NFL Must Change OT Rules Starting Now

Firethorn1001

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
1,518
Reaction score
1,070
There is with the opening coin flip. It assures that one team gets the ball to start the game and the other teams gets the ball to start the second half. The rest of the possessions are created by and based on the play of each team.

If you are going to create a "brand new" time period, overtime and give possession to the winner of the coin flip, you have just artificially created one unequal possession.


Good points. I stand corrected.
 
OP
OP
PackerfaninCarolina

PackerfaninCarolina

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
4,162
Reaction score
316
There is with the opening coin flip. It assures that one team gets the ball to start the game and the other teams gets the ball to start the second half. The rest of the possessions are created by and based on the play of each team.

If you are going to create a "brand new" time period, overtime and give possession to the winner of the coin flip, you have just artificially created one unequal possession.

These changes wouldn't even give teams "equal" OT possessions per se. Just elimination of the sudden death facets.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,073
Reaction score
7,891
Location
Madison, WI
These changes wouldn't even give teams "equal" OT possessions per se. Just elimination of the sudden death facets.
I was referring to the way OT is currently being played when I said "create a "brand new" time period, overtime". I'm pretty clear on how I feel, I don't like the current OT method and there are ways to eliminate or better offset the advantage that a coin flip can give one team.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,969
Reaction score
1,244
I've got an idea but it may require a new position... The Gamer. We've had 60 minutes to determine who has the best athletes and we couldn't get the job done. Now its time for the real specialists to take over. You trot out your 98 pound weakling to midfeld and let him go mano a mano against the other teams 98 pound weakling in a heated game of Madden.

Or maybe, since the NFL wants to get the fans in on everything just have a 10 minute call in or text period with fans voting on who should win the game. Instead of OT they could call it the "Save Larry" period.
 
Last edited:

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,073
Reaction score
7,891
Location
Madison, WI
I've got an idea but it may require a new position... The Gamer. We've had 60 minutes to determine who has the best athletes and we couldn't get the job done. Now its time for the real specialists to take over. You trot out your 98 pound weakling to midfeld and let him go mano a mano against the other teams 98 pound weakling in a heated game of Madden.
Good luck finding one of those guys that you can pry away from their monitors for more than a few minutes to concentrate.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!
 

Zartan

Cans.wav
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
2,228
Reaction score
702
The current OT rules are fine. I don't want it to turn into College Football OT rules. The Falcons had a chance but their D was gassed.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,969
Reaction score
1,244
^^ 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.

I have no problem with ties in a regular season game. So a team is 10-4-2 is that so much different than 11-5 or. Besides people are assuming that all the games that went into OT because they were tied (obviously) would have been tied had there been no OT. Not so. A coach, knowing his team needs a win for a tiebreaker (in the standings not the score) is not going to settle for an extra point to tie he is going to try for 2 and I'd bet it would happen even more. One of the reasons teams settle for OT is because they know there is a chance they can win the game. If that chance for a win in OT is gone more teams would go for the win at the end of a game.

Obviously that doesn't work for the playoffs but for the regular season why not.
 

Packer Brother

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 5, 2016
Messages
709
Reaction score
51
Location
Philadelphia
No issue with the OT rule. Remember that the defense ( As us Packers fans are well aware...) can win the game on the opening possession too....
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,073
Reaction score
7,891
Location
Madison, WI
No issue with the OT rule. Remember that the defense ( As us Packers fans are well aware...) can win the game on the opening possession too....

So can special teams, returned kickoff/punt, blocked punt return for a TD. But I don't think any of those things happen often enough to be relevant in the discussion of how an overtime game should be handled.
 

Packer Brother

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 5, 2016
Messages
709
Reaction score
51
Location
Philadelphia
So can special teams, returned kickoff/punt, blocked punt return for a TD. But I don't think any of those things happen often enough to be relevant in the discussion of how an overtime game should be handled.

I don't mind if they change the OT rules for playoffs only. If you go by college rules in the regular season, you run the risk of gasing out & injuring players.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I don't mind if they change the OT rules for playoffs only. If you go by college rules in the regular season, you run the risk of gasing out & injuring players.

