OT Rule needs to change!

[YoloinOhio]

Saints won the coin toss too and lost, because Rams made a defensive play. Chiefs jumped offside instead.

[Nextmanup]

2 hours ago, LabattBlue said:

So what happens when clock strikes 0:00 and   the game is still tied.  Excellent idea.  

You play another one.

 

NFL championship is easily the easiest to win in N. American sports.

 

Let them work a bit harder for that ring.  

 

News flash: you won't be seeing a lot of NFL playoff games going into their 2nd OT.

 

 

[JoshAllenToTheHOF]

Is yes Bad Rule. Should BE chance to make tie score!!

[Jrb1979]

The whinning and complaining for changing the rules all cause the Pats won is beyond words. I have never seen a fan base that gets so angered over another team like Bills fans do. 

[row_33]

2 hours ago, mattynh said:

That is also what I remember.    But the issue comes up when a team never gets the ball which does happen.  I see it from both sides, even if statistically it does not show much, it seems fair that both teams should get the ball.    In that game yesterday no one could stop anyone once the fourth quarter started so it seemed like whoever won the coin toss got an advantage.

 

excellent point

 

it's like when my friends remember all their gambling wins and never bring up a loss

 

funny how the mind works

 

 

[PetermansRedemption]

3 hours ago, LabattBlue said:

So what happens when clock strikes 0:00 and   the game is still tied.  Excellent idea.  

Simple answer. Go for an extra 15, opposite team receiving the ball for the start of that quarter. If still tied after that quarter, you coin flip again and go for another 15. However, I think the simplest idea that makes the most sense is college overtime rules. Each team gets a possession. If tied each team gets another possession until not tied. The only problem would be where to start the ball. I feel it would have to be around the 40 yard line with his good NFL kickers are. You need the FG to not be an easy one. 

[Nextmanup]

2 minutes ago, Bills2ref said:

Simple answer. Go for an extra 15, opposite team receiving the ball for the start of that quarter. If still tied after that quarter, you coin flip again and go for another 15. However, I think the simplest idea that makes the most sense is college overtime rules. Each team gets a possession. If tied each team gets another possession until not tied. The only problem would be where to start the ball. I feel it would have to be around the 40 yard line with his good NFL kickers are. You need the FG to not be an easy one. 

I wouldn't mind this type of approach either.

 

In fact, you could dispense with the kickoffs and flip a coin to see who gets the ball first, on their 25 yard line, as they would with a touchback.  See what they do with the ball.  If they score, they score.  Then the other team gets 1 possession starting from their 25 yard line.

 

First score wins with the caveat that both teams must get 1 possession before the game can end.

 

The entire idea here is that the rules are skewed to favor offense, and almost all scoring is done by the offensive unit (or special teams unit) but not the defensive unit!

 

So both teams should have a chance to get their offensive unit on the field, and a coin toss deciding who gets to play offense is inherently unfair.

 

 

 

[Figster]

2 hours ago, BillsFan130 said:

Defence is part of the game. 

 

Chiefs don't deserve to go to the SB if they can't stop a 75 yard drive with home field advantage and the weather elements on their side.

 

Saints got the ball first in OT but lost because DEFENCE is still part of the game. No one mentions that though...

Wade Philips gives the Rams an edge, I get that, and voiced it during the game. As mentioned earlier in the thread though by a fellow patron, shouldn't both Defenses be tested in OT?    The outcome of the NFC Championship was also tainted by the officials from critical non calls in what I feel is another very easy fix. The ability to red flag a missed call, an idea I started a thread on a couple seasons ago on BBMB/ Billszone. Disrupting flow of the game was the fan bases biggest concern on the idea which myself personally, would not happen.  

 

Run extra quarters in OT,( Playoffs)  Red flag/ the ability to catch critical missed calls by the officials, two easy fixes in my humble opinion. 

