New NFL Rule For Overtime

[2006Coltsbestever]

I would be fine with OT as long as both teams got the ball no matter what. If the team that wins the coin toss goes down and scores a TD, then the other team should still get a chance on Offense. If they get stopped than game over. One of the worse feelings in the world I experienced as a fan was watching Darren Sproles run in a TD vs Indy during the 2008 Playoff game to win in OT. Peyton never got a chance to get on the field. I thought we had the better team and were 12-4 that season, the Chargers were 8-8. Season over at that point!

[Jules]

12 hours ago, Synthetic said:

 

They've completely screwed overtime rules up. And it all goes to the whining and moaning from the Minnesota Vikings after being sore losers from the 2009 NFCCG. Decreasing minutes of overtime isn't going to help either. 

 

If you don't want ties, just bring back sudden death. It works better, since if your defense can't get stops, you don't deserve a shot with your offense on the field. 

 

The NFL is turning into a celeb into plastic surgery when it comes to tinkering with OT rules. They just now don't know when to stop.

 

I prefer they kept it the old way actually. Even if you lost on a sudden death FG.......

[rock8591]

3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I would be fine with OT as long as both teams got the ball no matter what. If the team that wins the coin toss goes down and scores a TD, then the other team should still get a chance on Offense. If they get stopped than game over. One of the worse feelings in the world I experienced as a fan was watching Darren Sproles run in a TD vs Indy during the 2008 Playoff game to win in OT. Peyton never got a chance to get on the field. I thought we had the better team and were 12-4 that season, the Chargers were 8-8. Season over at that point!

 

If a 12-4 team is so much better than a 8-8 team, the former should have won in regulation, if not blown out the latter in regulation, much less let it go to OT.

 

IMO sudden death OT is the best way to go.

 

It's called overtime for a reason. No more "shoulda, woulda, coulda", no more ifs, ands, or buts.

[crazycolt1]

7 hours ago, AZColt11 said:

So did the other team, who's defense also sucked, deserve to win the game more because they won the crummy coin flip?  Just asking.

IMO there shouldn't even be a coin flip.

[crazycolt1]

5 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I would be fine with OT as long as both teams got the ball no matter what. If the team that wins the coin toss goes down and scores a TD, then the other team should still get a chance on Offense. If they get stopped than game over. One of the worse feelings in the world I experienced as a fan was watching Darren Sproles run in a TD vs Indy during the 2008 Playoff game to win in OT. Peyton never got a chance to get on the field. I thought we had the better team and were 12-4 that season, the Chargers were 8-8. Season over at that point!

If we truly had a better team we should have won in regulation. Going into over time is the price paid for not playing well in 4 quarters.

[shakedownstreet]

21 hours ago, RockThatBlue said:

College football overtime >>>>>>>NFL overtime.

 

dear gawd

 

[Luck is Good]

Words can't explain how much I hate ties. This new rule would be catastrophic. I don't tune into football games to see ties. And players don't play 75 minutes of football to tie (could be 70 minutes next season). You play to win the game

[Surge89]

I could care less about the "fairness" but man the mind games would be so entertaining in a 2 possession overtime that is sudden death afterwards.  The first team to score would they go PA (and play it safe?) Or go for 2 and force the other team to sweat it out to score twice.   I for one would love the dramatic ends!

[John Waylon]

The NFL is just too proud to admit that the NCAA does something better than they do, so they just continue taking a crap in their pants and flopping down in their seat.

[rock8591]

4 hours ago, John Waylon said:

The NFL is just too proud to admit that the NCAA does something better than they do, so they just continue taking a crap in their pants and flopping down in their seat.

 

LOL not a chance. NCAA overtime is horrible, they do everything horribly but that discussion will get political.

 

 

[crazycolt1]

18 hours ago, Luck is Good said:

Words can't explain how much I hate ties. This new rule would be catastrophic. I don't tune into football games to see ties. And players don't play 75 minutes of football to tie (could be 70 minutes next season). You play to win the game

If you team can't win the game in 4 quarters why should they even have a chance for any win?  I don't understand why you hate ties so much. If you teams play even for 4 quarters then let it stand that way.

