NFL Must Change OT Rules Starting Now

[Quientus]

that is too much! like a whole knew league they are playing in.

wait a minute...you're just kidding right? I just read the last part and reminds me of a soccer shoot out. lol

It was written as a "homage" to my fellow dane who finally was accepted (long over due imo) to Canton

All though .... a fg "kick-out" would be awesome ! Imagine a 70 yd fg attempt !!! LOL

 

[lambeaulambo]

Don't quite follow, maybe too early in the day. If you don't have overtime, in the context of this thread, you don't have a winner, regardless of who is bleeding. Are you, perhaps, putting the emphasis on the pansy part, meaning the solution is sudden death OT?

feckin Elton john in the stands...really??!!!! This is an outrage!!

 

[mongoosev]

It was written as a "homage" to my fellow dane who finally was accepted (long over due imo) to Canton

All though .... a fg "kick-out" would be awesome ! Imagine a 70 yd fg attempt !!! LOL

that would be kinda quirky but amusing. lol

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I like that as well. the excitement just carries over into OT with 15 minutes added without any distractions.

Only thing is IF they continue to tie then how long does this process work? Are they only allowed a certain number of OT's? I think two would be enough until they call a tie? another problem is IF they did go into the second OT and one of the teams' outscores the other do they just play until the time ends?

I may not have been clear, once the time runs out in the 4th quarter, 15 minutes is added to the clock, just in case nobody scores. But teams switch directions (like the end of any quarter). Once the "5th quarter" starts, its sudden death.

none of these make it better, they just make it different. why just extend the period as if nothing changes? why not extend the first half too? why does the team with the ball last get to benefit from not having to worry about running out of time at the end of the game. That is ridiculous if you ask me

How does it not make it better? You aren't altering the natural play of the game or adding the advantage of a coin toss....just extending the game at the end of the 4th quarter, into sudden death. No coin toss, teams switch ends, but play continues the same way as between the 1st and 2nd quarters or the 3rd and 4th quarter, only now, it's sudden death. Only reason I said "add 15 minutes", is just in case nobody scores, you would still want to switch ends, in case the wind is an advantage.

The team with the ball at the end of the 4th quarter is in a tied game and possesses the ball in the natural course of the game. How is that an unfair advantage? I consider a team winning a coin toss and gaining possession that way, unfair.

Not sure why you are throwing in the notion "why not extend the first half too?" Are you just trying to be funny or does that in your mind change things in a positive way?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would definitely favor this one over the current system as well. Under the current OT rules, it really feels like an unnecessary "reboot" of a game, that doesn't need to be stopped and restarted with a coin flip. This reboot also places too much importance on the luck of a coin flip, something which neither team has "earned" along the way.

Extend the time of the 4th quarter and just let the game play out as is, until one team has more points on the board than the other. I also like the fact that with this system, the team that ties it up on a last second touchdown or field goal, has to kickoff to the team they just scored against. Not score, win a coin flip and get the ball right back.

Imagine what happens in a tied game and a team receives a punt at their own 5 with 1:30 left on the clock in regulation. Sorry, you won't be kneeling down to "reboot" the game and start fresh in overtime.

After thinking about it in detail that proposal has some flaws as well as it takes away some late game excitement. Take a look at Crosby's winning field goal at Dallas to win it which would have never happened under that set of rules.

 

[Ceodore]

I may not have been clear, once the time runs out in the 4th quarter, 15 minutes is added to the clock, just in case nobody scores. But teams switch directions (like the end of any quarter). Once the "5th quarter" starts, its sudden death.

The problem here is (if I'm understanding correctly), if it's sudden death in the "extra" 15 minutes, there's really no incentive for the team with the ball (in a tie) to do a quick drive in an attempt to put points on the board before the end of regulation. In fact it almost behooves them to take their time and let the game run into the extra period because they know that any points they put on the board are going to end the game and give them the win. In a tie game, 2 minute warning wouldn't matter, utilizing timeouts wouldn't matter, pass plays to stop the clock won't matter because there's no sense of urgency for the team driving at the end of the game. You could have a drive that starts with 8 minutes left in the 4th quarter just casually roll over into extra time because the offense hasn't finished their drive yet.

I don't really see how this is better than the current system other than it's no longer decided by a coinflip but can instead be manipulated by the team that decides to hold onto the ball.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The problem here is (if I'm understanding correctly), if it's sudden death in the "extra" 15 minutes, there's really no incentive for the team with the ball (in a tie) to do a quick drive in an attempt to put points on the board before the end of regulation. In fact it almost behooves them to take their time and let the game run into the extra period because they know that any points they put on the board are going to end the game and give them the win. In a tie game, 2 minute warning wouldn't matter, utilizing timeouts wouldn't matter, pass plays to stop the clock won't matter because there's no sense of urgency for the team driving at the end of the game. You could have a drive that starts with 8 minutes left in the 4th quarter just casually roll over into extra time because the offense hasn't finished their drive yet.

I don't really see how this is better than the current system other than it's no longer decided by a coinflip but can instead be manipulated by the team that decides to hold onto the ball.

