Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Do NFL OT rules need to be changed?


stevegrab
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, darin3 said:

 

Because the pro offense would score pretty much every single time if given 4 chances.  Just my opinion.  

You could be right.  So, maybe make the "no tie" rule a thing.  If Team A kicks a FG, Team B has to go for the TD. If Team A scores a TD, Team B must go for two.  

 

Of course, people would still be crying that it's not fair.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I wanted BUF to pull it off  I put a lot (too many) of my playoff eggs in that basket.  Had Allen advanced, I would be sitting in a pretty nice spot in a couple of major playoff contests.  As it is, I'm hoping to stay high enough to win my money back, or maybe a little more.  

 

Hedged my Derrick Henry bet by doing a smaller one with AJ Brown.  Wishing I would have hedged my Allen bet with Mahomes, but I was all in on Allen.  :bash:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Gopher said:

Meh.  It's like the old boxing/MMA adage "Don't leave it up to the judges."  In football, don't let it go to OT.  :shrug:

 

Again, I don't disagree that the rule could be better.  But, it's light years better than before.  And, the bigger piece, in my opinion, is that BUF screwed themselves.  Was the coin toss a factor?  Sure.  But, not the biggest factor, and not even close.  They had a play where all they had to do was tackle a guy in bounds, and KC is forced to use their last timeout and ultimately throw a hail mary.  They had another play where they just needed to limit KC to 15 yards or less.  Failed miserably at both.  Once those happened, all bets are off.  

 

It's the equivalent of having a four-point lead in hoops, fouling a three-point shooter to allow the opposing team to tie the game, going to OT, then blaming the refs for losing the game.  You blew it.  The rest is all minor details.  

 

11 minutes ago, Gopher said:

Meh.  It's like the old boxing/MMA adage "Don't leave it up to the judges."  In football, don't let it go to OT.  :shrug:

 

Again, I don't disagree that the rule could be better.  But, it's light years better than before.  And, the bigger piece, in my opinion, is that BUF screwed themselves.  Was the coin toss a factor?  Sure.  But, not the biggest factor, and not even close.  They had a play where all they had to do was tackle a guy in bounds, and KC is forced to use their last timeout and ultimately throw a hail mary.  They had another play where they just needed to limit KC to 15 yards or less.  Failed miserably at both.  Once those happened, all bets are off.  

 

It's the equivalent of having a four-point lead in hoops, fouling a three-point shooter to allow the opposing team to tie the game, going to OT, then blaming the refs for losing the game.  You blew it.  The rest is all minor details.  

Is anyone on this thread arguing against the idea Buffalo's loss wasn't mostly on them?  You keep arguing against a position that I'm not seeing anyone taking.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

 

Is anyone on this thread arguing against the idea Buffalo's loss wasn't mostly on them?  You keep arguing against a position that I'm not seeing anyone taking.  

Really?  :lol:   I would bet that a lot of people responding in this thread disagree, based on their comments.  If that's not enough, check out Twitter.  There are a bunch of knuckleheads (Greg Olsen, Saquan Barkley, and thousands more) saying that the game was 100% decided by the coin toss.  That's simply not true.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 

10 minutes ago, Gopher said:

Really?  :lol:   I would bet that a lot of people responding in this thread disagree, based on their comments.  If that's not enough, check out Twitter.  There are a bunch of knuckleheads (Greg Olsen, Saquan Barkley, and thousands more) saying that the game was 100% decided by the coin toss.  That's simply not true.  

So someone on social media said something dumb and you are projecting that opinion onto others here?

 

I didn't see anywhere here, based on comments, where someone is claiming the coin flip was a bigger factor than giving up 50ish plus yards in 13 seconds on two plays.  

Edited by Bobby Brown
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

 

Is anyone on this thread arguing against the idea Buffalo's loss wasn't mostly on them?  You keep arguing against a position that I'm not seeing anyone taking.  

 

Not really, I'm trying to go back thru replies to see 

 

closest I find here 

 

18 hours ago, darin3 said:

 

I like the college rule.... for college.  I think it wouldn't work in the NFL for some reason.  I just think both teams need to have a shot.  Don't like that a coin flip gives one team a shot at being the instant winner.  

 

The instant winner I initially took to be "they won the coin flip so they won" but realize they really meant "get a chance to win if the other team cannot stop them".

 

 

1 minute ago, Gopher said:

Really?  :lol:   I would bet that a lot of people responding in this thread disagree, based on their comments.  If that's not enough, check out Twitter.  There are a bunch of knuckleheads (Greg Olsen, Saquan Barkley, and thousands more) saying that the game was 100% decided by the coin toss.  That's simply not true.  

 

It was the same way in the comments for the online article I read. Many people clearly saying "don't let a coin flip decide the game", as if the entire game was decided by a coin toss, nothing that transpired in regulation mattered, nor the lack of defense by BUF. 


 

 

One more thing to consider, why not have the same "each team must possess the ball" view about regular season games?  How many teams missed out on the playoffs by one game, or even a half game (ties)?  Is it because its a near 50-50 split in regular season, but more skewed 10-1 (90+ % win after winning coin toss)? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

So 

So someone on social media said something dumb and you are projecting that opinion onto others here?

 

I didn't see anywhere here, based on comments, where someone is claiming the coin flip was a bigger factor than giving up 50ish plus yards in 13 seconds on two plays.  

Not projecting anything.  Simply pointing out that a lot of people seem to think that's the case (outside of here).  And, based on the comments, it sounds like some (here) agree.  I disagree.  Pretty simple.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im a purist. I do like the change they made where they give the other team a possession if the opening team only scores a FG but I am fine with the system they have now. You have a 50/50 chance of getting the coin toss rights , and you also have a chance to get a drive if you stop the other team from scoring a TD. 

