Bills OT rule proposal

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

There is no perfect overtime rules because if two teams are tied after 60 minutes generally they are very even and some version of luck will decide game. I don't mind the current rule but I would be very interested in whatever proposals they have though making a time element is not a good idea in my book 

 

College OT is fair and doable. I don't get the opposition to it. 

[Tenhigh]

1 hour ago, HereComesTheReignAgain said:

At the end of regulation in a tied game, The head coaches go to mid field and arm wrestle.  The winner's team gets the ball first and he gets to punch the loser in the nuts.

FIFY

[Tanoros]

2 hours ago, Greg S said:

 

Do what they do in the regular season then. Each team gets a possession. Only thing I would change is if the team who gets the ball first scores a TD then the other team would still get a chance with the ball which they currently don't get.

The thing to consider in this scenario is the second team would have the advantage of using 4th downs. Still better than what we have now, but it would be better to get the ball second if this were the case. 
 

It seems like having a timed OT period would the the best way to go. At least for the first OT period.

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Rigotz said:

A lot of grumpy old men in this thread. Change isn't always bad fellas.

 

Ask yourself... does the team that wins the coin toss have a significant advantage over the team that doesn't?

If so, why would you give a significant advantage to a team based on a coin flip when you don't have to?

 

well, that was lessened not long ago with a change in the OT rule.  Recently, a team won on the first possession with a FG, Now it has to be a TD or the other team gets a possession to tie or win.  

 

They don't need to change it again.  The Defense is expected  to play hard in OT as well as the Offense.

 

This is a non-issue.

[The Red King]

Two possessions.  Coin toss determines who goes first, winner can take or defer.  Team that gets the ball first gets a drive.  If they get a TD they cannot go for two.  Then, the other team gets the ball and needs to do better then the last drive or they lose.

 

Still not perfect, but fairer.  In the case of the Bills/Chiefs game, KC got 7.  Bills would have one drive to get 8 to win.

 

Team that goes second has the advantage of knowing how much they need, but the disadvantage of needing more points.

Edited March 2, 2022 by The Red King

[Jukester]

30 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I guess the worry is games going on forever. I actually don't dislike overtime rules, I just hate how possession is decided.

It would only go on forever if neither team could ever score or if each team continued to match the other team every time. Low probability of either happening. 

[Tanoros]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I figured out what the change should be. Eliminate the coin flip. Continue the game into extra time. 

 

OT rules basically stay the same. TD on 1st possession wins it, after 1st possession it's sudden death.

 

BUT the big change is the game just continues where it ended in regulation. No coin flip. For example, Cheifs tied the game vs the Bills at the end of regulation. OT would start where regulation ends. Chiefs kicking off to the Bills in OT.

 

If there were still some time left in regulation with a tie, let's say 10 seconds, normally a team would kneel. Now teams would know they continue possession into OT.

 

Also in this scenario since the team that is losing at the end of regulation knows the other team gets possession you would likely see more teams go for two instead of the tie at the end of regulation.

 

Tell me this isn't the perfect fix? No more coin flip deciding games.

Consider this. The game is tied, Team A is driving towards the end of the game, BUT not in scoring range yet. Do they get the ball on the same yard line when the 4th Q ends? If so, they wouldn’t have much reason to push the ball downfield and take risks when they have more time coming. 

[Canadian Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, BillMafia716ix said:

Overtime rules don’t need to be changed. Play defense. End of story

 

 

I disagree. I always thought it was stupid that a first drive TD could end a playoff game. Both teams should get at least one possesion 

[Coffeesforclosers]

Why do they need special rules anyway?  Just keep playing extra quarters until somebody is ahead and the clock shows all 0s.  

[Tanoros]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

First scenario is perfect. That's exactly how it should be. Like I said, team B already knows who gets possession in OT. So if they score a TD they could go for 2 to win in regulation instead of play defense in OT and hope to get the ball back.

 

Second scenario would take game management by the coach. Remember at the end of regulation you still win the game if you make the long FG. In OT a made FG gives the ball to the opponent for their possession. Team A would still have to score a TD on their 1st possession in OT to win on that possession.

I like your idea IF OT is timed and not as it currently is.  Because this would remove the coin toss factor in OT. 

