Yet Another Reason To Change The OT Rule

[rock8591]

I haven't offered one because there doesn't need to be one.

 

Overtime is the price you pay for not winning in regulation. You don't get to choose what rules you want to abide by when you've already failed to win the game.

 

It's not lazy reasoning.

 

What if both teams score a TD in overtime in their first possession? Should it go to 2 overtimes? 3? 4? 5? 6? 7? Soon enough, people will complain about 2 OTs not enough, 3 OTs not enough, etc.

 

Sudden death is nothing new in sports. Not to mention the OT rules in the NFL is not true sudden death; only a TD wins it in one possession in OT, not a FG.

 

[esmort]

9 minutes ago, rock8591 said:

I haven't offered one because there doesn't need to be one.

 

Overtime is the price you pay for not winning in regulation. You don't get to choose what rules you want to abide by when you've already failed to win the game.

 

It's not lazy reasoning.

 

What if both teams score a TD in overtime in their first possession? Should it go to 2 overtimes? 3? 4? 5? 6? 7? Soon enough, people will complain about 2 OTs not enough, 3 OTs not enough, etc.

 

Sudden death is nothing new in sports.

 

 

Ridiculous ... definitely lazy reasoning.

 

There are numerous ways to make OT more fair and allow both teams to have a possession without going to multiple overtimes!

[rock8591]

Just FYI, I used to believe EXACTLY the way that you did until I realized otherwise. I've only changed my opinion recently, within the past 2 years.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Just now, rock8591 said:

Just FYI, I used to believe EXACTLY the way that you did until I realized otherwise.

 

Then hit your head again and have a reverse-realization.

[Chrisaaron1023]

9 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

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. 

lol yupp.. he's shown us time and time again. It doesn't matter your skill, size, or projection in life. If you follow his ways you'll be made into a master... this includes even the great former 6th round pick 

[Roger]

21 hours ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

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

I read somewhere that he always picks heads.

[Gramz]

Delete. Wrong thread.

 

[Superman]

10 hours ago, rock8591 said:

Overtime is the price you pay for not winning in regulation. You don't get to choose what rules you want to abide by when you've already failed to win the game.

 

Didn't both teams fail to win in regulation? Both teams are in OT. Acting like the team that doesn't get possession deserved to lose anymore than the team that did get possession is absurd.

 

Here's the gist: If OT was new to the NFL, if we were formulating OT for the first time right now, there's absolutely no argument supporting a format that doesn't give both teams possession. 

 

Quote

It's not lazy reasoning.

 

Yes it is. Anything that basically amounts to 'this is how we've always done it' is lazy reasoning.

 

Quote

What if both teams score a TD in overtime in their first possession? Should it go to 2 overtimes? 3? 4? 5? 6? 7? Soon enough, people will complain about 2 OTs not enough, 3 OTs not enough, etc.

 

The "slippery slope" fallacy rears its ugly head.

 

When OT starts, the game is tied. Once the ball is kicked off, the receiving team's win probability typically increases by 5-10 percentage points, depending on where their starting field position is. And all they've done is win the coin toss. They're in OT just like the kicking team, but now they have a greater probability of winning, for no reason other than the result of a coin toss. It's not based on merit, it's not based on the outcome in regulation, yet the receiving team gets an advantage and the kicking team gets a disadvantage.

 

And all your argument says is either 'this is how we've always done it,' or 'we can't have unlimited overtimes.' Or -- the worst argument I've ever heard on this topic -- 'both teams deserve to lose.' 

 

Maybe let somebody else take a stab at this one. You're not providing any legitimate argument for why both teams shouldn't get a possession, you're just offering senseless platitudes. 

[Superman]

10 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Then hit your head again and have a reverse-realization.

 

Right. Logic based on epiphany? Good heavens...

[Gramz]

In baseball, if it goes to extra innings, both teams get an at bat.  Fair.

 

Why is it not the same in NFL..especially in A championship game?

[Narcosys]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Didn't both teams fail to win in regulation? Both teams are in OT. Acting like the team that doesn't get possession deserved to lose anymore than the team that did get possession is absurd.