As far as the rules being catastrophic that's being a little over dramatic.

Games being tied caused no problems in the past why should it all of a sudden change?

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, rock8591 said:

 

LOL not a chance. NCAA overtime is horrible, they do everything horribly but that discussion will get political.

 

 

I pretty much despise the NCAA.

You are correct when you said it gets political when ever trying to debate or discuss anything. Anytime huge money is involved it gets that way.

[Luck is Good]

21 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

If you team can't win the game in 4 quarters why should they even have a chance for any win?  I don't understand why you hate ties so much. If you teams play even for 4 quarters then let it stand that way.

As far as the rules being catastrophic that's being a little over dramatic.

Games being tied caused no problems in the past why should it all of a sudden change?

You don't play a game to tie

[crazycolt1]

48 minutes ago, Luck is Good said:

You don't play a game to tie

But if it ends that way so be it. Your team should have played better before the end of the game.

Ties never hurt anyone.

 

[Narcosys]

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:34 PM, aaron11 said:

how does it not mean that?

 

over time is sudden death after the first possession, so shorting the period will bring more ties

Because most OT games don't go past 10 minutes.  It also doesn't mean more games will end in a tie because most games don't end regulation in a tie. 

 

If they do go into overtime, they don't usually go beyond 10 minutes. 

 

You also have the overtime rules wrong.  Both teams get a possession unless the first team score a TD.

 

So unless you can look up and provide proof that all OT games go beyond 10 minutes,  then you're wrong on all accounts. 

 

Thank you,  come again. 

[Luck is Good]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

But if it ends that way so be it. Your team should have played better before the end of the game.

Ties never hurt anyone.

 

Ties are in pee wee sports. This is professional sports. Nothing should end in a tie

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Luck is Good said:

Ties are in pee wee sports. This is professional sports. Nothing should end in a tie

Ties have worked in the NFL since 1940. There is nothing about the NFL that is pee wee. Your need for instant gratification does not mean much in the NFL.

[Luck is Good]

14 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Ties have worked in the NFL since 1940. There is nothing about the NFL that is pee wee. Your need for instant gratification does not mean much in the NFL.

There should never be ties

[crazycolt1]

36 minutes ago, Luck is Good said:

There should never be ties

Between 1974 and 2011 there were only 17 games that ended in a tie. That is only 17 games in 37 years.

Since 2011 when the rule change involving the first possession being a field goal the have been only 5 ties.

Those numbers show the odds of an overtime games are astronomical.

A tie is not a win nor a loss. If you team does end in a tie it does not effect you positive or negative. Your team plays to a tie and now a coin toss can make the game go either way. Two teams played even for 4 quarters, so what? Now a coin toss is going to effect your standings and a possible trip to the playoffs?

IMO, no thank you.

[King Colt]

On Mike & Mike the crew said safety is a big factor meaning if the team plays the coming Thursday night the players involved in 15 minutes of OT are at a disadvantage. To me that is a bit of a stretch to say 5 minutes will make a difference. What about five downs in OT?

[aaron11]

16 hours ago, Narcosys said:

Because most OT games don't go past 10 minutes.  It also doesn't mean more games will end in a tie because most games don't end regulation in a tie. 

 

If they do go into overtime, they don't usually go beyond 10 minutes. 

 

You also have the overtime rules wrong.  Both teams get a possession unless the first team score a TD.

 

So unless you can look up and provide proof that all OT games go beyond 10 minutes,  then you're wrong on all accounts. 

 

Thank you,  come again. 

no you are dead wrong

 

shorter over time means more ties period.  it doesnt matter how long OT usually lasts, the fact is making it shorter increases the number of ties

 

its really dumb to mention that not every ot game goes past 10 mins.  some do, some dont

 

now its an automatic tie, rather than giving the teams 5 more mins to kick a FG

[aaron11]

13 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Between 1974 and 2011 there were only 17 games that ended in a tie. That is only 17 games in 37 years.

Since 2011 when the rule change involving the first possession being a field goal the have been only 5 ties.