Edited January 21, 2019 by Figster

[Alphadawg7]

6 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

That would be fine, but would then give a new advantage to the team that goes second.  It is why in college OT the team on defense first wins a higher percentage by a similar margin as the NFL coin toss winners.

 

I could live with both teams getting a chance, but it does not bother me at all that they don’t.  I actually like the rules now that give a TD a win and a FG the ball back to the other team.

 

At some point someone has and advantage and someone needs to make a stop whether it is the first drive in OT or the third.  I just do not get to caught up in an advantage that over the years has been shown to be consistently under 5% different between the two outcomes.

 

Whats advantage for second team?  I don’t get it.  Both teams have equal shot to score, so how does 2nd team get an advantage in this case if both get chance tonhave the ball?

[row_33]

is there any serious discussion about revamping the OT rules at NFL HQ?

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

3 hours ago, 4_kidd_4 said:

 

Then we go 3 on 3 like the NHL.

 

 

Hey, 7-on-7, just like the country high schools too small to field a full team.  I like it.

[Steptide]

Been saying it for years. Put 8 mins on the clock in ot and whoever is winning at the end, wins. This is how it should've always been since the beggining of football

[The Frankish Reich]

6 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Whats advantage for second team?  I don’t get it.  Both teams have equal shot to score, so how does 2nd team get an advantage in this case if both get chance tonhave the ball?

The second team has an advantage because they know what the goal is. First team scores a TD? Then the second team knows they need a TD. The strategic advantage results in the second team winning a disproportionate number of times, although (as with the NFL) it isn't a gigantic advantage. Nevertheless, the coin flip seems to have a larger effect than most fans are comfortable with.

34 minutes ago, Bills2ref said:

Simple answer. Go for an extra 15, opposite team receiving the ball for the start of that quarter. If still tied after that quarter, you coin flip again and go for another 15. However, I think the simplest idea that makes the most sense is college overtime rules. Each team gets a possession. If tied each team gets another possession until not tied. The only problem would be where to start the ball. I feel it would have to be around the 40 yard line with his good NFL kickers are. You need the FG to not be an easy one. 

NFL kickers are so good (and right now, offenses so dominant) that I'd go all the way back to the 50. Start on the opponent's 40 and it's a 57 yard field goal.

[Rochesterfan]

10 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Whats advantage for second team?  I don’t get it.  Both teams have equal shot to score, so how does 2nd team get an advantage in this case if both get chance tonhave the ball?

 

 

The second team knows what is needed to win.  The first team kicks a FG - the second team gets to 4th down and has choices available- go for the win or tie.

 

The first team scores a TD - the second team knows it needs a TD so every possession is 4 downs.  

 

Getting the ball second can be a huge help.  That is why since the college OT rules started - the team getting the ball second wins at a higher rate that the teams that win the coin toss in the NFL.

 

It seems fair, but still provides advantages to one team that is actually greater than what we have seen in the NFL since they changed their OT rules.

[The Frankish Reich]

6 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

That just shows the the coin toss means very little.  The team winning the coin toss won 54.8 % when you excluded ties - why exclude ties.  With the ties included the team winning the coin toss won just over 51%. Yes they have a slight advantage, but it is minor.

 

Looking at this year and more offense - including playoffs the team that won the toss won exactly 50% of the time.  Even in the playoffs - one team one the coin toss and won and the other winner lost the coin toss and forced a turnover.

 

The article nicely shows that the college rules are no better just favor the team that goes second by a similar margin.  The team going second with the advantage Wins 54.9% of the time.  Slightly higher percentage the other way because it gives the second team a major advantage.

 

So what is your alternative that gives an exactly equal 50/50 chance to win because there is not one - either way one team will have an advantage of about 5% to win.

 

 

No. My solution - in the playoffs! - is to simply play football for an additional 15 minutes. After that point, maybe it's time to start thinking about player fatigue and all that and to go to a more arbitrary mechanism of deciding a winner. In other words, soccer or NHL style. Because let's face facts: anything other than an extension of the normal game under the normal rules is an attempt to "force" a result that has a winner.

