IR Rule Change

[rmontro]

Of course, but there's no need for a clock even being operated in playoff overtimes as a winner has to be declared. Just give every team the same amount of possessions.

Some guys say you shouldn't need the same amount of possessions because if you lose the coin flip and you want to win, you should make a stop. Only problem with that is they keep changing the rules to give the offense the advantage, so it may not be a level playing field out there.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Some guys you shouldn't need the same amount of possessions because if you lose the coin flip and you want to win, you should make a stop.

There's another problem with it as the team winning the coin toss for some reason isn't required to make a stop to win the game.

 

[sschind]

Well, following your thought process why not have a team winning overtime just by stopping the opponent's offense without having to score on their own???

You can't be the winner if you don't have more points so that makes no sense what so ever.

 

[sschind]

There's another problem with it as the team winning the coin toss for some reason isn't required to make a stop to win the game.

If they score a TD they are not required to make a stop but my proposal would put an end to that

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You can't be the winner if you don't have more points so that makes no sense what so ever.

I agree that it doesn't make any sense but you're the one being keen on only one phase of the game having to produce in overtime after both teams received a possession so why are you against the defense winning it by stopping the opponent at that point???

If they score a TD they are not required to make a stop but my proposal would put an end to that

No, as the team winning the coin toss would win the game by scoring a touchdown on the first and a field goal on its second possession. There's no need to stop the opposing offense in your proposal for the team getting the ball first. Interestingly it's an absolute necessity for the one having to play defense on the opening drive of OT.

 

[rmontro]

Eh, we used to have ties when I was growing up. Don't love the idea, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. There was a saying though: A tie is like kissing your sister.

 

[Mondio]

Eh, we used to have ties when I was growing up. Don't love the idea, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. There was a saying though: A tie is like kissing your sister.

some people call that dating, it can't be that bad

 

[Half Empty]

Right, I live in Arkansas, so most of the folks around me don't even understand the reference.

 

[sschind]

I agree that it doesn't make any sense but you're the one being keen on only one phase of the game having to produce in overtime after both teams received a possession so why are you against the defense winning it by stopping the opponent at that point???



No, as the team winning the coin toss would win the game by scoring a touchdown on the first and a field goal on its second possession. There's no need to stop the opposing offense in your proposal for the team getting the ball first. Interestingly it's an absolute necessity for the one having to play defense on the opening drive of OT.

I'm against the whole concept really but I recognize it as a necessary evil in the playoffs. Like I said, since they put a 60 minute time limit on the game I think it should mean something. You have 60 minutes to score more points than your opponent, if no one does its a tie. If someone has to win the game, as in the playoffs, give each offense and each defense one more chance to win it and if neither one does let the next team to score win and lets get the hell out of here. For me it is that simple. All this talk of making it more fair by doing this or doing that is irrelevant because I don't think it is necessary.

For the record I never said there was anything wrong with your proposal, just that I don't think it is necessary to keep giving teams chance after chance after they have each had their 1 extra chance.

 

[sschind]

Right, I live in Arkansas, so most of the folks around me don't even understand the reference.

I keep picturing some redneck sitting there with a puzzled look on his face thinking "you guys ain't never seen my sister"

 

[Poppa San]

Right, I live in Arkansas, so most of the folks around me don't even understand the reference.

Dunno, I've seen some sisters worth kissing. Not mine of course but other peoples.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Another good (IMO) article about NFL overtime.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl-overtime-plaschke-20170523-story.html

While I wouldn't be in favor of switching to the college Football OT rules, at this point I would agree with the author and would take those over what the NFL currently uses.

"Since that touchdown-only alteration, six playoff games have gone to overtime and all six have been won by the team that correctly called the coin toss."

"shorten the overtime and cause more tie games because of what owners are claiming is concern over player safety?

Please. According to ESPN, there were 32,732 plays in the NFL last year, and only 60 in the final five minutes of overtime. That’s not a lot of risk to player safety."