Those numbers show the odds of an overtime games are astronomical.

A tie is not a win nor a loss. If you team does end in a tie it does not effect you positive or negative. Your team plays to a tie and now a coin toss can make the game go either way. Two teams played even for 4 quarters, so what? Now a coin toss is going to effect your standings and a possible trip to the playoffs?

IMO, no thank you.

one tie is too many

 

5 since 2011 is a lot imo

[aaron11]

a tie feels like a loss to me

 

players have said the same thing many times.  i know they make a difference in the standings but it sucks for players and fans to play or watch a game that ends in a tie

 

 

[crazycolt1]

41 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

one tie is too many

 

5 since 2011 is a lot imo

5 out of over 3,000 games is a lot to you? Wow.

[aaron11]

5 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

5 out of over 3,000 games is a lot to you? Wow.

i dont watch every game

 

i do know there have been ties in each of the past few seasons

 

the seahawks and cardnials game last year comes to mind.  i think its really dumb that a game can end like that

[crazycolt1]

25 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

a tie feels like a loss to me

 

players have said the same thing many times.  i know they make a difference in the standings but it sucks for players and fans to play or watch a game that ends in a tie

 

 

I can't recall players saying a tie feels like a loss let alone many times. For one thing, ties are so rare players even talking about it is pretty rare.

A far as the player are concerned I am pretty sure they would rather take a tie rather than a loss on a coin flip. The one loss could make the difference between their team going to the playoffs or staying home.

The only reason over time rules were put in place was to satisfy the fan. This someone has to win mentality was brought on by the fan and no one else.

[crazycolt1]

7 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i dont watch every game

 

i do know there have been ties in each of the past few seasons

 

the seahawks and cardnials game last year comes to mind.  i think its really dumb that a game can end like that

Just because you think it's dumb does not speak for everyone. Just saying.

[aaron11]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

Just because you think it's dumb does not speak for everyone. Just saying.

well yeah we all have our own opinions

 

just because you think its fine doesnt mean everyone agrees

[crazycolt1]

5 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

well yeah we all have our own opinions

 

just because you think its fine doesnt mean everyone agrees

No doubt.

[indyagent17]

I like this rule and I for one would like to see the change that if a team scores first regardless if it is a TD the other team should have a chance to tie. That is only FAIR way to do overtime and shortening the quarter is a great idea 

[Coltfreak]

On 5/19/2017 at 11:26 PM, crazycolt1 said:

If a teams weakness is their defense a coin toss is not the reason they lose the game. In order to win games in this league you need a balanced team. If there is one thing I have learned from being a long time Colt fan there are lots of ways to lose a game and offense has zero to do with it. Colts lost a bunch of playoffs due to the lack of defense and or special teams play. If your team losses a game in overtime over not stopping the other team from scoring then you lost the game in the first place by letting them score the same as your offense.

The key is a balanced team.   Both units should get a chance to win or  re tie the game.  Not putting the entire weight on the shoulders of one unit or the other. 

 

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, Coltfreak said:

The key is a balanced team.   Both units should get a chance to win or  re tie the game.  Not putting the entire weight on the shoulders of one unit or the other. 

 

Understandable but your whole team had the chance to win the game for 4 quarters. Now that they didn't who's fault is it? The coin tosses?

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Understandable but your whole team had the chance to win the game for 4 quarters. Now that they didn't who's fault is it? The coin tosses?

 

So did the other team. But because they won the coin toss -- a totally arbitrary outcome that neither team can control -- they have greater odds to win the game. This article states that, even with the new rule where only a TD or safety ends the game on the first possession, the team that wins the coin toss wins the game 54% of the time, which is a 9% advantage for the team winning the coin toss (I remember it being ~60%, not sure if there's been a recent trend the other way, or if so many ties lately have impacted the number.) https://theringer.com/nfl-overtime-rules-super-bowl-li-patriots-falcons-62316a6f8e3c

 

All because they won the coin toss. That's nonsense. 

 

Two teams play to a tie over four quarters, but the team that wins an arbitrary event over which neither team has control has a 9% greater chance of winning the game? Just give both teams a possession and let them decide the outcome, rather than a coin toss. 

