Change NFL OT rules for the playoffs

[Dan]

So you would be fine if the Bills were having a 45-45 shoot out in the Super Bowl and it went into OT and the other team won the coin toss and won on a field goal? Its one thing if they went on and scored a TD but a Super Bowl decided on an opening drive field goal? At least acknowledge the need to change it to you need a TD to win.

I was perfectly happy with it when the Bills beat the Oilers in '93. Given the scenario, the same as today's game, myfirst grief would be... how could we let them score 45pts! Not how we lost in OT on a FG.

 

Costas made the point that in a game a FG is considered a defensive victory. In OT it's a game-ender, possibly a season-ender.

 

PTR

Which shows why Costas' opinion is irrelevant. When did he become some football rules expert any way? A FG is only considered a defensive victory when the other team gets the ball deep in your territory and you hold them to a 3 and out. If you let the other team drive 60+ yards and kick a FG, that's not a defensive victory in any circumstance.

[Dan]

If the point is to make everything fair, why don't we look at the TOP at the end of the game and if one team's had it for 5-10 minutes more than the other, then extend the game so the other team can have the same amount of time to score? I mean it's not fair that the Pats* always get the ball for 10 more minutes per game than the Bills.

[billsfan89]

If the point is to make everything fair, why don't we look at the TOP at the end of the game and if one team's had it for 5-10 minutes more than the other, then extend the game so the other team can have the same amount of time to score? I mean it's not fair that the Pats* always get the ball for 10 more minutes per game than the Bills.

 

 

SO a stupid and arbitrary system is fine because that's the way it is (By your logic the BCS is a great system if you can't get ranked in the top 2 play better). In any competition you want things to start out even and then let the teams decide who is better if you hold the ball longer its because its that you did it but not because some random coin toss decided it that way.

 

Defending the NFL OT system is arguing against change because you don't like change. If you can make it better why not. If you like sudden death that's fine just make it so that you need a touch down to win. As Costas said the rule was made when the range and accuracy of kickers was no where near what it is today.

[billsfan89]

Sudden Death is sudden death and that's what makes football football and not baseball or basketball.

 

I don't know where this false sense of fairness and entitlement came from in sports but it makes me sick to hear. Lets assume that we give both teams a possession then how is it fair that one team would get the ball first and have to decide on 4th and goal from the one whether to kick the field goal or go for it. The team who has the ball second has the advantage of knowing what is required. How is that "fair"? Maybe we should require both teams to play simultaneously at opposite ends of the field. Of course we'd then need to have 2 possessions so we could switch sides to account for the wind and disproportionality of crowd noise.

 

In fact, maybe what we should do is what they do in European soccer tournaments and have all playoff games be two game series so each team gets a home game to be fair and ties can be decided by aggregate scoring. That's really really fair. Everyone gets the ball, everyone gets a home game, everyone gets a hug and orange slices after the game. It all works out.

 

Once again you are missing my point I am fine with a sudden death system BUT my issue is the field goal why should a field goal end a game in OT. The rule was made a long time ago when the range and accuracy of kickers was no where near where it was today. If you want to make it so that the team that scores a TD first wins fine if your D gives up a TD on the 1st possession I am fine with it because its your D letting the other Teams O going the length of the field not giving up 40 yards.

 

Isn't any competition suppose to be fair? Its OK the Pats* cheated you should have found out about it or found a way to cheat better. You have an even playing field and you let the participants decide who the better team is, isn't that the essence of sports? You let the teams abilities decide the winner not some random circumstance.

 

There will always be a element of unfairness to the system but making it better and more even of a playing field to decide the winner in the best manner possible how could anyone be against that. Seriously sports should be unfair?

[Jim in Anchorage]

If the point is to make everything fair, why don't we look at the TOP at the end of the game and if one team's had it for 5-10 minutes more than the other, then extend the game so the other team can have the same amount of time to score? I mean it's not fair that the Pats* always get the ball for 10 more minutes per game than the Bills.

I assume this is sarcasm?

[Dan]

SO a stupid and arbitrary system is fine because that's the way it is (By your logic the BCS is a great system if you can't get ranked in the top 2 play better). In any competition you want things to start out even and then let the teams decide who is better if you hold the ball longer its because its that you did it but not because some random coin toss decided it that way.

