Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Should OT rules be changed?


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, shakedownstreet said:

I can't take whining about overtime rules. You have every chance and regulation to win the game and you didn't. Too freaking bad

 

BE-OH-OH, H-OH OH give me a break

 

 

 

 

This argument is weak. BOTH teams have a chance to win it in regulation and didn’t. That game was back and forth because both teams were making plays. I don’t understand the “yUo haD a ChANcE to iN ReGulaTIoN” people. What harm does it do to allow both teams, who have clearly been battling it out, to have the ball? You all take this waaaayyyy too personally. Must be part of the “we should never make changes because that has always been the way” group right along with the “don’t change the uniform, it’s a classic” people. I bet parties with you are a blast.

 

In a game like last night it was literally decided by the coin toss. Even the announcers said before the game started that whoever had it last would likely win the game. It’s easy to have it last if your opponent does not get the chance to have it at all. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Detectacon said:

This argument is weak. BOTH teams have a chance to win it in regulation and didn’t. That game was back and forth because both teams were making plays. I don’t understand the “yUo haD a ChANcE to iN ReGulaTIoN” people. What harm does it do to allow both teams, who have clearly been battling it out, to have the ball? You all take this waaaayyyy too personally. Must be part of the “we should never make changes because that has always been the way” group right along with the “don’t change the uniform, it’s a classic” people. I bet parties with you are a blast.

 

In a game like last night it was literally decided by the coin toss. Even the announcers said before the game started that whoever had it last would likely win the game. It’s easy to have it last if your opponent does not get the chance to have it at all. 

Awesome post, I agree 100%.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Detectacon said:

This argument is weak. BOTH teams have a chance to win it in regulation and didn’t. That game was back and forth because both teams were making plays. I don’t understand the “yUo haD a ChANcE to iN ReGulaTIoN” people. What harm does it do to allow both teams, who have clearly been battling it out, to have the ball? You all take this waaaayyyy too personally. Must be part of the “we should never make changes because that has always been the way” group right along with the “don’t change the uniform, it’s a classic” people. I bet parties with you are a blast.

 

In a game like last night it was literally decided by the coin toss. Even the announcers said before the game started that whoever had it last would likely win the game. It’s easy to have it last if your opponent does not get the chance to have it at all. 

Because there are two sides to the game. The Defense for Buffalo failed. They don’t get rewarded with another chance. The had a 50-50 shot to get coin. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

The team who accumulated the most yards in the game should get the ball first and you play a full 10 minutes period. If its still tied after that, field goal kickoff for the win

Not a bad idea either. I just hate that 1 team gets the ball and if they score a TD it is over. That happened to Peyton in 2008 against Rivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IndySouthsider said:

Because there are two sides to the game. The Defense for Buffalo failed. They don’t get rewarded with another chance. The had a 50-50 shot to get coin. 

Still weak…. Try again. There are three elements to the game. So because the defense failed the offense didn’t deserve a chance? The entire point is that both defenses were failing. Had Buffalo gotten it than the KC defense would have likely failed. 
 

By the way, who made you people the arbiters of what is fair? Perhaps try getting over yourselves. 
 

Also, thank you very much for making my point for me by saying that they had a 50/50 shot at getting the coin toss. Glad you agree the coin toss decided the game. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Detectacon said:

Still weak…. Try again. There are three elements to the game. So because the defense failed the offense didn’t deserve a chance? The entire point is that both defenses were failing. Had Buffalo gotten it than the KC defense would have likely failed. 
 

By the way, who made you people the arbiters of what is fair? Perhaps try getting over yourselves. 

I think my idea is great so I agree with you. Both teams should at least get 1 chance. Then you go to sudden death if both teams match each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Not a bad idea either. I just hate that 1 team gets the ball and if they score a TD it is over. That happened to Peyton in 2008 against Rivers.

yea its the worst, Buffalo for sure would have won the game had they won the coin toss. Both offenses were unstoppable by that point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think my idea is great so I agree with you. Both teams should at least get 1 chance. Then you go to sudden death if both teams match each other.