 

Here's the gist: If OT was new to the NFL, if we were formulating OT for the first time right now, there's absolutely no argument supporting a format that doesn't give both teams possession. 

 

 

Yes it is. Anything that basically amounts to 'this is how we've always done it' is lazy reasoning.

 

 

The "slippery slope" fallacy rears its ugly head.

 

When OT starts, the game is tied. Once the ball is kicked off, the receiving team's win probability typically increases by 5-10 percentage points, depending on where their starting field position is. And all they've done is win the coin toss. They're in OT just like the kicking team, but now they have a greater probability of winning, for no reason other than the result of a coin toss. It's not based on merit, it's not based on the outcome in regulation, yet the receiving team gets an advantage and the kicking team gets a disadvantage.

 

And all your argument says is either 'this is how we've always done it,' or 'we can't have unlimited overtimes.' Or -- the worst argument I've ever heard on this topic -- 'both teams deserve to lose.' 

 

Maybe let somebody else take a stab at this one. You're not providing any legitimate argument for why both teams shouldn't get a possession, you're just offering senseless platitudes. 

Does anyone really have a problem with how college ball does it?

[Narcosys]

4 minutes ago, Gramz said:

In baseball, if it goes to extra innings, both teams get an at bat.  Fair.

 

Why is it not the same in NFL..especially in A championship game?

In basketball, is it the first to make a basket? How about soccer or hockey?

 

NFL is the only one that is that first one to score wins (FGs excluded for those that want to be petty).

[Lucky Colts Fan]

10 hours ago, rock8591 said:

Sudden death is nothing new in sports.

 

In what other sport is it applicable?

 

In soccer, they do a shootout where BOTH teams have a chance at scoring.  They don't just flip a coin and let one team try a free kick and say "well if the other team had won in regulation or if their goalie had blocked the kick"...

 

In basketball, they do a timed overtime period.  They don't just give the ball to one team and say "Well, if the other team had just won in regulation, or stolen the ball from the team that won the coin toss in OT"...

 

Hockey uses the same shootout system as soccer.

 

@Gramz mentioned baseball.

 

Even college football does it differently, and more fairly than the NFL.

 

This sudden death you seem to be advocating isn't normalized in the sporting world.  The NFL needs to change the OT rules.

[ColtsSouljah]

On 1/21/2019 at 1:32 PM, 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.

 

I don't understand this at all. A random coin toss determined who got the ball first. If the Chiefs had gotten the ball first and scored a TD and the Pats were upset, would you say the Pats deserved to lose because they didn't win it in regulation? So, they both deserved to lose? Or, just the team hurt by a random coin flip deserved to lose? Neither of those makes much sense...

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

Does anyone really have a problem with how college ball does it?

 

Yes. College completely changes the game in OT, and is more likely to result in a longer game.

 

I don't understand what's wrong with simply giving both teams a possession. 

 

1 minute ago, ColtsSouljah said:

Neither of those makes much sense...

 

I thought it was just me.

[Gramz]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Yes. College completely changes the game in OT, and is more likely to result in a longer game.

 

I don't understand what's wrong with simply giving both teams a possession. 

This!   And if after both sides have the ball if it's still a tie, first team to score wins.    Seems fair to me.

[ColtsSouljah]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

I thought it was just me.

 

“'Logic!' said the Professor half to himself. 'Why don't they teach logic at these schools?'"

 

[Narcosys]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Yes. College completely changes the game in OT, and is more likely to result in a longer game.

 

I don't understand what's wrong with simply giving both teams a possession. 

 

 

I thought it was just me.

But they do give a possession to both teams. It just makes it quicker to score. Put them on the 25 and say you've got 4 downs to score. Each get a turn and then first to score. Its the same way as you're suggesting except they don't have to go 80 yards.

[crazycolt1]

The NFL owners got exactly what they wanted.

They have passed rules to favor the offense because they want scoring up. It's to the point if a QB is touched without being sacked it is a personal foul. They have made it hard for a defender to make a hit. I have played football and it is almost imposable to bring an offensive player down when you have to think where and how you hit them.

Football is a violent game and they have taken that away thus taken the defense away from the game.

