NFL Must Change OT Rules Starting Now

[PackerfaninCarolina]

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

1. If that was the case, I would not be calling for the end of having ties in the regular season. You're the one who's advocating for making it easy to get wins, not me.

2. Umm, there is no such thing as sudden death during quarters.

3. Stupidest statement I've ever heard. You keep on pretending to be an advocate for defense, yet how does my team going down the field and scoring an opening drive TD in OT prove I can play defense in OT? Huh? Answer me that one. Oh right, no you can't because it doesn't.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Personally, I don't like any current formatting of OT, NFL or college. Both totally fall out of the normal way a game is decided. The game clock means virtually nothing in OT, a toss of a coin or 1 bad play, can win/lose a game. IMO, Basketball has the right idea. Baseball as well. Play under the same rules of regulation, for a set extra period of time. Regular season games are allowed to end in a tie after one OT. Postseason, play until you have a winner. Survival of the fittest, not the luckiest.

The only 2 arguments I have ever heard against treating overtime as just another timed "quarter" are:

1. "That is asking too much out of a players to go an additional 15 minutes".

2. "Extending games too long messes with the Network's programming schedule."

I will skip #2, since I just don't view that as a legit reason that should possibly influence the outcome of a game.

Why is asking a team to play another timed quarter too much to ask? These guys are paid millions of dollars and they can't be out on the field for another quarter? Reduce it from 15 to 10 minutes if that is a legit concern/factor. But remember, the way overtime is currently set-up, extra playing time is required no matter what and that could extend beyond 15 minutes (playoffs) if no team scores. For me, playing that extra quarter probably allows multiple possession of the ball by both teams, which provides a team the opportunity to win a game in similar fashion to a tied game going into the 4th quarter. When was the last time you saw a hail mary or a clutch 45 second drive for a FG or TD in an overtime game in the NFL?

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Personally, I don't like any current formatting of OT, NFL or college. Both totally fall out of the normal way a game is decided. The game clock means virtually nothing in OT, a toss of a coin or 1 bad play, can win/lose a game. IMO, Basketball has the right idea. Baseball as well. Play under the same rules of regulation, for a set extra period of time. Regular season games are allowed to end in a tie after one OT. Postseason, play until you have a winner. Survival of the fittest, not the luckiest.

The only 2 arguments I have ever heard against treating overtime as just another timed "quarter" are:

1. "That is asking too much out of a players to go an additional 15 minutes".

2. "Extending games too long messes with the Network's programming schedule."

I will skip #2, since I just don't view that as a legit reason that should possibly influence the outcome of a game.

Why is asking a team to play another timed quarter too much to ask? These guys are paid millions of dollars and they can't be out on the field for another quarter? Reduce it from 15 to 10 minutes if that is a legit concern/factor. But remember, the way overtime is currently set-up, extra playing time is required no matter what and that could extend beyond 15 minutes (playoffs) if no team scores. For me, playing that extra quarter probably allows multiple possession of the ball by both teams, which provides a team the opportunity to win a game in similar fashion to a tied game going into the 4th quarter. When was the last time you saw a hail mary or a clutch 45 second drive for a FG or TD in an overtime game in the NFL?

I could get with this too, except I'd still get rid of the tie in all games, regular season included. Those 2 other sports you mentioned don't have it, and neither does hockey now, so no reason football should have it in my opinion. And to minimize the likelihood of a 5th quarter being tied, I'd still stick to my guns about eliminating the extra points and making teams go for 2 when TDs are scored. Add to the excitement don't you think?

 

[Mondio]

One play can always decide a game. If Ryan doesn't take that horrible sack they most likely win. or make the interception and not allow one of the most unbelievable catches this year to occur and they win.

Atlanta had at least 7-8 plays they could have made and won that game towards the end. They didn't. I have no problem with the overtime rules.

 

[adambr2]

I just don't understand the mentality that a 60 minute football game all of the sudden has to be played like a baseball game just because it goes to OT, with both teams getting chances on offense. A defense can end a game as well, ask Al Harris. You don't even need that, just any turnover, any stop, even any hold in the red zone beyond the goal line.

If you're advocating for both teams to get a possession on offense first because that's 'equal', that's not equal at all. The first team can't risk a 4th down or red zone risk taking them out of FG range. The second team knows exactly what it needs. They can play it cautious, play for a FG, play for 4 downs instead of 3 if needed, everything dependent on whatever the first team does. Tremendous advantage to get the ball second in OT if you give both teams an offensive possession no matter what.

 

[RRyder]

1. If that was the case, I would not be calling for the end of having ties in the regular season. You're the one who's advocating for making it easy to get wins, not me.

2. Umm, there is no such thing as sudden death during quarters.

3. Stupidest statement I've ever heard. You keep on pretending to be an advocate for defense, yet how does my team going down the field and scoring an opening drive TD in OT prove I can play defense in OT? Huh? Answer me that one. Oh right, no you can't because it doesn't.