1 hour ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

The OT rule as per me.  Team A scores a TD on first OT possession and must kick their XP.  Team B gets the ball and must score a TD and if so they must go for 2 pt conversion assuming Team A made their kick.  If Team A missed their XP then Team B has the option to kick for the win.  Would the team winning the coin toss elect to play defense first?  I think so because the second team to possess the ball has the advantage of knowing what they need and the availability of 4th downs to sustain their drive.  All other scoring rules stay the same.  If there is a weather effect on the game that favors one direction over the other, then there is an additional bonus to playing defense first.

 

In the case of matching FGs by each team, next score wins the game.  Team A gets the advantage of winning the game on their 2nd possession with a score of any kind.  B does not get a second chance.  Now what does the winner of the coin toss do?  I still think they would play defense and choose the EZ they defend.

This is not a bad idea at all. Each team has an advantage in some way, but also a disadvantage. 

[Tenhigh]

What about letting whichever team has a deeper voiced quarterback get 1st possession?  That ought to get us through the 2020s. 

[Tanoros]

23 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

well, that was lessened not long ago with a change in the OT rule.  Recently, a team won on the first possession with a FG, Now it has to be a TD or the other team gets a possession to tie or win.  

 

They don't need to change it again.  The Defense is expected  to play hard in OT as well as the Offense.

 

This is a non-issue.

Since this change (in post season) the team who has won the toss has won 90% of the games. This is the main issue with the drive for change. A coin toss is seemingly deciding the outcomes of games between very good teams. 

[Orlando Tim]

37 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

College OT is fair and doable. I don't get the opposition to it. 

I don't like college because if it is a defensive game you get Illinois vs Penn State kinda 9 it game, which was unwatchable. Though from a fairness standpoint it is fine.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

32 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said:

Why do they need special rules anyway?  Just keep playing extra quarters until somebody is ahead and the clock shows all 0s.  

Money is always the answer to why. Everyone would want their cut of long OT games. 

43 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

College OT is fair and doable. I don't get the opposition to it. 

Not a fan of college OT. I want teams to have to earn points. I like giving each team possession, that's about it. I don't need kickoffs, but start at your own 25.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Buffalo_Stampede

[Buffalo_Stampede]

44 minutes ago, Tanoros said:

Consider this. The game is tied, Team A is driving towards the end of the game, BUT not in scoring range yet. Do they get the ball on the same yard line when the 4th Q ends? If so, they wouldn’t have much reason to push the ball downfield and take risks when they have more time coming. 

Play it exactly how they would at the end of the 1st or 3rd quarter. They get the ball to start OT wherever they were at the end of the 4th. Same down and distance. Same timeouts. If a score happens at the end of regulation then it's a kickoff to start OT.

 

In your scenario Team A is around midfield I'm guessing driving and there's like 20 seconds left. Remember OT rules are you only win on the 1st possession with a TD.  A Team A FG on this drive in OT would give the ball to Team B with a chance to win sudden death with a TD.

 

Knowing that, as a fan what would you suggest your team do? I would want my team to go for the win in regulation. 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Buffalo_Stampede

[Don Otreply]

Play one additional quarter, odds of a tie after that are imo quite small, and if so, first field goal from 60 or greater  distance wins it, jmo. 
 

it is called “foot” ball after all…, 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Don Otreply

[LABILLBACKER]

4 hours ago, BringMetheHeadofLeonLett said:

"If experience has taught us nothing else, it's that to experience an experience like that is quite an experience"

 

...

 

C'mon McDermott, it's the off-season- live a little and mix up the words.  

"If execution has taught us nothing else, it's that to execute an execution like that is quite an execution ".

[LABILLBACKER]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

College OT is fair and doable. I don't get the opposition to it. 

Because it can go on for an hour. Have you seen some of these college OT's. Terrible idea considering the defense's are already exhausted. The rules committee will say if the team with the first possession scores a td, the other team will be given an opportunity to match. If they do match, then the game Immediately becomes sudden death. Probably takes less than 10 minutes. 

[Tanoros]

19 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Play it exactly how they would at the end of the 1st or 3rd quarter. They get the ball to start OT wherever they were at the end of the 4th. Same down and distance. Same timeouts. If a score happens at the end of regulation then it's a kickoff to start OT.