[Alphadawg7]

12 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

The second team has an advantage because they know what the goal is. First team scores a TD? Then the second team knows they need a TD. The strategic advantage results in the second team winning a disproportionate number of times, although (as with the NFL) it isn't a gigantic advantage. Nevertheless, the coin flip seems to have a larger effect than most fans are comfortable with.

NFL kickers are so good (and right now, offenses so dominant) that I'd go all the way back to the 50. Start on the opponent's 40 and it's a 57 yard field goal.

 

Thats not an advantage IMO, goal is always a TD because you know the other team can score the TD and win.  If first team scores a FG, second team still has a goal of a TD.  If first team doesn’t score, then that’s on them.  They had a shot.

 

So I will respectfully disagree that there is any real advantage to the second team if both teams have a shot at having the ball.  You could say the opposite too and say second team has more pressure on them if first team scores.  

 

I think they should just guarantee one possession to both teams in OT.  Giving the ball first to a Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, or a young explosive team like Rams and Chiefs is a massive advantage in OT.  Just balance it and say both teams get the ball once, at least in the playoffs.  Now both teams have to field both an offensive and defensive unit in OT to decide a winner.  

 

Makes no no sense to me to do it the way they are, just my 2 cents.  And I have said this for over 20 years, has nothing to do with yesterday.  

2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

No. My solution - in the playoffs! - is to simply play football for an additional 15 minutes. After that point, maybe it's time to start thinking about player fatigue and all that and to go to a more arbitrary mechanism of deciding a winner. In other words, soccer or NHL style. Because let's face facts: anything other than an extension of the normal game under the normal rules is an attempt to "force" a result that has a winner.

 

I would support this too.  Or play a shorter full period like 8 minutes so you could essentially do two if necessary before going to another arbitrary mechanism.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Alphadawg7

[Mr. WEO]

7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

The second team has an advantage because they know what the goal is. First team scores a TD? Then the second team knows they need a TD. The strategic advantage results in the second team winning a disproportionate number of times, although (as with the NFL) it isn't a gigantic advantage. Nevertheless, the coin flip seems to have a larger effect than most fans are comfortable with.

NFL kickers are so good (and right now, offenses so dominant) that I'd go all the way back to the 50. Start on the opponent's 40 and it's a 57 yard field goal.

 

 

I just read somewhere it's like 62%...that's almost a 2:1 advantage in 2 possession OT's to the second team possessing.

 

Anyway, the problem with all of theses complaints about overtime is that they completely ignore Defense as part of the game.  That obviously makes no sense and is the fatal flaw in all of these arguments for change.

 

If each team "deserves a possession", then just settle it like soccer:  just have the kickers trade FGs.  until someone misses.

 

Sounds silly right?  So does all this whining about a team not being able to get it's Offense on the field, when the problem is actually that they can't get their Defense off the field.

[Alphadawg7]

6 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

The second team knows what is needed to win.  The first team kicks a FG - the second team gets to 4th down and has choices available- go for the win or tie.

 

The first team scores a TD - the second team knows it needs a TD so every possession is 4 downs.  

 

Getting the ball second can be a huge help.  That is why since the college OT rules started - the team getting the ball second wins at a higher rate that the teams that win the coin toss in the NFL.

 

It seems fair, but still provides advantages to one team that is actually greater than what we have seen in the NFL since they changed their OT rules.

 

Thats not an adavantage though.  That’s the first team failing to score, in other words blowing their chance.  And college is different, ball starts in scoring range, NFL ball I kicked off.  First team doesn’t capitalize on their chance, then they should lose more often.  

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I just read somewhere it's like 62%...that's almost a 2:1 advantage in 2 possession OT's to the second team possessing.

 

Anyway, the problem with all of theses complaints about overtime is that they completely ignore Defense as part of the game.  That obviously makes no sense and is the fatal flaw in all of these arguments for change.

