NFL Must Change OT Rules Starting Now

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Yup, I'm putting a mandate on Goodell's desk and the rules committee that needs to go into effect starting in 2017, and I guarantee once it's there there'll be no more such things as heartbreaks in Seattle or Arizona, and no more pathetic handing of the trophy to the Pats like there was last night. Here's what must happen, and I mean MUST

1. No more sudden death on any opening drives for the offense or receiving team's kick return team. No more FGs or opening drive TDs (including kickoff return TDs) can win it any more.

If the offense turns it over on the opening drive via a pick-6 or fumble return TD, then it's still sudden death. If they turn it over or punt it away and the opposition then scores a FG or Td, then it's still over.

2. Any team scoring a TD on the opening drive has to go for 2, no extra points. Then same thing with the opposing team looking to answer them. Basically all TDs that are not game-winners a 2-point conversion must be attempted.

3. No more tie games in the regular season. Keep playing till a winner's decided.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Why do you need "special" overtime rules? Just keep playing under the normal rules of football, you know the ones that ended the game tied? Play a 5th quarter.....I would be fine with 15 minutes or even 10/12. Whoever is ahead at the end wins. I am guessing every Falcon player today would tell you, they still had enough in them to play a whole 5th quarter yesterday.

 

[Ceodore]

Disagree, if you can't keep a team from going 75 yards and keep them out of the endzone, you don't deserve to win. I felt the FG to end the game was a little bit of a copout before. I like the rules the way they are now. TDs are supposed to be hard to get, so if your D can't stop them on their first try, I don't have a lot of sympathy.

The only middle ground i would consider is that if they score a TD on the first drive they have to go for 2, and if they convert the game is over. If you can't keep them out of the endzone twice I REALLY don't have a lot of sympathy. Otherwise the other team gets the ball and they have to go for 2 to win.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I agree the overtime rules should be altered but I would prefer both teams to get the same amount of possessions.

 

[Ceodore]

Why do you need "special" overtime rules? Just keep playing under the normal rules of football, you know the ones that ended the game tied? Play a 5th quarter.....I would be fine with 15 minutes or even 10/12. Whoever is ahead at the end wins. I am guessing every Falcon player today would tell you, they still had enough in them to play a whole 5th quarter yesterday.

problem here is you can still end in a tie after 5. you cant just keep going forever.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Disagree, if you can't keep a team from going 75 yards and keep them out of the endzone, you don't deserve to win. I felt the FG to end the game was a little bit of a copout before. I like the rules the way they are now. TDs are supposed to be hard to get, so if your D can't stop them on their first try, I don't have a lot of sympathy.

The only middle ground i would consider is that if they score a TD on the first drive they have to go for 2, and if they convert the game is over. If you can't keep them out of the endzone twice I REALLY don't have a lot of sympathy. Otherwise the other team gets the ball and they have to go for 2 to win.

Yeah well they're not so no more sudden death unless it's from the defense. Scoring a TD is easy so if you can do it, so can the other team, so you should be forced to defend them as well. Otherwise I call it chicken livered to just hand a team a win because they score on an opening drive. Make them go for 2 AND make them defend the other team.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

problem here is you can still end in a tie after 5. you cant just keep going forever.

Why not? A game potentially could "go forever" under the current rules.

I would be fine with regular season games ending in a tie after a 5th quarter, but sudden death quarters for playoff games. Give me a game that ends with the exciting finish of the 4th quarter that you see so often. Not the ending we see far too often in today's overtime format.

 

[Ceodore]

Yeah well they're not so no more sudden death unless it's from the defense. Scoring a TD is easy so if you can do it, so can the other team, so you should be forced to defend them as well. Otherwise I call it chicken livered to just hand a team a win because they score on an opening drive. Make them go for 2 AND make them defend the other team.

Don't understand the point of making them go for 2 if the other team gets the ball regardless. Can the second team then get a TD and make a PAT for the win then if first team doesn't convert? Doesn't that then penalize the team that gets the ball first?

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Don't understand the point of making them go for 2 if the other team gets the ball regardless. Can the second team then get a TD and make a PAT for the win then if first team doesn't convert? Doesn't that then penalize the team that gets the ball first?

Sorry, guess I didn't clarify on that in my original post. No I meant it to say everyone has to go for 2 in OT, so if a team fails to convert a 2-point convert, the other team going down and scoring a td has to go for 2 too.

 

[Pkrjones]

I agree with Ceodore that if a team can't stop the other from scoring a TD they don't deserve to win.

If any changes are made to allow both teams a shot at scoring then it should completely change to college style: both get it from the 20 and score as much as possible for the win. Settle for a FG & 2nd team needs to score at least 3, with a TD winning. A TD team has option of going for 2 or extra point for 1... but then team 2 must tie or beat. Each tie move back 10 yds. until there's a winner, alternating between which team goes 1st.

