Yet Another Reason To Change The OT Rule

[King Colt]

The coin is flipped and the Pats win the toss. Tom Brady, that's Tom Brady moves the ball in to the endzone......game over. KC gets zero opportunity to challenge. This is all due to the NFL not wanting the games to run too long as opposed to making the games a "competition."

[GoPats]

Agreed. I told my wife, "This game is about to be decided by a coin toss." I had little doubt that either team would go down and score a TD on their first drive. 

 

Instead of counting possessions and going with a sudden death thing, I'd rather see them play a timed 5th quarter. One team scores, fine... you play the full 10 minutes. And then move on to a 6th, if necessary. At least in the playoffs. 

 

[rock8591]

Overtime is the price you pay for not winning in regulation.

 

Especially for allowing a TD (not a FG) on the first drive in OT; Chiefs deserved to lose.

[ReMeDy]

Can you imagine it used to be even worse where a team just needed to kick a FG! Committing a penalty on a kick return to start the team's offense at their own 40 was a real punch in the gut!

[BOTT]

Meh. Tom Brady, that's Tom Brady, threw a high pass to Gronk that turned into a pick that should have ended the game in regulation.

 

blame Dee Ford.

 

[esmort]

OT definitely needs tweaked. Especially with the league making defense harder. I don't know the odds of winning in OT related to winning the coin flip, but I can definitely see the coin flip carrying more and more weight in who wins.

[rockywoj]

Tweak is simple, make it just like if a FG is scored on the first OT possession.  Other team gets a chance to possess the ball.  It should be the same for a TD.  I mean, how is a TD really any different than a FG?  One type of score justifies giving the other team an opportunity, but a different type of score does not?  That's dumb.  Just make the simple change, both teams are to be given a chance to possess the ball on offense.  Once both teams have had one possession, it becomes sudden death.

 

So in the examples from yesterday, NE scored on the initial possession, so they should then KO to the KC and the Chiefs get a chance to score the tying TD and extra point.

 

In the Saints / Rams game, nothing would have changed.  Saints received the initial possession.  Brees tosses the INT.  Rams get their possession and score for the win.  Fair.

[crazycolt1]

You guys forget that defense is part of being a team. If your defense can't keep their offense out of the end zone you deserve to lose the game IMO.

Saying it isn't fair? No, win the game in regulation time and losing wouldn't be an option.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

If you don’t win the coin flip then go out and play defense. Offense is not the only part of football.  It’s fine the way it is. If chiefs wanted the ball they should of stopped Brady. NE defense was gassed also so KC probably would of won if they had won the flip also.

 

The games would never end if you just kept scoring a TD.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, BOTT said:

Meh. Tom Brady, that's Tom Brady, threw a high pass to Gronk that turned into a pick that should have ended the game in regulation.

 

blame Dee Ford.

 

Exactly.

[JimJaime]

8 hours ago, King Colt said:

The coin is flipped and the Pats win the toss. Tom Brady, that's Tom Brady moves the ball in to the endzone......game over. KC gets zero opportunity to challenge. This is all due to the NFL not wanting the games to run too long as opposed to making the games a "competition."

That game last night would still be going on as NEITHER D was able to stop the others O the entire fourth quarter. (I think they scored 31 points a new record for a quarter) sooner or later you have to make it sudden death and make one teams D make a stop.

[JimJaime]

3 hours ago, BOTT said:

Meh. Tom Brady, that's Tom Brady, threw a high pass to Gronk that turned into a pick that should have ended the game in regulation.

 

blame Dee Ford.

 

Stop taking that * on first takes ides! Lol the pass was right in his hands and an easy catch! Gronk completely muffed it up into the air for that INT.. also if Jackson doesn’t get called for PI the games over after that fumble by KC.. both teams made some bone headed mistakes.. (Jackson got called for like 3 PI )

[BOTT]

38 minutes ago, JimJaime said:

Stop taking that * on first takes ides! Lol the pass was right in his hands and an easy catch! Gronk completely muffed it up into the air for that INT.. also if Jackson doesn’t get called for PI the games over after that fumble by KC.. both teams made some bone headed mistakes.. (Jackson got called for like 3 PI )

The point was they could have won the game before overtime if dee ford had lined up correctly.  The rules in overtime are fair and not the fault KC lost.

[Superman]

The fact that the Chiefs didn't win the game in regulation doesn't mean they deserved to lose. The Patriots didn't win in regulation either. That's the laziest 'reasoning' of all time. Both teams were in OT because both teams couldn't close in regulation.

