Overtime Rule Change Proposition

[raduray]

Yeah the sudden death FG is a classic part of football, but I like the fact we now can answer FGs. I just would prefer to take it a step further, and be able to answer a TD.

Due to two bungled opportunities in the secondary, the Pats lost both our overtime games this year, one of which to a team we play in a week, in their stadium, in a sudden death game.

I don't much like Green Bay (and I actually like Arizona), but after the way Green Bay took that game to overtime, I think it's criminal Rodgers didn't get an opportunity in OT.

I take your point, but what if GB had gotten a chance under your rules and scored a tying TD and then Arizona scored a FG to win? GB could argue that Arizona had two chances and they only had one. Where does it end?

 

[Th3Birdman]

I take your point, but what if GB had gotten a chance under your rules and scored a tying TD and then Arizona scored a FG to win? GB could argue that Arizona had two chances and they only had one. Where does it end?

I think that it's better to play until the clock is over, and whoever scores the most is the winner.

Basketball/College Rules

 

[raduray]

I think that it's better to play until the clock is over, and whoever scores the most is the winner.

Basketball/College Rules

That's what they do in international soccer, followed by PK's if still tied after OT.

 

[Deus Irae]

You cannot make overtime fair. It's impossible. They should have left it as sudden death. Changing it even more than they already have will add nothing of value.

 

[pheenix11]

I still like my idea. Each team puts 11 players on their own goal line. The ball is placed at midfield by the ref who then blows a whistle. Whoever ends up with the ball gets it.

 

[Pats2000]

And then what happens if it's still a tie? Should the NFL be like college where teams play 3, 4, 5 overtime possession each because they both keep scoring?

No, we have games that end in ties now. It should simply go to sudden death, next score wins, or if they play out the quarter and no one else scores, it's a tie.

 

[Pats2000]

I still like my idea. Each team puts 11 players on their own goal line. The ball is placed at midfield by the ref who then blows a whistle. Whoever ends up with the ball gets it.

lol, while that would create hilarity, I think that would go against the whole injury minimization thing they have going on right now.

 

[Pats2000]

You cannot make overtime fair. It's impossible. They should have left it as sudden death. Changing it even more than they already have will add nothing of value.

I don't agree with that. Making the game fair is important. You act like we are giving a participation award to the Colts every time they even get to the playoffs. It's just making sure each team has adequate opportunity to prove they deserve to win. Especially with tilting the rules so much in favor of the offense.

 

[Pats2000]

I'm just a chemist. Too much math even hurts my head.



I just know that if you tell me there is a 54% chance of rain, you don't really give me much confidence at all as to whether I need an umbrella.

I remember chemistry class, it was too much math...

 

[Observer]

Giving teams a "last at bat" is the epitome of a competitive advantage to the team possessing after the other team score a TD.....because they would KNOW they have to use all 4 downs....

It is a competitive advantage to the defense to know that.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't agree with that.

You're entitled to your opinion

Making the game fair is important.

Fair is impossible and mythical. The best you can go for is reasonable.

You act like we are giving a participation award to the Colts every time they even get to the playoffs.

That line makes no sense at all.

It's just making sure each team has adequate opportunity to prove they deserve to win. Especially with tilting the rules so much in favor of the offense.

No, that's not what it's doing, at all. Each team's already had a full 60 minutes to prove they deserved to win.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I don't agree with that. Making the game fair is important. You act like we are giving a participation award to the Colts every time they even get to the playoffs. It's just making sure each team has adequate opportunity to prove they deserve to win. Especially with tilting the rules so much in favor of the offense.

They had that for 60 minutes ............
Your team gives up a TD on an opening OT possession then your team has not been conditioned properly.

 

[XLIX]

No, we have games that end in ties now.

I was going from the perspective that we were talking about the playoffs.

It should simply go to sudden death, next score wins, or if they play out the quarter and no one else scores, it's a tie.

So you're not really solving the problem, you're just kicking the can 1 possession for each team down the road. You think sudden death after 60 minutes of equal play is fundamentally unfair, but sudden death after ~68 minutes of equal play is no problem.