 

If each team "deserves a possession", then just settle it like soccer:  just have the kickers trade FGs.  until someone misses.

 

Sounds silly right?  So does all this whining about a team not being able to get it's Offense on the field, when the problem is actually that they can't get their Defense off the field.

 

No that’s not true.  Defense is part of every possession.  So saying both teams deserve a possession directly includes the defense.  No one is ignoring it, it’s built into the statement already.  

 

Both teams should be on the field.  One possession in OT means only half of both teams contributed to OT, one offense and one defense.  Football is a team game, they got to OT as a team. Seems silly to have only half that team and a coin determine a winner without the other half of both teams also being put on the field as well.

[Straight Hucklebuck]

Bulldog has picked up right where Howard Simon left off. 

 

Crying about rules changes. 

 

It’s psychotic, we spend 45 minutes a game in the booth watching reviews as it is right now. Let’s add 15 more minutes arguing whether holding occurred, and institute an OT system where you score a Touchdown and you still don’t win.

 

Bills fans should stop crying because their team has been irrelevant for 27 years. 

 

Edited January 21, 2019 by Straight Hucklebuck

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

Bulldog has picked up right where Howard Simon left off. 

 

Crying about rules changes. 

 

It’s psychotic, we spend 45 minutes a game in the booth watching reviews as it is right now. Let’s add 15 more minutes arguing whether holding occurred, and institute an OT system where you score a Touchdown and you still don’t win.

 

Bills fans should stop crying because their team has been irrelevant for 27 years. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mean but true

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

4 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Thats not an adavantage though.  That’s the first team failing to score, in other words blowing their chance.  And college is different, ball starts in scoring range, NFL ball I kicked off.  First team doesn’t capitalize on their chance, then they should lose more often.  

 

 

I understand that it does seem an advantage, but the overall records show that it is as much or more of an advantage than the coin toss in the NFL.

 

I do not have an issue either way, but there is an advantage to being the second team and it is significant.  It would be even more so in an NFL match-up.

[Mr. WEO]

6 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Thats not an adavantage though.  That’s the first team failing to score, in other words blowing their chance.  And college is different, ball starts in scoring range, NFL ball I kicked off.  First team doesn’t capitalize on their chance, then they should lose more often.  

 

No that’s not true.  Defense is part of every possession.  So saying both teams deserve a possession directly includes the defense.  No one is ignoring it, it’s built into the statement already.  

 

Both teams should be on the field.  One possession in OT means only half of both teams contributed to OT, one offense and one defense.  Football is a team game, they got to OT as a team. Seems silly to have only half that team and a coin determine a winner without the other half of both teams also being put on the field as well.

 

 

Of course it's true.  Coin flip winner's O vs the flip loser's D, straight up.  If the O imposes it's will on the D for a TD (not a cheap FG), that's it.  Why should that matchup be stepped aside, just so the other team's Offense can erase the failure of the D?

 

In other words, if the D stopped the coin flip O, then they have earned their O a chance to score and win. If the D just let the coin flip winner walk down the field and score a TD, but the loser of the flip still gets another chance then, yeah, that pretty much negates the significance of Defense in the OT.

 

Yes it's a team game, and both teams WERE on the field in OT.  Your assumption is that the coin flip winner will more likely than not score a TD to end the OT, when that is not true.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

I don't understand why it can't simply be each team gets at least 1 possession. I understand the thinking of you got to stop them, but it's not fair, especially today when rules favor offense. 

[Alphadawg7]

3 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

I understand that it does seem an advantage, but the overall records show that it is as much or more of an advantage than the coin toss in the NFL.

 

I do not have an issue either way, but there is an advantage to being the second team and it is significant.  It would be even more so in an NFL match-up.

 

Youre also over looming the fact college the ball starts in scoring range, NFL is a kickoff.  Massive difference.  