Good to know everything just went over your head. I'm not even being an advocate of defense. You simply are saying they shouldn't be considered equal value to offense.

As for one team driving right down the field. No it doesn't prove they can play defense. I never said it did. Nor did I imply that it did. You pulled that one out of thin air. What it proves is that they made the plays when it counted. The other team didn't.

If you don't make the plays that need to be made in OT, regardless of who wins to coin toss, you lose. You don't say "Well you failed to make a single play here's another chance for you".

 

[Packer Brother]

Atlanta got what they deserved. Simple as that.

The Patriots are a more successful franchise than the Packers. No way to sugar coat it. They are borderline a more storied franchise than the Packers in the SB era too.

 

[Ceodore]

I just don't understand the mentality that a 60 minute football game all of the sudden has to be played like a baseball game just because it goes to OT, with both teams getting chances on offense. A defense can end a game as well, ask Al Harris. You don't even need that, just any turnover, any stop, even any hold in the red zone beyond the goal line.

If you're advocating for both teams to get a possession on offense first because that's 'equal', that's not equal at all. The first team can't risk a 4th down or red zone risk taking them out of FG range. The second team knows exactly what it needs. They can play it cautious, play for a FG, play for 4 downs instead of 3 if needed, everything dependent on whatever the first team does. Tremendous advantage to get the ball second in OT if you give both teams an offensive possession no matter what.

great point regarding the downs. When you think about that, it makes a lot of sense for OT to be sudden death with a TD.

 

[Carl]

Of all the reasons the Falcons lost, the OT rules is low on the list, if even on there.

They have up 31 unanswered points. Doubt a different OT would have saved them.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Of all the reasons the Falcons lost, the OT rules is low on the list, if even on there.

They have up 31 unanswered points. Doubt a different OT would have saved them.

Atlanta wins the coin flip, Julio goes 75 yards on the first play from scrimmage, still feeling the same way?

I'm not talking about any game specifically in regards to OT, although collectively, I don't like how they usually work out. I don't think there has to be any "mandatory possessions" by either team, but I would prefer seeing OT played under the same rules that decide a game in regulation, which simply means, putting a known time limit on it, whoever is ahead at the end of that time, wins the game.

 

[mongoosev]

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
.

I'm sure I have enough common sense to know you're not but IF you're insisting the game was lost due to the OT rules we watched different Super Bowl games.

If you give up such a big lead(goes for packers too no pity for them giving up big leads) you deserve to either accept the loss or should not have an advantage going into OT--the team who causes the OT should receive the ball. IF both teams score(TD + FG) while on their first possession in OT, then the original OT rules applies with sudden death. That way both teams have a shot at either scoring on their first possession but if you fail game over.

The dynamics of football is so darn complex in the first place.

 

[Carl]

Atlanta wins the coin flip, Julio goes 75 yards on the first play from scrimmage, still feeling the same way?

I'm not talking about any game specifically in regards to OT, although collectively, I don't like how they usually work out. I don't think there has to be any "mandatory possessions" by either team, but I would prefer seeing OT played under the same rules that decide a game in regulation, which simply means, putting a known time limit on it, whoever is ahead at the end of that time, wins the game.

Probably not still feeling the same way.

I do not think Atlanta scores a TD though based on how they were playing.

Even if both teams had the ball, I still see NE winning the game.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Probably not still feeling the same way.

I do not think Atlanta scores a TD though based on how they were playing.

Even if both teams had the ball, I still see NE winning the game.

The Falcons could have even won that game on Brady's first pass, one tipped ball and a pick 6.

While I agree with you, had the 2 teams played another 15 minutes, the Patriots looked like the team that would come out on top. But neither team were required to do that yesterday, it was just whoever scored the first TD (or FG after a possession) would make that team the winner of SB 51.

 

[sschind]

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.

The Patriots had plenty of opportunities to win the game yesterday, did they deserve an extra one?

I was fine with the way it was even with the FG winning it but if they felt the need to change it they should have gone all the way with each team's offense getting their hands on the ball even if it is for just one play.

The more think about it though the more I am liking Pokers idea of a set time for an extra period. That would work until the first time a team goes on a 15 minute drive and wins with a FG as time expires then we would be crying for a change again.

Honestly I don't really care one way or the other. Like I said before, I was fine with a FG winning it. I'm OK with a TD winning it and I'd be fine with an extra period. I'm also fine with ties in the regular season with no OT. If you want excitement you eliminate the 2 minutes of kneel downs or dive plays to run the clock down to settle for a FG and OT. If a coach knows an extra point will result in a tie I wonder how many would go for two. Or if he knows a FG would end in a tie would he try for a TD.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Patriots had plenty of opportunities to win the game yesterday, did they deserve an extra one?

Agreed. Neither team "deserved an extra one" over the other team, however, a coin flip and the current rules of OT, handed the Patriots that lone opportunity.

I would have been equally dissatisfied with the way the game ended had the Patriots fumbled on their first play and the Falcons trotted out their FG kicker and ended the game.

