NFL overtime rule suggestion

[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!

You guys don't like this idea!??

 

[jmt57]

Way to radical but ....

Place the ball on the 50
Alternate who has the ball (i.e., one-down possessions)
No punting; turnovers get placed at either the end of the play or the spot of the previous possession.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

You guys don't like this idea!??

chill...if i had a dime for every "great idea" that i posted here that nobody picked up on...

 

[Metaphors]

You guys don't like this idea!??

Don't understand the benefit. Say team A kicks off and team B returns it for a touchdown. Does that count as their "2 minute drill"? Then team B kicks off and team A fumbles. Is the game over? Then team B scores again. Now the game has to be over since it would be impossible to team A to catch up...and they never had a possession.

I know it is unlikely to happen but rules that fall apart on the fringe cases are probably bad rules.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Way to radical but ....

Place the ball on the 50
Alternate who has the ball (i.e., one-down possessions)
No punting; turnovers get placed at either the end of the play or the spot of the previous possession.

why do we want to change the basics of the game? just start over, play another full quarter (coin toss, two timeouts, booth reviews), call it a tie if nobody's ahead after 15 minutes in the regular season and keep playing one more quarter until somebody wins if it's the playoffs.

I think the reason that wouldn't fly is that the TV folks wouldn't like the possibility of 1:00 games running well into 4:00 games.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I like an OT that preserves football as much as possible the way it is played in the first 60 minutes. Not contrived 2-minute duals, or the "can I make a first down?" craziness of the college rule.

A 10 minute period would be my preference, and if that is too radical, just moving up the kickoff to the 35 or even 40 for the OT, to make it harder to get good field position on the opening drive. The one-drive-and-win scenario is the one many people find unfair.

The moving up the kickoff idea has acutually been discussed at the owners meetings but hasn't gotten the necessary 2/3 support (24 owners).

 

[Metaphors]

why do we want to change the basics of the game? just start over, play another full quarter (coin toss, two timeouts, booth reviews), call it a tie if nobody's ahead after 15 minutes in the regular season and keep playing one more quarter until somebody wins if it's the playoffs.

I think the reason that wouldn't fly is that the TV folks wouldn't like the possibility of 1:00 games running well into 4:00 games.

The possibility of 15 minutes of extra game time is already there in the current system. If always playing 15 extra minutes doesn't fly in TV land, break the 15 minutes into smaller periods (two 7 minute or three 5 minute). A good number of the games will end in the first OT period with both teams getting a shot with the ball in the vast majority of cases. Most will be over in the second. Still a chance for ties but probably not greater than you have today.

 

[emoney_33]

Don't understand the benefit. Say team A kicks off and team B returns it for a touchdown. Does that count as their "2 minute drill"? Then team B kicks off and team A fumbles. Is the game over? Then team B scores again. Now the game has to be over since it would be impossible to team A to catch up...and they never had a possession.

I know it is unlikely to happen but rules that fall apart on the fringe cases are probably bad rules.

No no no, I said 2-minute drill but I should have stressed it's more like 2 2-minute halves.

Team A receives the ball at the beginning of the first 2-minute half and team B receives it at the beginning of the 2nd 2-minute half. Each team gets 2 timeouts to start each half.

If it's tied afterwards play another 2 halves. If 3 or 4 of these games finish without a winner then it's a TIE, or go forever in the playoffs.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The moving up the kickoff idea has actually been discussed at the owners meetings but hasn't gotten the necessary 2/3 support (24 owners).

link for that:

Overtime Issue Unresolved - Mark Maske's NFL Insider

"The solution proposed by the committee was to move the kickoff in overtime from the 30- to the 35-yard line. That should have the team that wins the toss starting its first drive five yards further back and, the committee reasons, diminish the advantage. Between 1974 and '93, when the kickoff was at the 35-yard line (in regulation as well as during overtime), the team winning the coin toss won only about half the overtime games.

But the committee's recommendation needed 24 votes among the 32 teams to be enacted, and failed to generate the necessary support during the three-day league meeting. When the meeting ended Wednesday, the issue was tabled without a vote officially being taken. "

 

[PYPER]

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

One thing you need to consider is that the current rule, SUDDEN DEATH, already changes the rules teams play by in regulation.

So the question is whether you go with a solution that still incorporates sudden death or scratch sudden death completely. One of the issues here is that there is no correct answer. There will never be a consensus on anything.

My feeling is that the goal of any offense is to score touchdowns and the goal of the defense is to stop them. Touchdowns are foundation of the game.

The current overtime rules were first implemented back in 1974 and while many rule changes have transformed the game the overtime rule has failed to adapt.

Consider:

1) In 1974, kickers averaged about a 60% success rate. Today that rate is about 83%
2) In 1974, the rules favored the defense. In today's game the rules favor the offense.

I don't have the statistical data to support this next point but it seems to me that the only teams that don't score on their 1st possession of OT are the poor offensive teams. It seems like every time an offensive minded team receives the ball, the game ends without the other team receiving the ball.