Since 1 point conversions were gimme's and got moved back I also think 2-pt. tries should be moved back to the 5 or 8 yd. line... but that's another argument/point of debate.

 

[RRyder]

Every ******** time a game goes to OT and a team ends it on their first possession this conversation happens.

College rules suck for a reason.

These are professionals on BOTH sides of the ball. Defensive players make a ton of cash too. Make a play. Hell they don't even need to make a game changing one anymore. Just keep them out of the end zone.

If your D can't stop the other team from marching into the end zone they don't deserve a chance with the football

 

[adambr2]

The OT rules are fine, much better now that a first FG doesn't win it.

Hard for me to have sympathy for your offense not getting the ball when your defense had that in their hands by keeping them from going 75 yards on one drive.

The Falcons had dozens of opportunities not to squander the game yesterday, they didn't deserve another.

 

[PackAttack12]

The OT rules are fine, much better now that a first FG doesn't win it.

Hard for me to have sympathy for your offense not getting the ball when your defense had that in their hands by keeping them from going 75 yards on one drive.

The Falcons had dozens of opportunities not to squander the game yesterday, they didn't deserve another.

Certainly agree with this, but in games that are back and forth with two great offenses, it's disappointing for the game to end in OT with the other team not getting the chance to touch the football.

I don't have a great suggestion or solution to this, but it needs to be looked at. If Rodgers gets the football back in either the Arizona or Seattle games, who knows what ends up happening.

The rules suck. Better than they used to be, but still suck nevertheless.

 

[pacmaniac]

I am guessing every Falcon player today would tell you, they still had enough in them to play a whole 5th quarter yesterday.

Not the Falcons defensive players. They were totally gassed from having to be on the field for 96 snaps - an NFL record. Explains why they harassed Brady in the first half and got zero pressure on him in 2nd half and OT.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Every ******** time a game goes to OT and a team ends it on their first possession this conversation happens.

College rules suck for a reason.

These are professionals on BOTH sides of the ball. Defensive players make a ton of cash too. Make a play. Hell they don't even need to make a game changing one anymore. Just keep them out of the end zone.

If your D can't stop the other team from marching into the end zone they don't deserve a chance with the football

But you're not getting the point that that goes both ways. Ok so I took a shot at New England with this, but you coulda said the same thing about Atlanta. So say Atlanta wins the coin toss and they get the ball and go down the field and score an opening drive TD in OT, I'd still be making this thread today. Why? Cuz their defense was gassed as someone said and they were showing no ability to stop the Pats once that lead got blown. So therefore their defense would be showing no ability to make a stop in OT but yet they'd get a win by virtue of a coin toss. You see what I'm saying?

Coin tosses do decide teams fates in OT, and with my rules they wouldn't. Now if someone figures out a way to eliminate coin tosses for overtime and maybe throws in something like the NBA's jump ball except with 11 men on each side lined up trying to wrestle it away from each other, maybe this argument that a team's defense not stopping someone on the opening possession could stand. But until that happens, we're still stuck with dumb coin tosses.

Only sucky part I find about college OT rules is that teams start at the opposing 25 yardline with no kickoff. I don't want that. But I do think opening TDs should not be sudden death and that teams that score them should have to go for 2, and likewise the opposing team answering them on their drive.

 

[Jerellh528]

I like the ot rules as they are and the ot rules had nothing to do with giving patriots the win. Brady just marched his team down to score on seemingly every possession in the 4th quarter and falcons could do nothing to stop it, not only that, the patriots held atl to 7 points in the second half. They earned that win and it was the best comeback in Super Bowl history. It was so painfully obvious that the patriots were going to win as soon as the score was 20-28. Patriots get a lot of credit for that victory

I do think regular season ties need to be done away with though.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

I like the ot rules as they are and the ot rules had nothing to do with giving patriots the win. Brady just marched him team down to score on seemingly every possession in the 4th quarter and falcons could do nothing to stop it. It was so painfully obvious that the patriots were going to win as soon as the score was 20-28.

I do think regular season ties need to be done away with though.

Whether they did or not, I still say they should've had to go for 2 and then subsequently make a stop on the Falcons in OT. They very well may have done it, but at least make them prove it.

But again as I said, the Seahawks also shoulda been forced to do this in 2014 against us, and the Cardinals last year as well. Teams must stop being granted the privilege to simply be able to score a TD on an opening drive, and not have to play defense themselves. If defensive players are pros and have to earn their paycheck as Ryder said, then make them earn it by stopping the other team once your offense scores a TD in OT.

