Jump to content
King Colt

Yet Another Reason To Change The OT Rule

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

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

 

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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 very compelling, IMO. Overtime games take more time. There aren't very many in a season, and I've never heard of a fan turning an OT game off because it's taking too long. And many OT games already take more than one possession. We obviously don't want interminable games, but I don't see how allowing both teams possession would result in significantly longer games. 

 

If game length is the issue, just end in a tie. That makes more sense in the regular season than just one team getting possession. But you still have the playoff issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Award the defense a point if they force the offense to go 3 and out or turnover.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Not very compelling, IMO. Overtime games take more time. There aren't very many in a season, and I've never heard of a fan turning an OT game off because it's taking too long. And many OT games already take more than one possession. We obviously don't want interminable games, but I don't see how allowing both teams possession would result in significantly longer games. 

 

If game length is the issue, just end in a tie. That makes more sense in the regular season than just one team getting possession. But you still have the playoff issue. 

 

I think fans do turn off the games that are in OT. I wouldn't say a huge majority but I've done it in the past. Especially if it was an 8:20 PM game and it's getting to almost midnight, I'll turn it off because I need to go to bed. lol. I'm sure I'm not the only one. But playing a full quarter seems fair in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pgt_rob said:

 

I think fans do turn off the games that are in OT. I wouldn't say a huge majority but I've done it in the past. Especially if it was an 8:20 PM game and it's getting to almost midnight, I'll turn it off because I need to go to bed. lol. I'm sure I'm not the only one. But playing a full quarter seems fair in my opinion.

 

I'm West Coast, so I don't have that problem. But if it's a Colts game in OT, you're staying up, no doubt. If it's the conference championship or the SB, you're not turning the game off. And by the time OT rolls around, the network has used all it's ad time and made its money anyway. A Week 6 game with little impact on your team or the standings isn't going to be a major factor when it comes to game time, and with Red Zone, people will see the ending.

 

And if you're okay with playing a full quarter, it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow both teams a possession in OT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know when people see the source of this story it will automatically be discounted because it is from Boston, but I agree with the premise of the article. I would encourage you to read it. The facts are that since 2012 the team that wins the coin toss wins in overtime 52.7% but when the visiting team wins the toss it actually drops to 44.3%. So when the Patriots won the coin toss thier chances of winning actually went down according to the stats.

 

I really like what the author of this article said.  "The game is called 'football'. It is not called 'offense'. It is not called 'quarterbacking'. It is called football.  And the sport of football requires three distinct units - offense, defense, and special teams - to function in concert. The team that utilizes its offense, defense, and special teams the best is the one that more often than not wins the game."

 

I know that many people will discount this article because of the source, but I am in agreement. I like overtime the way it is. In my opinion either keep overtime the way it is or simply keep playing another 15 minute period and if it is still tied declare a tie in the regular season and in the postseason continue playing 15 minute periods until one team is ahead at the end of said time period.

 

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/01/21/nfl-overtime-rules-are-fair-to-both-teams-incessant-whining-patriots-chiefs/

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 5:25 PM, 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.

 

You are reallybharping on this.. so I’ll say this..

 

meh, Kansas City Fumbled and the Pats recovered game was over but Blane Jackson for OT.. for a rather weak PI. 

 

See it works both ways.. amazing how people forget both teams D blew it when they could have clinched the game in regulation..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting thing is that all week heading into the Pats/Chiefs game, everyone was saying 'the team with the ball last will most likely win'.

 

Well....that's exactly what happened....so why is everyone so surprised? Not to mention, there were two overtime games that day: In the other one, the team that had the ball first lost, in this one, the team that had the ball first won. 

 

Play defense, it's just as important as offense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JimJaime said:

You are reallybharping on this.. so I’ll say this..

 

meh, Kansas City Fumbled and the Pats recovered game was over but Blane Jackson for OT.. for a rather weak PI. 

 

See it works both ways.. amazing how people forget both teams D blew it when they could have clinched the game in regulation..

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 12:37 PM, 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."

 

OT rules were developed mostly concerning regular season issues. (player endurance safety being just one). I'm for an altered OT rule set in the playoffs.

 

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. 

 

 

I have a different take.

 

On 1/21/2019 at 10:03 PM, Superman said:

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.

 

Exactly.  I think in overtime, each team gets at least possession, no matter what happens. Also, PAT's and 2 point conversions are eliminated in playoff OT sessions.  TD's are 6 points, and FG's are 3. Period.  I'm not giving the other team an advantage if the first team scores a TD and kicked a PAT, and then the other team comes back and also scores a TD and the win converting a 2 point conversion in OT.

 

It's playoffs, so safety (and preservation of strength, reduction of injury for next weeks games in regular season) are less of an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 12:37 PM, 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'S why TB12 is the GOAT.  No one performs such cold, calculated surgery on his opponents like the GOAT!

 

This thread just represents the 1,842nd call for a change to longstanding NFL rules due to the Patriots ability to dominate.

 

This is certainly one of the "ultimate compliments" provided by all the NE haters out there.

 

Just sayin'....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoping for a "reality check" Sunday.  Just sayn'

 

Go Rams!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 9:01 PM, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

OT rules were developed mostly concerning regular season issues. (player endurance safety being just one). I'm for an altered OT rule set in the playoffs.

 

 

I have a different take.

