Change NFL OT rules for the playoffs

[gobills82]

Something really needs to be done about the overtime rules, the Packers defense did not even get a chance!

 

[/sarcasm]

[BuffOrange]

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.

 

So it's not enough that advocates of the lame college system cherry-pick games where the receiving team wins; but "almost scores" count as well?

Poor officiating is unfair too, but it happens every game.

[Charles Romes]

I saw this solution mentioned in one line in a recent Sports Illustrated article. A fan of the Packers came up with it a while back. You simply bid on the yard line you want the ball at and the ball goes to the lowest bidder. The game proceeds as it does under the current system, first to score wins. If team A bids its own 19 and team B bids its own 18, it goes to team B at its own 18. If you really want the ball bad, fine, bid your own 1. Fair and square. Can you imagine the media talk show and message board discussions ensuing from a coach's decision on where to bid for the ball. It would be awesome.

[PromoTheRobot]

I think some of you have forgotten that Houston won the coin flip in the comeback game. The Bills intercepted a pass from Moon to set up a FG. Both teams had one possession.

 

I also think some of you were getting pretty silly with your "life isn't fair" arguments. Football is not life. It's a contest and for a contest to be played fairly the rules must apply evenly. While a defense can score the odds are much lower than that for the offense. Hence one side has an advantage.

 

PTR

[zazie]

I think some of you have forgotten that Houston won the coin flip in the comeback game. The Bills intercepted a pass from Moon to set up a FG. Both teams had one possession.

 

I also think some of you were getting pretty silly with your "life isn't fair" arguments. Football is not life. It's a contest and for a contest to be played fairly the rules must apply evenly. While a defense can score the odds are much lower than that for the offense. Hence one side has an advantage.

 

PTR

But the coin flip is 50/50.

 

Hence the fairness of it all.

[Cash]

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

 

Maybe if you're Dick Jauron or Perry Fewell. Or if your offense or special teams gave the ball to the other team deep in your own territory. I don't think most NFL defenders or defensive coaches would consider a 7-play, 45-yard FG drive to be a victory for the defense.

 

Personally, I'm fine with the current OT rule, but I'll admit that the one downside is the opening drive for a FG. I like the sudden death, but winning on the first drive with just a FG is lame. I'd support a rule change that instead of first score wins, first to 4 or 5 wins. That way, if you want to put the game away, you have to go all-out for the TD, instead of just running up the gut once you hit the 30 and kicking on 3rd down. But I hate the college OT; it's not football. It would be like deciding a soccer game with alternating corner kicks (which might actually be an upgrade over penalty kicks, but that's another story). Anything that moves the NFL OT closer to the college OT is a terrible idea.

 

And as a side note, this was about the worst possible OT game to use as a springboard for a change in the OT rule. How could it possibly have been more exciting? And how would the "each team gets possession" rule work here? Green Bay kicks off to Arizona after the score? Wouldn't Green Bay just go onsides at that point? Or would that not be allowed? Or, since Arizona scored, would they have to kick off to Green Bay again, because Green Bay has some inherent right to a chance to match the score? What if Green Bay then scored a TD and got the 2-point conversion? Does Arizona get another possession, since their offense never touched the ball, or are they S.O.L.?

 

And while we're at it, what about when one team has the ball (or scores) as time expires in both halves? They got one extra possession for the whole game. Should we then give the other team one clockless possession to even things up?

[Fan in San Diego]

Thank you for your opinions but I must disagree. The game must be equal for both sides. It is not equal if you deny one team possession in OT.

 

PTR

 

The defense should step up and stop them.

[Cash]

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.

 

Zero special teams in the college OT system. That's one of the reasons I hate it. The other is the spoon-feeding of the ball at the 25. What is this, Pop Warner? You get the ball wherever you earned the ball, not arbitrarily at the 25. If the team that starts with the ball goes for it on 4th down, it literally makes no difference whether the play is a sack, incompletion, or interception. That's BS.

[trolls_r_us]

The rule is fine the way it is. The Cardinals DEFENSE won the game yesterday, and in fact, with a good enough defense, I might even kick off in overtime and play the field possession game since all I need is a FG.

 

In the NFL, you need to kick off, cover the kick, play defense, and play offense.

 

College football overtime is all about offense.

 

If we used college rules it would be the Patriots vs someone every year in the Super Bowl because a group of good old boys would select the Super Bowl participants. Teams like the Saints could go 14-2 and have to settle for the Geico.com bowl.

[sullim4]

No, the rule is not fine the way that it is. The rule is an epic fail when you have two teams whose defenses are miserable and whose offenses are lights out. I would be very curious to see what the coin toss winner's record is when both teams score at least 35 points in a game.

