New OT rule is approved for postseason

[transplantbillsfan]

Josh Allen = Face of the NFL

[Ghost_002!]

If your defense couldn't stop them...then you still lose in sudden death...what is the point?

 

Dumb to ever change it in the first place..but then again. The NFL wants more offense anyways..

[YoloinOhio]

[LyndonvilleBill]

Now watch. It will be 3-5 years before we see OT in a playoff game.😂

[Jukester]

38 minutes ago, Mark Vader said:

Should have been this way from the beginning. Including the regular season.

Yep, it was obvious from the beginning. Not sure why it took this long nor why they aren’t including regular season this time 🤦‍♂️

[YoloinOhio]

 

[HOUSE]

Next time you are depressed at work unable to perform the simplest of tasks.

 

Just remember the NFL rules committee that wasn't  smart enough to think ahead that some team could get screwed and never get the ball back.

 

YOU ARE SMARTER THEN THE ENTIRE RULES COMMITTEE , not to mention the owners

Maybe you should ask for a raise...

 

 

.

Edited March 29, 2022 by HOUSE

[YoloinOhio]

 

[Lieutenant Aldo Raine]

I'm good with it

[TheFunPolice]

13 minutes ago, MJS said:

No, because if both teams score, whoever has the third possession can go win the game with a TD or field goal. You want that third possession, so you take the ball first.

 

That makes sense too... Actually this could get interesting. 

 

If you take the ball 1st, you would get a potential 3rd possession if both teams score a TD. However, if you don't score a TD you are on the line to get beat by 1 play. A lot depends on the type of game. 

 

If it's a KC/BUF type game then you probably take the ball 1st since defense was not being played. But it's extremely unusual to see a TD-TD-TD type game. 

 

But in most games, I would still expect teams to choose to kick, because then they know what they need to win. 

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[BigAl2526]

Seems to be a good rule change.  I'm not sure that any set of overtime rules can be perfectly fair, short of having a full 15 minute overtime period, but this may be better for the playoffs.  I don't concern myself much with "woulda, coulda, shoulda."  If this is such an obvious improvement in the overtime rules, why didn't Buffalo propose it a few years ago?  The answer:  NFL rules changes are almost always reactionary.  It never anticipates a problem cropping up sometime in the future.  Since that is the case, why worry about it?  Just keep tweaking the rules as it seems appropriate, and hopefully as the NFL evolves it will become more fair over time.  Use the past as a tool to inform a better future rather than fretting about stuff in the past we cant change.

[zow2]

I understand why they changed the OT rule for playoffs..But it's a lock, the next time the Bills play a postseason OT game, they will score a TD on their first possession.  And somehow the new rule with bite us and the Bills will ultimately lose the game.  Book it.

[Ghost_002!]

11 minutes ago, zow2 said:

I understand why they changed the OT rule for playoffs..But it's a lock, the next time the Bills play a postseason OT game, they will score a TD on their first possession.  And somehow the new rule with bite us and the Bills will ultimately lose the game.  Book it.

 

 

It doesn't change anything really..if I understand correctly. After each possession it goes into sudden death, right?

 

Well going back to that game. The chiefs score /bills score..

 

Chiefs going down the field again n scored a td or field goal and the game is over....sooo u still lose? 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Ghost_002!

[transient]

32 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Anyone remember the Tampa game? Josh and the Bills offense was in the zone heading to OT. They won the toss went 3 and out. Tampa won on the next possession.

You mean the Tampa game where they ignored the PI on Diggs in the endzone that would have allowed the Bills to win in regulation, but then in OT called a PI on Wallace when Mike Evans was pulling him into himself by the back of Wallace's helmet. This OT rule would obviously have requisite designed "Brady offsets" inherent in the way it's enforced.

[KingBoots8]

Not as fun as what I cooked up. I came up with this back in January as an alternative:
 

 

 

OT would result in each team getting at least one possession to score points. The team that gets the ball first may punt, score a field goal,  or a touchdown. The second team must beat the previous teams points:
 
1. if the first team punted, the second team can kick a field goal to win. 
 
2. If the first team kicked a field goal, the second team must score a touchdown to win.
 
3. If the first team scored a touchdown, the second team must also score a touchdown AND a 2 point conversion to win.
 
The only way to end the game without each team getting a possession is if the first team gives up a safety on their possession, or if they go downfield, score a touchdown AND a 2 point conversion themselves. If they convert the 2 points they win, if they fail they only score 6 and the second team can then simply score a touchdown to win. High risk/reward.
 
if each team has a possession in which they both punt, the next team to score any points is the winner.
 
 

 

[Steptide]

22 minutes ago, LyndonvilleBill said:

Now watch. It will be 3-5 years before we see OT in a playoff game.😂

You may be right, but that's not necessarily a bad thing either. Personally I hate these ot conversations. Everyone has an opinion and nobody seems to agree when it comes to ot. Ideally I'd love the bills to always win in regulation 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, The 9 Isles said:

A year too late. 

