Playoff overtime rules would help the Patriots

[Deus Irae]

It's closer though.

No, it's not. It's actually further away from fair. This is the first time that a winning lead has not been good enough for a victory, based purely on the choice of legal methods of obtaining that lead. A safety, 2 points, is worthy of victory. A field goal, 3 points, is not.

It's one of the stupidest rules the NFL has ever concocted.

The one game that really got me was the jets in 08. If pats win the coin toss they win that game and go to the playoffs. I didn't think they would change overtime rules until a team won a superbowl on the 1st drive of overtime. Can't believe after all these years still no overtime superbowl.

This is incorrect. The Patriots would not have won the game by virtue of winning the coin toss. They'd have needed to score.

 

[Brsox04]

No team in the history of the NFL has ever won a game by advancing the ball to the 25 yard line.

Are we all talking about the same sport here? We're all talking about American football, right? Because I am seeing people reference all sorts of rules and strategies that simply don't exist.

Barring a choke from the kicker, its over at that point.

 

[Deus Irae]

Barring a choke from the kicker, its over at that point.

Is kicking identical to flipping a coin?

Is kicking a part of NFL football during regulation, and could a field goal from the 25 yard line win a game in regulation that was tied prior to the kick, if it were done in such a way that no time was left on the clock?

If your answers are "no", followed by "yes", you've got no argument.

 

[Froob]

No, it's not. It's actually further away from fair. This is the first time that a winning lead has not been good enough for a victory, based purely on the choice of legal methods of obtaining that lead. A safety, 2 points, is worthy of victory. A field goal, 3 points, is not.

It's one of the stupidest rules the NFL has ever concocted.



This is incorrect. The Patriots would not have won the game by virtue of winning the coin toss. They'd have needed to score.

Well I doubt we will end up agreeing. But everyone has their own opinion so that's ok. But had the toss landed heads, after the way Cassel had that team moving they would of at least kicked a game winner. So it would of been the jets fault for not playing defense but, had they won the toss they would of driven down and won the game. Forcing teams to try to go for the touchdown will make OT better too. No more teams kicking field goals on 3rd down.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well I doubt we will end up agreeing. But everyone has their own opinion so that's ok. But had the toss landed heads, after the way Cassel had that team moving they would of at least kicked a game winner. So it would of been the jets fault for not playing defense but, had they won the toss they would of driven down and won the game. Forcing teams to try to go for the touchdown will make OT better too. No more teams kicking field goals on 3rd down.

Had the Patriots won the coin toss, the team would have had the option of choosing to receive the ball first in overtime, or to kick it away and choose which end to defend. That's it.

Everything else would have needed to be earned on the field of play. You may opine as to what you think the eventual outcome would have been, but that's nothing but your opinion.

Your argument has no real basis to it.

 

[Froob]

Had the Patriots won the coin toss, the team would have had the option of choosing to receive the ball first in overtime, or to kick it away and choose which end to defend. That's it.

Everything else would have needed to be earned on the field of play. You may opine as to what you think the eventual outcome would have been, but that's nothing but your opinion.

Your argument has no real basis to it.

Yea it is pretty much opinion. But what is the downside of the new OT rules? BOTH teams have to play defense. What's so bad about that? Is it just the principal that in your opinion the old OT rules were fine?

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I think the rule is OK. In an offense oriented league, with all the iffy PI calls you see and roughing the passer calls we're starting to see, the game is heavily in favor of whoever wins the coin toss. As glad as I was of the Saints-Vikings outcome last year, it's definitely tough that it really only took a first down and a very questionable PI to end the game.

Not sure about the playoff-only stuff though, that part doesn't make sense to me.

 

[upstater1]

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.

It's not a predetermined preference for a team. It's predetermined preference for a style of play.

If there were a rule barring 5 yard chucks, it would favor teams with great passing offenses. It doesn't mean that the rule was predetermined to favor the Colts, but it would favor the Colts.

This rule and the way it's written obviously favors teams that not only have good offenses, but who have defenses that are good at giving up 3 points rather than 7.

Sound like any team you know?

 

[upstater1]

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.