[crazycolt1]

36 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So did the other team. But because they won the coin toss -- a totally arbitrary outcome that neither team can control -- they have greater odds to win the game. This article states that, even with the new rule where only a TD or safety ends the game on the first possession, the team that wins the coin toss wins the game 54% of the time, which is a 9% advantage for the team winning the coin toss (I remember it being ~60%, not sure if there's been a recent trend the other way, or if so many ties lately have impacted the number.) https://theringer.com/nfl-overtime-rules-super-bowl-li-patriots-falcons-62316a6f8e3c

 

All because they won the coin toss. That's nonsense. 

 

Two teams play to a tie over four quarters, but the team that wins an arbitrary event over which neither team has control has a 9% greater chance of winning the game? Just give both teams a possession and let them decide the outcome, rather than a coin toss. 

True, but letting the game end in a tie is not penalizing either team and keeps any more chance of injuries happening for those who think about those things.

Tie games are nothing new and the NFL survived just fine with them for a lot of years. Playing to a tie is not the end of the season. Matter of fact ending in a tie is better for the team who ends up losing after playing the game even for 4 quarters.

Everything you said is true but all could be avoided if ties stood.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

True, but letting the game end in a tie is not penalizing either team and keeps any more chance of injuries happening for those who think about those things.

Tie games are nothing new and the NFL survived just fine with them for a lot of years. Playing to a tie is not the end of the season. Matter of fact ending in a tie is better for the team who ends up losing after playing the game even for 4 quarters.

Everything you said is true but all could be avoided if ties stood.

 

Something the league said over the past two days is that having ties makes playoff tie-breakers easier, so they aren't that opposed to the idea of more games ending in ties. And they think the shorter overtime will push coaches to be a little more aggressive at the end of regulation and early in OT. We'll see about all that...

 

I don't think games should end in ties, if you can avoid it, but I don't think it's the end of the world, either. Everyone gets all huffy every time it happens, but it's not that catastrophic. Definitely anticlimactic, for everyone involved.

 

I'm far more irritated when only one team gets possession in OT. It's inherently unfair.

[Narcosys]

11 hours ago, aaron11 said:

no you are dead wrong

 

shorter over time means more ties period.  it doesnt matter how long OT usually lasts, the fact is making it shorter increases the number of ties

 

its really dumb to mention that not every ot game goes past 10 mins.  some do, some dont

 

now its an automatic tie, rather than giving the teams 5 more mins to kick a FG

 

Wow, pure speculation on your part with zero evidence of any of the claims you are making. 

 

Automatic tie? Please elaborate with some evidence,  otherwise it's hyperbole.

 

Me mentioning the amount of games going over 10 minutes has a DIRECT CONNECTION to games ending in ties.

 

If 9/10 end of regulation tied games, do not go past 10 minutes of OT, is it really increasing the number of tie games by a large amount? No.

 

Literally speaking it can lead to a game tying sooner than it may have with the extra 5 minutes.  However,  statistically speaking the chances of it happening are slim. 

 

Come on man, use some common sense. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

On 5/20/2017 at 10:00 AM, rock8591 said:

IMO we don't need games to be extended any more than they are. Agreed on the defense being a weakness, too bad for you.

 

On 5/20/2017 at 0:34 PM, shakedownstreet said:

Whatever fairness schmairness both teams deserve possession blah blah blah

 

If a team doesn't win the game in regulation, then they can just flip a coin so far as I care

 

On 5/20/2017 at 0:41 PM, crazycolt1 said:

To each their own but this constant whine 'it isn't fair' crap has been getting old for a long time.

You either have the team to win, or you lose. Fairness has nothing to do with it. The NFL is not little league where everyone gets a participation trophy.

 

On 5/20/2017 at 1:03 PM, shakedownstreet said:

 

There's 60 minutes on the clock in regulation. If you couldn't get the job done within that time frame, then too **** bad. Go ahead and cry about your teams lack of execution, but not the 'unfair' rules. I liked the former sudden death OT

 

Ok, help me out here guys.  So... why even have OT?  Once regulation is over, it's over.  No OT.  If it's a tie, it's a tie.  Why even have a coin flip to decide a winner (except for the playoffs)?

