New OT rule is approved for postseason

[FilthyBeast]

1 hour 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. 

 

Ties in the NFL are one of the dumbest rules in all professional sports.

 

No other league does this and really surprised they have done away with this yet ensuring regular season games extend beyond overtime if needed to determine a winner.

[JoshAllin]

I don't understand why they don't just do double or triple overtime if need be.

[mannc]

Anyone want to bet that the Bills lose an OT game where they score a TD on their first OT possession, only to have the other team match them? 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

3 hours ago, What a Tuel said:

 

ugh, thought it did away with sudden death. Still don't like it but its better than what it was.

 

Coin flip winner still gets 2 opportunities to score on offense and 1 opportunity to defend

Coin flip loser gets 1 opportunity to score on offsense and 2 opportunities to defend

 

Which would you rather have?

Football is a team sport. Both teams get to play offense and defense. 

Coin flip in regular season has not been a predictor of outcome for several years now. Oddly still a benefit in the playoffs. Unclear why.

Now with this rule the coin flip loser assuming they play offense second knows what they need to do. They know how many points they need for win or tie again and it makes the entire possession 4 plays not 3 to keep the chains moving. 

[Warcodered]

 

[BuffaloButt]

4 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

 

What happens if both teams score a TD in OT and extra point?  Does it just play on after the second team scores and now it becomes sudden death, next team to score wins?  Assuming that is the case, the team that wins the coin toss still has a big advantage!  This new rule helps a little.

[YoloinOhio]

16 minutes ago, BuffaloButt said:

What happens if both teams score a TD in OT and extra point?  Does it just play on after the second team scores and now it becomes sudden death, next team to score wins?  Assuming that is the case, the team that wins the coin toss still has a big advantage!  This new rule helps a little.

Yes

[ControllerOfPlanetX]

I wish they would have approved shortening playoffs games by 13 seconds..retroactive of course...

[The Wiz]

26 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

Is that what the owner were saying that the strongest argument was "allen deserved another possession" or just general consensus about the rule change?

Edited March 29, 2022 by The Wiz

[vincec]

Why not just adopt the college rule? It’s so much fairer than this nonsense.

[What a Tuel]

1 hour ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Football is a team sport. Both teams get to play offense and defense. 

Coin flip in regular season has not been a predictor of outcome for several years now. Oddly still a benefit in the playoffs. Unclear why.

Now with this rule the coin flip loser assuming they play offense second knows what they need to do. They know how many points they need for win or tie again and it makes the entire possession 4 plays not 3 to keep the chains moving. 

 

I don't think anyone in their right mind defers the OT kickoff to the other team because "football is a team sport" so there is a very clear advantage to having the ball first still.

 

When a team says, "no i'm good take the ball first, Im just gonna stop you and then score", then ill take arguments that its a team sport and there is no advantage to coin flip winner getting 2x offense 1x defense as opposed to coin flip loser getting 1x offense 2x defense.

 

It should have been "until the quarter ends or someone doesn't score" instead of sudden death 2 drives in.

Edited March 29, 2022 by What a Tuel

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, What a Tuel said:

 

We lost for 2 reasons. Our defense caved in 13 seconds. Then in OT only one team got the opportunity to score because of a coin flip.

 

 

the same D caved  again.

 

 

[What a Tuel]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

the same D caved  again.

 

 

 

Again, the chiefs d that caved at end of regulation with less than 2 mins left didn't have to face that problem because of a coin flip.

[Patrick Duffy]

1 hour ago, FilthyBeast said:

 

Ties in the NFL are one of the dumbest rules in all professional sports.

 

No other league does this and really surprised they have done away with this yet ensuring regular season games extend beyond overtime if needed to determine a winner.

 

I don't like games ending in tie either. I'm not sure, but my guess is other sports aren't physical like the NFL is and that may be why they won't go beyond 1 OT period.

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

Again, the chiefs d that caved at end of regulation with less than 2 mins left didn't have to face that problem because of a coin flip.

 

the Chiefs D wasn't on the field at the end of regulation.

 

 

[Patrick Duffy]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

the same D caved  again.

 

 

One could argue D doesn't cave with 13 seconds left if coaches made the correct calls. Anyways, will never know

[What a Tuel]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

the Chiefs D wasn't on the field at the end of regulation.

 

Don't flip flop. You brought up OT.

 

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

the same D caved  again.

 

Only one defense had to stop an offense in OT because of a coin flip. Chiefs defense was just as bad as the bills defense at the end. But only one had to face an offense in OT.

