Your thoughts on NFL Proposed Post Season OT change

[LunaTick 30]

The NFL owners are expected to look at an OT Rule change that only affect post season play.

It would modify the existing rules, in that if the Team with First Possession scores a FG, than the opposing team gets a chance to counter. But if the first team scores a TD, game over.

 

I don't buy that giving up a TD should suddenly win the game in the Post Season. I don't see a TD or a FG being any different with this issue. The issues isn't that a game is decided by a FG. But that the opposing team should still have a chance to match/win a game. Especially if that game is a Post Season Game.

Current OT rules are based more upon regular season TV scheduling not having second game on Sunday or 60 Minutes being interferred with.

 

Thereore II propose the following.

(Taking a cue from Ziggy Wilf is against what the league is proposing, as it only modifies Post Season and wants more regular/post season consistency of this rule)

 

Regular or Post Season.

OT Play clock is reduced to 30 seconds. (No Huddle should be the norm in OT)

First Team that scores, the other team gets an opportunity to score, see commentary below

Point of kick off is moved closer to endzone. Decreasing run backs in OT. (Special Teams still needs to be involved)

Reduce time stopages to resetting the chains, change of possession, injury, TO's or OTO's. (No TV TO's during the OT unless TO/OTO)

Option: Reduce OT to 10 minutes for Regular Season only (with reduce play clock may make sense for TV Scheduling/contracts).

 

Regular season is a bit more sudden death.

First Team that scores, the other team gest one possession to tie or score more points.

Fail to score is a loss

Tie the score, goes on the books as a tie

Score more, is a win.

Fail to score in 15 minutes, goes on the books as a tie.

 

Post Season difference

If Second team to score ties the score. Situation is reset until such time as the second team to attempt to score fails to tie/win or times runs out of OT clock (15 min)

If at end of 15 minutes game is still tied and a second OT happens. There will be a 5 minute break on the field and a 10 minute game clocks for subsequent OT's. Repeat until game is decided.

Option for Post Season: After first OT, second team must attempt to score more than the first team. (Have to go for it rule.)

 

Thoughts?

[Boston Three Party 6]

Want to see it changed.

 

FG's are WEAK AS FOCK.

 

Too bad getting 24 owners to vote yes is going to be insanely hard. Hope it happens though. Coaches are too poosay to want to have to deal with another rule change. Just like instant replay.

 

Eventually - it'll happen.

[Portis26 0]

teams that win the coin toss in OT wins the game 60% of the time. IMO that numbers needs to be around the 80% mark for any serious changes for OT. I like the sudden death format

[Riddlen 1]

changing OT is overrated. its fine. FG are part of the game.

[kmbryant09 1]

teams that win the coin toss in OT wins the game 60% of the time. IMO that numbers needs to be around the 80% mark for any serious changes for OT. I like the sudden death format

Why?

 

With a large enough sample size, even a 51% success rate isn't completely fair to both teams. While I agree that the numbers aren't as strong as I would have expected for coin-toss winners, I think it's an awful system.

 

People say that defense and field goals are part of the game, and I completely agree with that...But think about it....Take a team like the Colts, Texans, Saints, etc (teams with a great offense and below average defenses)...If they lose a coin-toss, then they have to rely on defense and special teams, WITHOUT GETTING A CHANCE TO COUNTER. In fact, defense and field goals are just that - a PART of the game, not all of the game. Especially with the current set-up, a team often only needs a few first downs in OT to get into field goal range. All-in-all, it's just not fair to the teams that don't win the coin toss.

[MicktheGreat 1]

I know that alot of people don't like it for some reason; but, personally, I really like the NCAA's overtime policy where both teams are guaranteed at least one possession and they start at their opponent's 30 yard line. In that format, both teams have to play offense AND defense -- plus, while it limits special teams, it doesn't totally eliminate it (at least for the first few possessions).

 

To me, it's much, much more exciting than the current NFL overtime format.