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While I wouldn't be in favor of switching to the college Football OT rules, at this point I would agree with the author and would take those over what the NFL currently uses.

I like that both teams get an equal amount of possessions in college football overtime but absolutely hate every other part about it.

 

[Mondio]

we definitely have different definitions of "good". his initial statements are perfect, if applied to his logic and article.

First, there is absolutely no comparison between football and baseball, so don't make one. There is no field position, there is no play clock, there is no player fatigue (except for pitchers) that can even remotely begin to apply to a compare to going up 300+lbers or getting knocked around by guys 60lbs more than you every play for an hour. and player fatigue, is absolutely a factor in injury. Either immediate, or ones down the road. In fact, fatigue can be blamed on almost all injuries ranging from the kind you get trying to do too many pushups in your basement, to driving a big rig down the road, or playing too many snaps one week or in a couple weeks. This guy knows nothing.

He tries to compare it to basketball? do I even need to rebuke this? I'm not and for anyone that can't immediately see the wide and vast differences and know exactly why this is a horrible comparison, well i'm not sure an explanation would help anyway. so I'll save the keystrokes

This guy thinks it's all about "fair". I don't care. The game is fair enough. OT is about declaring a winner. I don't care that Matt Ryan didn't get the ball again. They had to run, run, run, kick to win the game a long time ago and instead he led one of the absolute worst offensive possessions they could have. I don't feel bad for them. Football is Offense, defense and special teams. You win and lose with them. You had all game to assert your dominance. Now it's do or die and you'll need one of them to win the game for you. Better have good ones if you want the best shot to win. I don't need to see another kick off, another offensive series, another defensive series I want to see which team wants it more and go do it.

I haven't seen one proposal that doesn't just change the strategy and change the problems. They don't fix anything or make it more "fair" they just make it different.

He brings up some ******** about 6 out of 6 times the team winning the toss wins the game. Nice massaging of numbers retard without giving the context. The very first time these new rules were instituted, the Giants one the toss and took the ball, they punted 4 plays later. Oh and BTW, they got the ball back AGAIN, and punted AGAIN. So both teams got the ball, the Giants just happened to end up winning after the giants fumbled the punt practically in the redzone giving the Giants and gimme kick. But yes, let's use this as an example without context to sway readers.

When writers need to remove context and remove the facts surrounding games to prove their point, it speaks volumes. The next year the Ravens beat the Broncos after 3?4? possessions in OT? hardly the picture the writer is trying to paint in saying those that win the toss are 6 for 6 because the other team doesn't get to go on offense. Anyway, I don't have time to go thru every game to get all the stats, but this guy definitely left out context and facts to sway readers. I don't need a garbage writer to lead me, I want facts. ALL of them.

the facts are those winning the toss win about 54% of the time. It's an advantage, not a huge one and i haven't found anything on how many of those have gone beyond just the 1st possession, but my guess is, it's a lot of them. His proposal to adopt college rules?

different, not better. Take a look at the advantage of going 2nd? knowing what you need to score to win? what's the percentage of the team taking the field on defense first yields in wins? So now you've made it different, but you didn't remove any advantage by playing a certain strategy.

At the end of the day, your offense, your defense, or your special teams have to win you the game. OT is about declaring a winner, at least one of your units better perform and get it done.

Someone said just line them up from the 2 and TD's only? I actually heard this on the radio. I had to laugh at this thinking it made it fair. Just wait till a team that can't make the redzone for 60 minutes and all they do is kick field goals or have a defense that makes a score to keep it tied at the end and then they hand them the ball on the 2 yard line and they score the offenses only TD of the game and win. that's fair. Give a team that can't reach the redzone the ball on the 2 and say go for it LOL. Change the rules, give it time. It will happen. and then everyone will want the rules changed again.

I guess with all of this, my question is, what's wrong with a team needing to have one of it's units perform to win a game after regulation is over? Given that the best offense in all of football last year scoring only could expect to score a TD on a third of their drives, the odds are still better than 50/50 the defense will stop that first possession.