 

There's zero reason for sudden death to exist in overtime, especially in the playoffs. Both teams should get possession of the ball, bottom line.

[BOTT]

I'm guessing if KC had won the toss and scored a TD this thread would never been made.  

[coltsva]

It would have still been made.....in the patriots forum. 

[Superman]

30 minutes ago, BOTT said:

I'm guessing if KC had won the toss and scored a TD this thread would never been made.  

 

Wrong. The debate over sudden death overtime has existed for a long time, and you know it.

[BOTT]

43 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Wrong. The debate over sudden death overtime has existed for a long time, and you know it.

Everyone knows this has been debated before. That doesn't change my opinion that this thread wouldn't have been made if the chiefs had won in the same manner. If you haven't notice, the hate for the patriots is strong on this forum.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, BOTT said:

Everyone knows this has been debated before. That doesn't change my opinion that this thread wouldn't have been made if the chiefs had won in the same manner. If you haven't notice, the hate for the patriots is strong on this forum.

 

Well I guess we'll never know, but I disagree. I personally feel strongly about the OT rules and it has nothing to do with my even stronger dislike of the Patriots.

 

Either way, it doesn't invalidate the point at hand.

[Narcosys]

12 hours ago, rock8591 said:

Overtime is the price you pay for not winning in regulation.

 

Especially for allowing a TD (not a FG) on the first drive in OT; Chiefs deserved to lose.

The offensive side deserved to lose because their D didn't get a stop?

 

Logic lacking.

[King Colt]

Everyone and no one has the solution only ideas to try. What about mandatory two point conversion or starting from the 10 yard line? NE had the ball for nearly 44 minutes of that game so KC's defense had to be tired. Granted no fault to NE but I think some kind of change is coming and there will be flaws in that was well I'm sure.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

13 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

You guys forget that defense is part of being a team. If your defense can't keep their offense out of the end zone you deserve to lose the game IMO.

Saying it isn't fair? No, win the game in regulation time and losing wouldn't be an option.

 

This is good stuff! I agree 100%!

[Chrisaaron1023]

Just gotta find a better coin guesser. Pats have a good one of those too

[Gramz]

11 hours ago, BOTT said:

I'm guessing if KC had won the toss and scored a TD this thread would never been made.  

Sure it would have....  by a Pats fan. 

[Tsarquise]

Certainly better than it used to be. Winning on the first field goal was just preposterous, but having another quarter with regular rules in play would be best. 

 

With that being said, the Patriots absolutely deserved to win. 

[Superman]

What exactly is the argument for NOT giving both teams a possession in OT?

[Gramz]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

What exactly is the argument for NOT giving both teams a possession in OT?

I would be interested in an answer to this too.

 

More often than not,  the team that wins the coin toss, wins the game.   It just seems wrong, that after an often hard fought game,  for the outcome to be decided by a coin toss.    

 

I know there has to be some guidelines as I was just thinking about a game I watched Eli play at Ole Miss.   It was the craziest game that went to something like 6 or 7 overtimes.   The longest game I've ever watched, and it was crazy fun for the fans,  but the players had to be out of gas.  

[Luck is Good]

I’ve always thought that both teams should get a possession. But that’s not how it is right now. Yes everyone in the universe knew that the Patriots would win the game once they won the coin toss. They have Tom Brady at QB. He lives for those moments

[LJpalmbeacher2]

On 1/21/2019 at 12:59 PM, GoPats said:

Agreed. I told my wife, "This game is about to be decided by a coin toss." I had little doubt that either team would go down and score a TD on their first drive. 

 

Instead of counting possessions and going with a sudden death thing, I'd rather see them play a timed 5th quarter. One team scores, fine... you play the full 10 minutes. And then move on to a 6th, if necessary. At least in the playoffs. 

 

 

This is the one area I feel coaches neglect practicing, The Coin Toss. 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

11 hours ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

Just gotta find a better coin guesser. Pats have a good one of those too

 

Yeah, it's "Heads I Win","Tails you Lose". 

Belichek found him on a street corner running a Shells game.

He's not a big man.In fact  he's kinda small  and slow.... just like their receivers. 

[rock8591]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

What exactly is the argument for NOT giving both teams a possession in OT?

 

Overtime is the price you pay for not winning in regulation. Just like that, it's a microcosm of real life.

 

I wouldn't mind if a coin toss ITSELF determined the winner of the game (not FG, TD, or score) - it would be more than fair.

