get a possession, Tom Pelissero and Ian Rapoport report. The rule change will be in effect for postseason games only.

www.nfl.com

 

[Mondio]

headline should read, NFL caves to whiners once again who can't handle that stuff is never fair. 3 ways to win a game, offense, defense or special teams. Play the hand your dealt, and go win.

 

[Magooch]

Yeah I kind of have mixed feelings. Playoff OT is not particularly common and I kinda feel like the sample size we have to work with is perhaps too small to glean much meaningful information from. On the other hand in OT on the whole it's basically 50-50, with the winner of the coin toss not really having any significant advantage...

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yeah I kind of have mixed feelings. Playoff OT is not particularly common and I kinda feel like the sample size we have to work with is perhaps too small to glean much meaningful information from. On the other hand in OT on the whole it's basically 50-50, with the winner of the coin toss not really having any significant advantage...

What? There have been close to 40 playoff games that went into OT, how is that not particularly common?

Also, to say that its "50-50" on who wins and the coin toss doesn't matter, is also completely ignoring facts, as well as the reason the rules have been ever so slowly changing.

 

[Magooch]

What? There have been close to 40 playoff games that went into OT, how is that not particularly common?

Also, to say that its "50-50" on who wins and the coin toss doesn't matter, is also completely ignoring facts, as well as the reason the rules have been ever so slowly changing.

Not 40 games in the current format (have to score a TD first to win), which is of course what this most recent tweak would be changing. That amounts to a total of....12 games.

Under that same rule, during the regular season, the team winning the coin toss has literally won 50% of the time.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not 40 games in the current format (have to score a TD first to win), which is of course what this most recent tweak would be changing. That amounts to a total of....12 games.

Below is what you said:

Playoff OT is not particularly common

Also, you are now changing your parameters (below) and using all OT games. This would not be a good way for you to try and win a debate. In Playoff OT since the new rules in 2010, 10 of 12 teams winning the coin toss have won the game.

Under that same rule, during the regular season, the team winning the coin toss has literally won 50% of the time.

The rule change is for playoff games only, read up on why some owners felt that was important.

 

[Magooch]

I'm not changing anything, lol. Go back and read my original post, it's been there all along:

"Playoff OT is not particularly common and I kinda feel like the sample size we have to work with is perhaps too small to glean much meaningful information from."

I guess it was wrong of me to assume people would understand I was talking about Playoff OT under the current format, given that discussing previous playoff OT games (for which the format has already previously been changed) would make absolutely no sense and have no bearing whatsoever on this discussion, but my mistake for assuming...

"On the other hand in OT on the whole it's basically 50-50, with the winner of the coin toss not really having any significant advantage..."

Note the "on the whole," which - again, perhaps my fault for assuming - but I thought it was pretty clear that I'm referring to *all* OT games under the current format. You know, "on the whole," and all. But, again, I guess next time I will clarify that I was talking about the current ruleset for OT, not OT rules that have already been previously changed and are wholly obsolete in this discussion/context, just to be clear.

I am well aware of the stats for playoff OT under the current format and am equally well aware that the rule change is for OT in the playoffs only; I'm saying that I don't think 12 games is a particularly meaningful sample size when you consider that games under that same exact format outside of the playoffs confer next to no meaningful advantage to the winner of the coin-toss.

Just don't really see how anyone could say with any consistency that there is some sort of inherent problem with the current OT format (based on viewing a sample of 12 out of ~160 OT games in said format) while choosing to only change the format for the playoffs and not the regular season. If the format is inherently flawed, then naturally the format should be changed across the board, not just for the ~7% of games in which it skews harder one direction. And if the format is not inherently flawed (Can we determine that it is from those ~7% of games?) then I'm not sure it makes much sense to change either.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm not changing anything, lol. Go back and read my original post, it's been there all along:



I guess it was wrong of me to assume people would understand I was talking about Playoff OT under the current format, given that discussing previous playoff OT games (for which the format has already previously been changed) would make absolutely no sense and have no bearing whatsoever on this discussion, but my mistake for assuming...



Note the "on the whole," which - again, perhaps my fault for assuming - but I thought it was pretty clear that I'm referring to *all* OT games under the current format. You know, "on the whole," and all. But, again, I guess next time I will clarify that I was talking about the current ruleset for OT, not OT rules that have already been previously changed and are wholly obsolete in this discussion/context, just to be clear.

