stevegrab

Do NFL OT rules need to be changed?

Recommended Posts

The problem with just extending the 4th quarter, or playing a 5th quarter, is that it might not decide anything.  What happens if they're still tied?  We're back to square one.  The NFL doesn't want an overtime that is going to extend the game by an hour plus, if they can avoid it.  So, no matter what they change it to, it's going to be a format that is decided as quickly as possible, with both sides getting a chance to score.  I actually like the idea of just giving both sides a possession, with the caveat that there can't be a tie.  A version of the college rule, but make them start from their own 30-40.  And, if Team A scores a TD, Team B needs to go for the win (2-pt conversion).  

 

Side note... The thought did cross my mind about hockey and soccer, and how they have shootouts, etc.  What if the NFL did something where both teams get five chances at a chip shot FG (let's say a 30-yarder), but they have to be attempted by five different players?  First, the kicker.  Then, the punter, then the 5th string WR who kicked in college, etc.  I'm not being completely serious, and it would never fly (no pun intended), but it would be hilarious/entertaining to watch.  :shrug:  :lol:

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2022 at 9:20 AM, Dcat said:

 

Both defenses very tired by the time OT comes around.  Offenses have not only the general NFL provided offense advantages, but also the exhaustion of the defenses.  It is unfair to have a coin flip decide which of the two worn out defense has to make the sacrifice.

Each team needs an offensive chance.  Otherwise that coinflip is waaaaaaaay too important. Should not be so.

 

This times a million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Gopher said:

The problem with just extending the 4th quarter, or playing a 5th quarter, is that it might not decide anything.  What happens if they're still tied?  We're back to square one. 

 

Yup.  The quality of play reaches a point of diminishing returns at some juncture of physical exhaustion.   Further, if a team in the playoffs advances on a hypothetical extra quarter, half, or 3 quarters of football, then it gives a distinct advantage to their next opponent who only had to play 4 quarter on a week's rest.  And the whole point of changing the OT rule is to not give a team an 'unfair' advantage in the first place.  Untimed quarter, guaranteed one possession, no tie possible after first offensive score sounds like the best option.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

Yup.  The quality of play reaches a point of diminishing returns at some juncture of physical exhaustion.   Further, if a team in the playoffs advances on a hypothetical extra quarter, half, or 3 quarters of football, then it gives a distinct advantage to their next opponent who only had to play 4 quarter on a week's rest.  And the whole point of changing the OT rule is to not give a team an 'unfair' advantage in the first place.  Untimed quarter, guaranteed one possession, no tie possible after first offensive score sounds like the best option.  

 

We're getting close, I like one untimed possession for each side. Of course a defensive score on first possession would still win. No starting at midfield, kickoff like normal. The tricky part is "no ties" as some have suggested you have to go for a higher score if the first team scores (TD to beat FG, TD with 2p conv to beat TD).

 

But what if neither team scores on their possession? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

 

But what if neither team scores on their possession? 

Easy...sudden death at that point. It still gives an advantage to the team with the ball first, but it mitigates the current advantage substantialy.

Edited by Bobby Brown
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly feel a "halftime" before the OT would help the situation. The tv people would absolutely hate it but I feel it would benefit the team that just got tied on. The rest, regroup and re-field  would allow for a fairer OT period under the same rules. Everyone gets to "start over-ish and plan an attack/defence. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

Easy...sudden death at that point. It still gives an advantage to the team with the ball first, but it mitigates the current advantage substantialy.

 

Totally agree.  Seems like a fair compromise all the way around.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, boltnlava said:

I honestly feel a "halftime" before the OT would help the situation. The tv people would absolutely hate it but I feel it would benefit the team that just got tied on. The rest, regroup and re-field  would allow for a fairer OT period under the same rules. Everyone gets to "start over-ish and plan an attack/defence. 

 

I love that idea and it makes perfect sense but the NFL would never do it. They already think the games are too long. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, irish said:

 

Not a fan of the spot & choose plan proposed by the Ravens. Sounds rather gimmicky and I guess I'd need to hear more from NFL coaches on how that would be used, what would they decide etc. 