A decade too late.  The rules have been stupid for years, obviously stupid, and the NFL for its own purposes refused to recognize it.  They had to wait until the whole country could see that one team was getting screwed before they changed it.  

[davefan66]

Not sure how I feel about this rule.  Yeah, it would have helped us in the chiefs game, but moving forward will the chance benefit or hurt us?

 

And why not the regular season?  What if a team needs a win last game of the season to get in and a non-playoff bound team wins the toss and wins the game on a walk off TD?  How is that fair that the very next week same scenario and both teams get the ball?

 

This may be an unpopular statement but if the Bills had done the right thing at the end of the 4th, we wouldn’t have this rule change.

[Inigo Montoya]

Now we have two Bills’ rules, the Tasker Rule, the gunner can’t run down the sideline out of bounds and renter the field and make the tackle, and now the Josh Allen Rule.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

You’re welcome 

 

what if there is a Pick 6 on the opening drive?

does one get the ball on an INT?

 

[1ManRaid]

1 hour ago, What a Tuel said:

Awesome! It is only right and should have been changed back when the Pats beat the Chiefs.

 

Or back when they implemented the "FG doesn't auto-win" rules for postseason, and Tim Tebow immediately went and showed that rule didn't go far enough.

[Shake_My_Head]

1 hour ago, wjag said:

Can't wait to figure out the unintended consequences of this rule and which coaches figure out how to manipulate it for their advantage.

What are you saying?  That if the team that wins the coin toss scores, they should just let the other team score as well, so they can then get the ball back and win it on the third posession??  😵

[wjag]

2 minutes ago, Shake_My_Head said:

What are you saying?  That if the team that wins the coin toss scores, they should just let the other team score as well, so they can then get the ball back and win it on the third posession??  😵

 

No the most obvious one stated, is to let the other team go first.  If they score a TD, then you know you need a TD and will go for it on 3rd and long or 4th and long.  If you know they only scored a FG, then you have the option of going for a FG or a TD.  Seems like it will always be easier coaching decisions to go second.  But then again, I don't know and I don't coach.

[Max Fischer]

Don't get why this isn't also for regular season. I assume they don't want games going on forever but you could institute two possessions and then a tie. 

[BillsFan4]

I’m not sure this is really that much less controversial.

 

Lets take the Bills - KC game for example:

 

KC gets the ball to start OT. Score a TD.

 

Bills get the ball. Score a TD.

 

KC gets the ball. Scores a TD or kicks a FG. Wins.

 

 

I don’t know, I guess I’m not seeing how that would be all that much better. It’s obviously less controversial if Buffalo gets the ball then doesn’t score a TD. But if they score a TD then KC wins on a TD or especially a FG, it would still feel like BS that Buffalo didn’t get a chance to match (again).

 

I think sudden death until one team fails to match the score of the other team would’ve made sense. So say KC scores. Buffalo scores. Then KC kicks a FG. Buffalo gets the ball back and if they score a TD they win. If they kick a FG, then KC gets the ball again. If neither happens buffalo obviously loses.

 

Or just playing a 10 minute OT like the Bills proposed. 

[stevestojan]

You just know this is going to bite us in the ass this year. Probably at the AFC Championship game. We score a TD in OT then lose. 

[MJS]

45 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

 

That makes sense too... Actually this could get interesting. 

 

If you take the ball 1st, you would get a potential 3rd possession if both teams score a TD. However, if you don't score a TD you are on the line to get beat by 1 play. A lot depends on the type of game. 

 

If it's a KC/BUF type game then you probably take the ball 1st since defense was not being played. But it's extremely unusual to see a TD-TD-TD type game. 

 

But in most games, I would still expect teams to choose to kick, because then they know what they need to win. 

You will never see a team choose to kick ever unless it is an extreme weather game and direction is more important.

 

I'm having trouble following your logic. If you take the ball and score, you can then prevent the other team from scoring to win the game, or if they do score, you have the first try at a sudden death score to win the game.

 

If you kick the ball, your opponent can go score, and then the pressure is on you to match them. Even if you do match them, you then give them the first shot of a sudden death score to win. No team is ever, ever going to take that risk.

10 minutes ago, Max Fischer said:

Don't get why this isn't also for regular season. I assume they don't want games going on forever but you could institute two possessions and then a tie. 

I believe it's because of the stats. If you look at the regular season overtime numbers, getting the ball first gives you only a small advantage, and usually the team doesn't win on that first possession. It usually takes multiple possessions to win.

 

The numbers are a lot different in the playoffs. The coin toss winner has a considerable advantage. I'm guessing this is because in the playoffs you have much higher instances of elite QB's and offenses in general.

 

So, I bet they are fine with the slight advantage in the regular season, but felt like they needed to do something to take away the considerable advantage in the playoffs.

[stevestojan]

Make it really interesting and have both kickers take turns attempting to hit the upright or cross bar. First to hit wins, with “last ups” for the kicker who goes second. 

 

Here’s why this works: Kickers are the leading point scorers on every team, this takes the coin toss out of it, it eliminates the fear of players getting exhausted if they go to multiple overtimes, puts a little extra thought into drafting kickers, late game decisions will be made based on your kicker being able to do a parlor trick, and someone’s foot will decide the outcome so we can stop having Brits tell us that soccer is the real football. 
 

