Do you agree with the new OT rules in the playoffs?

[IluvGB]

I think its giving him way too much credit....:bye:

oops..that article...not PackersRS!!

 

[JBlood]

Would it be fair for a baseball team to win a game in the top of the 10th?

It only makes sense that both teams have a chance to score in overtime, regular season as well as playoffs.

 

[pacmaniac]

We got screwed with this new OT rule. If you want to make things fair by giving the other team a chance when the first team kicks a FG, then shouldn't you give the other team a chance when the first team scores a TD? It makes no sense.

 

[GoPGo]

We got screwed with this new OT rule. If you want to make things fair by giving the other team a chance when the first team kicks a FG, then shouldn't you give the other team a chance when the first team scores a TD? It makes no sense.

Absolutely. They chose a half-measure. Each team should get at least 1 possession no matter what and if necessary go sudden death after that.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Absolutely. They chose a half-measure. Each team should get at least 1 possession no matter what and if necessary go sudden death after that.

The league's OT rule is completely screwed up. IMO every team should get an equal amount of possessions throughout the entire process of deciding a winner.

Football isn't made for a sudden death OT, it's not hockey.

 

[PackerDNA]

Absolutely. They chose a half-measure. Each team should get at least 1 possession no matter what and if necessary go sudden death after that.

One possession each under regular rules/play, then sudden death would probably be best for football. What they have now is an improvement over the old system , but still not good enough. Typical NFL; takes them forever to get anything improved or changed, then only in increments.
At least it's better than college; I despise that OT system.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

One possession each under regular rules/play, then sudden death would probably be best for football.

I still don´t like the idea of sudden death overtime if the game is still tied after a possession by both teams. In this case the coin toss still has some importance to the outcome of the game.

 

[PackerDNA]

I still don´t like the idea of sudden death overtime if the game is still tied after a possession by both teams. In this case the coin toss still has some importance to the outcome of the game.

I was remiss in not finishing my post, Captain.
If you mean having a coin toss after both teams have a shot, I'd say no toss, just continue play from there.
Unless one team scores-or outscores-the other on those first possesions, then game over.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I was remiss in not finishing my post, Captain.
If you mean having a coin toss after both teams have a shot, I'd say no toss, just continue play from there.
Unless one team scores-or outscores-the other on those first possesions, then game over.

Well, there has to be a coin toss to start the overtime period to decide which team gets the ball first. The problem with sudden death overtime after each team had a possession is that the coin toss at the start of OT decides which team gets the ball first after the initial possession by each time.

Once again, I would prefer both teams to get an equal amount of possessions in OT, no matter how long it takes to decide a winner.

 

[Jdeed]

The way it is now is fine.

If any change was made I would go back to the old way.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Yeah, it's fair. Defense should matter in the NFL. It doesn't in college OT. If your defense lets the other team score a TD then you lose because your defense wasn't up to the task. Defense should matter. The NFL is doing enough already to eliminate defense, let's not help them.

 

[TJV]

I like the new OT rule but agree it should be applied to the regular season too. Each team has a chance to win – if you lose the coin flip, stop the opponent from scoring a TD and you have a chance to win. Kick off and pin them in in their own territory and you have an excellent chance to win, just kick a FG. I like it better than the college rule because it’s more like a “regular” football game. I like Amish Mafia’s idea about avoiding the coin toss, maybe base it on total yards - both teams' offense and defense would have a say in that stat for the entire game. BTW, one more rule change I’d like to see to avoid the opening coin toss: Give the visiting team the option of receiving or kicking off or deferring to the second half – they’re already at a disadvantage as the visitor. The exception would be the Super Bowl.

 

[Carl]

This format is so much better than the regular season format.

The format is now the same in both the regular season and post season.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The format is now the same in both the regular season and post season.

Right, except that regular season games go no longer than 5 quarters. Obviously, playoff games must produce a winner.

I have no problem with regular season ties, so I'd prefer they dump OT in regular season altogether. Otherwise, to make the system more equitable, both teams should get a possession regardless of whether the first team scores a TD.

The old system of true sudden death, while even more inequitable than the current system, had the advantage of expeditious conclusions. While the college system is equitable and somewhat intriguing since it takes long field goals out of the equation, the games can go on forever.

The NFL wants to balance equitability against expeditiousness so early games don't eat into late games, stealing from Peter (the late game network) to give Paul a windfall (the early game network).

 

[HardRightEdge]

Instead of coin flip I would have done something like: Whoever was winning at halftime; First to score in the game; Most offensive yards gained; or some list that would determine who gets the ball first.

All of those approaches are no less arbitrary than a coin flip.

 

[TJV]

All of those approaches are no less arbitrary than a coin flip.

I disagree. The offense and defense of both teams have a hand in determining yards gained, for example.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I disagree. The offense and defense of both teams have a hand in determining yards gained, for example.

The implication is the team with more yards gained played the better game, despite the score being tied, and should therefore be granted an advantage in overtime. It's a fallacious premise, and a step down the slippery slope of fantasy football priorities moving from media to the reality of the football field.

