NFL Must Change OT Rules Starting Now

[Mondio]

It's not ONE thing that determines the outcome. There is a coinflip that starts the game. There are field conditions to consider. Some fields are tore up at one end, not the other. There are wind considerations. Some times your'e with it, sometimes you're not, sometimes it's crossing at one end and it only affects kicks. I know many want domes, but the elements make the game exciting. But even beyond that, one team gets the ball first. that period is timed. why does the team with the ball last have to play against the clock to end the 1st half, but if they're tied going to the end of the game they don't?

How about we just scrap it all. Each team gets 10 possessions on offense. They all get the ball at the 25 yard line. They don't want punts or kicks anymore either, so special teams outside of FG's are eliminated. Line it up, no time except for play clock. and then if it hasn't ended in one team victorious, we're still left with what we have. Do we flip a coin then? do we make it sudden death? but what if the posessions aren't equal? just keep going till there is a winner? for how long? none of this is better, just different.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I understand a coin toss to start the game, but any benefit of winning it is countered by the "flip side" of that to start the second half. Overtime isn't "starting the game over" to determine a winner, it's about finishing a tied game, figure out a way to keep the damn coin toss out of it, or if there has to be one, offset the advantage winning it gives a team.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's not ONE thing that determines the outcome. There is a coinflip that starts the game. There are field conditions to consider. Some fields are tore up at one end, not the other. There are wind considerations. Some times your'e with it, sometimes you're not, sometimes it's crossing at one end and it only affects kicks. I know many want domes, but the elements make the game exciting. But even beyond that, one team gets the ball first. that period is timed. why does the team with the ball last have to play against the clock to end the 1st half, but if they're tied going to the end of the game they don't?

How about we just scrap it all. Each team gets 10 possessions on offense. They all get the ball at the 25 yard line. They don't want punts or kicks anymore either, so special teams outside of FG's are eliminated. Line it up, no time except for play clock. and then if it hasn't ended in one team victorious, we're still left with what we have. Do we flip a coin then? do we make it sudden death? but what if the posessions aren't equal? just keep going till there is a winner? for how long? none of this is better, just different.

Not even commenting on your second paragraph, that just seems like you are throwing noise into a discussion to try and derail it. Not sure what any of most of that first paragraph has to do with the discussion of OT?? Lost me there. Again, you are under a mindset that a team should be forced into playing against the clock at the end of the 4th quarter in a tied game. Is that for your entertainment or trying to keep the game fair? Aren't they also playing against another team that may just stop them? Does playing in the current OT format require a team to "play against a clock?" Do teams play against a clock at the end of the 1st and 3rd quarters?

 

[Mondio]

sometimes, depends on wind, depends on if they have a lead or are behind. Depends on the flow of the game. Sometimes they want to run a play, sometimes they just want to get to the end of the Q. there is always strategy, especially at the ends of quarters and halves.

 

[Ceodore]

As I just wrote above, this really would be no different then the way the game is played between the 1st and 2nd and the 3rd and 4th quarters. Switch ends, play on, let the winner be determined playing the game of football, not by flipping a coin.

It's different because, under your rules, the 5th quarter is sudden death. If your suggestion is to just play the entire extra time, that's fine. But having the ball at the end of regulation is the same thing as flipping a coin when the first team to score in extra time wins. Team B ties the game with one second left in regulation and has to kick to Team A so Team A gets the ball sudden death style. How is that different?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Just tossing this idea up in the air for those who don't like the coin toss, want to keep the dramatic 4th quarter endings and are willing to succumb to part of the current OT format.

Keep the game rolling as is in a tied game after the 4th quarter. But once the game is in OT, a first possession FG does not win the game. Think about the decisions the Packers would have had to make at the end of that Dallas game with that format.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's different because, under your rules, the 5th quarter is sudden death. If your suggestion is to just play the entire extra time, that's fine. But having the ball at the end of regulation is the same thing as flipping a coin when the first team to score in extra time wins. Team B ties the game with one second left in regulation and has to kick to Team A so Team A gets the ball sudden death style. How is that different?

Again, mindset. You are viewing OT as wiping everything out that has happened and basically restarting the game.

Team A and Team B aren't a coin flip, they have some influence with timeouts and their play as to who possesses the ball at anytime during the game.

In your end of game scenario, does Team B really deserve the ball at that point (via a coin flip)?

 

[Mondio]

Just tossing this idea up in the air for those who don't like the coin toss, want to keep the dramatic 4th quarter endings and are willing to succumb to part of the current OT format.

Keep the game rolling as is in a tied game after the 4th quarter. But once the game is in OT, a first possession FG does not win the game. Think about the decisions the Packers would have had to make at the end of that Dallas game with that format.

llike I said, it makes it different, not better.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

llike I said, it makes it different, not better.