I don't particularly care for college rules, but fine, adopt them. and play by them. But don't kid yourself and think it's "better". It's just different and in 5 years people will be complaining about the advantage of getting the ball 2nd.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I like that both teams get an equal amount of possessions in college football overtime but absolutely hate every other part about it.

Nor am I a big fan of college OT, but I would take that system over the current NFL one.

we definitely have different definitions of "good". his initial statements are perfect, if applied to his logic and article.

Sorry for wasting your time posting that article When I said "good", I wasn't calling it "great", I should have used the word "informative", but I don't think you felt that would have been correct either. Your statement of:

At the end of the day, your offense, your defense, or your special teams have to win you the game. OT is about declaring a winner, at least one of your units better perform and get it done.

Is exactly the problem with the current format. All of your "units" might not be get a chance to win the game that day. In many cases, a team's offense has been left watching on the sidelines as the other team wins the game on their first possession after winning the coin flip. Whether it was just 1, 2, 3 or 4 of those Playoff OT games that ended in one possession doesn't really matter to me, the fact remains that it's always a possibility that your offensive unit may never see the field in OT, to give your team that chance to win the game.

While you may not agree with his comparison to Baseball or Basketball, because the 3 games are completely different in nature, it's hard to dispute that if both of those sports said "first to score" wins the game, there would be some unhappy Baseball and Basketball fans.

To a lot of fans, the NFL's way of conducting overtime is less than perfect, so keeping an open conversation about it works for me and is far better than throwing your hands in the air and saying "Good luck fixing it".

 

[Mondio]

they did all get a chance, for an entire game of regulation. OT is to determine a winner. Someone will always have the ball last. SOmeone will always have the wind. Someone will always be against it. they have to determine who gets the ball first. IN every scenario. someone will have something that isn't "fair"

and basketball and baseball are so fundamentally different, again, there is absolutely zero comparison that can be made. None whatsoever.

and I didn't throw my hands up, I said, go ahead and change it. Just realize you're just changing it. You didn't "fix" anything. so you adopt college rules. What are the stats on going defense first and having the ball last? now compare that to the current NFL rules and percentages. What have you changed besides strategy? more fair? hardly.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree with you on the fundamentals of most sports being different, but in games that are decided by points, a fair tie breaker is usually what is used to send one team/player home the winner in most sports. I believe the system that both Baseball and Basketball use is fair, doesn't matter how they play the sport. Besides NFL Football, I can't think of one sport (points determine winner) that allows the winner to be potentially determined by one team/player having the ability to end it with one possession. Unless you include Hockey and say a team could win the faceoff, skate down and score, game over. Also falling back on "you can't make NFL players play longer, because they may get injured" as an argument not to extend a game, doesn't ring well with me. I would love to see injury stats to support that argument. I would also love to know about the conversations that NFL owners and TV Networks have had about this, because I think their rationale for the current system isn't about fairness, more than it is about the bottom line of profits.

As long as the NFL keeps making strides in changing the OT system to something that levels the playing field for both teams, I will be happy, but it also tells me they know it isn't level under the current system. The shortening of OT from 15 to 10 minutes this year, did nothing to change what was wrong. Maybe next year.

 

[Mondio]

I don't care if other sports are different. Baseball and basketball don't compare. Not even a little bit. In every way they are different and if I wanted baseball rules I'd watch baseball. Baseball doesn't have possessions, they have at bats. You can't score on defense. Holding them to singles doesn't improve your at bats, the only thing that matters is preventing runs. there are no special teams. There is no time limit and player fatigue? only for pitchers and it's very real.

You can't level it. Not a single proposal has come close. What makes it more fair without completely changing how football is played? kicking competitions? I'd change the channel. Some guy proposed ties and point systems like soccer?? WTF, if I wanted soccer I'd go watch soccer. I want American football. Bring back complete sudden death. I don't care. It will change strategies, it won't make it more fair.