 

If your defense allows a TD in the first drive of OT, you deserve to lose 110%. Just as it's likely for a WR to catch a TD pass, it's as likely for a fumble of interception to occur, giving a TD to the opposing team.

[rock8591]

18 hours ago, Narcosys said:

The offensive side deserved to lose because their D didn't get a stop?

 

Logic lacking.

 

Absolutely.

 

It's the team that's paying the penalty by losing, not the defense.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

5 minutes ago, rock8591 said:

Overtime is the price you pay for not winning in regulation. Just like that, it's a microcosm of real life.

 

I don't know about you, but most of us are watching football because it's more entertaining than real life, not because we want a life lesson...

 

5 minutes ago, rock8591 said:

I wouldn't mind if a coin toss ITSELF determined the winner of the game (not FG, TD, or score) - it would be more than fair.

 

That's the opposite of fun entertainment.  It would be just as fair to let both teams possess the ball in OT, and way more entertaining than a frickin coin-flip.

 

6 minutes ago, rock8591 said:

If your defense allows a TD in the first drive of OT, you deserve to lose 110%. Just as it's likely for a WR to catch a TD pass, it's as likely for a fumble of interception to occur, giving a TD to the opposing team.

 

And this is just flat-out wrong.  A WR catching a TD is a much more likely ending to a drive than a defensive TD.

 

I enjoy watching good defense, but let's be honest:  both teams scoring TDs is the excitement the NFL wants because it draws in more fans.

 

Both teams should possess the ball in OT.

[RollerColt]

It makes sense to allow both teams a chance, especially when the league has shifted to being offense friendly. 

[BloodyChamp]

Change sudden death OT and change the RULES back! Sudden death OT was fine. The rule’s gradual shift towards favoring offenses, which started before what finally became known as the present era, is what messed everything up. It’s physically impossible for a defense to stop an offense in a clutch situation unless you have a DL who beats the entire OL. Any good quarterback with any good OL could get the first down in 4 tries if the rest of the defense (in 2019 mind you) is freaking Lawrence Taylor, Ronnie Lott, Deion Sanders, Pat Swilling...you get the point.

 

It’s no longer play offense if you land on offense and play defense if you land on defense. It’s play offense if you land on offense or pray something like the Drew Brees INT happens which was a sham (that the Saints deserved but that’s another subject).

 

With all that said I’m not as upset as everybody else. I mean the Saints so deserved it. Now they’re crying smh. We haven’t seen the last of the Chiefs either. I’m going to go as far as to say the Chiefs will be in the position they were last week next year...even if there’s a Mahomes sophomore slump somewhere in the middle (those no looks and knuckleballs aren’t all going to land in WR’s hand next year lol).

[Superman]

1 hour ago, rock8591 said:

 

Overtime is the price you pay for not winning in regulation. Just like that, it's a microcosm of real life.

 

I wouldn't mind if a coin toss ITSELF determined the winner of the game (not FG, TD, or score) - it would be more than fair.

 

If your defense allows a TD in the first drive of OT, you deserve to lose 110%. Just as it's likely for a WR to catch a TD pass, it's as likely for a fumble of interception to occur, giving a TD to the opposing team.

 

I can't imagine a more nonsensical statement. Just give both teams a loss if that's the case. 

 

Wanna try again with a real argument for not giving both teams a possession? After all, both teams are in OT because both teams failed to win in regulation, but you're okay with the game being determined by a random coin toss, which neither team earned in any way. 

 

Nonsense.

[Superman]

How about you just determine the winner based on the blood type of the fan sitting closest to the visitor's tunnel entrance? Or just have the team captains guess a number between 1 and a million?

[rock8591]

26 minutes ago, Superman said:

How about you just determine the winner based on the blood type of the fan sitting closest to the visitor's tunnel entrance? Or just have the team captains guess a number between 1 and a million?

 

I would not say at all that it's unfair.

 

It sucks if you're on the losing side... but I would not consider it as unfair in the very least.

 

Me personally, now that you mention it, just give both teams the loss.

[LockeDown]

Let’s see.  A coin flip that decides the game.  Who would be happy about that? Maybe a villain....maybe a Batman villain...

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, rock8591 said:

 

I would not say at all that it's unfair.

 

It sucks if you're on the losing side... but I would not consider it as unfair in the very least.

 

Me personally, now that you mention it, just give both teams the loss.

 

How about base it on merit?

 

I'm still waiting for an argument against giving both teams a possession. You haven't even tried to offer one.