There's absolutely no doubt the college rules are terrible and the NFL shouldn't even think about going in that direction.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
Less than 20% of offensive possessions end in an offensive TD. I'd say it's hardly the flip of the coin that determines the outcome. even this last game. Atlanta had time and time again to put the pats away or stop an offensive score. They didn't.

and again, so you give teams each a possession. It's still tied, now what? you'll always be left with what we have. unless it just so happens the 2nd team scores a TD instead of a FG, but for the rest of the times, the team that got the ball first, is going to get the ball next and score and the game will be done. and you're still left with the other team getting less possessions.

They've played for 60, determine the winner and go home happy or sad. no matter how you slice it, a coin flip does not determine the winner, the game of football does. haven't heard a single "solution" that makes anything more equitable or "better" just different. New scenarios and new problems to try and fix. how about we define a catch instead and quit making games longer and longer and do something important?
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,073
Reaction score
7,891
Location
Madison, WI
Less than 20% of offensive possessions end in an offensive TD. I'd say it's hardly the flip of the coin that determines the outcome. even this last game. Atlanta had time and time again to put the pats away or stop an offensive score. They didn't.

and again, so you give teams each a possession. It's still tied, now what? you'll always be left with what we have. unless it just so happens the 2nd team scores a TD instead of a FG, but for the rest of the times, the team that got the ball first, is going to get the ball next and score and the game will be done. and you're still left with the other team getting less possessions.

They've played for 60, determine the winner and go home happy or sad. no matter how you slice it, a coin flip does not determine the winner, the game of football does. haven't heard a single "solution" that makes anything more equitable or "better" just different. New scenarios and new problems to try and fix. how about we define a catch instead and quit making games longer and longer and do something important?

While ironing out what constitutes a catch is important too, the fact that you don't find it important to fix something (overtime) that more than just a few perceive as broken, is as puzzling as your reasons for thinking it works.

Makes me want to look at your perceived issue of importance on the catch rule and apply your same reasoning: "the guy catches it or he doesn't, if he doesn't catch it the first time, he should of, but not worth slowing up the game or spending time changing the rules to fix something so trivial, they play the game for 60 minutes, a refs decision doesn't determine the winner, less than 1% of catches are questionable, etc." But that wouldn't be productive for me to say that now would it? Maybe just flip a coin on a questionable catch?
 
Last edited:

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
While ironing out what constitutes a catch is important too, the fact that you don't find it important to fix something (overtime) that more than just a few perceive as broken, is as puzzling as your reasons for thinking it works.

Makes me want to look at your perceived issue of importance on the catch rule and apply your same reasoning: "the guy catches it or he doesn't, if he doesn't catch it the first time, he should of, but not worth slowing up the game or spending time changing the rules to fix something so trivial, they play the game for 60 minutes, a refs decision doesn't determine the winner, less than 5% of catches are questionable, etc." But that wouldn't be productive for me to say that now would it? Maybe just flip a coin on a questionable catch?
I think this illustrates the fact that we all care about different things. Personally, I am not hugely concerned with the current overtime rule. I do agree that there are flaws and would personally prefer that both teams get at least one offensive possession. But since the NFL removed the idea that a FG could win it in sudden death on the first possession, I have not been quite as adamant about needing a change. However, I certainly understand why many people would like to see it fixed further, for me, I would be happy to just see the TD ending it on the first possession go away... I would be fine with either just playing out the entire OT period, or simply going to sudden death after each team has had a chance on offense. I realize that that may not be perfect, but I can live with that.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,073
Reaction score
7,891
Location
Madison, WI
I think this illustrates the fact that we all care about different things. Personally, I am not hugely concerned with the current overtime rule. I do agree that there are flaws and would personally prefer that both teams get at least one offensive possession. But since the NFL removed the idea that a FG could win it in sudden death on the first possession, I have not been quite as adamant about needing a change. However, I certainly understand why many people would like to see it fixed further, for me, I would be happy to just see the TD ending it on the first possession go away... I would be fine with either just playing out the entire OT period, or simply going to sudden death after each team has had a chance on offense. I realize that that may not be perfect, but I can live with that.

Agreed. As flippant as my last post may have sounded, to me tweaking things that need tweaking is a no brainer. Are you ever going to get it 100% correct in some cases? No. The NFL works on rule changes every year and eventually, every little odd play that brings a need for a tweak will happen and the rules will be adjusted accordingly. "The Catch Rule", Overtime and fumbling out of the endzone are just examples of topics that will always remain debatable until enough people are satisfied that the rules are as close to perfect and equitable as they can be.
 