I am well aware of the stats for playoff OT under the current format and am equally well aware that the rule change is for OT in the playoffs only; I'm saying that I don't think 12 games is a particularly meaningful sample size when you consider that games under that same exact format outside of the playoffs confer next to no meaningful advantage to the winner of the coin-toss. Also, the team that wins the coin toss has won 54 percent of overtime games in the past five seasons since the regular-season overtime period was shortened from 15 to 10 minutes.

Just don't really see how anyone could say with any consistency that there is some sort of inherent problem with the current OT format (based on viewing a sample of 12 out of ~160 OT games in said format) while choosing to only change the format for the playoffs and not the regular season. If the format is inherently flawed, then naturally the format should be changed across the board, not just for the ~7% of games in which it skews harder one direction. And if the format is not inherently flawed (Can we determine that it is from those ~7% of games?) then I'm not sure it makes much sense to change either.

Obviously the NFL owners didn't agree with your take. Nor do a lot of people agree with you that the coin toss hasn't made a difference in games and those stats are not 50/50 as you claim. It is 52.8% of the teams that win the coin toss, win the game. Also, it is important to note that the team that wins the coin toss has won 54 percent of overtime games in the past five seasons since the regular-season overtime period was shortened from 15 to 10 minutes. In the playoffs, 90.9%, but that doesn't matter to you, because its "close enough" right?

This has been debated probably every year in this forum, in the media and at owner meetings. Good to seem them finally moving in the right direction. The Bills/Chiefs game must have been the final straw.

 

[sschind]

The way I would make it if it were up to me. No OT in the regular season. A tie is a tie. Why have a time limit if you aren't going to follow it. Thats why we have tiebreakers to determine who makes the playoffs.

In the playoffs where you need a winner the home team calls the toss the winner decides to kick or receive both team get 1 chance on offense. If its still tied after each team has an offensive possession it goes to sudden death. Cant be more simple or more fair.

headline should read, NFL caves to whiners once again who can't handle that stuff is never fair. 3 ways to win a game, offense, defense or special teams. Play the hand your dealt, and go win.

It seems its not the format you oppose its the change. If they had set it up this way from the start you would still be complaining if they tried to change it. If you don't like this change you had to have been against the change from simple sudden death. Otherwise this complaint makes no sense.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

In the playoffs where you need a winner the home team calls the toss the winner decides to kick or receive both team get 1 chance on offense. If its still tied after each team has an offensive possession it goes to sudden death. Cant be more simple or more fair.

I think that is what it was changed to, except the Home team getting to call the coin toss part.

I would have no problem taking OT out of regular season games. I doubt the networks paying the big bucks would like that though. As they say, a tie is like kissing your sister and I doubt that sells advertisement.

 

[Mondio]

The way I would make it if it were up to me. No OT in the regular season. A tie is a tie. Why have a time limit if you aren't going to follow it. Thats why we have tiebreakers to determine who makes the playoffs.

In the playoffs where you need a winner the home team calls the toss the winner decides to kick or receive both team get 1 chance on offense. If its still tied after each team has an offensive possession it goes to sudden death. Cant be more simple or more fair.


It seems its not the format you oppose its the change. If they had set it up this way from the start you would still be complaining if they tried to change it. If you don't like this change you had to have been against the change from simple sudden death. Otherwise this complaint makes no sense.

sometimes I think change, just to change is silly and makes no sense. Like this. Really, I don't care. Make the rules and play by them, but to think this "fixes" anything is pretty silly. I mean you just played TWO complete halves of football where both teams got to start with the ball and no winner was determined. so now you go to OT to determine a winner. So, now you give each team one more chance each to score and then if it's still tied??? We're left with what we already had LOL In fact we're left with something "worse" in all your minds in which the first FG wins and those rules are so 2009 LOL


All this handwringing to get essentially what we already had before they changed the OT rules over a decade ago. Personally, for me, football is about lining up and winning. I don't care what side of the ball you're on at some point you have to win, or lose. I'd rather they made the rule that if you win the coin toss and get the ball first you can not punt and only get 3 downs your first possession. Lets really make it interesting and change some strategies.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

sometimes I think change, just to change is silly and makes no sense.

You are always going to win that argument, with yourself. Since you don't view the change as being needed, whereas some do.

 

[Mondio]

It's not really an argument. I guess i'm not clear. I don't care aobut this rule, the old rule, flip a coin rule, determine the game on first points scored rule, most TD's most sacks in the game, whatever criteria they want to apply, apply them and play ball.