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Sheneneh Jenkins said:

One could argue D doesn't cave with 13 seconds left if coaches made the correct calls. Anyways, will never know

 

Certainly that argument has been well made.

 

But in OT, the D absolutely just laid down---drove the field in under 5 minutes, getting 3 more 1st downs and Mahomes went 6/6 (to 5 different receivers) 63 yards. 

4 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

Don't flip flop. You brought up OT.

 

 

Only one defense had to stop an offense in OT because of a coin flip. Chiefs defense was just as bad as the bills defense at the end. But only one had to face an offense in OT.

 

 

 

Yeah, Chiefs last D stand in regulation has nothing to do with OT. 

 

The Bills O walked off the field with a 3 point lead and 13 seconds.  Only 1 D had to play hard and smart for 13 seconds to avoid OT and preserve the win.

 

Your point that the Bills deserved another possession because they choked twice in a row on D is poorly made.

 

 

 

[MPT]

This doesn't really change much. The team that wins the coin toss still gets the benefit of resting their defense while they go score a touchdown against the other team's tired defense. Then if the other team manages to also get a touchdown, their reward is... wait for it... going back to the OLD rule where you only need a FG to win. 

 

The sudden death aspect makes no sense regardless of how many drives you add in before it. Just play until the loser of the coin toss can't beat or match the winner's previous drive. Or just make it a regular timed quarter and see who has the higher score at the end.

 

Edit: I forgot 2 point conversions exist. While I doubt many head coaches would take that risk, it does allow for the loser of the coin toss to end the game on their possession after each team scores a touchdown. Now I'm really wishing they implemented this during the regular season so we could see different teams' strategies play out.

Edited March 29, 2022 by MPT

[DrW]

2 hours ago, FilthyBeast said:

 

Ties in the NFL are one of the dumbest rules in all professional sports.

 

No other league does this and really surprised they have done away with this yet ensuring regular season games extend beyond overtime if needed to determine a winner.

 

Well, I am aware that most Americans do not see soccer as a real sport, but Major League Soccer follows the international rules for league play where ties are allowed. However, in case of a tie both teams are "punished" as a tie gets both teams only one point each, while in a game with a winner the winner gets three points.

Edited March 29, 2022 by DrW

[What a Tuel]

19 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Yeah, Chiefs last D stand in regulation has nothing to do with OT. 

 

The Bills O walked off the field with a 3 point lead and 13 seconds.  Only 1 D had to play hard and smart for 13 seconds to avoid OT and preserve the win.

 

Your point that the Bills deserved another possession because they choked twice in a row on D is poorly made.

 

 

 

 

The game was tied at the end of regulation. You keep flip flopping and misrepresenting it by saying "the bills should have stopped them with 13 seconds" which no one disagrees with but full stop game is TIED at that point. Not lost.

 

Then you come to the coin flip and we say both teams should get opportunity on offense and you revert back to regulation "no because the bills should have stopped them in regulation".

 

One is not related to the other when discussing the OT rules.

Edited March 29, 2022 by What a Tuel

[Patrick Duffy]

16 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Certainly that argument has been well made.

 

But in OT, the D absolutely just laid down---drove the field in under 5 minutes, getting 3 more 1st downs and Mahomes went 6/6 (to 5 different receivers) 63 yards.

Oh for sure, I won't argue that. I just meant regulation last 13. As we all know neither defense could stop both offenses that day. Although I do feel like Bills D could have and should have in 13 seconds with right play calls.

[Steptide]

There seems to be alot of talk about how the bills defense just stunk in the last 13 seconds and in ot, and I'll pretty much agree. However, there's no talk of how the kc defense also sucked, the big difference was that kc didn't have to play defense on the last 2 possessions. I mean kc gave up 2 tds to the bills in 2 mins on the bills last 2 possessions. I think that's the big argument. When your defenses are gonna suck, you at least have to give the offenses both a chance 

[Mr. WEO]

15 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

The game was tied at the end of regulation. You keep flip flopping and misrepresenting it by saying "the bills should have stopped them with 13 seconds" which no one disagrees with but full stop game is TIED at that point. Not lost.

 

Then you come to the coin flip and we say both teams should get opportunity on offense and you revert back to regulation "no because the bills should have stopped them in regulation".

 

One is not related to the other when discussing the OT rules.

