Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Yet Another Reason To Change The OT Rule


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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 posse

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 possessi

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. 

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.

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. 

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
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..

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. 

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..

?

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.

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'....

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.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...