I am of the opinion that a time limit should be played out just like every other sport in overtime. Just my two cents. 
 

…..or it can be ended if a team scores twice before the other team scores and the time has not run out. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Detectacon said:

I am of the opinion that a time limit should be played out just like every other sport in overtime. Just my two cents. 

I think both teams should at least get a chance. Lets say KC scores like yesterday and goes up 7. At least Allen gets a chance to get that 7 back or if they go for 2 and win it? If not it is least tied and Allen had his chance. After that I would say next team that scores wins if they are tied. A coin toss deciding a game is ridiculous.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say keep the current OT time, let both teams have a chance in OT regardless of the first score. But where does it end? You have to at least try the above to see if it results in many 2 OT games. If you have too many 2 OT games, then make it sudden death in the 2nd OT for another rule change.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Detectacon said:

Still weak…. Try again. There are three elements to the game. So because the defense failed the offense didn’t deserve a chance? The entire point is that both defenses were failing. Had Buffalo gotten it than the KC defense would have likely failed. 
 

By the way, who made you people the arbiters of what is fair? Perhaps try getting over yourselves. 
 

Also, thank you very much for making my point for me by saying that they had a 50/50 shot at getting the coin toss. Glad you agree the coin toss decided the game. 

No issue whatsoever and it’s crying in your beer. I don’t cry

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shakedownstreet said:

I can't take whining about overtime rules. You have every chance and regulation to win the game and you didn't. Too freaking bad

 

BE-OH-OH, H-OH OH give me a break

 

 

 

 

I agree.  It has to end somehow.   Yesterday's game was absurd.  IF you can't stop a team with 13 seconds left then maybe you shouldn't win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The overtime rules are pathetic and always have been. It's easily the worst setup of any major sport. Deciding a game by pure chance can only be described with words banned on this forum. There is absolutely no reason that both teams should not be given at least once chance with the ball. After that, any lead-taking score should seal it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

I agree.  It has to end somehow.   Yesterday's game was absurd.  IF you can't stop a team with 13 seconds left then maybe you shouldn't win.

This is ignoring the fact that the conditions of any specific game should not matter with regards to the rules. You could have another OT game where you subjectively argue the losing team got shafted by some horrible reffing call or something and the team that benefited from the OT rules didn't actually deserve the win. The point of rules are to create a level playing field. The current OT rules do not do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every year that this happens it feels the same to me.  In a league that is set up for offenses to succeed, whoever wins the coin toss in OT gets a way too big benefit.  Nobody has an issue with saying that the league is set up to benefit offenses, but people get mad that saying whoever gets to be on offense first in overtime has an unfair advantage.  Both teams offenses should touch the ball.  Why does the other offense get to take the field on a FG but not a TD?  Feels arbitrary as there's still points being scored.  What we have now makes no sense, to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, shakedownstreet said:

Both teams had every chance to win in regulation. In the interest of respecting television time I would fully support deciding the winner with nothing but a coin flip. Too bad for the whiners

Are you going to just ignore my reply like I didn’t destroy your “argument” and just keep posting the same garbage again and again? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Derakynn said:

This is ignoring the fact that the conditions of any specific game should not matter with regards to the rules. You could have another OT game where you subjectively argue the losing team got shafted by some horrible reffing call or something and the team that benefited from the OT rules didn't actually deserve the win. The point of rules are to create a level playing field. The current OT rules do not do that.

I don't think the ot rules ignore anything.  I think they realize the game has to end in some fashion.  They could keep tying if they each are continuously given a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think both teams should at least get a chance. Lets say KC scores like yesterday and goes up 7. At least Allen gets a chance to get that 7 back or if they go for 2 and win it? If not it is least tied and Allen had his chance. After that I would say next team that scores wins if they are tied. A coin toss deciding a game is ridiculous.