 

 

 

 

 

You keep saying that the Bills "deserved" another possession in OT.  You tried to bolster (somehow) that by saying, hey, the Chiefs gave up the lead to the Bills with almost no time on the clock in regulation. 

 

The game is also played by Defense.  The Bills had 2 defensive opportunities to stop the Chiefs---back to back.  After the embarrassment of the 13 second collapse to send it to overtime, the "number 1 Defense in the League" regroups.  All they need to get is one 3 and out in OT and the Bills get their "OT possession" to possibly win it.  Those have been the rules for years. 

 

But instead, the Chefs got 3 more 1st downs and steamrolled the Bills.  Game over.  

13 minutes ago, Sheneneh Jenkins said:

Oh for sure, I won't argue that. I just meant regulation last 13. As we all know neither defense could stop both offenses that day. Although I do feel like Bills D could have and should have in 13 seconds with right play calls.

 

 

After some time to reflect on that.....they had ample opportunity in OT to "execute" the right call.  It wasn't even close.

6 minutes ago, Steptide said:

There seems to be alot of talk about how the bills defense just stunk in the last 13 seconds and in ot, and I'll pretty much agree. However, there's no talk of how the kc defense also sucked, the big difference was that kc didn't have to play defense on the last 2 possessions. I mean kc gave up 2 tds to the bills in 2 mins on the bills last 2 possessions. I think that's the big argument. When your defenses are gonna suck, you at least have to give the offenses both a chance 

 

 

Well, that's because they won the game.  

 

Suck?--the Bills D was the best in the NFL.  They were given 2 chances to demonstrate this in a do or die playoff game on a team that is supposed to be a legit SB contender against a team they could not get past one year prior.

 

Come on--this isn't college boy football.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Mr. WEO

[Patrick Duffy]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

After some time to reflect on that.....they had ample opportunity in OT to "execute" the right call.  It wasn't even close.

Yes I agree, but defending with 13 left in game is different than start of OT. 

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Sheneneh Jenkins said:

Yes I agree, but defending with 13 left in game is different than start of OT. 

 

should be much easier, yes.

[What a Tuel]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

You keep saying that the Bills "deserved" another possession in OT.  You tried to bolster (somehow) that by saying, hey, the Chiefs gave up the lead to the Bills with almost no time on the clock in regulation. 

 

The game is also played by Defense.  The Bills had 2 defensive opportunities to stop the Chiefs---back to back.  After the embarrassment of the 13 second collapse to send it to overtime, the "number 1 Defense in the League" heads to the locker room to regroup.  All they need to get is one 3 and out in OT and the Bills get their "OT possession" to possibly win it.  Those have been the rules for years. 

 

But instead, the Chefs got 3 more 1st downs and steamrolled the Bills.  Game over.  

 

The Bills didn't "deserve another possession in OT" because they are the bills. Zero people are arguing that.

 

In the context of any OT game not just the Bills, both teams deserve to have the opportunity to field the entirety of their team in OT. 

 

But even if you want to argue the point, when the game is tied 36-36, why did the chiefs defense not have to prove itself? The sole reason is a coin flip which is an awful way to decide that and i am glad they changed it although they should have changed it all the way to time expires, or first team to not score.

 

 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

The Bills didn't "deserve another possession in OT" because they are the bills. Zero people are arguing that.

 

In the context of any OT game not just the Bills, both teams deserve to have the opportunity to field the entirety of their team in OT. 

 

But even if you want to argue the point, when the game is tied 36-36, why did the chiefs defense not have to prove itself? The sole reason is a coin flip which is an awful way to decide that and i am glad they changed it although they should have changed it all the way to time expires, or first team to not score.

 

 

 

 

 

This was not a new OT rule.  It was how everyone understood the game is played.

 

The Chiefs D did have to prove itself--it failed and the Bills had the game in hand with seconds left.  

 

If the Bills had tied the game in the last 13 seconds, won the coin toss and scored a TD in OT, absolutely no one here would be saying that Chiefs "deserved another possession" or "the Bills D should have to  prove itself in OT"..

 

That's all just as silly as it sounds.

 

 

[What a Tuel]

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

This was not a new OT rule.  It was how everyone understood the game is played.

 

The Chiefs D did have to prove itself--it failed and the Bills had the game in hand with seconds left.  

 

If the Bills had tied the game in the last 13 seconds, won the coin toss and scored a TD in OT, absolutely no one here would be saying that Chiefs "deserved another possession" or "the Bills D should have to  prove itself in OT"..

 

That's all just as silly as it sounds.