OP
OP
PackerfaninCarolina

PackerfaninCarolina

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
4,162
Reaction score
316
Less than 20% of offensive possessions end in an offensive TD. I'd say it's hardly the flip of the coin that determines the outcome. even this last game. Atlanta had time and time again to put the pats away or stop an offensive score. They didn't.

and again, so you give teams each a possession. It's still tied, now what? you'll always be left with what we have. unless it just so happens the 2nd team scores a TD instead of a FG, but for the rest of the times, the team that got the ball first, is going to get the ball next and score and the game will be done. and you're still left with the other team getting less possessions.

They've played for 60, determine the winner and go home happy or sad. no matter how you slice it, a coin flip does not determine the winner, the game of football does. haven't heard a single "solution" that makes anything more equitable or "better" just different. New scenarios and new problems to try and fix. how about we define a catch instead and quit making games longer and longer and do something important?

Personally I think we'd all like to see this whole catch rule simplified and not open to interpretation. But there can be tweaks in the OT rule. We don't need or want college rules, but we can still do better than allowing sudden death on an opening drive kickoff return TD or offensive TD.

And like I said, I'm open to having there be no punts or extra points in OT period to make it more interesting.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
While ironing out what constitutes a catch is important too, the fact that you don't find it important to fix something (overtime) that more than just a few perceive as broken, is as puzzling as your reasons for thinking it works.

Makes me want to look at your perceived issue of importance on the catch rule and apply your same reasoning: "the guy catches it or he doesn't, if he doesn't catch it the first time, he should of, but not worth slowing up the game or spending time changing the rules to fix something so trivial, they play the game for 60 minutes, a refs decision doesn't determine the winner, less than 1% of catches are questionable, etc." But that wouldn't be productive for me to say that now would it? Maybe just flip a coin on a questionable catch?
i'd be more than fine getting rid of all replay too. Have refs with good eyes, a feel for the game and the guts to make a call on the field and move on. I think all replay has done was allowed some calls to be corrected and others not to even be made because officiating has eroded over time, and will continue to do so because they don't have to be as good as before. They have replay to fall back on of course. Until the replay doesn't show it like it should or doesn't show enough to overturn what they originally called just "playing it safe" and an incorrect call stands. Just different problems.

And it does work, a winner is declared almost every single time. They've already played the game, the time has already expired. TD's are more difficult to come by. stop them or hold them to a FG and go win the game. If you can't do it, you lose. I didn't say it was perfect, but then nothing that's been proposed so far is either, or any more so than what we have already in most situations. It's different, not better
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,073
Reaction score
7,891
Location
Madison, WI
i'd be more than fine getting rid of all replay too. Have refs with good eyes, a feel for the game and the guts to make a call on the field and move on. I think all replay has done was allowed some calls to be corrected and others not to even be made because officiating has eroded over time, and will continue to do so because they don't have to be as good as before. They have replay to fall back on of course. Until the replay doesn't show it like it should or doesn't show enough to overturn what they originally called just "playing it safe" and an incorrect call stands. Just different problems.

And it does work, a winner is declared almost every single time. They've already played the game, the time has already expired. TD's are more difficult to come by. stop them or hold them to a FG and go win the game. If you can't do it, you lose. I didn't say it was perfect, but then nothing that's been proposed so far is either, or any more so than what we have already in most situations. It's different, not better

Just curios, with everything that you just wrote, why and how can you be concerned about the catch rule? Just play the game, let the refs call it the best they can and keep playing seems to be what you prefer?

Personally, I think instant replay is still a work in progress, but I prefer it over none. It has proven many times that with the speed of the game and the limitations of human sight, calls, very important calls, can be incorrectly made but now can be corrected.
 
Last edited:

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
i'd be more than fine getting rid of all replay too. Have refs with good eyes, a feel for the game and the guts to make a call on the field and move on. I think all replay has done was allowed some calls to be corrected and others not to even be made because officiating has eroded over time, and will continue to do so because they don't have to be as good as before. They have replay to fall back on of course. Until the replay doesn't show it like it should or doesn't show enough to overturn what they originally called just "playing it safe" and an incorrect call stands. Just different problems.

