Playoff overtime rules would help the Patriots

[Pessimistic Pete]

Becuse no game in NFL history has ever been decided by a coin flip.

I never said there was. I'm asking...

Why is the first team to score 3 points good but the first team to score 6 points "stupid "?

 

[Triumph]

Um, ok, but what happens if the first score is a Safety?

I would assume the scoring team wins.

 

[Fahrenhype]

Becuse no game in NFL history has ever been decided by a coin flip.

You're right. It would take a combination of a coin flip and some dreadfully awful pass interference calls. Not interested in seeing that either.

 

[deroc5050]

Um, ok, but what happens if the first score is a Safety?

The team that got the safety would win the game because the team that had the ball just lost possesion and went down on points.

 

[RobertWeathers]

IMO I'd like a full OT period.

 

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

Yeah, but does it actually say that in there?

 

[Triumph]

Becuse no game in NFL history has ever been decided by a coin flip.

The Pats would have lost to the Rams had SB36 gone into OT.

The NE defense was spent and STL had picked up momentum.

 

[Wolfpack]

I never said there was. I'm asking...

Why is the first team to score 3 points good but the first team to score 6 points "stupid "?

I don't think you understand the new rule because it isn't "first to score 6 points."

The sudden death format worked great for 50 years. But then Lord Brett wasn't given the chance to throw another INT in OT so all of a sudden they need to change the rules.

 

[Wolfpack]

You're right. It would take a combination of a coin flip and some dreadfully awful pass interference calls. Not interested in seeing that either.

Well now you're changing the subject. Yes, bad calls can also decide the outcome of a close game - either in regulation or overtime. And that is something that will never, ever change so long as men are playing organized sports.

 

[upstater1]

Having said that, there's as much chance the new rule hurts the Patriots as helps them

How so? Give some reasoning.

 

[Lansdowne]

There wouldn't be nearly as much controversy in a coin flip determining a regular season game vs. the playoffs. Leaving a potential Superbowl outcome up to arbitrary chance would be a massive headache for the league. At least as it is now, the team that scored that first field goal could kick onside immediately after. Or you know, actually defense like the losers of the coin flip had to.

This is true, but let's see what people say if a playoff hopeful loses in OT in Week 17.

Off-topic but it's also quite possible that the horrible NFC West is going to ruin playoff seeding for everyone next year when Mr. Kneejerk Reaction Commish freaks out and changes the rules again.

 

[Wolfpack]

The Pats would have lost to the Rams had SB36 gone into OT.

The NE defense was spent and STL had picked up momentum.

Sorry, but fact is we have no idea what would have happened. Did you see Arizona-GB last year? AZ's defense was totally spent. They played the entire second half getting stomped on. They couldn't stop GB to save their lives.

I guess you stopped watching when GB won the coin toss. After all, that decided the game, huh?

 

[upstater1]

No coin flip has ever decided the outcome of a football game. They are decided on the field with offense, defense and special teams.

And the old rule was not good for bend-but-don't-break defenses. At least acknowledge that.

 

[chicowalker]

No coin flip has ever decided the outcome of a football game. They are decided on the field with offense, defense and special teams.

I agree 100% -- can't stand it when people say the existing system was unfair. It's fair -- play defense.

 

[patchick]

It didn't really determine it before the rule change, either.

Well, winning the coin toss in OT is now a bigger statistical advantage than playing a game on your home field. And notably, it wasn't always this way. Back when you kicked off from the 40, the coin toss was a negligible factor.

Now, you have a situation where overtime is all about placekicking. Between the kickoff and the potential winning FG, the PK is the dominant figure. And that's a problem for something beyond "fairness": entertainment value. Overtime should be the peak of excitement, but it has devolved to a super-conservative battle to get inside the 30-yard line. IMO some tweaks were in order.

 

[KoolAid]

No coin flip has ever decided the outcome of a football game. They are decided on the field with offense, defense and special teams.

You are technically correct, but a long return and 1 play can end it. I personnally like it because it could add more excitement to the game.

 

[chicowalker]

You are technically correct, but a long return and 1 play can end it. I personnally like it because it could add more excitement to the game.

Not just technically correct.

As for excitement, wouldn't a kickoff return for gamewinning TD be somewhat exciting? People seemed to be entertained when DeSean Jackson won the game for Philly a couple weeks ago.

 

[Wolfpack]

How so? Give some reasoning.

I think that this rule, like just about any other rule, is arbitrary without pre determined preference to any team. Take, for example, the tuck rule. If I asked you in December of 2001 how the tuck rule affected the Patriots, you'd probably say who knows? Now, of course, the way things turned out, it certainly did benefit the Pats. But going into the Oakland game, there was no way to know that would be the case.

 

[Wolfpack]

And the old rule was not good for bend-but-don't-break defenses. At least acknowledge that.

I think the concept of "bend but don't break" is a tired sports cliche that rarely (if ever) stands up to a full and impartial analysis. The Patriots defense does not take the field with the strategy "hey, guys, let's let the other team drive 65 yards and kick a field goal..!!"

Which is why I completely ignore comments referencing such a non-existent strategy.

 

[KoolAid]

Not just technically correct.

As for excitement, wouldn't a kickoff return for gamewinning TD be somewhat exciting? People seemed to be entertained when DeSean Jackson won the game for Philly a couple weeks ago.

Not if I am routing for the opposing team who maybe just clawed their way back into a game to tie it up and get to OT and let's say a special teams player slips and the result is the KO return for a TD.

I find it anticlimatic when a team makes 2 plays and kicks a FG and the other team never gets a shot.

I just don't see how the new rule would make OT worse.