You see the need for change so badly, you created a situation where games are going to be decided on rules you , and the league, and the owners and all your many fans who support the way you think have already said are worse than the ones we have now.

and you're right, I don't think the change was needed. OT is the time to decide a winner, not be "fair" and in your quest for fairness you've gone back to a rule you determined was unfair a decade ago. except you're going to give each team that's had at least 10 tries, just 1 more try each before going back to the old rule. you don't see the irony?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

you don't see the irony?

The irony of this?

It's not really an argument. I guess i'm not clear. I don't care aobut this rule

and you're right, I don't think the change was needed.

Usually an argument/discussion has 2 opposing sides. You act like it doesn't matter to you, yet it seems to or you wouldn't be so headstrong in the discussion every year. Basically, you can't claim to not care, but still carry on as if you do care.

I don't see a lot of irony in letting change happen gradually, as facts and history show the need for it. If you don't like rules, Football is a game you shouldn't watch and if you don't like them changing the rules, for reasons that they see as valid ones, than I would say that you are just a person who doesn't like change. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you admit it.

Look at replay. You were adamant that they shouldn't use it on pass interference, yet they tried it. Seemed they agreed with you, they changed it again. Doesn't mean replay is bad, just meant they decided that for PI it wasn't going to be used. Maybe they will change that rule in 10 years when technology is better?

I view change as being good, if it reasonably corrects an outcome that was unfairly influenced.

 

[Mondio]

change for the sake of change? no not really. You just basically gave each team another possession and are reverting to rules you determined were worse than our current format a decade ago and call that progress? I call it change for the sake of change and that is mostly worthless.

I'm otherwise fine with change, i go thru it frequently.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You just basically gave each team another possession and are reverting to rules you determined were worse than our current format a decade ago and call that progress?

No, the rules 10 years ago, allowed for a team to win the game on a first possession FG. That was a totally skewed format in favor of the team that won the coin toss, some pointed to kickers being much better than they were 30 or so years ago. Definitely some truth to that, the game had evolved. So the rule was changed to allow the 2nd team a possession after a FG, to try and tie or win the game. How are you saying that this new rule reverts back to the one where a FG won it?

The new rule doesn't add "each team another possession", it only guarantees that both teams will have a chance to possess the ball, no matter who wins the coin toss.

One of the reasons sited for this recent changes, which I don't fully agree with was this. The QB's in the playoffs have gotten so much better, that as we saw in the Bills and Chiefs game, a really good QB can score an opening drive TD in OT too easy. That might be part of it, but I also think the rules and skew of the game has made TD's easier to score, especially against a defense that just went 4 Q's.

 

[Mondio]

They scored so easily because nobody was playing defense at that point. and if you want to say giving each team another possession is wrong, but ensuring each team gets a possession is the right way to say it, fine. So now both teams have had it and scored TD's each, FG's each or no points each and they're still tied. What's the rule to end the game?

 

[OldSchool101]

headline should read, NFL caves to whiners once again who can't handle that stuff is never fair. 3 ways to win a game, offense, defense or special teams. Play the hand your dealt, and go win.

Dad? Is that you?? It’s me Dad..
your Son

 

[sschind]

You are right that a game is 3 parts, offense, defense and special teams and by doing it this way it gives all 6 units (3 per team) a chance to contribute. Team A wins the toss and scores now their defense has to be up to the task to stop the other team from scoring. Team B's defense messes up their first chance their offense has a chance to bail them out. If you have two teams with strong offenses and no defense the team that wins the toss has a strong advantage the current way. You want strategy? No team is going to choose to kick off under the current rules but with each team getting a chance a team with a great defense might just choose to kick if they think they can pin the other team deep and take advantage.

I get your point about giving each team one more try then going back to the old way. The fact is I never really had a problem with the old way. I was fine with simple sudden death. The difference is that during the first 60 minutes there is time for teams to answer an opponents score with a score of their own unless you are talking a last second score before halftime or the end of the game but that's what you get when you set fixed time limits. Time runs out. If they don't answer the score the game continues. That's why I wouldn't do OT in the regular season. You set a time of 60 minutes if no one is ahead after that it makes no sense to me to just give them more time. No one has to win a regular season game. I get why they do OT but I don't think it is needed.