This is the reason that overtime games are what they are.

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

Yes. College completely changes the game in OT, and is more likely to result in a longer game.

 

@BOTT also mentioned the game being longer like that's a bad thing.

 

I like it.  I want more football.  The longer it goes, the more exciting it is.

 

The Cubs winning the WS in extra innings of game 7 was sublime. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

@BOTT also mentioned the game being longer like that's a bad thing.

 

I like it.  I want more football.  The longer it goes, the more exciting it is.

 

The Cubs winning the WS in extra innings of game 7 was sublime. 

 

Football is a physical and violent sport, so longer games isn't favorable, in general. 

 

It's also a TV show, so they want to keep the program within a certain timeframe, if possible. Especially during the regular season. 

[chad72]

It is not rocket science. Both teams get a possession, regardless of what the other team does with its first possession.

 

It becomes sudden death moving forward. If both teams score a TD, next score wins since both teams have already gotten a possession and both scored a TD. The goal of getting both teams a possession has been satisfied, that is the only premise that is in question here.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

But they do give a possession to both teams. It just makes it quicker to score. Put them on the 25 and say you've got 4 downs to score. Each get a turn and then first to score. Its the same way as you're suggesting except they don't have to go 80 yards.

 

It makes it easier for teams to score, making extra OTs more likely. Kicking isn't a factor, field position isn't a factor... It's a radical change that I don't think makes a lot of sense. 

[GoPats]

15 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

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

 

Ha! Agreed... I think scouts are falling behind in this area as well. When a guy is coming out of college I like to know if he's a "heads" guy or a "tails" guy. 

[Narcosys]

46 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It makes it easier for teams to score, making extra OTs more likely. Kicking isn't a factor, field position isn't a factor... It's a radical change that I don't think makes a lot of sense. 

Forget timed OTs, just let them go at it and first to score after each get a possession wins.

 

The only thing I can think is if they both score on the first possessions, then each get another set of possessions (maybe jest move the back 5 yards and 4 downs to score like before).

 

If neither score on first possessions its first to score wins.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

52 minutes ago, Superman said:

It makes it easier for teams to score, making extra OTs more likely. Kicking isn't a factor, field position isn't a factor... It's a radical change that I don't think makes a lot of sense. 

 

3 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

The only thing I can think is if they both score on the first possessions, then each get another set of possessions (maybe jest move the back 5 yards and 4 downs to score like before).

 

What if they don't allow any kicking in OT?

 

Both teams get at least one possession from their own 25.  You have to go for it on 4th down, have to try to get TDs, and have to try 2-pt conversions if you score.

 

Nobody likes to see a game decided by a missed FG/XP anyway.  At least Bills, Bears, and Colts fans (among others) don't. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Don’t they play a overtime first in hockey before the shootout? First person that scores wins. I haven’t watched in awhile so don’t know if things have changed. Plus they don’t so shootout in hockey in the playoffs. First person that scores wins.

 

Football is a team sport. Stop them if you want the ball.

[Gramz]

I really don't understand why the powers that be don't just ask us.

 

I mean, it seems like we have great solutions.  

[Narcosys]

12 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

 

What if they don't allow any kicking in OT?

 

Both teams get at least one possession from their own 25.  You have to go for it on 4th down, have to try to get TDs, and have to try 2-pt conversions if you score.

 

Nobody likes to see a game decided by a missed FG/XP anyway.  At least Bills, Bears, and Colts fans (among others) don't. 

That's what were talking about, putting it on the 25 and 4 downs to score. Then keep pushing them back 5 yards if they are both successful. Only TDs, no 1st downs. I like the 2pt conversion requirement.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

2 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Don’t they play a overtime first in hockey before the shootout? First person that scores wins. I haven’t watched in awhile so don’t know if things have changed. Plus they don’t so shootout in hockey in the playoffs. First person that scores wins.

 

Football is a team sport. Stop them if you want the ball.

 

I'm not a hockey fan, but I remember shootouts similar to soccer, at least that's what they did in The Mighty Ducks! 