Well until they find and agree to a "better" way of playing OT, the debate will continue. No different than all the years it took to finally stop allowing an opening drive FG to win OT. All about evolution of the game.

 

[Ceodore]

Team A and Team B aren't a coin flip, they have some influence with timeouts and their play as to who possesses the ball at anytime during the game.

In your end of game scenario, does Team B really deserve the ball at that point (via a coin flip)?

Not necessarily, but why does Team A deserve the final say via sudden death when both teams played to a tie for 4 quarters? They have both satisfied the objective of playing to a tie in regulation, so why does Team A deserve an advantage for having the ball for one second at the end of regulation? I'm imagining a team intentionally false starting to get a 10 second run off in order to run out the 4th quarter clock to assure the other team cant get the ball back in regulation and have it in OT. I'm sure that would go over great.

If you really want to give one team the advantage based on things that occurred during the game, maybe give the team with the longest time of possession, or yards gained, the ball first. In this way, both offense and defense have an impact on deciding who gets the ball first in OT and it's not just arbitrarily decided by a coin flip or who happened to hold the ball last.

 

[adambr2]

Baseball and Basketball are 2. Sure the NBA "retips" the ball, but OT in both of those sports generally try to mimic the way that regulation time was played, by extending the game another period.

Imagine Baseball being played with the rule, first team to lead by 2 runs (equivalent of a TD over a FG in my mind) in extra innings wins the game. Nice to be the visiting team and first up for that scenario.

Baseball sure, but that's apples to oranges as baseball is a completely different 'timekeeping' format, no clock and every team gets 3 outs every inning.

Basketball is a lot more similar to what you suggested with a 10-15 minute no sudden death rule which I just disagree with for reasons stated.

 

[Mondio]

Well until they find and agree to a "better" way of playing OT, the debate will continue. No different than all the years it took to finally stop allowing an opening drive FG to win OT. All about evolution of the game.

and I think that made it "better" because with the rules being changed to favor the offense tremendously, 3 long passes and hoping for 1 likely PI call practically put you in a game winning situation. Much different than the days of the ground and pound days. Scoring TD's was more a difficult scenario.

Replacing a coinflip to start the time frame with just letting the team with the ball keep it and keep going isn't really making anything more "fair". Only different

 

[adambr2]

I don´t agree with the part in bold, especially as it´s for sure better than having a coin toss affect the outcome of a game.

If the 'defend first ' team wins, say 55% of the time if tried (theoretical until tried, but this is the percentage in college rules), which is similar to the current NFL format percentage, isn't the coin toss still affecting the outcome of a game?

I know you don't agree, but I think it's a clear advantage to possess 2nd and know exactly what you need, whether you are already in 4 down territory, whether you can afford to punt, etc.

Plus, if both teams possess once and score a TD, and then the first team, now only needing a FG to win, just drives 40 yards and kicks it, aren't we going to be having the same complaints that this wasn't fair to the 2nd team since they never got a 2nd drive like the first team did?

As others have said, I don't see these as just solutions, just different problems with different solutions.

 

[Ceodore]

^^ Truth. The fairest solution of all would be to just let the game end in regulation in a tie. Anything short of simply starting the game over any playing 4 more quarters, alternating at half time is going to yield some sort of advantage to one of the teams.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not necessarily, but why does Team A deserve the final say via sudden death when both teams played to a tie for 4 quarters? They have both satisfied the objective of playing to a tie in regulation, so why does Team A deserve an advantage for having the ball for one second at the end of regulation?

If you really want to give one team the advantage based on things that occurred during the game, maybe give the team with the longest time of possession, or yards gained, the ball first. In this way, both offense and defense have an impact on deciding who gets the ball first in OT and it's not just arbitrarily decided by a coin flip or who happened to hold the ball last.

For me, its all about keeping the game flowing as is and not using some arbitrary (stats) or random (coin flip) thing from influencing the outcome of the game.

I still don't understand the mindset that the "5th quarter" has to be this magical quarter that reboots the game with a coin flip and another kick off. Feels like the evolution of the NFL OT came from the mindset of Hockey. "We want to declare a winner, so first team to score wins". Only problem, hockey is a completely different game when it comes to possessions.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If you really want to give one team the advantage based on things that occurred during the game, maybe give the team with the longest time of possession, or yards gained, the ball first. In this way, both offense and defense have an impact on deciding who gets the ball first in OT and it's not just arbitrarily decided by a coin flip or who happened to hold the ball last.

I would be in favor of things that happened during the game deciding which team gets the ball first in overtime over a coin toss for sure.