3) The average OT possession starts around the 30 yard line. That means that teams receiving the opening kickoff only need to go about 30-35 yards to win the game. Not only is that too easy for an offense but you also need to factor in officiating. Essentially all it takes to decide an overtime game is one questionable penalty. With the current success rates of the kickers, defenses hardly stand a chance. One bad break and they're done. The idea of only applying sudden death rules to touchdowns gives the defense a chance to overcome many of the bad breaks that are so prevalent in the game today. It makes the game more interesting and I believe the results would be much less "fluky".

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

I'm not condemning field goals as part of the game. Those SB's were won in regulation.

Similarly, just b/c you don't apply sudden death to FG's in overtime, doesn't mean that they wouldn't decide overtime games.

Plenty of games would continue to end after the initial possession with teams kicking game winning fg's. My solution simply addresses 1st possession fg's which I believe are far too simple and anti-climatic to end games.

Having said all that....I would also support a system that got rid of sudden death altogether and simply and the teams play an extra 10-15 minute quarter. Whoever's leading after that quarter wins. If it's tied, next score wins but there's no kickoff to start the 2nd quarter. The action would continue just like it does from the 1st to 2nd or 3rd to 4th quarters in regulation. The teams switch sides of the field but other than that the play continues on.

Either one of these rule changes would be an immense improvement.

 

[Metaphors]

No no no, I said 2-minute drill but I should have stressed it's more like 2 2-minute halves.

Team A receives the ball at the beginning of the first 2-minute half and team B receives it at the beginning of the 2nd 2-minute half. Each team gets 2 timeouts to start each half.

If it's tied afterwards play another 2 halves. If 3 or 4 of these games finish without a winner then it's a TIE, or go forever in the playoffs.

Gotcha. So it is still timed but you are guaranteed two OT periods. That is fine. The only problem I would have is that running teams like Minnesota would be at a disadvantage since it would generally take them longer to get in scoring position and they would be more likely to settle for FGs instead of TDs.

 

[emoney_33]

Gotcha. So it is still timed but you are guaranteed two OT periods. That is fine. The only problem I would have is that running teams like Minnesota would be at a disadvantage since it would generally take them longer to get in scoring position and they would be more likely to settle for FGs instead of TDs.

Good point, that I hadn't thought of. I guess that could be a problem for run-oriented teams but they could still manage if they had a good defense and/or special teams. I'm just trying to balance fairness and excitement. The NFL likes pass happy leagues anyway

 

[AzPatsFan]

I want to keep the principle of the standard sport. I hate the soccer and hockey shootout. You play one game and tie; and then you play an entirely different game. That is crazy.

I would like the concept of a pair of two minute halfs on a 4 minute extra period. With a kickoff like at normal, at halftime to the other team. No score in four minutes, i.e. two two-minute mini-"halfs", results in a tie. Except repeat in playoffs to sudden death.

No change from standard football at all, just two short mini-periods treated as standard Halfs. With a TO in between as is normal half-time football. Set replay and timeouts as you like, 1, or 2. Challenges by Coach or Booth as you like; but nothing but standard football rules all the time.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I'm a "stat" guy myself so I agree that they should kick off from further up the field, if that makes it about 50/50. Another interesting rule would be on a field goal, you have to kick it from ten yards further back. I hate it when a team gets to the 17-yard line and runs into the line three times with a chip shot. With that extra ten yards, it's not chip shot, and the field possession would be devastating with a miss.

 

[brdmaverick]

Good suggestion, and it would certainly maintain the excitement in OT when otherwise it usually ends up being anti-climactic.

The only thing though, is that under CONS you have to note:
Will Increase the Liklihood of the dreaded TIE.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The possibility of 15 minutes of extra game time is already there in the current system. If always playing 15 extra minutes doesn't fly in TV land, break the 15 minutes into smaller periods (two 7 minute or three 5 minute). A good number of the games will end in the first OT period with both teams getting a shot with the ball in the vast majority of cases. Most will be over in the second. Still a chance for ties but probably not greater than you have today.

good point, but the difficulty with five or seven minute periods is that you could still be left with the "one possession to the coin toss winner" issue.

 

[emoney_33]

good point, but the difficulty with five or seven minute periods is that you could still be left with the "one possession to the coin toss winner" issue.

not with 2-minute halves

 

[LuRkeR1978]

All you need to do to make it fair, and exciting...is just take away FGs altogether from OT. TDs and goal-line stands are the most exciting situations, so make those the basis of OT.

 

[SaCaCh]

All you need to do to make it fair, and exciting...is just take away FGs altogether from OT. TDs and goal-line stands are the most exciting situations, so make those the basis of OT.

Take away all kicking. You win the toss you get it at the 20, then no punting either. Hey they should play regular football that way.

 

[Patsrock]

I would play full 15 mins. Who ever had the lead wins. And if you want to speed it along, change play clock to 30 seconds and no stoppage when going out of bounds on a play.