[Dan]

Maybe if you're Dick Jauron or Perry Fewell. Or if your offense or special teams gave the ball to the other team deep in your own territory. I don't think most NFL defenders or defensive coaches would consider a 7-play, 45-yard FG drive to be a victory for the defense.

 

Personally, I'm fine with the current OT rule, but I'll admit that the one downside is the opening drive for a FG. I like the sudden death, but winning on the first drive with just a FG is lame. I'd support a rule change that instead of first score wins, first to 4 or 5 wins. That way, if you want to put the game away, you have to go all-out for the TD, instead of just running up the gut once you hit the 30 and kicking on 3rd down. But I hate the college OT; it's not football. It would be like deciding a soccer game with alternating corner kicks (which might actually be an upgrade over penalty kicks, but that's another story). Anything that moves the NFL OT closer to the college OT is a terrible idea.

 

And as a side note, this was about the worst possible OT game to use as a springboard for a change in the OT rule. How could it possibly have been more exciting? And how would the "each team gets possession" rule work here? Green Bay kicks off to Arizona after the score? Wouldn't Green Bay just go onsides at that point? Or would that not be allowed? Or, since Arizona scored, would they have to kick off to Green Bay again, because Green Bay has some inherent right to a chance to match the score? What if Green Bay then scored a TD and got the 2-point conversion? Does Arizona get another possession, since their offense never touched the ball, or are they S.O.L.?

 

And while we're at it, what about when one team has the ball (or scores) as time expires in both halves? They got one extra possession for the whole game. Should we then give the other team one clockless possession to even things up?

Some very good points.

 

I actually kinda like the first one to 6 points idea (I rounded up to a TD or 2 FGs). That would eliminate the long FG on the first drive winning the game and encourage going for the TD. BUt, it then puts the pressure on the other team to get a TD as well.

 

It also solves the scenario of yesterday's game as well. Because you also bring up a good point about that. If you guarantee each team a possession, what do you do when GB gets the ball first, but AZ gets a turnover for a score. Is that game over? Or does the defensive TD not count so you can ensure both team's offense gets on the field? To take it further, what if there's a turnover on the kickoff? Does that count as a team's possession even though thir offense never took the field?

 

IMO, this guaranteeing both teams an offensive possesion just leads to too many problems that have to be resolved with officials and rules. There's too much of that already. Let the teams play, the first one to score, wins. That's easy; its dramatic; its final.

 

Although, the first one to 6 in OT is not a bad idea. Keep all the rules the same, just forces a team to get a TD or 2 FGs - no matter how they do it.

[PromoTheRobot]

Some very good points.

 

I actually kinda like the first one to 6 points idea (I rounded up to a TD or 2 FGs). That would eliminate the long FG on the first drive winning the game and encourage going for the TD. BUt, it then puts the pressure on the other team to get a TD as well.

 

It also solves the scenario of yesterday's game as well. Because you also bring up a good point about that. If you guarantee each team a possession, what do you do when GB gets the ball first, but AZ gets a turnover for a score. Is that game over? Or does the defensive TD not count so you can ensure both team's offense gets on the field? To take it further, what if there's a turnover on the kickoff? Does that count as a team's possession even though thir offense never took the field?

 

IMO, this guaranteeing both teams an offensive possesion just leads to too many problems that have to be resolved with officials and rules. There's too much of that already. Let the teams play, the first one to score, wins. That's easy; its dramatic; its final.

 

Although, the first one to 6 in OT is not a bad idea. Keep all the rules the same, just forces a team to get a TD or 2 FGs - no matter how they do it.

Now you are just being silly. Of course its game over! Are you being obtuse deliberately? Giving each team a possession does not complicate anything. It's the opposite of complicated. It's kindergarten.

 

PTR

[billsfan89]

The rule is fine the way it is. The Cardinals DEFENSE won the game yesterday, and in fact, with a good enough defense, I might even kick off in overtime and play the field possession game since all I need is a FG.

 

In the NFL, you need to kick off, cover the kick, play defense, and play offense.

 

College football overtime is all about offense.

 

If we used college rules it would be the Patriots vs someone every year in the Super Bowl because a group of good old boys would select the Super Bowl participants. Teams like the Saints could go 14-2 and have to settle for the Geico.com bowl.

 

Ok in the NFL you need to cover kicks (AKA Special teams), play D, and play offense. Now let me paint you a scenario that happens too much in the NFL. One team wins the toss the other team kicks it off, the team covers the kick OK they take it out to the 28. Now the Offense takes the field they go 45 yards to the opposing teams 33 yard line and kick a 50 yard field goal and win.

