NFL overtime rule suggestion

[PYPER]

I like the concept of sudden death and don't believe in overly drastic changes like the college rule. Unfortunately, I often feel that otherwise great games end in a manner that simply doesn't to them justice. This is an issue that's been brought up before but apparently no proposal has ever passed the smell test. I have a solution that not only preserves sudden death but also offers a better chance for both teams to see the ball.

Under the current system, it's all about first possession. Roughly half the games end with one team needing only two or three first downs or a timely penalty to get themselves in position to make a field goal. Some say that it's a defense's job to stop the offense. I agree but oftentimes holding an offense to a field goal is an accomplishment. When games end with one team only needing to move the ball 20 or 30 yards it's a very anti-climatic feeling. Imagine a Super Bowl ending in this way. It would be terrible. This game shouldn't be defined by game winning FG's. This game should be defined by game winning TD's.

Here is my proposal.

First possession sudden death only applies on TD's. If a team scores a touchdown in OT, it's over.

However, if a team scores a 1st possession FG, the other team gets a chance with the ball. If they score a TD, they win. If they don't score anything, they lose. If they match the other team by kicking a field goal, they play on. Once both teams have had the ball once, the next score wins. Sure, the team receiving the 2nd possession will have an advantage but at least the other team will be ensured an opportunity to win. That's all this proposal is doing. It ensures each team a reasonable opportunity to go out and win the game.

Pros:
1) Keeps sudden death format
2) Eliminates "cheesy" win feeling when games seem to end prematurely.
3) Ensures that all overtime wins are earned wins.
4) Adds excitement and intrigue to the overtime format

Cons:
1) It makes too much sense

 

[Absurdly Metro]

You got my vote! Good on ya mate.

 

[Dfresh429]

While it is getting better to the solution...I still think your suggestion is getting a little too cute. Why do there need to be special circumstances? The game is over if you score a TD, but keeps going if you kick a FG..to me it is too gimicky.

Here is my suggestion.
1 offensive possession for each team. If still tied, sudden death rules apply. So simple. This way, all 3 phases of football are represented (Offense, Defense and Special Teams) and there is no gimicky, goofy rules that are instated.

Here are all possible scenarios:
1.) Team A scores on 1st possession. Team B does not match or exceed this score on following possession. Game over, Team A wins.
2.) Team B exceeds Team A on 1st offensive possession. Game over, Team B wins.
3.) Team A does not score and gives ball to Team B through {punt, INT, fumble, turnover on downs} and Team B scores. Game over. (same rule applies if Team B turns it over to Team A)
4.) If Team A and Team B are tied after both have 1 offensive possession, sudden death rules apply.

So simple. Football is played without any new gimmicky rules. And the overall OT product is much better and true to the game.

 

[SaCaCh]

always thought it was simple. Play 10 minute quarters. If a team can hold the ball the entire 10 minutes and kick a FG then they deserve to win but it will usually lead to at least two possessions (the second one being very exciting to try and tie or win with a TD. If tied then another 10 minutes, the only issue with this is football is worried that their long games will be long.

 

[Disco Volante]

Just let the other team match you, if they can't then you win.

 

[ALP]

Just let the other team match you, if they can't then you win.

we would have too many ties in OT this way

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Don't forget you need to include a scenario for a defensive score. A safety or a TD return should end the game, in my opinion.

I don't like any "matching" scenarios, because they give an advantage to the team that has the ball second. I also don't like any scenarios that turn into any-score-wins on the third possession, because that's not much different than the current system.

The goal of overtime should be to ensure that the team that goes first wins as close to 50 percent of the time as possible, over the long term. That's really all that matters, I think. My view is that dramatic fixes are not necessary. The only thing that needs tweaking is to figure out what needs to happen to ensure that the team that loses the flip has an equal chance of winning. That seems easy to me -- I think you could probably scientifically figure out where exactly on the field team 1 would need to start the first possession to make it a 50/50 proposition.

For example, if you told the team that won the toss, you can take the ball, but you have to take it at the 1 yard line, would they do it? I doubt it. I think that would dramatically skew win percentages in favor of the team that lost the toss. So, the mission, is simply to find out at what yard line starting the game becomes a 50/50 proposition. My hunch is that it's somewhere around the 15. So, overtime is simple -- one coin with an H and an A on each side. Flip the coin -- if it's H, the home team takes the ball at the 15 yard line, and if it's A, the away team gets the ball at the 15 yard line. The team that loses the toss gets to decide which side of the field. Team that scores first wins. I bet this would make it a 50/50 proposition. Maybe it's the 18 yard line, or the 12, or something else, but this is the general proposition.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Smallest possible change to bring balance: kick off from the 40 yard line in OT.