 

 

Exactly.  I think in overtime, each team gets at least possession, no matter what happens. Also, PAT's and 2 point conversions are eliminated in playoff OT sessions.  TD's are 6 points, and FG's are 3. Period.  I'm not giving the other team an advantage if the first team scores a TD and kicked a PAT, and then the other team comes back and also scores a TD and the win converting a 2 point conversion in OT.

 

It's playoffs, so safety (and preservation of strength, reduction of injury for next weeks games in regular season) are less of an issue.

 

In addition to the above, if after both teams get their possession and the score is still tied, then it is 'sudden victory (1st score wins). Also, there can only be 1 punt per team in ( all of ) OT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That might always be the case, but when it's a DII guy who wasn't at the Combine, it's hard to imagine there was a ton of interest in him. Of course, all it takes is one team being in love with him. I'm sure there was another team expecting him to be a UDFA, mad because the Colts took him in the fifth. Get your guy, that's the most important thing.
    • Good point.  I think this has serious merit 
    • My take   1. We overachieved last season. Period 2. We played at KC 3. TY limited the offense because he was so injured.  4. We played a very very good coach with time to prepare and his guys got some rest too and time to scout the team. Remember, Reich is well known to Reid as well by now.  5. Not having Hooker really mattered 6. Play calling was a bit blah 7. How does Vinny automatic miss those kicks? 8. A strip sack for us turns into a strip sack for them a few plays later, that hurt.  9. A young team who wasn’t supposed to be in the playoffs, let alone a second game in the playoffs had some factor here.  10. KC had a pretty good team   my concern from that game would be how poorly our run game was going forward. Kelly better play better than he did this season or I don’t see a 15 million/yr contract coming his way in Indy. I think with a healthy TY, the additions of DF and Cain and Paris and others should really boost that offense. An offense with TY, Paris, Doyle, EE and Mack, now that’s gonna be a tough group to match up with and defend. Run or pass, heck coach, idk what they are doing lol.    Gonna be fun to see this team evolve and have better back ups coming off the bench. I just hope we have enough beef in the middle to stop the run and I just hope that Kelly was hobbled in that KC game because it was one of his worst games that year. 
    • This again boils down to you hanging on to 'this is how it's always been done.' And you don't get that I don't care about that rationale. I think it can be done better. Which is why, in my first post in this thread, I said "to me, it's a no brainer." To me. It should be obvious that this is my stated preference, not me saying that teams that don't do it this way are stupid.   There should be nothing more that I have to say about that, except you continue to rely on that appeal to authority, and I'm telling you that 'how it's always been done' isn't legitimate reason for not examining potential alternatives. Not just in this area, but in everything.      You're missing an important detail, and I think it's because you've put my argument in a box and are unwilling to actually examine it on its merits.   As I said initially, and have said since, my argument is to make this change six months sooner, not six months later. "Imagine if we had fired Grigson in June 2016 instead of January 2017." Did you miss that part, again? What about "if the Texans had waited until January 2020 to fire Gaine..."?    I want him in asap. You want him asap, but not until January.   My statement about it being just one draft is referencing the worst case scenario, which is 'we just blew a draft cycle by letting a lame duck GM stay,' to which I say 'get over it, I'm okay with that if that's what it takes to get the guy I want in the building, with the staff he wants.' And that's where my argument about it potentially being easier to interview candidates in the down season after the draft is critical. The Jets wanted Joe Douglas; he evidently didn't want to entertain a move during draft season, but jumped at it in May/June. (There's the matter of moving his family during the school year, etc.) In theory, this approach could make it easier to interview good candidates. Whether you agree with that or not, whether it's important to you or not, this is mostly an aside. As I said, this was my response to the alarmist reaction of 'they just blew a draft!' Which I think is overstated, especially in the Texans' case.     Not at all. Again, if Ballard started in June 2016, he theoretically could have changed coaches a year sooner.      This is a hindsight fallacy. Go back to the Texans wanting to hire Caserio. I'm not arguing that he's going to be a great GM, I'm arguing that he's the guy they want to hire, and he's available in June. Same for the Jets and Douglas. The Chiefs and Veach.    We know that every person hired doesn't succeed. I never argued that they do. That's true of whoever you rush to hire in January. The point is that there is always a pool of qualified candidates from which to choose. I won't be retracting that, I firmly believe it, and I said it when the Colts were interviewing coaches in 2012, when they interviewed GMs in 2017, and when they interviewed coaches in 2018. You choosing to reject that is pretty ridiculous, to be honest. There are always qualified candidates. Choosing the right one is a different story.   And again, if there's one guy you really, desperately want, why wait until January to get him?     You could give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that if I'm saying it, I mean it. Especially this far into the discussion...    And going back to what I said earlier, this is and always has been my opinion. I'm not offering studies and conclusive evidence to support this opinion because it's a personal preference, it's what I think would be best (although I have offered evidence and rationale to support my opinion, you've just chosen to reject, for reasons I don't agree with).    I'm okay with the disagreement. What I find personally off-putting is the insistence that, because you don't understand my angle, it means I either haven't actually thought it through, or I don't actually believe it. As I said earlier, I understand that general consensus disagrees with my viewpoint, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to conform. The fact that I'm presenting an argument in earnest should be enough.
  • Members

    • egg

      egg 601

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SilentHill

      SilentHill 2,803

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nulled

      Nulled 19

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Surge89

      Surge89 965

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Fluke_33

      Fluke_33 804

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Superman

      Superman 34,180

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Lucky Colts Fan

      Lucky Colts Fan 4,696

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • dew5150

      dew5150 110

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ColtMan

      ColtMan 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Chloe6124

      Chloe6124 1,793

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...