Each team gets a chance to respond to the other's score forever?  Like the college rule of each starting at the 25?  I think they harms the team that is better on defense than offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Derakynn said:

The overtime rules are pathetic and always have been. It's easily the worst setup of any major sport. Deciding a game by pure chance can only be described with words banned on this forum. There is absolutely no reason that both teams should not be given at least once chance with the ball. After that, any lead-taking score should seal it.

Like in college?  each team gets a chance after the other?  the first to get a field goal or miss followed by the other scoring a td or field goal is the winner?  I'd rather it be from a full field than the 25 though.  I'd be ok with that i think.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

I would say keep the current OT time, let both teams have a chance in OT regardless of the first score. But where does it end? You have to at least try the above to see if it results in many 2 OT games. If you have too many 2 OT games, then make it sudden death in the 2nd OT for another rule change.

right.  it has to end somehow.  if it is timed and they keep tying where does it end?  They already had that (equal time) in regulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Detectacon said:

Are you going to just ignore my reply like I didn’t destroy your “argument” and just keep posting the same garbage again and again? 

Your posts in this thread are, as the kids say, a little aggro bro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

Your posts in this thread are, as the kids say, a little aggro bro

Ask me if I care. People come in this forum every day and spout their opinions as if they are fact. So I pointed out the flaws in his stupid argument and then called him out for continuing to do so. If you consider that agggro than perhaps you’re just soft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Detectacon said:

Ask me if I care. People come in this forum every day and spout their opinions as if they are fact. So I pointed out the flaws in his stupid argument and then called him out for continuing to do so. If you consider that agggro than perhaps you’re just soft. 

Do you care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Chiefs fans, January 2019: The NFL has to change overtime rules! 

 

Chiefs fans, January 2022: Overtime rules are perfect the way they are! 

 

I'd like to see them go with the "5th quarter" idea others have suggested. Make it 10 minutes, and if the teams are still locked up after that, it goes to sudden death. 

 

With 10 minutes added to Chiefs-Bills that game would have ended up being 82-78 or something like that. :D

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Not a bad idea either. I just hate that 1 team gets the ball and if they score a TD it is over. That happened to Peyton in 2008 against Rivers.

I remember that year well, it was a weird season. Tom Brady got injured Week 1 against Kansas City, and the Pats rolled with Matt Cassel and went 11-5 that season, (one of those 5 being a 30-10 pounding by San Diego) but missed the playoffs as the Dolphins won the AFC East with the same record and the 11-5 Ravens edged out New England with a better conference record for the 6th seed.

 

The Chargers started out 4-8, (the 7th of this losses was to Indy by a FG, a week after having lost to Pittsburgh in the only 11-10 final in NFL history) and needed to win their last 4 (and get help) to win the AFC West with a .500 record. The 3rd of those 4 games was at Tampa against the Buccaneers, with Gruden as their coach but he (& the GM) would be fired after the season. The Bolts were the #4 seed and hosted #5, the 12-4 Colts team. After kicking a field goal to tie the game with 31 seconds remaining, San Diego won the toss and prevailed in overtime when Darren Sproles scampered 22 yards for a touchdown. They lost to the eventual SB Champion Steelers the following week.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lancer1 said:

I remember that year well, it was a weird season. Tom Brady got injured Week 1 against Kansas City, and the Pats rolled with Matt Cassel and went 11-5 that season, (one of those 5 being a 30-10 pounding by San Diego) but missed the playoffs as the Dolphins won the AFC East with the same record and the 11-5 Ravens edged out New England with a better conference record for the 6th seed.