 

Is that really a OT system that accurately represents the game? Forget fairness (Maybe I am just some pansy that thinks games should start out 0-0) and all that junk. Is the current NFL OT system representative of the way the game is played in regulation? Teams don't start off drives at the beginning of games wanting to get field goals. Also if the NFL if all 3 facets of the game are so important why doesn't each team have to play offense and defense OR at least have their offense go the length of the field.

 

All a defense has to do is give up 45 or so yards and the game could be over even if the offense is afforded Ok field position. I don't think a offense marching less then half the field is the defense collapsing or the special teams collapsing at all and it shouldn't necessitate an instant defeat either.

 

The NFL OT system is broken. There are 2 ways to fix this 1- If you like Sudden death then you need a TD to win. 2- If you score on the 1st possession the other team gets 1 offensive possession to tie or win. Seriously defending the NFL OT system is just arguing against change for no real reason.

 

Sure you can point flaws with either solution but the flaws are far less egregious then the current system. Its never going to be 100% fair or perfect but if you can take something that is 50% representative of the game and make it 80% better then why not. Its like defending the BCS because in an 8 team playoff teams 9 and 10 are going to be mad they didn't get in well I would much rather have teams 9 and 10 complain the teams 3 and 4.

[Dan]

Now you are just being silly. Of course its game over! Are you being obtuse deliberately? Giving each team a possession does not complicate anything. It's the opposite of complicated. It's kindergarten.

 

PTR

 

Obtuse. I love it. I've never been called that before.

 

No, but what if you fumble the kick off? Does that count as a possession? Do you remove kickoffs fro mthe OT? And seriously, what if GB had gotten the ball fumbled on the first play. The Cards take the field and kick the FG - they don't even run a play. How is that any different than the first team driving the ball 30 yards and kicking a long FG? ou still had a team that didn't try to score and won the game on a long FG.

 

I'm sorry. I just don't like it. I really think the current system is great. The playoffs and Super Bowl aren't always won by the best team, because its a 1 game, all or nothing, approach. There's immediacy to every play. Same with OT, there's an importance on every play, because any one play can end the game.

 

The fact that a coin toss decides who gets the ball first is irrelevant. Because you don't have to take the ball, you can opt to kick away. So the teams still have say over the coin toss results (not to mention they choose heads or tails). Yes, there is an arbitrary nature to the coin toss; but for me, that just adds more to the excitement.

[PromoTheRobot]

Obtuse. I love it. I've never been called that before.

 

No, but what if you fumble the kick off? Does that count as a possession? Do you remove kickoffs fro mthe OT? And seriously, what if GB had gotten the ball fumbled on the first play. The Cards take the field and kick the FG - they don't even run a play. How is that any different than the first team driving the ball 30 yards and kicking a long FG? ou still had a team that didn't try to score and won the game on a long FG.

 

I'm sorry. I just don't like it. I really think the current system is great. The playoffs and Super Bowl aren't always won by the best team, because its a 1 game, all or nothing, approach. There's immediacy to every play. Same with OT, there's an importance on every play, because any one play can end the game.

 

The fact that a coin toss decides who gets the ball first is irrelevant. Because you don't have to take the ball, you can opt to kick away. So the teams still have say over the coin toss results (not to mention they choose heads or tails). Yes, there is an arbitrary nature to the coin toss; but for me, that just adds more to the excitement.

what if you fumble the kick off? Does that count as a possession? YES

 

what if GB had gotten the ball fumbled on the first play - That counts as a possession.

 

The Cards take the field and kick the FG - they don't even run a play. is that any different than the first team driving the ball 30 yards and kicking a long FG? - GB had a possession but turned it over.

 

Obtuse. I love it. I've never been called that before. - You are obtuse. People probably called you worse. You are taking something cut and dry and twisting it until it looks like something confusing. You remind me of defenders of the BCS trying to explain why a playoff would be unfair.

 

You want excitement? How about just giving the game to the winner of the coin flip? Or maybe they can cut a deck of cards? How about Rock Paper Scissors?

 

PTR

[Dan]

what if you fumble the kick off? Does that count as a possession? YES

 

what if GB had gotten the ball fumbled on the first play - That counts as a possession.

 

The Cards take the field and kick the FG - they don't even run a play. is that any different than the first team driving the ball 30 yards and kicking a long FG? - GB had a possession but turned it over.

 

Obtuse. I love it. I've never been called that before. - You are obtuse. People probably called you worse. You are taking something cut and dry and twisting it until it looks like something confusing. You remind me of defenders of the BCS trying to explain why a playoff would be unfair.

You want excitement? How about just giving the game to the winner of the coin flip? Or maybe they can cut a deck of cards? How about Rock Paper Scissors?

