Overtime change passes for playoffs, regular season could come in May

[emoney_33]

Re: Overtime change passes

Here comes a game simulation question:

2010 AFC Championship:

The Patriots vs. Colts are tied at 28-28 heading into overtime. The Patriots win the toss and receive.

-Later that drive: Brady incomplete to Moss. It is now 4th and 5 at the Colts 20.

Do you: Kick the fieldgoal and hope your defense can hold Manning to a fieldgoal or shut them down.

Go for it on 4th and 5?

I kick the FG.

What do you do when you receive and find yourself 4th & 5 at the 35. Might be best to punt in that situation.

This rule change is stupid.

 

[denverpatsfan]

I am disgusted. I guess Bob Kraft disliked the outcome of the Snow Bowl. That type of game will NEVER happen again in our lifetimes.

If you don't like the OT rule then simply play another full 15-minute period. No sudden death. Winner of the extra period wins the game.

If the (2) offenses are inept enough not to score or if the game remains tied then play another 15-minute period.

 

[HarkDawg]

Re: Overtime change passes

There was need for a change but I am not crazy of the 'only playoff games' scenerio

you cannot do it in the regular season because the NFL would lose $$$$$$
NFL needs to be ready to switch to other game(s). OT in regular season would impede that. Playoff time this becomes a (NO) problem

Less teams and it's more flexible




-Enlightening the world in every post I make

 

[HarkDawg]

Re: Overtime change passes

I kick the FG.

What do you do when you receive and find yourself 4th & 5 at the 35. Might be best to punt in that situation.

This rule change is stupid.

no..... it really isn't


adds more strategy to the game

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Making this change in the regular season would be far more radical. Before the rule change, there was a very significant difference between the playoffs and regular season with respect to overtime -- a regular season game can end in a tie, but a playoff game, of course, cannot.

So, for those of you arguing that the rule should be the same in the regular season, you're actually arguing for a fairly significant overhaul of the current rules. You are arguing that all regular season games must result in a winner and should never end in a tie.

I disagree with that, pretty strenuously, actually. Everyone recognizes that no matter what system you play, an overtime is never going to be true football. It will always be, at least a little, a skills contest. If the two teams cannot decide a winner in 5 quarters, then to make it go even further seems absurd to me. (Not to mention the fact that an 80 or 90 minute game gives a competitive advantage to the team's next opponents, particularly now that the league is requiring travel to foreign countries or requiring Sunday to Thursday turnarounds.) I want there to be a tie in that circumstance in the regular season. But that luxury does not exist in the playoffs. There must a be a winner in the playoffs. Ties are never an option. So the best way to view this rule is as a rule that decides the winner when a tie is not an option -- which is only in the playoffs.

The only other alternative would be to implement this new rule in the regular season but to say that after 5 quarters if the game is tied, it is a tie. But that would suck. You can't do that. Under the new rule, there would be way too many ties, because the possibility of a 3-3 score in the first 15 minutes is considerable.

The fact that games can end in ties in the regular season is a reflection of the fact that no overtime system is perfect, and there comes a time when you have to say "enough is enough." You don't have the luxury of saying "enough is enough" in the playoffs. So the trick is with that contstraint find the most fair system for deciding a winner possible. The assumption being made by this board -- that the fairest system in a game that cannot end in a tie must be the same as in a game that can -- is very faulty to me.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I think the far more interesting strategy question is whether you want the ball or not.

You have to balance the advantage of knowing exactly what you need to win against the danger that your opponent will get a touchdown drive. I think you still want the ball first, because you will get a chance to win the game first if the first two possessions go FG, FG. But in weather, where one direction is better than the other, perhaps this advantage is negated and you might consider choosing direction instead of the ball, which never happens under the current system barring gale force winds in one direction.

 

[tobias funke]

PatsFanInAZ pointed out what many of you knee-jerkers seem to be missing:

The postseason rules were already different from the regular season, in that ties are impossible.

So hopefully that's not your major argument against the change.

 

[ALP]

Re: Overtime change passes

Playing under different rules in the playoffs is stupid. It's only done in hockey because games can go on for 5-6 periods without a goal so the shoot out instead of what was a tie works, and the team that goes to OT and loses still gets points in the standings. In football where every game is important its inexcusable to have different rules in the playoffs than the regular season. This opens up this scenario:

Team A plays Team B in the regular season, team A wins with a OT FG on their first possession. This keeps team B out of the playoffs with a 9-7 record while allowing team A into the playoffs with a 10-6 record.

Team A then goes into the playoffs and gives up an OT FG, why should they then have a chance to win the game, when they may not even be in the playoffs if the same rules applied in the regular season?

Change it all the way or not at all. No half assed nonsense.

lets hope they cahnge it to reg season as well soon enough

 

[ALP]

Making this change in the regular season would be far more radical. Before the rule change, there was a very significant difference between the playoffs and regular season with respect to overtime -- a regular season game can end in a tie, but a playoff game, of course, cannot.