 

Why?  Because fans hate that.  Nobody WANTS a tie.  Some people are willing to settle for a tie, but if we're talking playoff games that actually end a teams' season, then no fan, and I mean NO FAN wants to see their team eliminated from the playoffs because of a friggin' coin flip...

 

I agree with you guys for the most part.  Logically, if your team can't score on offense or stop a score on defense, or for frigs sake stop a TD on special teams, then you don't deserve a W.  But if you don't get a chance for your ENTIRE TEAM to help get a W in OT, then this discussion will continue forever...

 

  

[Lucky Colts Fan]

On 5/21/2017 at 9:46 PM, Luck is Good said:

You play to win the game

 

On 5/22/2017 at 5:17 PM, crazycolt1 said:

But if it ends that way so be it. Your team should have played better before the end of the game.

Ties never hurt anyone.

 

 

On 5/22/2017 at 8:19 PM, crazycolt1 said:

Ties have worked in the NFL since 1940. There is nothing about the NFL that is pee wee. Your need for instant gratification does not mean much in the NFL.

 

On 5/22/2017 at 8:35 PM, Luck is Good said:

There should never be ties

 

Ties are OK in the regular season, but impossible in the playoffs.  There has to be a winner in the playoffs, which is where we come to the fork in the road...

 

When two teams are so evenly matched that they are tied at the end of regulation, and tied at the end of OT, then what do we do?  Flip a coin?

 

Imagine the 2006 AFCCG going into OT, both teams getting a possession each, and still being tied at the end of OT.  What then?  Manning and Brady have a "shootout" like soccer?  A glorified skills drill?

 

[crazycolt1]

11 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

 

 

 

Ties are OK in the regular season, but impossible in the playoffs.  There has to be a winner in the playoffs, which is where we come to the fork in the road...

 

When two teams are so evenly matched that they are tied at the end of regulation, and tied at the end of OT, then what do we do?  Flip a coin?

 

Imagine the 2006 AFCCG going into OT, both teams getting a possession each, and still being tied at the end of OT.  What then?  Manning and Brady have a "shootout" like soccer?  A glorified skills drill?

 

No, you just play till someone scores. No need to make it harder than needed. Sudden death worked in the past and still would work.

These seems to be a lot of talk and opinions on something that has only happened 22 times since 1974. I would have to do a breakdown on each year but a rough number would be over 20,000 games. Lots of attention on something that has astronomical odds of happening in the first place.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

No, you just play till someone scores. No need to make it harder than needed. Sudden death worked in the past and still would work.

These seems to be a lot of talk and opinions on something that has only happened 22 times since 1974. I would have to do a breakdown on each year but a rough number would be over 20,000 games. Lots of attention on something that has astronomical odds of happening in the first place.

 

I like that.  It's football.  But it only takes that one Conference Championship that goes down to the literal wire, and a QB like Manning or Brady gets hurt at the tail-end of a win, and can't compete in the SB.  I know I'm speculating, but imagine my previous scenario where Manning and Brady are duking it out til the end of the 2006 AFCCG through OTs and all, and one of them gets hurt at the end.

 

Regardless of who won the game, who would have played against the Bears in that SB?  Jim Sorgi?  Matt Cassel?  You might rejoice in beating the Pats in the AFCCG, but then we don't have Manning for the SB?  Of course, then it comes down to team-building and having a capable backup to win you the SB.  You can't sugar-coat a football team.

 

Again, pure speculation, but the NFL is completely QB-driven, so they definitely don't want this scenario playing out where Manning or Brady is in street clothes on the sideline for the friggin' SB.  Assuming coaches will get more aggressive toward the end of the OT period in a playoff game, they might risk their QB for the win.  (especially that dirty BB, he would love to beat the Colts with Matt Cassell while Peyton has to watch from the sidelines)

 

I'm not trying to argue, I have no answers to this, I'm just playing the devils' advocate here.