 

In your scenario Team A is around midfield I'm guessing driving and there's like 20 seconds left. Remember OT rules are you only win on the 1st possession with a TD.  A Team A FG on this drive in OT would give the ball to Team B with a chance to win sudden death with a TD.

 

Knowing that, as a fan what would you suggest your team do? I would want my team to go for the win in regulation. 

I think your idea with a slight modification would be my preferred OT.
 

That modification being, if first team in OT scores a TD, they have to go for the XP. The second team, assuming they score the TD, has to go for 2. This way the second team having the advantage of using 4th down is slightly nullified in having to go for 2. Also, if the game goes to sudden death, the first team having the ball in OT has the advantage.

 

 Now assuming the first team missed the XP, the second team can then try for an XP instead of going for 2.  

24 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Play it exactly how they would at the end of the 1st or 3rd quarter. They get the ball to start OT wherever they were at the end of the 4th. Same down and distance. Same timeouts. If a score happens at the end of regulation then it's a kickoff to start OT.

 

In your scenario Team A is around midfield I'm guessing driving and there's like 20 seconds left. Remember OT rules are you only win on the 1st possession with a TD.  A Team A FG on this drive in OT would give the ball to Team B with a chance to win sudden death with a TD.

 

Knowing that, as a fan what would you suggest your team do? I would want my team to go for the win in regulation. 

Consider this though. Team A gets the ball with very little time, say less than 20 seconds and the game is tied. They wouldn’t need to be aggressive, they could just move the ball casually knowing they will get the ball in OT. This wouldn’t be so bad, unless that team can win with a TD in OT. 

 

However, I do like your idea of removing the coin flip. Even if OT was just a whole period that was played out. 

[Tanoros]

4 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

Because it can go on for an hour. Have you seen some of these college OT's. Terrible idea considering the defense's are already exhausted. The rules committee will say if the team with the first possession scores a td, the other team will be given an opportunity to match. If they do match, then the game Immediately becomes sudden death. Probably takes less than 10 minutes. 

This would be good enough. The advantage of using 4th downs can be nullified due to team A having the chance to win on their first possession of sudden death. 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Canadian Bills Fan said:

 

 

I disagree. I always thought it was stupid that a first drive TD could end a playoff game. Both teams should get at least one possesion 

 

56 minutes ago, Tanoros said:

Since this change (in post season) the team who has won the toss has won 90% of the games. This is the main issue with the drive for change. A coin toss is seemingly deciding the outcomes of games between very good teams. 

 

If the opposing D can hold the flip winner to a FG, they will get the ball and a chance to tie or win on their possession.

 

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

College OT is fair and doable. I don't get the opposition to it. 

 

It's trading 2 point conversions.  That's not football.  It's like playing a full hockey or soccer game and then just doing a shootout.  What's the point of playing a full game prior?

[SinceThe70s]

1 hour ago, Rigotz said:

 

By that logic, every regular season game would go into overtime. But they don't.

The more time that goes by, the more fair the game is because every team has multiple chances. Just like every other major sport.

 

 

 

And the reason every regular season game doesn't go to OT is because teams make defensive stands/plays, no?  I suppose I'm in the minority but I'm fine with the current OT system in the NFL, it just doesn't bother me like it does others. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

21 minutes ago, Tanoros said:

 

Consider this though. Team A gets the ball with very little time, say less than 20 seconds and the game is tied. They wouldn’t need to be aggressive, they could just move the ball casually knowing they will get the ball in OT. This wouldn’t be so bad, unless that team can win with a TD in OT. 

 

However, I do like your idea of removing the coin flip. Even if OT was just a whole period that was played out. 

OK. Team B kicks a game tying FG with 20 seconds left. Team B kicks off for a touch back. Team A would start the possession on their own 25 and begin their drive. Can't get too conservative because the drive is continued into OT. You don't want to waste downs. It'll be just like the end of the 1st or 3rd but now OT rules kick in.