That said, it will never happen in the NFL because of TV scheduling.

 

[DankNuggs 305]

I like the change... But i agree it seems odd to seperate TDs and FGs. Slippery slope. Use the NCAA overtime format. Start on the 50 yard line.

[Raider 84 29]

As bad as it is now, I'd like to keep it the same because of the tradition of the game.

[Gepetto 1,368]

It passed. I like it!

[Larry David 20]

Here's part of the new rule.... If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball. If [that team] scores a touchdown on its possession, it is the winner.

 

Let's assume team A gets the ball first and kicks a field goal. On the ensuing kickoff, team A does an onsides kick and recovers the ball. Game over? Does the fact that team B had a chance to recover the onside kick count as an opportunity to possess the ball?

[Gepetto 1,368]

Here's part of the new rule.... If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball. If [that team] scores a touchdown on its possession, it is the winner.

 

Let's assume team A gets the ball first and kicks a field goal. On the ensuing kickoff, team A does an onsides kick and recovers the ball. Game over? Does the fact that team B had a chance to recover the onside kick count as an opportunity to possess the ball?

 

I don't know for sure, but based on that definition, an onsides kick to the other team would give them the chance to posess the ball, so I think it counts and the team that kicked a field goal, then onsides kicks and recovers would win.

[WhiteWonder 2,738]

It Passed

 

not a fan.

[Evil Genius 0]

The overtime rule (playoffs or not) should be as simple as this:

 

The highest score after an equal number of possessions (min:1) shall be declared the winner.

 

There would remain a large psychological advantage in going first, scoring first, and applying pressure to the other team, but in fairness, each team will have had absolutely the same opportunity to win the game:

 

Advantage: no facets of the game will have changed or been eliminated (kicking, punting, turnovers - it all remains unchanged).

 

There is no compelling reason to have any other rule.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350]

The overtime rule (playoffs or not) should be as simple as this:

 

The highest score after an equal number of possessions (min:1) shall be declared the winner.

 

There would remain a large psychological advantage in going first, scoring first, and applying pressure to the other team, but in fairness, each team will have had absolutely the same opportunity to win the game:

 

Advantage: no facets of the game will have changed or been eliminated (kicking, punting, turnovers - it all remains unchanged).

 

There is no compelling reason to have any other rule.

 

I disagree completely on everything you say.

1) Granting each team equal possesions just to be "fair" is not part of the game, what you are gonna see now is teams not playing to win in regulation and settling for the tie, to teams playing to tie in regulation knowing they get the ball no matter what.

 

2) in your scenario, there is absolutely no advantage to going first in OT, every college team when given a chance defers in OT. Why? Because then you know what you have to do. The team going first always has the most pressure, because if they dont score, its game over with a FG, if they score a FG, the other team can match the FG easily, and win relatively easy with a td

 

with this rule in effect, I think its stupid to only put it in post-season, why is post season played differently then regular season? Why is week 1 of the playoffs that much more important then week 17 when 2 teams are fighting to get into the playoffs should have the same chances, since thats an elimination game for someone anyways.

 

***dont know if you saw the subnote also applied in section B paragraph 14 line 2. and I quote, "If overtime includes Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or Brett Favre, and in some situations Drew Brees (when not playing the above mentioned), then the QB's listed will receive 5 downs instead of the 4."

[RLLD 4,230]

I like the idea.

 

I will withhold further opinions until i see it in action....

[Larry David 20]

My first thought was that I don't like the fact that overtime will be different for the playoffs than it is in the regular season. But then again that precedence has already been established in the NHL. Shootouts in the regular season - play until somebody scores a goal in the playoffs.

[Joey Gladstone 33]

I dont like all this "fair amount of possession" crap. It should be the first team to get the ball into the endzone wins. That would preserve the excitement of sudden death while eliminating fairy kickers from deciding REAL close games.