 

PTR

See, all of those analogies would make sense if the team that won the coin toss always won the game, but in a significant number of games; that does not happen. So, trying to equate winning the OT coin toss to winning the game, is actually being obtuse.

 

I also don't like the comparison to the college BCS system. Let's face it, we all know that's biased. People, like myself, advocating a playoff scenario are just asking for the teams to have a chance to play for who is best. Not have it handed to them by sprortswriters.

 

Current NFL OT rules, don't give any team anything. They still have to go out and win the game. Yes, some of my examples have been somewhat exaggerated. But, I was merely trying to point out that there are quite a few complexities that will get brought up when you start guaranteeing both teams the ball. The current system has none of those potential questions. You score, you win. Now, with that being said, the best idea I've seen is the notion of first team to 6 pts, wins. That takes away the notion of a single long FG attempt beating you. But it also allows for the importance of getting the ball first and the defense having to stop them.

 

 

Yes people have called me worse. No worries though, sometimes I've deserved it altough I'm not sure this is one of them.

[Mikie2times]

I don't necessarily like NFL OT myself, but I think the argument in this thread is exactly why the NFL stays with the system. You have two perspectives, BOTH with a ton of valid arguments. You can't implement any system that doesn't give one team some advantage. The more in depth I look at this, the more I understand why the NFL sides with tradition on this issue.

[billsfan89]

I don't necessarily like NFL OT myself, but I think the argument in this thread is exactly why the NFL stays with the system. You have two perspectives, BOTH with a ton of valid arguments. You can't implement any system that doesn't give one team some advantage. The more in depth I look at this, the more I understand why the NFL sides with tradition on this issue.

 

There is no reason why the NFL should side with tradition. I would say a majority of the fans don't like the NFL OT system. I would also say that the argument for the system is a stupid and invalid one. The argument boils down to well its never going to be perfect so leave it the way it is.

 

To me that is a God awful argument so it can't be perfect that's the reason not to make it better? What kind of logic is that. Well life isn't fair and neither should the OT system, well the essence of competition is that there is an even playing field and you let the participants decide the winner not some arbitrary circumstance like a coin toss.

 

Here are some other arguments. Well defense is part of the game, So the other teams D doesn't count. Why does everything have to be fair quite being a wuss, So the Pats* cheating isn't a big deal you should have just found out about it or changed your signals. Well its never going to be perfect so leave it be, So lets not make it better because it can never be perfect isn't a good but not perfect system better then a bad system?

 

All of these arguments were often used against instant replay and I would say the ability to challenge certain plays and have officials look at replays late in games and in OT is a good thing and makes the game better. Is replay perfect no but its better then nothing.

[bizell]

I love OT the way it is and hope it never changes.

[billsfan89]

See, all of those analogies would make sense if the team that won the coin toss always won the game, but in a significant number of games; that does not happen. So, trying to equate winning the OT coin toss to winning the game, is actually being obtuse.

 

I also don't like the comparison to the college BCS system. Let's face it, we all know that's biased. People, like myself, advocating a playoff scenario are just asking for the teams to have a chance to play for who is best. Not have it handed to them by sprortswriters.

 

Current NFL OT rules, don't give any team anything. They still have to go out and win the game. Yes, some of my examples have been somewhat exaggerated. But, I was merely trying to point out that there are quite a few complexities that will get brought up when you start guaranteeing both teams the ball. The current system has none of those potential questions. You score, you win. Now, with that being said, the best idea I've seen is the notion of first team to 6 pts, wins. That takes away the notion of a single long FG attempt beating you. But it also allows for the importance of getting the ball first and the defense having to stop them.

 

 

Yes people have called me worse. No worries though, sometimes I've deserved it altough I'm not sure this is one of them.

 

 

30% of the time teams who got the ball 1st won the game on that drive. 60% of the time the team that gets the ball 1st wins. To me those are significant numbers. A coin toss just has too much to say on the outcome of a closely contested game. The NFL needs to change it to make it better. Is it going to be perfect no but it can get better.

 

I think that you like the idea of Sudden death, that at any moment the game can end. I have a compromise for you and its a system I wouldn't have to big an issue with. You need to score a TD to win in OT, Field goals don't count (I don't know what you would do about safeties either they win you the game or you get the ball deep in your opponents territory but it can be worked out) and no you can't kick 2 field goals either.

 

The 1st team in OT to score a TD wins. Now would it still allow for a 1st possession win BUT your defense or special teams would have to give up the entire field in order for this to happen. I would be fine with this system I think it still allows for that tense "Golden Goal" feeling while still retaining the nature of the game (No team hopes to take its opening drive for a field goal). Its a simple fix that appeases the fans but doesn't make any huge changes.