 

We always play OT like it's a new game but it's not. So much happened to get to this point but now none of it matters. The whole process of stopping the game and doing a coin flip just takes away from an exciting finish to regulation.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Buffalo_Stampede

[f0neguy]

The fact that about 90% of the teams winning the coin toss win the game tells you the current rules don’t work.   Playing additional 15 minute quarters would give both teams at least one possession, possibly more.  At the end of a 15 minute segment if a team is ahead, game over.

If they’re still tied, do another 15.

[Tanoros]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

OK. Team B kicks a game tying FG with 20 seconds left. Team B kicks off for a touch back. Team A would start the possession on their own 25 and begin their drive. Can't get too conservative because the drive is continued into OT. You don't want to waste downs. It'll be just like the end of the 1st or 3rd but now OT rules kick in.

 

We always play OT like it's a new game but it's not. So much happened to get to this point but now none of it matters. The whole process of stopping the game and doing a coin flip just takes away from an exciting finish to regulation.

Continue where from where the fourth quarter ends isn’t bad, but not if a TD wins the game. In some ways, I suppose it’s better to know what’s going to happen rather than relying on a random coin toss. Team B could go for the win, instead of a FG. Risky sure, but you know team A gets the ball to start OT

[Big Turk]

6 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

NBC Sports: Bills propose postseason overtime rules change based on time, not possessions.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/03/01/bills-propose-postseason-overtime-rules-change-based-on-time-not-possessions/

 

Would make it more like soccer

[PromoTheRobot]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I don't like college because if it is a defensive game you get Illinois vs Penn State kinda 9 it game, which was unwatchable. Though from a fairness standpoint it is fine.

 

That happens like how often? Once in a hundred games? 

 

Quote

"On average, 37 Bowl Subdivision games have gone to overtime over the past four seasons. Most end after one round of possessions. Only six games per season have gone past two overtimes. LSU and Texas A&M tied a record by playing seven overtime periods in November."

 

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college-gridiron-365/os-sp-college-football-overtime-0130-story.html

[Tanoros]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

If the opposing D can hold the flip winner to a FG, they will get the ball and a chance to tie or win on their possession.

We all know that, the point is, 90% of the time in the playoffs the team who wins the coin toss goes down and scores a TD. So the current format isn’t working. 

[PromoTheRobot]

Just now, Big Turk said:

 

Would make it more like soccer

 

No it wouldn't. Start at 75 yards out instead of 25.  Like I posted above, in 37 FBS games that went to OT, all but 6 went beyond two rounds.

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

 

Not a fan of college OT. I want teams to have to earn points. I like giving each team possession, that's about it. I don't need kickoffs, but start at your own 25.

 

That would be fine.

1 hour ago, LABILLBACKER said:

Because it can go on for an hour. Have you seen some of these college OT's. Terrible idea considering the defense's are already exhausted. The rules committee will say if the team with the first possession scores a td, the other team will be given an opportunity to match. If they do match, then the game Immediately becomes sudden death. Probably takes less than 10 minutes. 

 

Only 6 FBS games out of 37 went longer than 2 rounds. Most end after one.

[Big Turk]

11 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

No it wouldn't. Start at 75 yards out instead of 25.  Like I posted above, in 37 FBS games that went to OT, all but 6 went beyond two rounds.

 

That would be fine.

 

Only 6 FBS games out of 37 went longer than 2 rounds. Most end after one.

 

I meant regarding you play the whole OT no matter how many goals in regards to soccer

[billsfan89]

For the post season a 10 minute or 15 minute OT period makes more sense. For the regular season it is just fine.

[folz]

6 hours ago, BillMafia716ix said:

Overtime rules don’t need to be changed. Play defense. End of story

 

46 minutes ago, Gugny said:

Learn how to finish.

 

I used to think this too when it came to overtime rules. But the KC/NE game and the KC/BUF games changed my mind. When two great offenses are playing, they completely wear down defenses by the end of the game. It's easy to just say...it's fair because your defense had a chance to stop them. But at that point in the game, both defenses have been worn down and can't defend as well as they could earlier in the game. The offenses have a decided advantage at that point (in a high flying game like KC/Buf). You see it happen even in regular season games all the time. A team isn't able to get much running game going, but they keep plugging away and then by the 4th quarter, the running game is all of a sudden effective (because the defense has been worn down). So, whichever offense wins the toss, has the advantage because they just need to score against a drained and depleted defense. After playing one of the best offenses in the league for 60 minutes, laying it all on the line every play, it's not as easy as some think to get that last stop.