 

Defending the NFL OT system is arguing against change because you don't like change. If you can make it better why not. If you like sudden death that's fine just make it so that you need a touch down to win. As Costas said the rule was made when the range and accuracy of kickers was no where near what it is today.

See, I don't thing the current OT system is stupid nor do I think you make it better by giving both teams the ball. So, much of the rest of your argument is flawed. The game isn't decided on a coin toss. It's decided by the players on the field. If your defense stops them, you can get the ball and win. Today's game proved that. Everyone thought whoever won the coin toss would score and win. Well, guess what.. it didn't happen that way. And that's why it's not broke.

 

 

 

 

I assume this is sarcasm?

Yes. In an atempt to prove a point that you can never make everything fair and even. As was pointed out, even if you give both teams the chance to score; whomever gets the ball second is at an advantage because they know waht they need - FG or TD.

[billsfan89]

See, I don't thing the current OT system is stupid nor do I think you make it better by giving both teams the ball. So, much of the rest of your argument is flawed. The game isn't decided on a coin toss. It's decided by the players on the field. If your defense stops them, you can get the ball and win. Today's game proved that. Everyone thought whoever won the coin toss would score and win. Well, guess what.. it didn't happen that way. And that's why it's not broke.

 

Yes. In an atempt to prove a point that you can never make everything fair and even. As was pointed out, even if you give both teams the chance to score; whomever gets the ball second is at an advantage because they know waht they need - FG or TD.

 

The fact that only half of a teams roster can decide a game on a field goal (Which only requires the D to give up 40 or so yards hardly enough to warrant a defeat) is a system that seems broken to me. Not everything can be fair but if it can be better and more fair then why not do so.

 

If you want sudden death as I said make it you need a TD to win because then it requires the D to give up the whole field not just part of it in order to win. I think allowing at least 1 offensive possession to each team makes it so that each team has its own destiny in its hands at some point in the OT and allows each part of the roster to contribute to the win.

 

Its not about being completely fair but about being better.

[reddogblitz]

I like it the way it is. I'm fine with a FG winning it, or a safety for that matter. One thing that gets lost in all this extend it to give both teams the ball etc. it that the guys have already played for 60 minutes and are tired. You gotta end it somehow. The sooner the better really. When guys are that tired more injuries can occur.

 

What if you did give both teams the ball? Would the 15:00 time limit still apply. Say the first team makes a 9:30 drive for a TD. The other team would get the ball but with only 5:30. Is that fair?

 

As somone else pointed out, the College system is just plain dumb.

 

I could really not care less what Bob Costas thinks. His argument is ridiculous.

[el Tigre]

I did a super quick search and from 2000-2007 that scenario occurred in 37 of 124 OT games. That's less than 30%. So in 70% of OT games both teams get the ball.

It needs to be 100%.

[Jim in Anchorage]

See, I don't thing the current OT system is stupid nor do I think you make it better by giving both teams the ball. So, much of the rest of your argument is flawed. The game isn't decided on a coin toss. It's decided by the players on the field. If your defense stops them, you can get the ball and win. Today's game proved that. Everyone thought whoever won the coin toss would score and win. Well, guess what.. it didn't happen that way. And that's why it's not broke.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. In an atempt to prove a point that you can never make everything fair and even. As was pointed out, even if you give both teams the chance to score; whomever gets the ball second is at an advantage because they know waht they need - FG or TD.

Good point, but why not make OT a full 15 minute fifth quarter? Clock runs out, we have a winner

[el Tigre]

As somone else pointed out, the College system is just plain dumb.

I can see why some think it's dumb,but it's also fun as hell. I love it when college games go OT. It's always crazy,and it may go 2 or 3 OT's. It's understandable the NFL wants something a little different,but the current "sudden death" system is anticlimatic,imo. I look forward to a college game going OT,I get bummed when an NFL game goes OT.

[jester43]

college ot = WAY better. and i don't even like college football that much.

[zazie]

Good point, but why not make OT a full 15 minute fifth quarter? Clock runs out, we have a winner

Then eventually have a shootout like in soccer or hockey?

 

They way it is has been that way for a long time change is not always good.