 

Any team sport should give both teams the opportunity to score and stop a score in an OT format.  The entire TEAM should have a chance to contribute to an OT win or loss.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

2 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

putting it on the 25

 

Which 25?

 

Their 25 like in college, so you only have to go 25 yards to score?

 

Or your own 25 so you have to go 75 yards to score?  That's what I'm advocating.

[Superman]

This topic is always a breeding ground for lots of ideas. 

 

I'm still wondering what's wrong with just giving both teams possession, and playing the game out past those two initial possessions, if necessary. 

 

The Pats went down and scored on the first possession. Now the Chiefs get the ball. One of three things happens: 1) The Pats stop the Chiefs and win the game; 2) The Chiefs score a TD, go for two, and either win or lose; 3) The Chiefs score a TD, kick the XP, and the next score wins.

 

It's simple. It's the same game, same rules, without favoring either team on the basis of a coin flip.

[coltsva]

Team A gets the ball at their own 25. Set the clock at 2 (or 3) minutes. One timeout. 

 

After Team A scores, turns it over on downs, or has a turnover, Team B gets the ball at their own 25, with same amount of time on the clock. One timeout. 

 

This way, if teams trade TD’s or FG’s a couple of times, they’re still not playing a whole lot of extra minutes. 

 

Would need to take out defensive touchdowns and make a recovered fumble or interception a dead ball at the spot of the turnover. 

[GoPats]

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

This topic is always a breeding ground for lots of ideas. 

 

I'm still wondering what's wrong with just giving both teams possession, and playing the game out past those two initial possessions, if necessary. 

 

The Pats went down and scored on the first possession. Now the Chiefs get the ball. One of three things happens: 1) The Pats stop the Chiefs and win the game; 2) The Chiefs score a TD, go for two, and either win or lose; 3) The Chiefs score a TD, kick the XP, and the next score wins.

 

It's simple. It's the same game, same rules, without favoring either team on the basis of a coin flip.

 

This would make for interesting strategy as well. 

 

Do you take the ball if you win the coin toss? That gives you first crack at scoring, BUT... 

 

If you opt to kick off and take the "second" possession, there could be an advantage to that. Say the first possession for your opponent results in a TD. So you have to match. You've effectively removed punting from the equation and are in 4-down territory the rest of the way, regardless of field position. Not ideal, but... with the clock not being a factor, it means you get one extra play for every first down you earn. 

 

 

 

 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

This would make for interesting strategy as well. 

 

Do you take the ball if you win the coin toss? That gives you first crack at scoring, BUT... 

 

If you opt to kick off and take the "second" possession, there could be an advantage to that. Say the first possession for your opponent results in a TD. So you have to match. You've effectively removed punting from the equation and are in 4-down territory the rest of the way, regardless of field position. Not ideal, but... with the clock not being a factor, it means you get one extra play for every first down you earn. 

 

Yup. And if you score a TD on the opening possession, you have to decide whether you'll go for two, or kick the XP. 

[pgt_rob]

19 hours ago, Superman said:

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

 

I think it's time. Game is already 4 hours long with the clock stopping, commercials, time outs, etc. I'd rather see both teams play another 10 minute quarter and whoever has the most points wins the game.

[Gramz]

7 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

 

I think it's time. Game is already 4 hours long with the clock stopping, commercials, time outs, etc. I'd rather see both teams play another 10 minute quarter and whoever has the most points wins the game.

Not sure what games you're watching?  Most NFL games are around 3 hours.

[coltsfeva]

12 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

 

I think it's time. Game is already 4 hours long with the clock stopping, commercials, time outs, etc. I'd rather see both teams play another 10 minute quarter and whoever has the most points wins the game.

 I like this scenario- it’s simple and seems fair. Play a 10 minute period and see who wins

  One thing that came into play with KC & NE was Andy Reid not calling timeout for his defense that was gassed. It’s always been his Achilles heel; use of timeouts and clock management.

[pgt_rob]

38 minutes ago, Gramz said:

Not sure what games you're watching?  Most NFL games are around 3 hours.

 

3 hours, 4 hours. Same thing. lol

[Gramz]

Just now, pgt_rob said:

 

3 hours, 4 hours. Same thing. lol

You're right!