If the score is tied, then the teams are even, period. Anything that diminishes the paramount importance of what's on the scoreboard diminishes the game.

While generally speaking the team that gains more yards wins more often, that stat in isolation tells you nothing about that one particular 4 quarters of football.

 

[TJV]

The implication is the team with more yards gained played the better game, despite the score being tied, and should therefore be granted an advantage in overtime. It's a fallacious premise, and a step down the slippery slope of fantasy football priorities moving from media to the reality of the football field.

If the score is tied, then the teams are even, period. Anything that diminishes the paramount importance of what's on the scoreboard diminishes the game.

While generally speaking the team that gains more yards wins more often, that stat in isolation tells you nothing about that one particular 4 quarters of football.

Total yards gained is a better measure than a coin flip because it is something both teams can control and both the offense and the defense of each team contributed to and decided. The result of a coin toss is pure luck; almost any objective measure tied to the performance of the teams is better than pure luck. And if you think there's a slippery slope, what's next? What do you think deciding which team gets to choose in OT by an objective measure will lead to?

 

[AKCheese]

I'd let ties stand in the regular season. It could be argued that Green Bay should have had a chance with the ball in the Seattle game. But how likely is it they would have scored vs. simply prolonging THE most embarrassing stretch of football anyone has ever put up with a championship on the line?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Total yards gained is a better measure than a coin flip because it is something both teams can control and both the offense and the defense of each team contributed to and decided. The result of a coin toss is pure luck; almost any objective measure tied to the performance of the teams is better than pure luck. And if you think there's a slippery slope, what's next? What do you think deciding which team gets to choose in OT by an objective measure will lead to?

If the score is tied, yards are irrelevant.

The rules make first possession an advantage where there should be none; the solution is to eliminate the advantage not concoct an artificial measurement of who played the "better game".

But if you want to pursue this line of thinking further, which I would advise against, then consider that yards from scrimmage do not account for many other aspects of football performance:

1) defensive scores and fumble and interception return yardage.
2) KO and punt return scores and yardage
3) the quality of the FG kicking
4) KOs, punting and kick coverages which can account for meaningful field position yardage
5) red zone defense accomplishments (or offensive ineptitude) where yards gained may be many but points allowed (or scored) are few
6) penalty yardage and their drive killing or extending impacts

There are plenty more I'm sure beyond these obvious considerations.

Just because yardage allowed and gained are the most frequent measure of the performances of football teams doesn't make them necessarily meaningful in any one particular game.

There is no single formula for winning football, thereby there is no universal formula for determining who played better in a particular 4 quarters of football that ended in a tie. Making such a judgement disrespects the scoreboard.

 

[yooperpackfan]

If the score is tied, yards are irrelevant.

The rules make first possession an advantage where there should be none; the solution is to eliminate the advantage not concoct an artificial measurement of who played the "better game".

But if you want to pursue this line of thinking further, which I would advise against, then consider that yards from scrimmage do not account for many other aspects of football performance:

1) defensive scores and fumble and interception return yardage.
2) return scores and yardage
3) the quality of the FG kicking
4) KOs, punting and kick coverages which can account for meaningful field position yardage
5) red zone defense accomplishments (or offensive ineptitude) where yards gained may be many but points allowed (or scored) are few
6) penalty yardage and their drive killing or extending impacts

There are plenty more I'm sure beyond these obvious considerations.

Just because yardage allowed and gained are the most frequent measure of the performances of football teams doesn't make them necessarily meaningful.

There is no single formula for winning football, thereby there is no universal formula for determining who played better in a particular 4 quarters of football that ended in a tie.
Making such a judgement disrespects the scoreboard.

I'll just throw this out there.
How about the team that had the higher seed entering the playoffs gets the ball first.
Let ties stand in the regular season.

 

[TJV]

Making such a judgement disrespects the scoreboard.

Not more than a "judgement" based upon pure luck completely unrelated to the game that ended tied.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Not more than a "judgement" based upon pure luck completely unrelated to the game that ended tied.

The score is tied; the teams played evenly. Neither is better than the other in that 4 quarters of play. That should be the premise around which the rules are crafted. Creating a false non-equivalency is not the answer.

 

[TJV]

If you're talking about the regular season, I prefer the current OT rules to a tie. That being the case (and certainly in the playoffs) which team gets to choose to kick or receive has to be decided. As I posted before, IMO any football related method is superior to pure luck.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Total yards gained is a better measure than a coin flip because it is something both teams can control and both the offense and the defense of each team contributed to and decided. The result of a coin toss is pure luck; almost any objective measure tied to the performance of the teams is better than pure luck. And if you think there's a slippery slope, what's next? What do you think deciding which team gets to choose in OT by an objective measure will lead to?

Total yards in most instances might be good but what about if a team gets turnovers near the endzone and doesn't put up many yards because they didn't have to drive very far? Probably the least arbitrary way would be just to award the decision to the home team in the playoffs. You played all season to earn home field, let it be an additional advantage.