I know you don't agree, but I think it's a clear advantage to possess 2nd and know exactly what you need, whether you are already in 4 down territory, whether you can afford to punt, etc.

Plus, if both teams possess once and score a TD, and then the first team, now only needing a FG to win, just drives 40 yards and kicks it, aren't we going to be having the same complaints that this wasn't fair to the 2nd team since they never got a 2nd drive like the first team did?

I agree that the team getting the second possession in overtime has an advantage but I think it´s not as favorable as you might think. As I´ve stated repeatedly I want both teams to get the same amount of possessions until the game is decided therefore your last paragraph isn´t relevant.

 

[adambr2]

I really do think the 'no first FG win' that came into play a few years ago has made things a lot more fair. I would agree that that wasn't a very good way to go. I honestly do feel that the way they do it now is about as close to completely fair as you can get without making the game too gimmicky. If they change it, sure, I'll give the new rules a shot. But I have no problem with the way they do it now and I don't hear a lot of complaints from Falcon fans.

And this is coming from a diehard Packer fan myself who has seen his team lose 2 out of the last 3 years in the playoffs on first possession OT drives. Sorry, I don't blame the coin or the rules, I blame our D. Just needed to keep them out of the end zone to give Rodgers a shot and couldn't do it. In either situation a bend but don't break FG would have been fine.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

^^ Truth. The fairest solution of all would be to just let the game end in regulation in a tie. Anything short of simply starting the game over any playing 4 more quarters, alternating at half time is going to yield some sort of advantage to one of the teams.

Which might be fine during the regular season, but does nothing for determining who advances in a playoff game. Succumbing to "a tie is a tie" to me just says, "you know, we can't figure out an equitable way to finish this thing, so let's just call it a tie."

 

[Ceodore]

For me, its all about keeping the game flowing as is and not using some arbitrary (stats) or random (coin flip) thing from influencing the outcome of the game.

I still don't understand the mindset that the "5th quarter" has to be this magical quarter that reboots the game with a coin flip and another kick off. Feels like the evolution of the NFL OT came from the mindset of Hockey. "We want to declare a winner, so first team to score wins". Only problem, hockey is a completely different game when it comes to possessions.

What you don't understand is the game isn't flowing the same way it was before under your rules, because the rules have changed in your new quarter.

In no sport does the game simply just "continue" with new rules of sudden death. In basketball, there is a tip off and a time limit. In baseball the game continues, but both sides get a chance to score runs. Don't follow hockey, but i assume there is a face-off in overtime. In tennis, it's a tiebreak with both players getting to serve, or win by 2 games.

 

[Ceodore]

Which might be fine during the regular season, but does nothing for determining who advances in a playoff game. Succumbing to "a tie is a tie" to me just says, "you know, we can't figure out an equitable way to finish this thing, so let's call it a tie.

This is true, but it's the only way that's truly "fair".

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And this is coming from a diehard Packer fan myself who has seen his team lose 2 out of the last 3 years in the playoffs on first possession OT drives. Sorry, I don't blame the coin or the rules, I blame our D. Just needed to keep them out of the end zone to give Rodgers a shot and couldn't do it. In either situation a bend but don't break FG would have been fine.

I don´t blame any of these losses on the overtime rules either but I still don´t like both teams not getting the same amount of possessions.

 

[adambr2]

I agree that the team getting the second possession in overtime has an advantage but I think it´s not as favorable as you might think. As I´ve stated repeatedly I want both teams to get the same amount of possessions until the game is decided therefore your last paragraph isn´t relevant.

That's basically just college rules with full length fields. Sorry, to me, just too gimmicky, games will drag out, ties will increase, individual statistics will be very overinflated. Just my opinion, but I don't think it's better than what we have.

 

[RRyder]

I don´t agree with the part in bold, especially as it´s for sure better than having a coin toss affect the outcome of a game.

The coin toss still effects the outcome then though as the team that wins it would decide to go second as its a huge advantage.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The coin toss still effects the outcome then though as the team that wins it would decide to go second as its a huge advantage.

I think a lot of you overestimate the advantage of getting the second possession in overtime.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What you don't understand is the game isn't flowing the same way it was before under your rules, because the rules have changed in your new quarter.

In no sport does the game simply just "continue" with new rules of sudden death. In basketball, there is a tip off and a time limit. In baseball the game continues, but both sides get a chance to score runs. Don't follow hockey, but i assume there is a face-off in overtime. In tennis, it's a tiebreak with both players getting to serve, or win by 2 games.

How does the game flow better under the current OT rules?

But you see, Football is currently sudden death when a team scores a TD or after the first possession. Every sport you mentioned allows for multiple possessions or chances to score by each team, that possibility is far too often eliminated in the NFL, by the mere flip of a coin.