And it does work, a winner is declared almost every single time. They've already played the game, the time has already expired. TD's are more difficult to come by. stop them or hold them to a FG and go win the game. If you can't do it, you lose. I didn't say it was perfect, but then nothing that's been proposed so far is either, or any more so than what we have already in most situations. It's different, not better
I cannot see getting rid of replay as being realistic..... with as many cameras as the networks have on the field, the game can never be reverted back to the pre replay days... everybody EXCEPT the refs would know when a bad call was made and I don't think many fans would stand for that anymore. Do they get everything right even with replay ... no.... but I don't think going backwards is the right solution.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,073
Reaction score
7,891
Location
Madison, WI
I cannot see getting rid of replay as being realistic..... with as many cameras as the networks have on the field, the game can never be reverted back to the pre replay days... everybody EXCEPT the refs would know when a bad call was made and I don't think many fans would stand for that anymore. Do they get everything right even with replay ... no.... but I don't think going backwards is the right solution.

Agreed, all I could picture was this, when thinking about that.....and I'm just not old enough to want or maybe appreciate ....that....

You must be logged in to see this image or video!
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
I"ve never seen football played like that in my entire lifetime. I have watched plenty of seasons with no replay and the flow of the game has been affected. and no, I don't think it's a "better" product because of it, it's just different. And you're right, they're not getting rid of it, fans love it. gives them more reasons to talk about "things".

How can I be concerned with the catch rule? because ever year they try and further "tweak" and define and 'make better and "more clear" what a catch is, and where has it gotten us? I can tell you I liked it a lot better when they just made their calls and stood by them. It wasn't perfect, but today's game is pretty far from it too as evidenced by the controversy after nearly every game every week it seems. I'm fine with humans calling a human game. it is after all the essence of sports.
 
OP
OP
PackerfaninCarolina

PackerfaninCarolina

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
4,162
Reaction score
316
Well, we appear to have lost track here of the OT rules and I don't really want to continue to derail the thread on the catch thing, but I'll say I'm actually somewhat with Mondio on what instant replay has done. Don't get me wrong, I like incorrect calls to be corrected if they can, but there is a sense that the officiating has gotten a bit lazy knowing that replay is going to be looked at. I'd also say I don't like that it's allowed TV to turn it into a gargantuan money machine by giving them any more commercial time, but I've already got another thread going about punishing networks for excessive commercial time, so I won't go there either. Replays won't be taken away now because Pandora's box has been opened, but I wouldn't complain if they were.

But I gotta think, in tying this back to the OT conversation, if they were able to keep the flow of the game going by having replay command centers speed the process up, the concern about eliminating offensive TD sudden death extending the game would be moot.
 

Zartan

Cans.wav
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
2,228
Reaction score
702
With the way the Falcons D was playing at the end only way for Falcons to win was score TD after coin toss. Which would arrive at the same problem of OT rules.
 
OP
OP
PackerfaninCarolina

PackerfaninCarolina

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
4,162
Reaction score
316
With the way the Falcons D was playing at the end only way for Falcons to win was score TD after coin toss. Which would arrive at the same problem of OT rules.

As has been said before, I think the Falcons were dead whether sudden death was implemented or not, but it's still one of those things you wonder about what could've happened had the Pats had to go back on D and just stop them one more time. Hell they probably would have, it's not all about changing the outcome of the game, it's about going all the way once the NFL decided to eliminate sudden death on a FG. I just feel eliminating punts and adding mandatory 2 pt conversions to OT would spice it up quite a bit and make for something even better.

And it's not just the Superbowl I've been talking about here, it's the last 2 Packer playoff OT losses in which the other team won the toss and scored an opening drive TD. Add in a Packers possession and at least you'd feel like the game actually got to play out the way that the rest of the 4th quarter did. Now I actually was in favor of MM going for 2 after our game-tying TD, but that's been beaten to death already here so I'm not going to get back into that. But again, there is no one game you can point to and look at as a case to look at a tweak of OT rules and sudden death.

Ok, do I have a gripe that the Pack were on the short end of the stick in the last 2 OT playoff games? Sure Ok yeah I'll admit I do a little. Might an OT game that didn't have sudden death still not have made a difference in the final outcome? Absolutely. But does that eliminate all discussion of still tweaking this process? Absolutely not.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Top