Winning the coin toss offered no statistical advantage to winning the game in OT before the kickoff was moved to the 30 yard line 15 years ago. Since other rules and point of emphasis also favor offenses and have come into play lately, though, moving it back to the 35 might not be enough, so I say move it to the 40.

That way there's no way the 1st posession should start outside the 20, and a good kicker can maybe pop one up a little and pin them inside the 20.

Just a thought about a very small & simple change.

 

[JoePats]

Just let the other team match you, if they can't then you win.

That's what i like the best.

 

[PatOnTheArse]

All that needs to be done is for field goals to get disabled in overtime. Its one thing converting yards into a field goal and it is another converting yards into a touchdown.

It doesn't need to be over done. Field goals in the last 10 seconds of a match are great. However, watching field goals in overtime is an anti-climax for me. One big play and the game is over. Give the D a decent chance.

 

[alamo]

This is an issue that's been brought up before but apparently no proposal has ever passed the smell test.

In my book, neither does yours. Anything which significantly changes the rules teams play by in regulation is, to me and many people, gimmicky.

Imagine a Super Bowl ending in this way. It would be terrible. This game shouldn't be defined by game winning FG's. This game should be defined by game winning TD's.

I take it you feel this way about the 2002 and 2004 Patriots SB wins?

 

[emoney_33]

Ok I just thought of the best solution ever...
2 minute drills!

Each team gets 2 timeouts and 2 minutes on the clock, played like the end of a normal half as if one team just scored. Both teams would get a chance, coinflip decide who goes first.

If it's tied after those 2 drills, repeat.

Repeat 3-4 times in the regular season before ending in a TIE (12-16 minute maximum OT in regular season). In the playoffs, repeat forever. In theory you can already play forever in the playoffs if no team ever scores in OT, but that doesn't happen and neither will it happen under this method.

It allows each team to use all 3 phases of the game, it's fair, it's relatively quick, it promotes fast offense, quick scores and big plays.


The more I think of this... the more I love it!

 

[PatsFanSince74]

that changes the game. it's no longer football. a point is a point. one point can't be worth less than another. the game is either over when one team goes ahead or it isn't. going ahead by three points can't be different than going ahead by six points. or, is your proposal contingent on making the extra point and having it be seven points? or, what if a team runs the opening kickoff back? should it be decided by special teams? once you say that you can win a game one way and not another, you open the door for almost anything. can a team win on a safety but not a fg?

my view is keep it the way it is or go to an OT format in the regular season that simply says: play a full quarter, two timeouts each, reviews in the booth, tie declared if both teams have the same score after 15 minutes of play. in the post season, you'd just keep playing until one team is ahead after a 15 minute period. simple. maintains the integrity of the game. doesn't depend on who wins a flip of the coin and doesn't change the basics of the game.

the tv gods won't like it in the regular season because it would push 1:00 games too far into the space of 4:00 games, which is basically why we have the current arrangement anyway.

 

[Snake Eyes]

The first team to score 4pts win should win.

 

[alvinnf]

You have to make sure each team gets one possesion. I'm tired of teams going into "FG mode", where as they are obviously setting up for a 3. If 3 does'nt gaurantee them a win then we all get to see a better brand of football.

 

[Metaphors]

Football is a timed sport (like basketball and hockey) that ends when time runs out. Baseball is an untimed sport that ends after an inning (or half-inning). Any situation that changes these basic facts is going to be a gimmick...it is just a matter of how cheesy the gimmick is.

Look at the situation in hockey. The OT shootout is so bad that you get a point just for participating in the sham. College football is only slightly better.

Basketball has the right idea. Play overtime with the exact same rules as regulation. The only variable is the amount of time in the overtime periods. Should be the same for football. Play timed periods (you can pick the time, optimizing the TV experience) and reset with teams alternating who kicks off. The only thing you need to account for are situations where scoring just isn't going to happen...like with really bad weather or really bad offenses. After some amount of overtime periods, you execute a mercy killing and call it a tie.

So same rules with the only variables being the amount of time per period and when you call it a tie. For the post-season, just get rid of the tie potential (talking to you McNabb) and keep playing.

This past season, there were 15 overtime games and about half ended on the first possession (including Dallas who lost on a blocked punt). Of those games, only one ended on an opening drive lasting longer than 5 minutes where the team wasn't in scoring position earlier than 5 minutes...and that was the stinking Jets death march against the Pats. This means it is unlikely that many games would end with a team eating up the entire overtime period.