 

[Pats2000]

I was going from the perspective that we were talking about the playoffs.
So you're not really solving the problem, you're just kicking the can 1 possession for each team down the road. You think sudden death after 60 minutes of equal play is fundamentally unfair, but sudden death after ~68 minutes of equal play is no problem.

Then we'll just end every game in a tie no matter what and give the Colts a participation banner i don't know, it's just my opinion, no real logic behind the answer.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Some win probability models put it closer to 53% for receiving teams, but in practice so far, since the rule change in 2012, the receiving team has won 33 games, the kicking team has won 32 after that Broncos loss. Tack in a game here or there but it's not dramatically different.

We're talking about really small sample sizes when we're talking about the playoffs so far. It's one game. Or if you look at the last two Patriots OT games. In all 3 games, the home team won too. Should we change home-field advantage?

This is like when everyone was freaking out about kicker accuracy after one bad week of high-profile misses. And I'm sure there are many who still believe it even though 2015 ended with a higher overall FG accuracy than 2014 (82.75% vs. 81.62%), even factoring in that bad week 4 showing.

It's just over-reacting for no real reason.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Also, found this to be very interesting:

Patriots Weren't Crazy, Statistics Defend Choice to Kick in Overtime

Category/2012/Since 2013
Wins on first possession/2 of 23/9 of 45
Record of receiving team/14-7-1/19-25-2

I found the original chart a bit weird so broke this down. You can see a huge difference in receiving teams winning in 2012, the first year of the change. But since that time, the record has actually favoured kicking off. This could be due to small sample sizes as well mind you.

But it could also be adjustments made on the defensive side of the ball to be more aggressive. Forcing a stop leaves you with a short field and a chance to win with a FG. This may also correspond with the other stat, which shows a higher percentage of teams winning on their first drive. Again, these may not be statistically significant due to the small sample sizes. But at least it shows it isn't so ridiculously broken it needs a change right now.

Also, that Jets game was one of the few times a team had kicked off after winning the coin flip. It's only happened 3 times since the rule changes in 2012, and yes, we lost. But the other two times were wins, so that strategy is now 2-1. One of those other two times was us against the Broncos in 2013. Again, not statistically significant, but again, nowhere close to indicating a broken system.

 

[Joker]

Deus speaks for many long time NFL fans.

There was never anything wrong with the original overtime format that stood the test of generations of NFL games.

The swinging ****, sub-moronic Azzoledell is the driving force behind all these dog and pony rule changes. Some PR nitwit probably swore on his mother's basement couch that Europeans would fall hook line and sinker for this "NEW!!" overtime garbage and make it easier to sell the game overseas, something Goodell is positively maniacal about...that and the preposterous 18 game season. Imagine 18 games THIS year? They'd have to MERGE teams to make it to the end.

 

[XLIX]

That's what they do in international soccer, followed by PK's if still tied after OT.

And a lot of people think that is a stupid system. When you have the entire World Cup (or whatever) come down to penalty kicks? Maybe they should just have dueling Field Goals in overtime for the NFL.

 

[Wheelman]

Just do what they do in College football except make them each start at the 50.

 

[GodBrady]

Some win probability models put it closer to 53% for receiving teams, but in practice so far, since the rule change in 2012, the receiving team has won 33 games, the kicking team has won 32 after that Broncos loss. Tack in a game here or there but it's not dramatically different.

We're talking about really small sample sizes when we're talking about the playoffs so far. It's one game. Or if you look at the last two Patriots OT games. In all 3 games, the home team won too. Should we change home-field advantage?

This is like when everyone was freaking out about kicker accuracy after one bad week of high-profile misses. And I'm sure there are many who still believe it even though 2015 ended with a higher overall FG accuracy than 2014 (82.75% vs. 81.62%), even factoring in that bad week 4 showing.

It's just over-reacting for no real reason.

Wow, fantastic stats!

Seriously, the record is 33 wins, 32 losses in favor of the receiving team? That's unbelievable! I would've thought it was much more lopsided than that.