 

I favor something similar to what it seems like the Bills are proposing: Put time on the clock (10 minutes) and play it like a bonus quarter...play out the full time. And this would only be for the playoffs. As Beane said, you can live with ties during the season. The knock against adding extra time is that it is such a physical game, the players really shouldn't be playing more than 60 minutes for health/injury reasons. But if it's only for the playoffs, then it might happen what, only once or twice per year, if that? So, overall, that shouldn't overtax the players. 10 minutes may seem long, but with only 5 minutes, an offensive team might be able to hold possession for most of that 5 minutes before scoring (which also wouldn't really give the opposing team much of an opportunity).

 

If the overtime period ends in a tie, what about a field goal shootout (like soccer or hockey) as has been suggested by some. Each kicker gets a shot from whatever yard line. If they both make it, move them back 5 or 10 yards. And so on. First to miss a FG that the other made, loses. You could still have complaints depending on who the kickers are, or the fairness of losing like that, etc. But, you had an entire extra period to try and win, so at that point, yes it would suck to lose by a missed field goal, but no one could say you didn't have plenty of opportunities elsewhere to win the game.

 

 

[Brianmoorman4jesus]

I don’t know why I feel like I’m in the minority on this here. It couldn’t be any simpler to me….play a 7 min overtime. Whatever the score it is, it is.

[Mr. WEO]

48 minutes ago, Tanoros said:

We all know that, the point is, 90% of the time in the playoffs the team who wins the coin toss goes down and scores a TD. So the current format isn’t working. 

 

Since the rule change in 2010 for regular season, 2012 for playoffs, there have been 163 OT games.  Coin toss winner winner won 52.8% of those games.

 

Playoffs are  a sample size of 11 games over 10 seasons, and only 7 teams that won the toss scored a TD on their first possession.  So 63.6% (not 90%) of those games involved only 1 team having a chance to score).

 

Even so,  the small sample size gives a poor reflection of the actual advantage for the coin toss (just over 50:50 for the toss winner).

Edited March 2, 2022 by Mr. WEO

[Gugny]

Just now, folz said:

 

 

I used to think this too when it came to overtime rules. But the KC/NE game and the KC/BUF games changed my mind. When two great offenses are playing, they completely wear down defenses by the end of the game. It's easy to just say...it's fair because your defense had a chance to stop them. But at that point in the game, both defenses have been worn down and can't defend as well as they could earlier in the game. The offenses have a decided advantage at that point (in a high flying game like KC/Buf). You see it happen even in regular season games all the time. A team isn't able to get much running game going, but they keep plugging away and then by the 4th quarter, the running game is all of a sudden effective (because the defense has been worn down). So, whichever offense wins the toss, has the advantage because they just need to score against a drained and depleted defense. After playing one of the best offenses in the league for 60 minutes, laying it all on the line every play, it's not as easy as some think to get that last stop.

 

I favor something similar to what it seems like the Bills are proposing: Put time on the clock (10 minutes) and play it like a bonus quarter...play out the full time. And this would only be for the playoffs. As Beane said, you can live with ties during the season. The knock against adding extra time is that it is such a physical game, the players really shouldn't be playing more than 60 minutes for health/injury reasons. But if it's only for the playoffs, then it might happen what, only once or twice per year, if that? So, overall, that shouldn't overtax the players. 10 minutes may seem long, but with only 5 minutes, an offensive team might be able to hold possession for most of that 5 minutes before scoring (which also wouldn't really give the opposing team much of an opportunity).

 

If the overtime period ends in a tie, what about a field goal shootout (like soccer or hockey) as has been suggested by some. Each kicker gets a shot from whatever yard line. If they both make it, move them back 5 or 10 yards. And so on. First to miss a FG that the other made, loses. You could still have complaints depending on who the kickers are, or the fairness of losing like that, etc. But, you had an entire extra period to try and win, so at that point, yes it would suck to lose by a missed field goal, but no one could say you didn't have plenty of opportunities elsewhere to win the game.

 

 

 

I actually think the OT rules need to be changed.

