Bears support change in OT rule (effect of GB/Seahawks game)

[XPack]

http://lombardiave.com/2015/03/19/chicago-bears-in-green-bay-packers-corner-when-it-comes-to-ot/2/

As it stands and as we saw things transpire last January, both teams in overtime are allowed to possess the ball, but it is with a caveat: Unless the team that gets the first kickoff scores a touchdown on its first drive.

If that occurs, it’s game over.

But the proposed rule by the Bears would eliminate that caveat and make it so that regardless of how that first drive turns out, the opposing team would also have a shot at scoring.

Prima facie, I'm all in support. Irrespective of whoever wins the first possession, the opponent team should have an opportunity to counter and the game should continue till one team outscores the other.

 

[thisisnate]

...the opponent team should have an opportunity to counter and the game should continue till one team outscores the other.

agreed

 

[TJV]

I was fine with the rule before the NFC Championship game and I still am. All the Packers, and any other team kicking off in OT have to do is hold the opponent scoreless or only give up a FG. A team that can't do that deserves to lose IMO. It fixed the problem of one team being able to kick a FG without the other team getting the ball, I thought that was unfair.

 

[thisisnate]

I was fine with the rule before the NFC Championship game and I still am. All the Packers, and any other team kicking off in OT have to do is hold the opponent scoreless or only give up a FG. A team that can't do that deserves to lose IMO. It fixed the problem of one team being able to kick a FG without the other team getting the ball, I thought that was unfair.

I dunno. Most teams are built around a strong defense or a strong offense. Rarely both. I think there's too much luck in which of your squads sees the field.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I was not fine with the rule before the NFC Championship and I'm still not. The coin flip affords too much of an advantage.

How about this? If a team receiving the opening kickoff scores a TD, the game should be called over at 6-0. Then we could get on with our day or watch another game.

 

[XPack]

I was fine with the rule before the NFC Championship game and I still am. All the Packers, and any other team kicking off in OT have to do is hold the opponent scoreless or only give up a FG. A team that can't do that deserves to lose IMO. It fixed the problem of one team being able to kick a FG without the other team getting the ball, I thought that was unfair.

Blatantly favours the offence. The team without possession has double to work to get to a score, defend first, score later.

 

[PackerDNA]

I think that's as good as it gets; if the team that has the ball first scores a TD, then the other team gets their shot (unless they fumble away the kickoff). If they can't score a TD, game over. If they do, then go to sudden death.

 

[TJV]

According to the football database website http://www.footballdb.com/stats/drives.html, 5911 drives resulted in 1189 TDs during the 2014 NFL regular season. That’s about 20% of drives. Obviously both offense and defense are important and if a team’s D can’t stop something that didn’t occur about 80% of the time, IMO they deserve to lose. (BTW, Seattle scored a TD a little less than 23% of its drives during the regular season.)

 

[GoPGo]

I hear a lot of people say, "If you can't play defense good enough to stop the other team, you don't deserve to win." The problem with this logic is that the team that wins the coin toss doesn't have to play defense at all.

One interesting idea I saw a while back was the "yardage auction." There is no coin flip. Instead, the visiting team names a distance they are willing to go to get the ball first. Then the home team has a chance to counter. This goes back and forth in 5 yard increments until the team who agrees to start furthest from their goal line gets the first possession. Current NFL rules take over from that spot.

The coin flip is taken out of the equation and the game is put completely into the hands of the coaches and players. The game still has a chance to be resolved in a timely manner with no increased risk for injury due to extended play time.


BTW, my 8 year old son came up with a damn good Bears joke yesterday:

The Bears GM should do all of his grocery shopping at Aldi because every time you return a cart you get a quarter back.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The current rule is simply, indisputably, inequitable.

The league is more concerned about getting the game over than equitability. The earlier rule was bad, the current rule better but still flawed.

And it has nothing to do with the Packers.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I was fine with the rule before the NFC Championship game and I still am. All the Packers, and any other team kicking off in OT have to do is hold the opponent scoreless or only give up a FG. A team that can't do that deserves to lose IMO. It fixed the problem of one team being able to kick a FG without the other team getting the ball, I thought that was unfair.

I have to disagree with you on that topic, TJV. A coin toss shouldn´t be a deciding factor in a $10+ billion business.

 

[fanindaup]

I like the college format. Both teams get a shot from the 20, whoever out scores the other is the winner. That being said, I'm saddened by rule changes which have slowly but radically transformed the game I grew up loving in the 70s.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I like the college format. Both teams get a shot from the 20, whoever out scores the other is the winner. That being said, I'm saddened by rule changes which have slowly but radically transformed the game I grew up loving in the 70s.

The college format with teams starting from the opponents 25 is terrible.

 

[fanindaup]

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion wimm. I will say however it does fit the criteria of giving each team an equal chance at winning the game, both teams' offense and defense have to perform for the team to win and it doesn't rely on the luck of a coin flip. Frankly, I'd prefer if we stop messing with the fundamental rules of football but since it's already been done and we're searching for something more equitable, the college rule fits the bill. You don't have to agree, that's why we live in America.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion wimm. I will say however it does fit the criteria of giving each team an equal chance at winning the game, both teams' offense and defense have to perform for the team to win and it doesn't rely on the luck of a coin flip. Frankly, I'd prefer if we stop messing with the fundamental rules of football but since it's already been done and we're searching for something more equitable, the college rule fits the bill. You don't have to agree, that's why we live in America.

I like the fact that both teams get equal possessions during overtime in college football. But I really disdain teams starting from the opponent´s 25.

 

[fanindaup]

Fair enough. Since we're just playing around, what would you suggest as a better starting spot? I think because of the proclivity of professional place kickers it should be moved back outside of what is normally thought of as 'field goal range'. Perhaps the opponent's 40 or mid field. That way the offense is forced to move the ball before there is a chance of scoring points.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Fair enough. Since we're just playing around, what would you suggest as a better starting spot? I think because of the proclivity of professional place kickers it should be moved back outside of what is normally thought of as 'field goal range'. Perhaps the opponent's 40 or mid field. That way the offense is forced to move the ball before there is a chance of scoring points.

I would start overtime with a regular kickoff and play the game just like in regulation. Both teams get equal possessions until the game has been decided.

 

[fanindaup]

What decides the game? Is there a time limit as in they play an entire extra quarter or some portion of one? Or is your version more like the college version where whoever scores a touchdown that isn't matched wins?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Or is your version more like the college version where whoever scores a touchdown that isn't matched wins?

That´s what I would prefer.

 

[fanindaup]

OK I could get behind that.

 

[XPack]

Or we could go the soccer format. Field goals, moving 5 yards back till someone misses.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Personally, I would prefer seeing them play a whole quarter (15 minutes), with a 2 minute warning. Would add more excitement. Yes, the nay sayers will say that is too long and they might be too tired....I would rather see them really tired out and lose then watching a coin flip and one long pass decide the game.

 

[Half Empty]

If it's still tied after that, then it's a tie, I presume?

 

[Passepartout]

I think that they should play the whole quarter of 15 minutes too! Until it reaches 00:00

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If it's still tied after that, then it's a tie, I presume?

unless it's a playoff game or Super Bowl...in those situations....another quarter until you have a winner