Give everyone a possession. It won't make it more fair, it will just change strategies. and there aren't going to be stats that prove there are more injuries in OT than regular games. That's not even at issue. What is at issue is how much beating can these guys take week after week. There isn't a AT, PT, Chiro, Ortho, etc on earth that won't tell you that player fatigue absolutely increases the chance for injury and the more you play a physical game the more those chances go up. Not only for that 15 minutes, but for for a long time after.

There will be no leveling. There can't be. Someone always will be on offense first. Someone will always be on defense first. Someone will always have the ball last. SOmeone will always be against the wind. Someone will always have the wind at their back. someone will have the ball for 1 more or 1 less possession or Someone will always know if they need to go for it on 4th down or they won't have to go for it. They'll know if they can kick, punt or go for broke. No matter what situation they create by changing strategies, they will always create a situation where it's going to favor one team over the other. Once you accept that, you'll realize that changing rules just to change rules is kind of pointless. determine a winner and go home. Or don't. Let them tie and in the playoffs, it's win or go home. Bring back sudden death. Maybe defenses don't sit back and play it so safe in OT and instead keep attacking. Didn't make anything better, just different and the winner is determined.

 

[Sky King]

...Bring back complete sudden death. I don't care. It will change strategies, it won't make it more fair...

Wholeheartedly in agreement with the above statement.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Bring back complete sudden death. I don't care. It will change strategies, it won't make it more fair.

LOL....switch it back to a FG wins the game?

 

[Mondio]

LOL....switch it back to a FG wins the game?

Go ahead, everyone will know what's at stake and play for it. It will change offensive and defensive strategies and a winner and loser will be declared at the end.

Throw all the rules out. One untimed down, tip off at midfield 11 players from each team and rugby style it down the field first one to score wins. I don't care. There will be no "fair". Or equal and there doesn't need to be. Set the rules and play. OT is about declaring a winner or they would just end the game in a tie.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Go ahead, everyone will know what's at stake and play for it. It will change offensive and defensive strategies and a winner and loser will be declared at the end.

Throw all the rules out. One untimed down, tip off at midfield 11 players from each team and rugby style it down the field first one to score wins. I don't care. There will be no "fair". Or equal and there doesn't need to be. Set the rules and play. OT is about declaring a winner or they would just end the game in a tie.

If OT was only about declaring a winner, than why not just flip a coin and be done with it? If Football was just about declaring a winner, same thing. Why play the game, just flip a coin? Most people want to see the process from start to finish and for that process to be consistent in the way that it flows.

Fixing an issue doesn't mean going backwards or getting outrageous and outside the box of normality. The main issues with the current OT that most people point to is the unfairness of the coin flip along with the distinct possibility of one team never getting an offensive possession. There are more reasonable ways to fix that and they have been discussed. As long as the league continues to bow down to the wishes of the Networks, anything that involves extending games past the desired length for the Networks, it probably won't happen.

 

[Mondio]

So what. Don't flip a coin, flip a coin. I don't care. Giving each team an offensive possession only fixes something until one team gets 2 possessions and the other only 1 and one team knows what they have to play for and the other doesn't. Then it's "unfair" again and everyone wants to change it to make it "more fair". None of which make it any more fair than it is right now.

It's football, line up with who you have and go win it. You've had 60 minutes, now get it done or go home. I don't care how.

 

[sschind]

So what. Don't flip a coin, flip a coin. I don't care. Giving each team an offensive possession only fixes something until one team gets 2 possessions and the other only 1 and one team knows what they have to play for and the other doesn't. Then it's "unfair" again and everyone wants to change it to make it "more fair". None of which make it any more fair than it is right now.

It's football, line up with who you have and go win it. You've had 60 minutes, now get it done or go home. I don't care how.

You seem to be taking a lot of time discussing something you don't care about I say that jokingly because for the most part I agree with you. If you have read my posts and my proposals as well as my discussions with WIMM you will note that in games where a winner is not essential I am not in favor of any overtime. You can't get any more fair than that. Each team has 60 minutes for their offense, defense and special teams to win the game. It doesn't matter if one team has 5 more possession than the other it's the 60 minutes that decides when the game is over.In the playoffs where a winner is needed an OT is a necessary evil and while true sudden death didn't bother me as much as it did some I can see where some people do not like it.