Unlike all those games where teams with a lead try to run out the clock? Your fear of this type of format assumes a team can just hold the ball for as long as they want as well as score whenever they want. Remember, if they fail to take the lead or tie the game, before the regulation clock runs out, game over.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

After thinking about it in detail that proposal has some flaws as well as it takes away some late game excitement. Take a look at Crosby's winning field goal at Dallas to win it which would have never happened under that set of rules.

Is that a "flaw" to the game or a "flaw" in the entertainment value of the game for the fans?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Is that a "flaw" to the game or a "flaw" in the entertainment value of the game for the fans?

I don´t know but it seems you found it exciting as well as you use the Packers celebration on the play as your avatar.

 

[Ceodore]

Unlike all those games where teams with a lead try to run out the clock? Your fear of this type of format assumes a team can just hold the ball for as long as they want as well as score whenever they want. Remember, if they fail to take the lead or tie the game, before the regulation clock runs out, game over.

sure but in a game that's tied the offense has nothing to lose and everything to gain by letting the clock roll over into extra time. I really think you'd lose some of the exciting finishes to games that you have now.

For example, in a tie game: with 2 minutes left team A drives down the field using the current methods, time outs/spiked balls/pass plays and scores a field goal with 20 seconds left. Team B drives down the field, tries to kick a 60 yard FG, fails, game over.

Under the rules you're suggesting team a just takes their time getting down the field, they probably do a run play on their last play instead of a pass play out of bounds, let the clock roll into extra time, kick their FG, game over, ho-hum.

Think about the ending to the Green Bay v. Dallas game. Your rule would directly impact how that game played out in the end.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don´t know but it seems you found it exciting as well as you use the Packers celebration on the play as your avatar.

Celebration is exciting, but do you think that celebration wouldn't have happened had the same play occurred 2 minutes into overtime?

For me, this is all about trying to change what I believe to be an unfair overtime method, stop play, flip a coin and give the ball to a team that ends up winning 54.8% of the time. I'm fine with delaying my excitement of determining a winner, when the game is being played without the luck of a coin flip.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

For me, this is all about trying to change what I believe to be an unfair overtime method, stop play, flip a coin and give the ball to a team that ends up winning 54.8% of the time. I'm fine with delaying my excitement of determining a winner, when the game is being played without the luck of a coin flip.

I still believe that both teams getting the same amount of possessions in overtime is the best way to do it.

 

[Ceodore]

I still believe that both teams getting the same amount of possessions in overtime is the best way to do it.

I think the simplest and fairest way to do things would be to flip the coin at the beginning of OT and play out the entire (perhaps shortened) period. I do think this would lead to a lot more ties though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

sure but in a game that's tied the offense has nothing to lose and everything to gain by letting the clock roll over into extra time. I really think you'd lose some of the exciting finishes to games that you have now.

For example, in a tie game: with 2 minutes left team A drives down the field using the current methods, time outs/spiked balls/pass plays and scores a field goal with 20 seconds left. Team B drives down the field, tries to kick a 60 yard FG, fails, game over.

Under the rules you're suggesting team a just takes their time getting down the field, they probably do a run play on their last play instead of a pass play out of bounds, let the clock roll into extra time, kick their FG, game over, ho-hum.

Think about the ending to the Green Bay v. Dallas game. Your rule would directly impact how that game played out in the end.

Let's look at the opposite side of your scenarios. Under the current rules, in a tied game, Team A gets the ball with under 2 minutes at their own 20 yard line. Decides they will take their chances in OT, rather than risk actually playing the game of football, 3 kneel downs, ho-hum....game goes into OT.

Packer-Dallas game, how would the OT rule I suggest directly impact that game? Packers would have at some point turned the ball over or tried to score, its football. Both you and Captain are only talking about "the excitement" for fans, not the outcome of the game being impacted. I would have found it just as exciting for Crosby to have made that FG in OT. Had Crosby missed that FG, Dallas gets the ball to start OT at the spot of the kick.....no coin toss that potentially gives the ball immediately back to the Packers.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Both you and Captain are only talking about "the excitement" for fans, not the outcome of the game being impacted. I would have found it just as exciting for Crosby to have made that FG in OT. Had Crosby missed that FG, Dallas gets the ball to start OT at the spot of the kick.....no coin toss that potentially gives the ball immediately back to the Packers.

The Packers wouldn´t have kicked the field goal on that play though under the set of rules you suggested as they had a first down at the Cowboys 33.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I still believe that both teams getting the same amount of possessions in overtime is the best way to do it.

I would be in favor of changing the current rule and treat a first possession TD, exactly like a first possession FG. IF there is a change, this is the one I think has the highest probability of happening.

I think the simplest and fairest way to do things would be to flip the coin at the beginning of OT and play out the entire (perhaps shortened) period. I do think this would lead to a lot more ties though.

Also, a much better answer to the current rules.