 

And one of the key statements in the article, the owners are not in favor of changing OT rules.

 

As for the length of the game, I don't think the NFL cares much, it is their TV partners that are concerned about the potential for games to go longer and impact TV broadcasts. The NFL may have said they shortened OT to 10 minutes for safety reasons (so players don't get worn out playing those extra 5 minutes, after playing 60 and then 10 more), but nobody believes that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, LordOpie said:

NFL got lucky!

Agreed. If KC won that game in another OT because they got the coin toss right, all hell would've broke lose. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey look teams can play defense in OT, and the team that wins the coin toss doesn't always win. 

 

I'm sure the discussion about change will continue. I do wonder if the small sample size (now 10 of 12 times in OT the coin toss winner wins) is an accurate representation, would it really be 80-90% if this happened 100 times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stevegrab said:

Hey look teams can play defense in OT, and the team that wins the coin toss doesn't always win. 

 

I'm sure the discussion about change will continue. I do wonder if the small sample size (now 10 of 12 times in OT the coin toss winner wins) is an accurate representation, would it really be 80-90% if this happened 100 times?

Of course not.  Regular season (larger sample size), it's 52%.  But, yeah, I'm sure they'll continue to discuss, and a format where both sides get the ball at least once would be ideal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gopher said:

Of course not.  Regular season (larger sample size), it's 52%.  But, yeah, I'm sure they'll continue to discuss, and a format where both sides get the ball at least once would be ideal.  

 

Just to be clear, I'm not saying they should not consider a change for playoffs. I suspect if they had a large sample size there would still be a disparity between regular and post season. Even if that is only 65-70% of coin toss winners going on to win, that's a big disparity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

Just to be clear, I'm not saying they should not consider a change for playoffs. I suspect if they had a large sample size there would still be a disparity between regular and post season. Even if that is only 65-70% of coin toss winners going on to win, that's a big disparity. 

Regression to the mean.  The more playoff games go to OT, the closer it will get to 52% (hypothetically speaking, if the rule didn't change).  Obviously, 10 out of 12 is a pretty crazy disparity, so they're going to look at it, regardless.  But, there's no doubt that, if they didn't, over time the numbers would even out (somewhat).  They may never hit 52% (it would take hundreds of playoff games to get there), but it would get a lot closer. 

 

And, I'm not saying that they shouldn't look at the rule.  I'm just saying that the current ratio of 10/12 wouldn't hold up over time.  That doesn't change the fact that most people want to see a rule where both teams can touch the ball.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now everyone is happy with how yesterday's OT game turned out and people who want to keep the rule the same; seem to be relishing in that.

However,  if the NFL had the "untimed quarter, guaranteed one possession, no tie possible after first offensive score" rule in place; yesterday's game would not have been affected whatsoever.   

As I mentioned earlier in this thread; I can think of some very good reasons to modify the OT rule to make the coin toss less influential. I can't think of very many good reasons to keep the rule the same.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

So now everyone is happy with how yesterday's OT game turned out and people who want to keep the rule the same; seem to be relishing in that.

However,  if the NFL had the "untimed quarter, guaranteed one possession, no tie possible after first offensive score" rule in place; yesterday's game would not have been affected whatsoever.   

As I mentioned earlier in this thread; I can think of some very good reasons to modify the OT rule to make the coin toss less influential. I can't think of very many good reasons to keep the rule the same.  

 

Not what I'm reading at all. 

 

I posted a bit sarcastically that "see the team who loses the toss can play defense and win". I also fee the stats of 10-1 prior to this game were skewed and not accurate, yet were being used to DEMAND a rule be changed that when it comes to regular season OT is pretty "fair" which is the stated goal of many. 

 

Here's a good reason so keep the rule, because being reactionary and constantly changing rules because something happened once (or a few) time makes you look stupid. What is or isn't a catch? Can we apply review to a missed PI penalty or not? Should we have to have a coach's challenge to overturn bad plays. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.