Ending a football game under any circumstance besides a clock hitting zero is messed up in my opinion. Trying to guarantee at least 2 possessions has holes (onside kick? fumbled kickoff?). Moving the kickoff point either eliminates special teams or gives it too much influence.

 

[alvinnf]

Football is a timed sport (like basketball and hockey) that ends when time runs out. Baseball is an untimed sport that ends after an inning (or half-inning). Any situation that changes these basic facts is going to be a gimmick...it is just a matter of how cheesy the gimmick is.

Look at the situation in hockey. The OT shootout is so bad that you get a point just for participating in the sham. College football is only slightly better.

Basketball has the right idea. Play overtime with the exact same rules as regulation. The only variable is the amount of time in the overtime periods. Should be the same for football. Play timed periods (you can pick the time, optimizing the TV experience) and reset with teams alternating who kicks off. The only thing you need to account for are situations where scoring just isn't going to happen...like with really bad weather or really bad offenses. After some amount of overtime periods, you execute a mercy killing and call it a tie.

So same rules with the only variables being the amount of time per period and when you call it a tie. For the post-season, just get rid of the tie potential (talking to you McNabb) and keep playing.

This past season, there were 15 overtime games and about half ended on the first possession (including Dallas who lost on a blocked punt). Of those games, only one ended on an opening drive lasting longer than 5 minutes where the team wasn't in scoring position earlier than 5 minutes...and that was the stinking Jets death march against the Pats. This means it is unlikely that many games would end with a team eating up the entire overtime period.

Ending a football game under any circumstance besides a clock hitting zero is messed up in my opinion. Trying to guarantee at least 2 possessions has holes (onside kick? fumbled kickoff?). Moving the kickoff point either eliminates special teams or gives it too much influence.

You are absolutely right... Playing out the quarter is logical, but I don't think it necessarily gets them closer to a victory and further away from a tie.

 

[jmt57]

Don't forget you need to include a scenario for a defensive score. A safety or a TD return should end the game, in my opinion.

If we go to a minimum one possession per team and then sudden death, then a defensive score does end the game.

Team A scores.
Team B turns the ball over & Team A scores.
Game Over.

Team A does not score.
Team B turns the ball over & Team A scores.
Game over.

Before you say this favors 'Team A', it's the same regardless of possessions (e.g., Team A does not score, Team B does not score, Team A turns the ball over & Team B scores.)

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Football is a timed sport (like basketball and hockey) that ends when time runs out. Baseball is an untimed sport that ends after an inning (or half-inning). Any situation that changes these basic facts is going to be a gimmick...it is just a matter of how cheesy the gimmick is.

Look at the situation in hockey. The OT shootout is so bad that you get a point just for participating in the sham. College football is only slightly better.

Basketball has the right idea. Play overtime with the exact same rules as regulation. The only variable is the amount of time in the overtime periods. Should be the same for football. Play timed periods (you can pick the time, optimizing the TV experience) and reset with teams alternating who kicks off. The only thing you need to account for are situations where scoring just isn't going to happen...like with really bad weather or really bad offenses. After some amount of overtime periods, you execute a mercy killing and call it a tie.

So same rules with the only variables being the amount of time per period and when you call it a tie. For the post-season, just get rid of the tie potential (talking to you McNabb) and keep playing.

This past season, there were 15 overtime games and about half ended on the first possession (including Dallas who lost on a blocked punt). Of those games, only one ended on an opening drive lasting longer than 5 minutes where the team wasn't in scoring position earlier than 5 minutes...and that was the stinking Jets death march against the Pats. This means it is unlikely that many games would end with a team eating up the entire overtime period.

Ending a football game under any circumstance besides a clock hitting zero is messed up in my opinion. Trying to guarantee at least 2 possessions has holes (onside kick? fumbled kickoff?). Moving the kickoff point either eliminates special teams or gives it too much influence.

really well said! OT shouldn't change the fundamental character of the game, either by saying one kind of point is less valuable than another kind of point or by giving a significant probability of victory to the winner of a coin toss. it's a timed game. let the OT be timed. 10 minutes, 15, 20, 30...doesn't matter how long.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

In my book, neither does yours. Anything which significantly changes the rules teams play by in regulation is, to me and many people, gimmicky.



I take it you feel this way about the 2002 and 2004 Patriots SB wins?

very good point. the OP's logic is that you can bend the fundamentals of the game to circumstances. if you establish the precedent that a FG isn't good enough to win an OT game (still not clear on where he stands on Safety's and whether the team would have to make the extra point on the TD), what's to keep someone 25 years from now from saying, "you know, come to think of it, SB's are too important to be decided by FG's..."