 

[Mondio]

I may not have been clear, once the time runs out in the 4th quarter, 15 minutes is added to the clock, just in case nobody scores. But teams switch directions (like the end of any quarter). Once the "5th quarter" starts, its sudden death.



How does it not make it better? You aren't altering the natural play of the game or adding the advantage of a coin toss....just extending the game at the end of the 4th quarter, into sudden death. No coin toss, teams switch ends, but play continues the same way as between the 1st and 2nd quarters or the 3rd and 4th quarter, only now, it's sudden death. Only reason I said "add 15 minutes", is just in case nobody scores, you would still want to switch ends, in case the wind is an advantage.

The team with the ball at the end of the 4th quarter is in a tied game and possesses the ball in the natural course of the game. How is that an unfair advantage? I consider a team winning a coin toss and gaining possession that way, unfair.

Not sure why you are throwing in the notion "why not extend the first half too?" Are you just trying to be funny or does that in your mind change things in a positive way?

No it doesn't change it in a positive way, it was meant to illustrate how ridiculous just basically taking away any clock management and the situations it creates and giving the team with the ball basically an untuned possession to close a game.

Why not just keep no time and keep playing till one team gives up and goes home? You think overtime now changes too many rules, like it's a reset? Year you want to make the game time meaningless in the second half yet keep its importance in the first half.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers wouldn´t have kicked the field goal on that play though under the set of rules you suggested as they had a first down at the Cowboys 33.

In that situation, you are correct, the game would have gone into OT after the next play. Packers ball, let the game continue and conclude without reshifting it with a damn coin toss. LOL

 

[Ceodore]

In that situation, you are correct, the game would have gone into OT after the next play. Packers ball, let the game continue and conclude without reshifting it with a damn coin toss. LOL

you say you want it fair for both teams, how is it fair for one team to have to play under the restrictions of the 4th quarter clock and the other team doesn't? Dallas had to have a quick drive to score to tie the game, meanwhile GB can take all the time in the world for their quest to win the game.

like i said before, the fairest way is to flip the coin and play out the entire extra period, that's it. you flip the coin for the beginning of the game, flip the coin for the new game.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

No it doesn't change it in a positive way, it was meant to illustrate how ridiculous just basically taking away any clock management and the situations it creates and giving the team with the ball basically an untuned possession to close a game.

Why not just keep no time and keep playing till one team gives up and goes home? You think overtime now changes too many rules, like it's a reset? Year you want to make the game time meaningless in the second half yet keep its importance in the first half.

How does my suggestion make the 2nd half "time meaningless"? You are looking at one scenario "tied game near the end of the 4th quarter" and flipping it into a "I'm going to take my ball and leave the playground" argument. How do they currently play the game between the 1st and second quarters? The 3rd and 4th quarters? Why not do the same between the 4th and 5th quarter? Should we flip a coin between every quarter and add some real drama to the game?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

you say you want it fair for both teams, how is it fair for one team to have to play under the restrictions of the 4th quarter clock and the other team doesn't? Dallas had to have a quick drive to score to tie the game, meanwhile GB can take all the time in the world for their quest to win the game.

Well, the Cowboys could have won that game by scoring a touchdown on their last drive.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

you say you want it fair for both teams, how is it fair for one team to have to play under the restrictions of the 4th quarter clock and the other team doesn't? Dallas had to have a quick drive to score to tie the game, meanwhile GB can take all the time in the world for their quest to win the game.

like i said before, the fairest way is to flip the coin and play out the entire extra period, that's it. you flip the coin for the beginning of the game, flip the coin for the new game.

Not sure how both teams are not playing under the same restrictions of the 4th quarter clock. Dallas was behind in the game, they needed a score period. TD probably wins them the game, they chose a FG. How much time they wanted to leave on the clock was something they had control of. Had they scored with no time left, under the current rules....coin flip, they have a 50/50 chance to get the ball back immediately, how is that fair?

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.

Seems like to me the biggest impact playing OT in this fashion would be on the mindset of the fans. Wonder how players and coaches would perceive it?

 

[adambr2]

To me, there are too many flaws with the alternatives to go forward with a change now until they can come up with something better. Allowing both teams one guaranteed possession is too favorable toward the second team possessing, an extra no sudden death period will lead to a lot of ties and extra wear and tear at the end of the year.

The continuing the 4th quarter as is sounds good enough in theory, but it's just kind of awkward to continue the 2nd half as if it never happened to break the tie. It completely eliminates any need for time management late in a tie game, other than teams on the offensive trying to milk every bit of clock to get to OT so there can be no rebuttal.

I get that it's just trying to make it fair by continuing possession as is so no coin toss decides anything, but in practice I think it would be very awkward. I can't think of any other major sport at any level that just continues where they are in overtime as an extension of regulation. It sounds like something the XFL would have done.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Allowing both teams one guaranteed possession is too favorable toward the second team possessing, an extra no sudden death period will lead to a lot of ties and extra wear and tear at the end of the year.

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.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I can't think of any other major sport at any level that just continues where they are in overtime as an extension of regulation. It sounds like something the XFL would have done.

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.