[jerryskids 6,798]

The overtime rule (playoffs or not) should be as simple as this:

 

The highest score after an equal number of possessions (min:1) shall be declared the winner.

 

There would remain a large psychological advantage in going first, scoring first, and applying pressure to the other team, but in fairness, each team will have had absolutely the same opportunity to win the game:

 

Advantage: no facets of the game will have changed or been eliminated (kicking, punting, turnovers - it all remains unchanged).

 

There is no compelling reason to have any other rule.

I disagree with your "large psychological advantage" claim; if I were the coach in your scenario and won the toss, I'd kick off. Then you know what you have to do to tie/win.

[Busted by the Feds 9]

I say first team to six points in the OT wins, simple. If the coin toss winning team kicks a FG, they need another FG to win. In the meantime they kick off to the opposing team, who then has a chance to win by scoring a TD (offense or return).

[The Football Guru 222]

I'm not a fan of the rule change, but I'm willing to see it play out...

 

For me, however, it does bring an interesting dilemma...what does a team do once it wins the coin flip? Opt to play defense first to see what it has to do and risk giving up a TD or does it take the ball first and try to apply "pressure" to the other team to match what it does? Does a dominant defense elect to trust its defense and let the other team take the ball first?

 

I'm not a big fan of the college OT rule if for no other reason that I don't think football should go into multiple overtimes to begin with, much less the increased probablity of injury it raises for college players. I think if you keep the college system in place in college, they should start at the 50 - you should not be in scoring range to start OT.

 

Sudden-death OT was fine IMO, it tests the whole team's resolve - good special teams gives you good field position/pins the opponent back; a good defense forces the opponent into a 3-and-out or turns the ball over to the offense in plus territory and a good offense obviously gets a team in position to score.

[mgs316 14]

Tradition of the game, give me a break.

 

They should still use leather helmets and a ball that is piss poor for passing because that is the tradition of the game.

 

Idiots.

[mgs316 14]

I say first team to six points in the OT wins, simple. If the coin toss winning team kicks a FG, they need another FG to win. In the meantime they kick off to the opposing team, who then has a chance to win by scoring a TD (offense or return).

 

That has always been the best suggestion I keep hearing, yet they always want to make it convoluted.

[jerryskids 6,798]

I say first team to six points in the OT wins, simple. If the coin toss winning team kicks a FG, they need another FG to win. In the meantime they kick off to the opposing team, who then has a chance to win by scoring a TD (offense or return).

I'd argue in this scenario that first team to 4 wins. Kick a field goal, get a safety, you shouldn't win?

[Gepetto 1,368]

I say first team to six points in the OT wins, simple. If the coin toss winning team kicks a FG, they need another FG to win. In the meantime they kick off to the opposing team, who then has a chance to win by scoring a TD (offense or return).

 

Why should a team that scores a field goal in overtime; then kicks off and stops the other team have to score again to win? It makes no sense.

 

The new overtime rule is perfect.

[gocolts 300]

Tradition of the game, give me a break.

 

They should still use leather helmets and a ball that is piss poor for passing because that is the tradition of the game.

 

Idiots.

 

 

I wore a leather helmet playing football. The left side of my face is paralyzed but it was worth it. We won the game.

 

 

WCTR radio caller.

[mgs316 14]

WCTR radio caller.

 

Yep, I'm sure his brain is functioning well. Great point.

 

Lets go back to 12 games then too!!! No black people and slow 5'9" white guys, that would be awesome!!!

[Huh? 7]

I have a few questions. So if I understand it correctly, there are only two possible offensive possessions in postseason overtime that can end in a score and NOT end the game. First, if team A receives the opening kickoff and kicks an FG, team B gets a chance. Second, if team B kicks a FG only after team A has successfully kicked a FG, the game becomes sudden death from that point on.

 

So, scenario 1: Team A receives, drives, and kicks a FG. Then team B receives the kickoff and goes 4 and out or turns it over. Does team A win at this point or do they have to score again?