So, for those of you arguing that the rule should be the same in the regular season, you're actually arguing for a fairly significant overhaul of the current rules. You are arguing that all regular season games must result in a winner and should never end in a tie.

I disagree with that, pretty strenuously, actually. Everyone recognizes that no matter what system you play, an overtime is never going to be true football. It will always be, at least a little, a skills contest. If the two teams cannot decide a winner in 5 quarters, then to make it go even further seems absurd to me. (Not to mention the fact that an 80 or 90 minute game gives a competitive advantage to the team's next opponents, particularly now that the league is requiring travel to foreign countries or requiring Sunday to Thursday turnarounds.) I want there to be a tie in that circumstance in the regular season. But that luxury does not exist in the playoffs. There must a be a winner in the playoffs. Ties are never an option. So the best way to view this rule is as a rule that decides the winner when a tie is not an option -- which is only in the playoffs.

The only other alternative would be to implement this new rule in the regular season but to say that after 5 quarters if the game is tied, it is a tie. But that would suck. You can't do that. Under the new rule, there would be way too many ties, because the possibility of a 3-3 score in the first 15 minutes is considerable.

The fact that games can end in ties in the regular season is a reflection of the fact that no overtime system is perfect, and there comes a time when you have to say "enough is enough." You don't have the luxury of saying "enough is enough" in the playoffs. So the trick is with that contstraint find the most fair system for deciding a winner possible. The assumption being made by this board -- that the fairest system in a game that cannot end in a tie must be the same as in a game that can -- is very faulty to me.

if both teams score a FG, that is acceptable in the reg season, and would result in a tie....

 

[Deus Irae]

Making this change in the regular season would be far more radical. Before the rule change, there was a very significant difference between the playoffs and regular season with respect to overtime -- a regular season game can end in a tie, but a playoff game, of course, cannot.

So, for those of you arguing that the rule should be the same in the regular season, you're actually arguing for a fairly significant overhaul of the current rules. You are arguing that all regular season games must result in a winner and should never end in a tie.

I disagree with that, pretty strenuously, actually. Everyone recognizes that no matter what system you play, an overtime is never going to be true football. It will always be, at least a little, a skills contest. If the two teams cannot decide a winner in 5 quarters, then to make it go even further seems absurd to me. (Not to mention the fact that an 80 or 90 minute game gives a competitive advantage to the team's next opponents, particularly now that the league is requiring travel to foreign countries or requiring Sunday to Thursday turnarounds.) I want there to be a tie in that circumstance in the regular season. But that luxury does not exist in the playoffs. There must a be a winner in the playoffs. Ties are never an option. So the best way to view this rule is as a rule that decides the winner when a tie is not an option -- which is only in the playoffs.

The only other alternative would be to implement this new rule in the regular season but to say that after 5 quarters if the game is tied, it is a tie. But that would suck. You can't do that. Under the new rule, there would be way too many ties, because the possibility of a 3-3 score in the first 15 minutes is considerable.

The fact that games can end in ties in the regular season is a reflection of the fact that no overtime system is perfect, and there comes a time when you have to say "enough is enough." You don't have the luxury of saying "enough is enough" in the playoffs. So the trick is with that contstraint find the most fair system for deciding a winner possible. The assumption being made by this board -- that the fairest system in a game that cannot end in a tie must be the same as in a game that can -- is very faulty to me.

They fixed a problem that didn't exist and, in the process, they found a terrible 'fix' to use. If you were to design an overtime system and say "I want only extremely crappy options", you'd come up with this one. It's every bit as stupid as the college overtime, maybe more so, and I didn't think anyone would ever come up with something that stupid moving forward.

 

[HarkDawg]

great system..... no cheap field goals get the win.


1st TD wins game.... not first to score pts.


check earlier post.....



OT cannot be done in regular season..... I told you all why.

 

[alamo]

great system..... no cheap field goals get the win.

1st TD wins game.... not first to score pts.

check earlier post.....
OT cannot be done in regular season..... I told you all why.

You don't understand this rule. A cheap FG can win as long as the other team has gotten a chance to get the ball.

Also... a BIG reason this is postseason-only is the NFLPA. This change potentially extends games and the players association supposedly claims that such counts as change to "work rules" which requires collective bargaining. Probably just posturing for the CBA negotiations but if the players association want to, it's possible they could get this change overturned even though it's postseason-only.

It's every bit as stupid as the college overtime, maybe more so, and I didn't think anyone would ever come up with something that stupid moving forward.

That's just being obtuse. College's system is abysmal, but while this system isn't perfect it's tolerable. I would prefer the rules stay the same but can live with this, in part because it adds some strategy and interest.


This change is really simple. The ONLY exception to the game being sudden death is if the team receiving the kickoff scores a FG. ANYTHING else and it's sudden death and the game is over.

Florio has a good FAQ on the change. Ins and outs of the new overtime rule | ProFootballTalk.com

Some points which may be surprising to some:
- Game ends on a safety.
- If the kicking team recovers an onside kick, the receiving team is considered to have had its chance and the game is now sudden death.
- Same thing if the receiving team fumbles the kickoff.