[row_33]

you have to calculate the real OTs under this new rule regime, put as many variables that make it finer as you want

 

the sudden death option for decades gave a less than 1% advantage for the team winning the coin toss, but everyone is a big baby when their team loses

 

 

Edited January 21, 2019 by row_33

[Buffalo_Stampede]

2 minutes ago, row_33 said:

you have to calculate the real OTs under this new rule regime, put as many variables that make it finer as you want

 

the sudden death option for decades gave a less than 1% advantage for the team winning the coin toss, but everyone is a big baby when their team loses

 

 

Advantage shouldn't exist. If that's the case then something other than a coin toss should decide who gets the ball. Maybe whoever has the most yards in the game or something. 

Edited January 21, 2019 by TheTruthHurts

[Alphadawg7]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Of course it's true.  Coin flip winner's O vs the flip loser's D, straight up.  If the O imposes it's will on the D for a TD (not a cheap FG), that's it.  Why should that matchup be stepped aside, just so the other team's Offense can erase the failure of the D?

 

In other words, if the D stopped the coin flip O, then they have earned their O a chance to score and win. If the D just let the coin flip winner walk down the field and score a TD, but the loser of the flip still gets another chance then, yeah, that pretty much negates the significance of Defense in the OT.

 

Yes it's a team game, and both teams WERE on the field in OT.  Your assumption is that the coin flip winner will more likely than not score a TD to end the OT, when that is not true.

 

Here is the issue.  Tom Brady vs KC defense.  Who has the advantage?  Massive NE advantage, and a coin decided that.  Mahomes and KC offense vs Pats defense?  Who has the advantage?  Easy KC.  Again coin decides that advantage had they won it.

 

If a chance based procedure (the coin flip) can result in giving either team any kind of significant advantage, it’s not a fair and balanced system IMO.

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, TheTruthHurts said:

Advantage shouldn't exist. If that's the case then something other than a coin toss should decide who gets the ball. Maybe whoever has the most yards in the game or something. 

 

you can't eliminate advantages

 

the problem is people perceive it as grossly unfair, and they won't listen to actual facts of outcome for 40 years of a rule

 

oh, good luck in your pursuit of removing advantages, you should be appointed the Czar of making everything fair in football....

 

[LSHMEAB]

I don't have a problem with the OT rules as they exist, but the AFC Championship was one of those games where the coin toss was likely going to decide the winner.

 

Unfortunate for Chiefs fans, but hardly a reason to overhaul the format. 

 

The idea that @Steptidepresented was intriguing; an 8 minute period where the team that's ahead wins the game. It's not out of the question and you could expand that to 15 minutes in playoff games. There are already different OT rules for the playoffs considering the game cannot end in a tie. I'd rather keep the current rules in place, but that's one I hadn't heard.

 

 

Edited January 21, 2019 by LSHMEAB

[NoHuddleKelly12]

16 hours ago, row_33 said:

They just have to change it to when the team I’m cheering for takes the lead, then the game is over

 

They get a million chances until they take the lead then the game is over and I win

Well, as long as you and I are talking about the same team, then I'm all for it. 

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

Well, as long as you and I are talking about the same team, then I'm all for it. 

 

maybe this is the true Mandela Effect, fans don't really watch football closely but they watch one game a year where it went to sudden death OT and their team lost the toss and the game on a FG on the first possession.

 

so they think this happens all the time, when it didn't at all

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Here is the issue.  Tom Brady vs KC defense.  Who has the advantage?  Massive NE advantage, and a coin decided that.  Mahomes and KC offense vs Pats defense?  Who has the advantage?  Easy KC.  Again coin decides that advantage had they won it.

 

If a chance based procedure (the coin flip) can result in giving either team any kind of significant advantage, it’s not a fair and balanced system IMO.