I believe this is a win/win/win/win/win/win. 
 

 

[Patrick Duffy]

34 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

what if there is a Pick 6 on the opening drive?

does one get the ball on an INT?

 

That would be the ball game

[LABILLBACKER]

1 hour ago, 17islongenough said:

Sorry not a fan of the updated rule.   The winner of the coin toss still has an advantage 

Yes the winner of the coin toss has a huge advantage. If you win the toss of course you receive the ball. The whole point is to Immediately put your opponents "exhausted" defense right back on the field. Allowing your defense some rest. If both teams score tds, the first possession team can now win it with a sudden death fg. Deferring is not bright.

[Freddie's Dead]

Good to see the "We have to ***** the Bills before we change the rule" doctrine is still alive and well in the NFL!

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, KDIGGZ said:

When is the re-do game vs KC planned? Surely they saw how we got screwed and will give us another chance with the ball?

 

I think they saw how the Bills blew the lead in regulation and said "nah...that doesn't get a second chance".

[LABILLBACKER]

6 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

Good to see the "We have to ***** the Bills before we change the rule" doctrine is still alive and well in the NFL!

.....nothing changes.....

[LyndonvilleBill]

1 hour ago, Steptide said:

You may be right, but that's not necessarily a bad thing either. Personally I hate these ot conversations. Everyone has an opinion and nobody seems to agree when it comes to ot. Ideally I'd love the bills to always win in regulation 

Just take it out of all their hands and go with special teams and soccer style. FG's starting at the 30, move back 5 yards after each successful kick. Punters are football players too. ROTFL!!!😱🤣🤣🤣

[msw2112]

I don't think the OT rule screwed the Bills against the Chiefs.  The Bills screwed themselves.  That said, the rule change is an improvement over the existing rule.

[JustHewIt]

1 hour ago, MJS said:

You will never see a team choose to kick ever unless it is an extreme weather game and direction is more important.

 

I'm having trouble following your logic. If you take the ball and score, you can then prevent the other team from scoring to win the game, or if they do score, you have the first try at a sudden death score to win the game.

 

If you kick the ball, your opponent can go score, and then the pressure is on you to match them. Even if you do match them, you then give them the first shot of a sudden death score to win. No team is ever, ever going to take that risk.

If the Chiefs got it first and scored a touchdown and kicked and XP, then we would have driven down, scored, and went for a 2PC to win.

If the Chiefs got it first and kicked a FG, we'd drive it down with the knowledge of what we needed to do in certain scenarios to either extend the game or win it.

If the Chiefs got it first and turned the ball over, we'd know we can go more conservative only needing to get into FG range to win it.

If you possess the ball first, what do you do when it's 4th and 8 from the 20 yard line?  That's a lot harder to answer than it is for the team that's going second.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

1 hour ago, transient said:

You mean the Tampa game where they ignored the PI on Diggs in the endzone that would have allowed the Bills to win in regulation, but then in OT called a PI on Wallace when Mike Evans was pulling him into himself by the back of Wallace's helmet. This OT rule would obviously have requisite designed "Brady offsets" inherent in the way it's enforced.

The OT rule doesn’t change refs. 

[TheFunPolice]

1 hour ago, MJS said:

You will never see a team choose to kick ever unless it is an extreme weather game and direction is more important.

 

I'm having trouble following your logic. If you take the ball and score, you can then prevent the other team from scoring to win the game, or if they do score, you have the first try at a sudden death score to win the game.

 

If you kick the ball, your opponent can go score, and then the pressure is on you to match them. Even if you do match them, you then give them the first shot of a sudden death score to win. No team is ever, ever going to take that risk.

I believe it's because of the stats. If you look at the regular season overtime numbers, getting the ball first gives you only a small advantage, and usually the team doesn't win on that first possession. It usually takes multiple possessions to win.

 

The numbers are a lot different in the playoffs. The coin toss winner has a considerable advantage. I'm guessing this is because in the playoffs you have much higher instances of elite QB's and offenses in general.

 

So, I bet they are fine with the slight advantage in the regular season, but felt like they needed to do something to take away the considerable advantage in the playoffs.

 

Others have answered it already, but if you take the ball 1st you're in a conundrum every 4th down, whereas the other team can play 4 down football, unless you don't score at all. There's a lot of strategy involved that makes it interesting.

 

I could totally see the logic in taking the ball 1st, but I could also see the advantage of having it second.

 

If I win the toss and kick, it's because I know that if you score a TD  I'm going for 2 if I score a TD as well. I also have 4 downs every drive, for sure. 

 

Plus, my chances of getting 2 yards for 2 2 PT conversion with my best players are better than the chances of my exhausted defense preventing you from getting a FG (or more) on your second OT drive. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by TheFunPolice

[Buffalo_Stampede]

I have a question. What happens if the team kicking off in overtime recovers an untouched ball in the end zone for a TD? Is the game over? Example below.