It eliminates a win by a cheap FG without the other team ever having a chance to get the ball. That's all it's intended to do.

 

[RayClay]

Goodell did something right. Had to happen sooner or later.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's just being obtuse. College's system is abysmal, but while this system isn't perfect it's tolerable. I would prefer the rules stay the same but can live with this, in part because it adds some strategy and interest.

My comment was not obtuse, but your concern, and difference of opinion, is noted. You like making the game more unfair. I oppose such a move.

This change is really simple. The ONLY exception to the game being sudden death is if the team receiving the kickoff scores a FG. ANYTHING else and it's sudden death and the game is over.

I understand the rule, likely at least as well as you do. I simply find it to be a pathetic attempt to avoid inevitable embarrassment with an imperfect system by creating other inevitable embarrassments.

Florio has a good FAQ on the change. Ins and outs of the new overtime rule | ProFootballTalk.com

Some points which may be surprising to some:
- Game ends on a safety.
- If the kicking team recovers an onside kick, the receiving team is considered to have had its chance and the game is now sudden death.
- Same thing if the receiving team fumbles the kickoff.

It eliminates a win by a cheap FG without the other team ever having a chance to get the ball. That's all it's intended to do.

It does much more than that, and none of it is good.

Here's a simple example:

Team "A" receives the ball. Team "A" has 3 downs, for all intents and purposes, to move the ball. So.... team "A" moves down the field and is able to kick a field goal, thus going up by 3.

Team "B" receives the ball after the field goal. Now, unlike team "A", team "B" now has 4 downs to move the ball until the team gets into field goal range. Furthermore, if team "A" does not score on its first possession, the game gets turned into sudden death anyway, so no positive change has happened.

Overtime, once played on a level playing field, albeit based upon on a coin toss, is now actually slanted to the team that does NOT get the ball first, at least in terms of first possessions. In order to change the impact of the coin toss because of a 10% shift in overtime win percentage in a small statistical sample, they screwed with the on-the-field part of the game in a manner that makes no game sense.


If the argument was that moving the kickoffs back had screwed with the overtime and that a change had to be done (it was one of the arguments being put forth), the logical, simplest, step was to simply readjust the kickoff distance for the overtime.

 

[RayClay]

Team "B" receives the ball after the field goal. Now, unlike team "A", team "B" now has 4 downs to move the ball until the team gets into field goal range.

They're kicking on fifth down?

 

[PatsChamp88]

great system..... no cheap field goals get the win.


1st TD wins game.... not first to score pts.


check earlier post.....



OT cannot be done in regular season..... I told you all why.

Nope they will be implementing this in the regular season come May..

 

[PatsChamp88]

They're kicking on fifth down?

Yeah it's in the new rule didn't you read it?

 

[alamo]

You like making the game more unfair. I oppose such a move.
I simply find it to be a pathetic attempt to avoid inevitable embarrassment with an imperfect system by creating other inevitable embarrassments

Public perception and sentiment is that what happened in the NFC Championship is "cheap" and embarrassing, and this move is a direct response. Public sentiment is of course partially driven by the opinions of a couple of vocal mediots (King, Florio), but the simplistic and wrong "coin flip decided the game" is still what too many fans think.

I don't see how this proposal leaves an opening for "embarrassment" nearly as big as the previous system does. The public has been primed by the college system for a potential "kicking team has a chance to respond" scenario. And some fans of the losing team will always complain and feel jobbed, but this change probably removed such a perception by the majority of fans.

Overtime, once played on a level playing field, albeit based upon on a coin toss, is now actually slanted to the team that does NOT get the ball first, at least in terms of first possessions. In order to change the impact of the coin toss because of a 10% shift in overtime win percentage in a small statistical sample, they screwed with the on-the-field part of the game in a manner that makes no game sense.

"albeit based upon a coin toss" is a significant understatement of the non-levelness of the situation. I like the fact the new rule screws with the game as little as possible since the vast majority of overtimes will still end with a sudden-death win. I would have disliked "first to 6" or the college system or even a timed extra period much less. Sudden death is exciting, it's a good thing.

One of the things that makes this interesting (read: tolerable to me) is the strategic choices it will open up for the teams. Winning the flip them kicking off is certainly a possibility (by coaches like Belichick who look at statistics and strategic opportunities rather than coaching to avoid criticism). I liken this to the choices now given to the winner of the coin flip to start the game, which has undeniably added fan interest.

If the argument was that moving the kickoffs back had screwed with the overtime and that a change had to be done (it was one of the arguments being put forth), the logical, simplest, step was to simply readjust the kickoff distance for the overtime.

That is where I agree with you, that was my preferred solution, but this new system has enough good qualities that I can easily live with it.

 

[RayClay]

Yeah it's in the new rule didn't you read it?

I just scanned it. If you get five downs, that does seem to give the receiving team an advantage.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

not sure why they don't simply keep playing if the game is tied at regulation.....takes the stupid coin flip out of the mix

either that or just let it end in a tie......would probably make tie breakers less cumbersome at the end of the season