 

NE D held KC to 7 points for 3 Qs.  It's not a given that KC would have scored a TD on the next possession, especially with Andy Reid in late playoff game mode against the patriots.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

3 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

you can't eliminate advantages

 

the problem is people perceive it as grossly unfair, and they won't listen to actual facts of outcome for 40 years of a rule

 

oh, good luck in your pursuit of removing advantages, you should be appointed the Czar of making everything fair in football....

 

What do you have against each offense getting their chance? 1% advantage or whatever it is shouldn't be OK. 

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, TheTruthHurts said:

What do you have against each offense getting their chance? 1% advantage or whatever it is shouldn't be OK. 

 

the rules were almost perfect with the sudden death situation

 

but crybabies gonna crybaby

 

[Alphadawg7]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

NE D held KC to 7 points for 3 Qs.  It's not a given that KC would have scored a TD on the next possession, especially with Andy Reid in late playoff game mode against the patriots.

 

Its never a given.  Rules aren’t about what’s a foregone conclusion, it’s about whether or not it creates an imbalanced advantage.  Brady vs KC gives Pats a significant advantage.  Just like Mahomes vs Pats D would be an advantage. 

 

Pats O > KC D

KC O > Pats D

 

To let a coin decide who gets to play from their teams strength (in both cases it’s their offense) and which team plays from their weakness (both teams it’s their D) is not a fair and balanced solution unless both teams have to field their O and D once in OT by giving each team a guaranteed 1 possession.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Alphadawg7

[SoCal Deek]

How about switching from a Coin Flip to... Rock, Paper, Scissors?  Now THAT would be cool!

[Buffalo_Stampede]

5 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

the rules were almost perfect with the sudden death situation

 

but crybabies gonna crybaby

 

Almost? How could they be perfect in your opinion? 

[Mr. WEO]

19 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Its never a given.  Rules aren’t about what’s a foregone conclusion, it’s about whether or not it creates an imbalanced advantage.  Brady vs KC gives Pats a significant advantage.  Just like Mahomes vs Pats D would be an advantage. 

 

Pats O > KC D

KC O > Pats D

 

To let a coin decide who gets to play from their teams strength (in both cases it’s their offense) and which team plays from their weakness (both teams it’s their D) is not a fair and balanced solution unless both teams have to field their O and D once in OT by giving each team a guaranteed 1 possession.

 

 

It's a poor argument that a rule applied fairly across all games should be changed when it was applied fairly in one game.....and some people didn't like the fairly arrived at outcome......

[The Frankish Reich]

6 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

It reminded me of an argument I had with board members  and OT that's all.  

 

To the BOLD  - this brings up the in season threads  we've seen (and recently) -  

Defense wins Championships.

 

In the regular season Scoring wins out as entertaining (and the obvious W) 

But in the playoffs. 

 

 

It all comes down to the Defense. 

Dude, regulation ended 31-31. The average points per game this year was 23.3. And yet someone will always say "defense wins."

EDIT: and if you want to prove your point that defense wins, shouldn't the Chiefs get the ball so the Pats can have a chance to show how superior their defense is?  How does giving one team the ball prove anything about the superiority of that same team's defense?

Edited January 21, 2019 by The Frankish Reich

[Alphadawg7]

7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

It's a poor argument that a rule applied fairly across all games should be changed when it was applied fairly in one game.....and some people didn't like the fairly arrived at outcome......

 

I have been saying this same argument over 20 years, has nothing to do with yesterdays game.  I’m only citing that game as that’s the one in discussion.  

 

Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Montana, Elway, Kelly, Manning, Warner, Marino, etc almost always had an advantage having the ball first vs most defenses.  It’s a rare defense when those guys aren’t on an offense that is Better than the opposing defense.  

 

Again, anytime a random event can determine an advantage it’s not a fair and balanced sysytem.  Both teams getting the ball once, is 100% of the time fair.  Coin flip, not always a fair outcome.  Brady bs Chiefs D not a fair competition as Pats O > Chiefs D.  So only way to balance is give both teams one possession, then always fair and results are based on contributions of the full teams, not one unit of it.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Alphadawg7