 

The Chargers started out 4-8, (the 7th of this losses was to Indy by a FG, a week after having lost to Pittsburgh in the only 11-10 final in NFL history) and needed to win their last 4 (and get help) to win the AFC West with a .500 record. The 3rd of those 4 games was at Tampa against the Buccaneers, with Gruden as their coach but he (& the GM) would be fired after the season. The Bolts were the #4 seed and hosted #5, the 12-4 Colts team. After kicking a field goal to tie the game with 31 seconds remaining, San Diego won the toss and prevailed in overtime when Darren Sproles scampered 22 yards for a touchdown. They lost to the eventual SB Champion Steelers the following week.

Even back then I loved Rivers, it was his fire for the game. Chargers were always tough against us.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

IMO both teams should get the ball, if team A scores a TD and team B scores TD to tie it then the next team to score wins. At least team B gets a chance no matter what and it is not decided by a coin toss.

If team B stops team A on initial possession instead of letting them march down the field for a touchdown, or at least hold them to a FG then team B could win with a FG.

Everyone wants to change the rules Now days when it doesn't go the way they want it to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just ran to the store and Jim Rome was on Sports talk radio and he agrees with me. I don't even really like Jim or his show/takes but he was saying in his sarcastic way, = yeah that makes a lot of sense let a team win that wins a coin toss when they have another QB on the other team that didn't get a chance. haha . I am saying the same thing, just ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this:

 

Offense scores touchdown on first OT possession = W for the offensive team

Offense scores FG = other team gets a possession to try and match or score TD.  After that next points win.

Offense scores 0 points on first OT possession = W for the defensive team.

 

This allows both teams a chance to secure the victory on the first possession instead of just the team that wins the coin flip (and presumably receives the ball).  Those of you saying "if the defense can't stop the other team from scoring a TD then they deserve to lose" should feel the same way about the offense if they can't score any points.  Right?

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Pittman and Pascal were reads 1 and 2 90+% of the time it seamed when Frank called pass plays. Pittman more the designed target than anything else. It was pretty rinse repeat. And our pass pro really didn't allow a lot of late read comfort. So not surprising he got the lion's share of targets.  You're welcome.  Like I said all along. I like Pierce a lot, but he was more or less a one trick pony at Cinci, and folks should be cautious with their early expectations. I'd love for him to surprise us all, and start early and be a stud, but that's just not likely. We're asking him to do things now he really never did at Cinci. New plays, new routes, new scheme, blocking responsibility, etc.. At Cinci, he was a star for simply running outside 9s. His route tree outside of that was super limited, and he rarely lined up anywhere else..   In short, he'll need patience. He didn't have a well rounded game like Pittman had coming from a P5 program like USC.  It's actually a bit strange. While that logic might be good for "why not to use Pierce" (he's a rook with very limited route tree experience), it really doesn't explain "why Strachan", or support the theory they are trying to assess Ryan. If they wanted experience or to assess Ryan, I'd think Dulin would be running with the 1s as he had the 3rd most snaps at WR last year, and almost 6ish times that of Strachan.    IMO, it's not a bad thing for Pierce (I didn't expect him to start early). It is likely a good thing for Strachan. A little surprising for Dulin. And probably not a good thing for Patmon. Regardless, it's very very early, so not really a big deal. Just interesting out of the gate.    This doesn't make a lot sense. See above.   I personally didn't envision Pierce starting early in the year due to obvious reasons, so not shocking. But I do find it interesting that he's getting work at gunner. Nothing to freak out about, but something to watch.  Yup. And lacks route running experience. 
    • I hope Campbell plays all year and is a great playmaker. I also hope shines plays in the slot and we run 4 wide every now and then. Or just push Campbell outside and let him still make plays. To many options is better than not enough. 
    • Pierce could be working as gunner to make sure he active on game day. If you remember last year when Mike as inactive frank said it came down to him not being able to contribute on teams
    • Slot corner and outside corner are two different positions with about 100% value difference.   If Moore thinks he’s worth outside money he’s friggin delusional.
    • This is No news.  None at all.  Dude doesn’t know the plays yet man.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...