 

The changed rules regarding QB safety and also that the CBs have almost zero ability to come near the receiver, were not poisitve for the game IMO.

 

What was clearly not a penalty garnered a roughing the passer on Warner earlier today, and the ridiculous calls Brady gets are really despicable, and all are justified by new rules.

 

Lets leave the game as it was in the 70s and 80s, even the bills uniforms.

 

Thanks

[crusoe]

Good point, but why not make OT a full 15 minute fifth quarter? Clock runs out, we have a winner

 

I agree with you Jim. Play another quarter.

 

The problem with any of the OT "special" rules in football (or any other sport for that matter) or any idea is that they are different than the way the rest of the game (and rest of the season) has been played. "Football" should be won and lost on the merits of "football" not some watered down on hyped up version that changes the skills, players, strategy, or rules of football.

 

Special rules cause each team to change their coaching strategy in OT vs. regulation. It also focuses on different skill positions more than during the regular game. And as mentioned, the current flavor today with sudden death puts too much weight on CHANCE, the coin flip. As a fan of "football" I want to see football, not a mini game of something else.

 

(Unless, of course it's a Bills game and we win the coin toss. In that case, current OT rules can apply. )

[murra]

The entire argument for extended OT, or a touchdown is needed, or one possession for each team is predicated on the idea of fairness, and equality. I'm sorry, but life's not fair. If you lose an OT game it wasn't because you lost a coin toss. Why didn't you win in regulation? Why didn't you prevent them from getting into field goal range? Next points win is the most dramatic method for ending a sorting event, and the fact that it's not all "fair" elevates the drama.

[silvermike]

What if overtime just continued from the last play of the 4th quarter? Clock runs out on 2nd and 10 on an incomplete pass, you start overtime 3rd and ten from the same spot.

[CarolinaBill]

I don't see anywhere in the rules that says this game is fair, and OT is what it is, you got a 50/50 shot to pick ur poison, if u get stuck on D, stop em', if u chose O, ya better score. Pro Ot doesnt have to follow society's sense of fairness, It's more like the real world, Glimpses of happiness, and swift kicks in the balls. If you want fair, Go back to College, this is professional, paid weekly football, they dont get equal shares in OT, it's SUDDEN DEATH, and I, for 1, love it.

[Bleed Bills Blue]

I don't know where this false sense of fairness and entitlement came from in sports...

Except for the Patriots*, the fairness of an even playing field is the very basis of all sports. The reason you're in OT to begin with is that, on this day, you've got two very evenly matched teams. To give one of them an unfair edge, however slight just makes no sense to me.

 

With that in mind, I think the NFL should have changed the OT rule on January 4, 1993.

[BuffaloWings]

What if overtime just continued from the last play of the 4th quarter? Clock runs out on 2nd and 10 on an incomplete pass, you start overtime 3rd and ten from the same spot.

That would change the strategy of the team in possession of the ball. If they're on their own 20, they'd be playing their game plan instead of taking a knee and hoping for OT.

 

The NFL doesn't need to do anything with OT. Leave it as it is. I also hate the "fair" argument because each team has already had 60 minutes to play their game and try to win.

 

But if everyone's going to be crying about what's fair and what isn't and the NFL has to appease the masses, then just make OT another quarter. Keep a few existing rules (all reviews come from the booth, each team gets 2 timeouts, etc.), but make OT a full 15:00 quarter. If the teams are still tied, play another 15:00 quarter.

[billsfreak]

It did not play into the GB/AZ game but I was sure thinking that whatever team won the coin flip was going to win. In fact Rogers just missed the winning TD one play before. I have heard all the arguments against it and I simple cannot agree with them. It is inherently unfair to deny a team a possession in OT.

 

Option #1: Each team gets at least one possession. If the team winning the coin flip scores, the other team gets the ball to win or tie. Sudden death there after.

 

Option #2: As long as the first team keeps scoring the second will always get a possession. If either team fails to score it becomes sudden death.

 

PTR

Your idea is terrible, so you want it like the college OT rules? With those rules in games like the Cardinals/Packers game, they might still be playing-neither defense could stop anyone. Anyone who knows football says there are 3 equal parts to a football game-offense, defense and special teams-each one of those units has a job and needs to perform if their teams want a chance to win.