As we saw yesterday, over the course of 60 minutes teams get hot and cold, make big plays and mistakes. I would prefer seeing that scenario/opportunity recreated in a 10-15 minute OT period and not have one play or one drive decide a game, without all of the factors that make the game competitive and interesting be a factor in the outcome.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Good to know everything just went over your head. I'm not even being an advocate of defense. You simply are saying they shouldn't be considered equal value to offense.

As for one team driving right down the field. No it doesn't prove they can play defense. I never said it did. Nor did I imply that it did. You pulled that one out of thin air. What it proves is that they made the plays when it counted. The other team didn't.

If you don't make the plays that need to be made in OT, regardless of who wins to coin toss, you lose. You don't say "Well you failed to make a single play here's another chance for you".

Well, then get rid of the coin toss and have the ref onside kick it at midfield, have both teams line up at their 45 yardlines, and once that ball hits the ground they can both run in and try to recover it. First team to recover gets possession.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well, then get rid of the coin toss and have the ref onside kick it at midfield, have both teams line up at their 45 yardlines, and once that ball hits the ground they can both run in and try to recover it. First team to recover gets possession.

Forget the flip......each team gets a chance at completing a hail mary from the 50 yard line, first team to do it and stop the other team, wins. I like our chances with that!

 

[swhitset]

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

I suppose in a perfect world your position makes sense... but not in the real world. Teams are made up of many players some play offense, some play defense. A perfect team would have a defense equal to its offense and vice versa, but this is rarely the case. Some teams have a dominating defense and others like the Falcons (or Packers) have incredible offenses. Your position is basically saying that even if a team has been able to win most of its games due to (in this case a dominating offense with a lesser defense and that is the way the team is built, that in overtime, we are going to rely on a coin flip to determine which team gets the advantage.

 

[Half Empty]

Well, then get rid of the coin toss and have the ref onside kick it at midfield, have both teams line up at their 45 yardlines, and once that ball hits the ground they can both run in and try to recover it. First team to recover gets possession.

You're relying on speed. Let's go with toughness and start with a rugby scrum.

 

[RRyder]

I suppose in a perfect world your position makes sense... but not in the real world. Teams are made up of many players some play offense, some play defense. A perfect team would have a defense equal to its offense and vice versa, but this is rarely the case. Some teams have a dominating defense and others like the Falcons (or Packers) have incredible offenses. Your position is basically saying that even if a team has been able to win most of its games due to (in this case a dominating offense with a lesser defense and that is the way the team is built, that in overtime, we are going to rely on a coin flip to determine which team gets the advantage.

I'm saying if u build an incomplete team to the point where losing a coin flip nullifies your chances of winning the game then too freaking bad. Make a play or you don't deserve it. That your own fault for not fielding a D capable of getting a single stop in crunch time

 

[Cheese Meister]

Been giving this some thought...

Yes, it is not fair that the team that wins the coin toss gets the ball and a chance to score the winning touchdown with the other teams offense not having a chance at all. However, unlike, for example, baseball, the defense has many opportunities to score as well; stripping the ball, interception, fumble recovery, etc. Having the ball does not always guarantee a score.

Yes, the Falcons defense was gassed. And the Patriots knew it. It was by design; keep the Falcons defense on the field and wear them down, then have a big push with the O line to finish off the game. I see this so many times with different teams that I almost can anticipate it happening.

 

[swhitset]

I'm saying if u build an incomplete team to the point where losing a coin flip nullifies your chances of winning the game then too freaking bad. Make a play or you don't deserve it. That your own fault for not fielding a D capable of getting a single stop in crunch time

I understand your position.... I just don't agree with it.

 

[lambeaulambo]

In my day we didn't have pansy *** overtimes, the winner won when the opponent had a bloody stump, and we LIKED it, we LOVED it!!

 

[Forderick]

The Patriots had plenty of opportunities to win the game yesterday, did they deserve an extra one?

YES they do because they tied the game. Thats what happens when you go to overtime. Both teams get a chance to win it. Yes both teams. Safety pick 6 etc will win it for the defence.

The FIRST EVER super bowl to go to overtime, and this nonsense come up again. The rules are fine the way they are.
Get over it.

 

[adambr2]

Here's the problem with the no sudden death, extra 15 minutes OT:

You're going to have a lot more ties. A lot. If you're fine with that, great. But that's not an option in the playoffs. So then what? Another guaranteed 15 minutes, guys already running on empty playing a playoff game and a half?

75 minute games are going to really wear on players during the regular season and injuries will increase. 75, 90, or even more minute games during the playoffs is hard to imagine.

There is no perfect, fair OT solution. College OT probably comes the closest, but most of us agree we don't want any part of that circus.

If you want to try to balance things out as much as possible, I'd consider keeping the rules as is except making the team that has first possession start at their own 10 yard line. At the very least, I think teams would think long and hard about taking the ball first knowing that a sack, turnover, or even 3 and out could potentially lose them the game.