 

[swhitset]

I like the ot rules as they are and the ot rules had nothing to do with giving patriots the win. Brady just marched his team down to score on seemingly every possession in the 4th quarter and falcons could do nothing to stop it, not only that, the patriots held atl to 7 points in the second half. They earned that win and it was the best comeback in Super Bowl history. It was so painfully obvious that the patriots were going to win as soon as the score was 20-28. Patriots get a lot of credit for that victory

I do think regular season ties need to be done away with though.

interesting game... but The Falcons gave that game away on a platter. all they had to do was run the ball 3 times and kick an easy FG to maintain an 11 point lead with very little time remaining.. they chose to hand it back to New England after attempting an unnecessary pass that drove them back to the edge of field goal range...... result was another pass coupled with a holding penalty that truly sealed their fate.

 

[Half Empty]

Why do you need "special" overtime rules? Just keep playing under the normal rules of football, you know the ones that ended the game tied? Play a 5th quarter.....I would be fine with 15 minutes or even 10/12. Whoever is ahead at the end wins. I am guessing every Falcon player today would tell you, they still had enough in them to play a whole 5th quarter yesterday.

Looked to me like at least half their team, the defense didn't have enough to play the first couple of minutes of the 5th quarter.

 

[PackerDNA]

interesting game... but The Falcons gave that game away on a platter. all they had to do was run the ball 3 times and kick an easy FG to maintain an 11 point lead with very little time remaining.. they chose to hand it back to New England after attempting an unnecessary pass that drove them back to the edge of field goal range...... result was another pass coupled with a holding penalty that truly sealed their fate.

Maybe it's more a case of the Pats dug themselves a hole with their poor play early.
I'm not a stats guy, but if you look at the stats from this game without knowing the result, you could think the Pats won by 35.

 

[PackerDNA]

Why do you need "special" overtime rules? Just keep playing under the normal rules of football, you know the ones that ended the game tied? Play a 5th quarter.....I would be fine with 15 minutes or even 10/12. Whoever is ahead at the end wins. I am guessing every Falcon player today would tell you, they still had enough in them to play a whole 5th quarter yesterday.

I would think NE did too, from the way they dominated the game from the time they went down 28-3.

 

[PackerDNA]

Every ******** time a game goes to OT and a team ends it on their first possession this conversation happens.

College rules suck for a reason.

These are professionals on BOTH sides of the ball. Defensive players make a ton of cash too. Make a play. Hell they don't even need to make a game changing one anymore. Just keep them out of the end zone.

If your D can't stop the other team from marching into the end zone they don't deserve a chance with the football

Couldn't agree more with you on college OT rules.
Pure garbage.

 

[RRyder]

But you're not getting the point that that goes both ways. Ok so I took a shot at New England with this, but you coulda said the same thing about Atlanta. So say Atlanta wins the coin toss and they get the ball and go down the field and score an opening drive TD in OT, I'd still be making this thread today. Why? Cuz their defense was gassed as someone said and they were showing no ability to stop the Pats once that lead got blown. So therefore their defense would be showing no ability to make a stop in OT but yet they'd get a win by virtue of a coin toss. You see what I'm saying?

Coin tosses do decide teams fates in OT, and with my rules they wouldn't. Now if someone figures out a way to eliminate coin tosses for overtime and maybe throws in something like the NBA's jump ball except with 11 men on each side lined up trying to wrestle it away from each other, maybe this argument that a team's defense not stopping someone on the opening possession could stand. But until that happens, we're still stuck with dumb coin tosses.

Only sucky part I find about college OT rules is that teams start at the opposing 25 yardline with no kickoff. I don't want that. But I do think opening TDs should not be sudden death and that teams that score them should have to go for 2, and likewise the opposing team answering them on their drive.

I understood exactly what your getting at. And my response is the same. These are professionals. Boohoo hoooo. You didn't win the coin toss. Your defensive players get paid too. Make a damn play. If u can't and allow the other team to match down the field you don't deserve it.

Blame it on the coin toss if you want. Defensive players get paid for a reason. Play the hand your dealt and deal with it.

This whole notion that both teams should get a chance with the ball is something that has no place in pro ball. Once again guys playing defense get paid to do a job. What your arguing diminishes their importance

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

I understood exactly what your getting at. And my response is the same. These are professionals. Boohoo hoooo. You didn't win the coin toss. Your defensive players get paid too. Make a damn play. If u can't and allow the other team to match down the field you don't deserve it

Ok, then make both teams play defense in OT. After all if they're getting paid, why let one team's defense sit on the bench the whole time?

 

[RRyder]

Ok, then make both teams play defense in OT. After all if they're getting paid, why let one team's defense sit on the bench the whole time?

Well if the hand that's dealt is your D has to make a stop to get your offense the ball then get the freaking stop. It's that simple. Stop with the everyone deserves a trophy mentality.

Why don't you just argue both teams have an equal number of possessions per game/half/quarter? That's what your arguing for OT. Why not the entire game then? Because when the game goes to OT the rules change. And they should. This idea that both teams deserve a chance with the ball idea simply negates the value of defense in overtime.

If your team draws the short straw and you gotta roll your D out first well then too bad. Your paying them for a reason