 

 

 

No doubt the forum would be happy just like the chiefs forum was. However I disagree that people wouldn't or don't think the OT rules are dumb regardless of the outcome. I don't have to put my bills goggles on to think they are dumb. There are dozens on here that complain about it every time a primetime or notable OT game happens and results in this situation or a tie. I know I think about it every time it happens.

 

It is and always has been ridiculous that they do not give both teams the opportunity to field their entire team. It is also ridiculous there are ties in a 17 game season. Didn't an OT tie against the Lions for the steelers put them in the playoffs over an indy team with the same amount of wins?

 

There has been a history of proposed changes to this. They just keep kicking the can down the road though. First it was field goal ended it. Then it was TD ended it, FG gave the team another chance. Now it is sudden death occurs if both teams score on their opening drives. 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

16 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

No doubt the forum would be happy just like the chiefs forum was. However I disagree that people wouldn't or don't think the OT rules are dumb regardless of the outcome. I don't have to put my bills goggles on to think they are dumb. There are dozens on here that complain about it every time a primetime or notable OT game happens and results in this situation or a tie. I know I think about it every time it happens.

 

It is and always has been ridiculous that they do not give both teams the opportunity to field their entire team. It is also ridiculous there are ties in a 17 game season. Didn't an OT tie against the Lions for the steelers put them in the playoffs over an indy team with the same amount of wins?

 

There has been a history of proposed changes to this. They just keep kicking the can down the road though. First it was field goal ended it. Then it was TD ended it, FG gave the team another chance. Now it is sudden death occurs if both teams score on their opening drives. 

 

 

we can all quibble about rules but the rule didn’t change right before that game and the rule didn’t force the game  into OT nor did the rule ensure the OT outcome.  The Bills were in control of their fate on every down. Simple as that 

[Mr. WEO]

12 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Yea…. I’m sure the Bills would’ve lost regardless. The 13 seconds of *****ery took the wind out of the entire teams sails. 

 

Who knows?   But you can't make a serious argument by beginning with "OK so forget about the Defenses....", which that guy is trying to do (in a playoff game, no less).

 

It's nuts.

[BillMafia716ix]

Not a big fan of this. What’s next? If both teams score and we go to sudden death and the opposing team scores again, fans will  complain about not having another opportunity to match lol. 
 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by BillMafia716ix

[Chandler#81]

Wow, Mr. WEO, What a tuel! 😉

So, the team who wins the OT coin toss, defers. Right? Nearly every game starting team who wins the coin toss defers as it provides the chance to double dip at/after halftime. Now in OT, deferring allows whether you need a TD to continue the game or a FG wins for you.

 

[Coach Tuesday]

[Warcodered]

14 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Who knows?   But you can't make a serious argument by beginning with "OK so forget about the Defenses....", which that guy is trying to do (in a playoff game, no less).

 

It's nuts.

The way people arguing the rule didn't need to change because defense is important as if this rule somehow makes defense less relevant annoys the hell out of me.

The defense of the kicking team in OT with the new rule can absolutely still win the game, the only difference is now the other defense has to do something too.

[Chandler#81]

Doubt this will happen, but win the OT coin toss, take the ball and score a TD. Then Onsides Kickoff. Don’t recover it and give them possession near midfield? Fine. They score then you get the ball back and drive to a FG to win or recover the ball. Or recover the kick. Either way, game over, you win.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Chandler#81

[FireChans]

8 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

Doubt this will happen, but win the OT coin toss, take the ball and score a TD. Then Onsides Kickoff. Don’t recover it and give them possession near midfield? Fine. They score then you get the ball back and drive to a FG to win or recover the ball. Or recover the kick. Either way, game over, you win.

You would almost certainly never onside kick in that scenario. Higher chance for a tipped pick, fumble or just a turnover on downs driving 80 yards.

 

And if you don’t, you still need to score twice to win. 

[Coach Tuesday]

#1 defense in the NFL with a lead and 13 seconds on the clock - should not need a rule change to close that out.

 

Sorry to be that guy (but you all expect it from me anyhow so...)

[Mr. WEO]

43 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

The way people arguing the rule didn't need to change because defense is important as if this rule somehow makes defense less relevant annoys the hell out of me.

The defense of the kicking team in OT with the new rule can absolutely still win the game, the only difference is now the other defense has to do something too.

 

 

This was true before the rule change.  

 

[Warcodered]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

This was true before the rule change.  

 

That would be the definition of the word "still".