 

Scenario 2: Team A wins the toss and onside kicks OR team B receives and muffs the kickoff. Team A kicks a FG. Does team A win at this point or does team B still get a chance?

 

As the fan of a team that historically has had good defenses and average offenses (Bears), I would want Coach Smith to kickoff in the overtime and maybe try the onside.

[Evil Genius 0]

I disagree completely on everything you say.

1) Granting each team equal possesions just to be "fair" is not part of the game, what you are gonna see now is teams not playing to win in regulation and settling for the tie, to teams playing to tie in regulation knowing they get the ball no matter what.

 

2) in your scenario, there is absolutely no advantage to going first in OT, every college team when given a chance defers in OT. Why? Because then you know what you have to do. The team going first always has the most pressure, because if they dont score, its game over with a FG, if they score a FG, the other team can match the FG easily, and win relatively easy with a td

 

with this rule in effect, I think its stupid to only put it in post-season, why is post season played differently then regular season? Why is week 1 of the playoffs that much more important then week 17 when 2 teams are fighting to get into the playoffs should have the same chances, since thats an elimination game for someone anyways.

 

0) your disagreement is noted

 

1) Teams should always play to win in regulation, knowing OT is tough and uncertain, regardless of whether they are entitled to a single possession. I believe your speculation is ill-conceived, and would not hold water.

 

2) If teams were to begin to defer in OT, then I would welcome it. They defer because they know the rules are founded on equal access to the ball. I accept the strategic consequences of FAIRNESS. That is the entire philosophy in changing the rule - fairness - and if it comes with baggage, so be it.

 

3) The hypothetical rule of equal possessions should apply in all instances. When should fairness not apply?

[swandown 0]

I have a few questions. So if I understand it correctly, there are only two possible offensive possessions in postseason overtime that can end in a score and NOT end the game. First, if team A receives the opening kickoff and kicks an FG, team B gets a chance. Second, if team B kicks a FG only after team A has successfully kicked a FG, the game becomes sudden death from that point on.

 

So, scenario 1: Team A receives, drives, and kicks a FG. Then team B receives the kickoff and goes 4 and out or turns it over. Does team A win at this point or do they have to score again?

 

Scenario 2: Team A wins the toss and onside kicks OR team B receives and muffs the kickoff. Team A kicks a FG. Does team A win at this point or does team B still get a chance?

 

As the fan of a team that historically has had good defenses and average offenses (Bears), I would want Coach Smith to kickoff in the overtime and maybe try the onside.

1. Team A wins the moment Team B's possession ends.

 

2. Team A wins because Team B still got the "opportunity to possess the ball" (even though they screwed it up).

 

The most interesting thing to me is: what happens when a team scores a safety? Is the game over automatically? The rules are not clear on that.

[LunaTick 30]

I have a few questions. So if I understand it correctly, there are only two possible offensive possessions in postseason overtime that can end in a score and NOT end the game. First, if team A receives the opening kickoff and kicks an FG, team B gets a chance. Second, if team B kicks a FG only after team A has successfully kicked a FG, the game becomes sudden death from that point on.

 

So, scenario 1: Team A receives, drives, and kicks a FG. Then team B receives the kickoff and goes 4 and out or turns it over. Does team A win at this point or do they have to score again?

 

Scenario 2: Team A wins the toss and onside kicks OR team B receives and muffs the kickoff. Team A kicks a FG. Does team A win at this point or does team B still get a chance?

 

As the fan of a team that historically has had good defenses and average offenses (Bears), I would want Coach Smith to kickoff in the overtime and maybe try the onside.

 

The rule as the league approved.

 

If team one kicks a FG, Team 2 gets a chance to tie/win.

If team one scores a td, game is over. Team 2 gets no chance.

After the first possession of OT, it is sudden death. Meaning if Team 1 fails to score, Team 2 can win with a FG.