When you come to a game that has to have a winner though things change. Giving 1 team an extra chance to score is not fair and despite your assertions that things don't have to be fair I think they should be. At least as fair as they can be. So now both teams score a FG and the next score wins. Where is the fairness in that? Well, both sides had a chance to let their offense and defense and ST s win the game. Most scores in OT come with time left on the clock so like in regulation the other team should get a chance to match if there is time left. Maybe the best option would be to simply keep playing 10 minute OT periods until the time runs out in one and one team is ahead but that could lead to some really long games and since that may not be desirable sudden death is the only really practical way to end it at that point.

You are right though. If both teams score the same points on their "extra' possession it does go back to the way it was and like I said I never had a problem with that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So now both teams have had it and scored TD's each, FG's each or no points each and they're still tied. What's the rule to end the game?

You are right though. If both teams score the same points on their "extra' possession it does go back to the way it was and like I said I never had a problem with that.

No, this is NOT the old way. The old way...pre 2010, gave the win to the first team to score. Whether it was a FG or a TD or safety. Game over, no matter if the other team didn't get a chance to score.

The rule now, giving both teams a chance to possess the ball in no way is the same. Team A can go down...kick a FG, score a TD, kick an XP or go for 2. Team B can now possess the ball and do whatever they want to try to win the game. If both teams kick a FG, yes, they are now in Sudden death, if both teams score 7 or 8, the same thing. But both teams were given a chance on both offense and defense and as Sschind points out, special teams as well, to win the game. Nothing like the pre 2010 rule.

 

[Mondio]

No, this is NOT the old way. The old way...pre 2010, gave the win to the first team to score. Whether it was a FG or a TD or safety. Game over, no matter if the other team didn't get a chance to score.

The rule now, giving both teams a chance to possess the ball in no way is the same. Team A can go down...kick a FG, score a TD, kick an XP or go for 2. Team B can now possess the ball and do whatever they want to try to win the game. If both teams kicks a FG, yes, they are now in Sudden death, if both teams score 7 or 8, the same thing. But both teams were given a chance on both offense and defense and as Sschind points out, special teams as well, to win the game. Nothing like the pre 2010 rule.

So, if it's still tied and it's sudden death, it's nothing like before? OK LOL

Like I said before, they've each had the ball at least 10 times give or take. Now you're going to give them each one more, i'm sorry, ensure they have one more opportunity to possess the ball and if they're still tied, it's the same rule nobody liked 2 rule changes ago LOL Progress.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So, if it's still tied and it's sudden death, it's nothing like before? OK LOL

You can be stubborn and pretend that they are the same, but by no means are the 2 scenarios of OT the same.

 

[Mondio]

You can be stubborn and pretend that they are the same, but by no means are the 2 scenarios of OT the same.

you can pretend not to read what I wrote, but yes, when the game is still tied, it is exactly the same

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Mark Murphy weighed in on the change in the OT rules for the playoffs. Pretty decent assessment of the logic behind it and trying to make the games as fair as possible. I think eventually, they will adopt the same rule for the regular season. Probably will take a team missing out on a trip to the playoffs, under the same type of scenario as the Bills loss against the Chiefs in the playoffs.

MT5: Change to league’s OT rules will make postseason games fairer

Murphy Takes 5 is a monthly column written by President and CEO Mark Murphy

www.packers.com

 

[Heyjoe4]

Yeah I kind of have mixed feelings. Playoff OT is not particularly common and I kinda feel like the sample size we have to work with is perhaps too small to glean much meaningful information from. On the other hand in OT on the whole it's basically 50-50, with the winner of the coin toss not really having any significant advantage...

Correct. So then why not fix it so that it's always 50-50. It's a rule change way overdue

Obviously the NFL owners didn't agree with your take. Nor do a lot of people agree with you that the coin toss hasn't made a difference in games and those stats are not 50/50 as you claim. It is 52.8% of the teams that win the coin toss, win the game. Also, it is important to note that the team that wins the coin toss has won 54 percent of overtime games in the past five seasons since the regular-season overtime period was shortened from 15 to 10 minutes. In the playoffs, 90.9%, but that doesn't matter to you, because its "close enough" right?

This has been debated probably every year in this forum, in the media and at owner meetings. Good to seem them finally moving in the right direction. The Bills/Chiefs game must have been the final straw.

Good points. I think the rule change makes it truly 50-50, as it should be. Yeah 52% or 54% don't seem like much of a difference. They are if you're the team that never touches the ball in OT. It's a good rule change, and I hope they eventually apply it to the regular season. The NFL is tradition-bound and moves slower than a turtle. This is progress!