Should OT rules be changed?

[2006Coltsbestever]

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.

[shakedownstreet]

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

 

 

 

 

[gspdx]

I would say either go back to sudden death or give both teams a chance.  The current rules seem stupid and arbitrary.

 

 

[Detectacon]

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. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

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%.

[Nesjan3]

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

[IndySouthsider]

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. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

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.

[Detectacon]

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. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

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.

[Nesjan3]

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.

[Detectacon]

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. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

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.

[chad72]

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.

[IndySouthsider]

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

[Fluke_33]

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.

[Derakynn]

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.

[Derakynn]

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.

[shakedownstreet]

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

[rock8591]

If you allow a team to score a TD (not FG) in their very FIRST possession in OT, you have just provided enough proof that they deserve to win the game.

[CheezyColt]

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.

[Detectacon]

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? 

[Fluke_33]

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.

[Fluke_33]

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.

[Fluke_33]

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.  

[Fluke_33]

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.

[Fluke_33]

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

[Detectacon]

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. 

[Fluke_33]

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?

[waterdog]

If the score is tied after the 'regulated' 60 minutes, 'by rule', both teams will be DISQUALIFIED...which will be signaled by an 'inadvertent' whistle.

[Detectacon]

19 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

Do you care?

Ah, glad you asked. Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. Aggro and helpful. Double threat here. 

[GoPats]

 

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. 

 

[DEFENSE]

yes either end the game in regulation with a tie and no overtime or play one more full quarter

[Lancer1]

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.

[2006Coltsbestever]

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.

[cdgacoltsfan]

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.

[Myles]

I like the rules as they are.  Nothing more even than a coin flip.    If you lose the flip, you only have to stop them from scoring a TD.    

[Lancer1]

https://sports.yahoo.com/steelers-make-questionable-decision-to-defer-after-winning-coin-toss-in-overtime-204033006.html

 

You could always defer after winning the toss, as Mike Tomlin did in 2019. I think Detroit did it once too, before the OT rule change - not surprisingly, both teams lost by a field goal. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

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.  . I am saying the same thing, just ridiculous. 

[CheezyColt]

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?