 

I hate the new crap in baseball where they start a guy on second base. a slippery slope leads to nonsense like that 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, whomper said:

Im a purist. I do like the change they made where they give the other team a possession if the opening team only scores a FG but I am fine with the system they have now. You have a 50/50 chance of getting the coin toss rights , and you also have a chance to get a drive if you stop the other team from scoring a TD. 

 

I hate the new crap in baseball where they start a guy on second base. a slippery slope leads to nonsense like that 

I thought I heard that they were getting rid of that rule, as well as the 7-inning double-headers?  Don't really care for either one, as they completely change the way teams have to manage/strategize.  If it's not broke, don't fix it.  If games are too long, there are better ways to shorten them, IMO.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gopher said:

Not projecting anything.  Simply pointing out that a lot of people seem to think that's the case (outside of here).  And, based on the comments, it sounds like some (here) agree.  I disagree.  Pretty simple.  

Neither do I agree. My point is that there are better alternatives than a coin flip to decide how the overtime is handled. 

Edited by Shaft
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2022 at 6:39 PM, stevegrab said:

Interesting responses, seems I'm in the minority in thinking they're fine as they are. 

 

I get the idea of fairness in giving each team a chance, especially after seeing the 10-1 record of the coin toss winner in playoff OT games. That was surprising as I had seen some stats before that for regular season where it was close to 50-50. 

 

What kind of baffles me though, is that people seem to think the defense doesn't matter, that once you get to OT both offenses need a chance. If each team scored on nearly every possession I might agree that is needed to be fair. But that doesn't happen in an NFL game, the Bills stopped the Chiefs 6 times (4FG attempts + 2 punts) which was about half their possessions (7 scores) in regulation. The Bills had a chance, if they could prevent a TD. 

 

I just don't want college rules, and the endless OT with gimmicks of starting location, forced 2p conv etc. A full OT period with leader taking the game would be more palatable. After that using the current playoff OT in the 2nd OT. 

 

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.

Edited by Dcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 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.

 

Yes both teams are tired at OT, which defense is more tired depends on who was on the field more, and that was mostly KC in Q3 (approx 13min) then mostly BUF in Q4 (approx 10min). So over 2 quarters the split was pretty even, but with KC D expending more energy recently. If the Bills didn't have that 75 yard TD to Davis maybe its even more evenly split. 

 

I wish we had more data points for the playoff OT games regarding the coin flip winner winning the game, the difference in that (10-1 or about 90%) compared to regular season OT games (more like 52%) just seems odd. 

 

Not sure if that means the rule is OK for regular season, but not for OT so that is the only thing worth changing. Like somebody else said, playoff game situation has everybody going all out, so that could explain it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2022-01-26 at 12:38 PM, stevegrab said:

 

Not sure if that means the rule is OK for regular season, but not for OT so that is the only thing worth changing. 

 

 I think the difficulty of making the playoffs to begin with,  makes the single offensive chance insulting to the game and skill of those involved. 

 

 Imagine this rule in baseball - if the team in the top of the inning scores, the home team doesn't get to bat.

Or soccer / hockey.

 

 It just doesn't make sense,  both teams earned the right to be there,  and should be able to play it out.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, League_Champion said:

Doesn't an 8, 10 or 15 minute OT quarter solve everything? Why do we need gimmicks? 

 

Who is suggesting gimmicks?  Or do you think the current OT system is a gimmick? (If so what's NCAA with its special rules that are quite different from regulation football.)

 

Regarding the OT period length, If they are going to play a full OT period that has the leader winning, it should be 15min. 8 or even 10 is too short for 2 quality possession.  If both teams should have a chance then they need a real chance not just 2min after the other team uses most of the OT period. (Of course 2min was enough for 4-5 scores in the BUF-KC game.)

 

I don't follow college football, so not sure what their OT rules have been in the past, but football has always been a little different from other sports. (Since OT was introduced in NFL, games are usually decided with a score in OT, vs. playing the entire period to see who gets the lead and wins.)  Basketball or baseball (no ties, unlimited extra periods) or hockey/soccer that use shootouts at some point. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevegrab said:

 

Who is suggesting gimmicks?  Or do you think the current OT system is a gimmick? (If so what's NCAA with its special rules that are quite different from regulation football.)

 

To me it doesn't make sense to play 60 minutes of football, go to OT and change the rules. I think a partial or full QT of OT is the only fair way to decide a game. It's not that complicated. I hate the current college rule, I think it's corny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stevegrab said:

 

hockey/soccer that use shootouts at some point. 

 

 

 

 Hockey goes to a shoot out in the regular season after a 5 min overtime (with 1 less player per team on the ice) .  In the playoffs its 1st goal wins - unlimited time.

 

Soccer 1st has injury time and then the shootout - not sure if that differs in world cup/mls/euro cup/premier league regular versus playoffs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, millworkguy said:

 

 Hockey goes to a shoot out in the regular season after a 5 min overtime (with 1 less player per team on the ice) .  In the playoffs its 1st goal wins - unlimited time.

 

Soccer 1st has injury time and then the shootout - not sure if that differs in world cup/mls/euro cup/premier league regular versus playoffs 

 

Thanks for the details (BJ too), I don't follow those sports but was aware that shootouts were involved at some point, and I presume it has been that way for some time. 

 

Imagine the NFL having a 15min OT, with winner decided by final score. But if still tied having a FG type shoot out.  That would seem like a gimmick to most, even if they were aware other sports had shootouts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information