 

I just think it's a bad look for the Bills to present this rule change proposal after losing in OT.  I know it happens every year with multiple teams regarding various rules; but I'm singling out the Bills.

 

If feel about this, the same way I feel about teams b!tching about others running up the score.  Stop the other team.  Coach better.

 

The loss to KC was avoidable in many ways.  The fact that it even went to OT was pathetic.  The fashion in which the Bills lost in OT was nothing short of embarrassing.

 

Go ahead and propose rule changes.  But no rule change is going to help the team win with the horrible coaching and execution we saw at the end of regulation and in OT.

 

Learn to finish.

[folz]

21 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I actually think the OT rules need to be changed.

 

I just think it's a bad look for the Bills to present this rule change proposal after losing in OT.  I know it happens every year with multiple teams regarding various rules; but I'm singling out the Bills.

 

If feel about this, the same way I feel about teams b!tching about others running up the score.  Stop the other team.  Coach better.

 

The loss to KC was avoidable in many ways.  The fact that it even went to OT was pathetic.  The fashion in which the Bills lost in OT was nothing short of embarrassing.

 

Go ahead and propose rule changes.  But no rule change is going to help the team win with the horrible coaching and execution we saw at the end of regulation and in OT.

 

Learn to finish.

 

Got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. "Learn to finish" was in regards to Bills not finishing the game in regulation, not regarding stopping a team in OT (due to coin toss).

 

Not for nothing...but I'm not as hard on the staff/team as you and many others are about the 13 seconds. Mistakes were made...they'll learn from it. Great season, phenomenal playoff games, fun ride...and I do believe McDermott learns from his mistakes...but most importantly, we still have Josh Allen. The fun is just beginning.

 

Life is a journey, not the destination.

Edited March 2, 2022 by folz

[Gugny]

5 minutes ago, folz said:

 

Got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. "Learn to finish" was in regards to Bills not finishing the game in regulation, not regarding stopping a team in OT (due to coin toss).

 

Not for nothing...but I'm not as hard on the staff/team as you and many others are about the 13 seconds. Mistakes were made...they'll learn from it. Great season, phenomenal playoff games, fun ride...and I do believe McDermott learns from his mistakes...but most importantly, we still have Josh Allen. The fun is just beginning.

 

Life is a journey, not the destination.

 

No apology necessary!

 

I have been a McDermott fan since day one and I still am.  I'm also super-optimistic the Bills' chances for years to come (with Josh).

 

Admittedly, I'm still stinging a little from that loss.  But I still think McD is our guy and I'm certainly not calling for his (or anyone else's) head.  

 

I can't wait till we win a Lombardi and we can look back at last year's playoff loss and say, "if it wasn't for that game, we'd have at least TWO Lombardi Trophies!"

GO BEELS!

 

[jwhit34]

I think the timed OT is the way to go. This is what I would do, only for playoffs:

• 10 minute OT
• Instead of doing the coin flip again you have whoever received the opening kickoff receive again. This probably changes the receive or defer decision at beginning of game.
• If teams are still tied at the end of first OT, continue play into a 2nd 10 minute OT period. Kickoff again but team that kicked off in 1st OT receives in 2nd OT.
• No extra points, teams have to go for 2, this may reduce the chance of a tie after an overtime period. 

The Bills-KC game was tied at 36, would the final score been in the 50s? How fun would that have been. 

[quinnearlysghost88]

5 hours ago, Jukester said:

Yes, sudden death after.  Each team has had ample opportunity by then.

So if one team receives the ball and gets it at the 25 and has to punt to the other team but pins them inside the 5, they both had ample opportunity? 

[Southern_Bills]

7 hours ago, Rigotz said:

A lot of grumpy old men in this thread. Change isn't always bad fellas.

 

Ask yourself... does the team that wins the coin toss have a significant advantage over the team that doesn't?

If so, why would you give a significant advantage to a team based on a coin flip when you don't have to?

 

You are not wrong, though I would argue that perhaps they shouldn't slight the rules towards the offense as much as they do as a whole.

 

When whoever goes on offense first wins at a decisive rate, it should let you know offenses get too much leeway. 

 

But yes if they intend on continuing to give the offenses an advantage, I 100% support a rule change.