I've made my points several times so there is no need to go through them again but I did want to say that I love the point you brought up in your original post in this thread about taking stats out of context. when I read "Since that touchdown-only alteration, six playoff games have gone to overtime and all six have been won by the team that correctly called the coin toss." two thing immediately came to my mind first off why did he only include playoff games. The OT rules are the same for regular season and the playoffs so if his point is to show the OT rules are unfair why not use all OT games in your argument. My only conclusion was that if he had included regular season games he couldn't say the team correctly calling the toss won 100% of the games and that would weaken his argument. The second thing I thought of was just as you said. Yes teams that correctly called the toss won all 6 games but how many of them won it on their first possession which is exactly is what he was trying to get us to think happened. I was hoping someone would have gone through and found that out. I'm still not sure about all six game but as you have pointed out at least 2 of them were not decided on the first possession and the other team had at least one chance. Something that rendered correctly calling the coin toss a moot point.

Back before the switched to the current system and people were arguing against sudden death claiming it was almost an automatic win for the team winning the toss they threw out a statistic that said something like 2/3 of all OT games were won by the team winning the toss. Again inferring that they won on their first possession when in fact the number was closer to the 54 % you mentioned. A perfect example of using stats and manipulating them to show whatever it is you want them to show.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I've made my points several times so there is no need to go through them again but I did want to say that I love the point you brought up in your original post in this thread about taking stats out of context. when I read "Since that touchdown-only alteration, six playoff games have gone to overtime and all six have been won by the team that correctly called the coin toss." two thing immediately came to my mind first off why did he only include playoff games. The OT rules are the same for regular season and the playoffs so if his point is to show the OT rules are unfair why not use all OT games in your argument. My only conclusion was that if he had included regular season games he couldn't say the team correctly calling the toss won 100% of the games and that would weaken his argument. The second thing I thought of was just as you said. Yes teams that correctly called the toss won all 6 games but how many of them won it on their first possession which is exactly is what he was trying to get us to think happened. I was hoping someone would have gone through and found that out. I'm still not sure about all six game but as you have pointed out at least 2 of them were not decided on the first possession and the other team had at least one chance. Something that rendered correctly calling the coin toss a moot point.

Since I was the one who posted that article, I felt compelled to go back find and give you the stats on those 6 games. They were as follows:

1/8/12: Broncos VS Steelers (29-23). Broncos win toss. 1st play from scrimmage, Tebow to Thomas 80 yds. Game over.

1/22/12: 49ers VS Giants (20-17). Giants won toss, recovered a 49er fumble on a punt (second possession) FG wins.

1/12/13: Ravens VS Broncos (38-35). Ravens win toss, win on a FG in double OT

1/18/15: Packers VS Seahawks (28-22). No need to rehash Packers lose in OT after Seattle scores TD on 1st poss.

1/16/16: Packers VS Cardinals (26-20). repeat and rinse previous Packer playoff loss on Cardinals 1st possession.

2/5/17: Pats VS Falcons (34-28). Pats win in OT on 1st possession.

So yes, 4 of 6, not 6 of 6 playoff OT games were decided on the 1st possession. I would actually be fine with calling a regular season a tie and no OT, but that still doesn't change what I think is a big advantage to the team that wins the coin toss for OT in a playoff game.

I would be curious to know if someone said "Since it is the last game of the year, let's put the players all in and a Super Bowl OT will be 10 minute periods, not sudden death", how people would react? That would be my preferential way to play all OT games during the playoffs and the periods/quarters following the 4th are an extension of the game just like the 2nd and 4th quarters begin (switch sides, but play continues where it was when the 4th quarter ended in a tie). However, I do recognize that there has to be some reasonable limit of how long you can play professional football players and expect them to recover for a game the following week.