You've honestly never heard a football coach use that strategy? Sports cliche? Come on, you can do better than that.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

The rule I wanted was to leave it at sudden death but not allow FG in overtime at all. Overall I like the new rule better than the old rule.

But the old rule, the new rule, and the rule I proposed are all fair. Both teams have an equal chance at winning the coin toss.

And you really can't say a weaker team has ever beat a better team in OT. If one team was having a better day than the other, the game would have been decided during regulation time.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I'm not sure I'm for or against this rule change. I can understand the arguments on both sides.

But one thing I am absolutely against is how it was implemented in the off-season for the play-offs only without any testing or input. My understanding is most coaches weren't even aware of the change until it was implemented.

Considering the NFL takes months and months and months "investigating" Favre texting his penis to some chick, and still hasn't done much to limit concussions despite years of mounting evidence of the issues, it's pretty amazing/terrifying they made this massive change so quickly and without much discussion.

The first time it happens in the play-offs will be the first time any NFL coach, player, official, broadcaster, or fan will see it.

 

[patchick]

What was so pure or sacred about the old format? As I mentioned before, the league already played havoc with it via a rule change designed to make the game more exciting -- moving back kickoffs. That had a dramatic impact on overtime, making the random coin toss suddenly powerful and elevating the kicker to the most important position on the field. That left OT broken, so they needed to fix it.

Unfortunately, the new rule itself makes the mistake of treating the old OT rules as sacred. They took timid baby steps away from it, rather than starting from scratch or taking a broader view.

I think ewg_gestalt's take on it is eminently reasonable. The game is constructed to give each team equal opportunities to be on offense. What they manage beyond that is up to their own skills. OT should similarly give each team an equal chance. Yes, of course you have a "chance" playing defense, blah blah blah. But the plain fact is that overtime is launched by arbitrarily handing one team a big advantage, rather than equal chances. How can that be a good thing?

Hey, how about this -- let's change baseball overtime so that the game ends as soon as one team scores a run! Why not? If you don't want the first team up to bat to score, just man up and pitch and catch! Strangely, nobody seems to suggest this "improvement."

 

[Imperator]

For the most part, I like the change. The argument that the old system was unfair or imbalanced is inaccurate however. I believe the odds of the coin-toss winner taking the game was only about 51% of the time, if that. So clearly the reason for changing it was a bit dubious. But I'll take it. Simply because I find it more interesting.

I enjoy the concept that a single successful field goal will no longer be enough. I think everyone can agree that it's much harder to get a touchdown then a field goal in most circumstances; giving the offense the incentive to drive down the field and punch it in is far more entertaining I think.

Has nothing to do with "is it fair for the other team" (because they have a defense) and everything to do with intrigue for me. Plane and simple.

 

[JeffChicago23]

Yeah I think it will help them, but I still think they need to make those changes in regular season as well its kinda stupid think about it you play 60 minutes of football and it comes down to a coin toss and a field goal ends the game kinda stupid I wish they would use college rules except starting at the 25 yard line.

 

[chicowalker]

How is it fair that only one team has to play defense?...

That's not an accurate characterization.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yea it is pretty much opinion. But what is the downside of the new OT rules? BOTH teams have to play defense. What's so bad about that? Is it just the principal that in your opinion the old OT rules were fine?

I already gave one significant downside to the new rules. Another is that it allows one team to play one way (Defense can allow for a field goal), while forcing the other team to play differently (offense can't really afford to settle for a field goal).

Also, If you take the OT out of this, and just imagine a tie game with only a couple of minutes left, would you tell the team with the ball that they needed a TD or the other team would get a chance, because they couldn't win on a field goal?

Of course not.

As for the old rules, I'm opposed to any overtime in regular season. It's inherently unfair and unnecessary. Overtime should be used only when a non-tie is absolutely essential, which means only in the playoffs. However, if you're going to have an overtime, sudden death is about as fair as it's possible to get.

 

[chicowalker]

I happen to think that the current system is fair, but I also think because something works, it doesn't mean it can't be improved.

Where did I say it can't be improved? I pointed out what I think are the flaws in your claims, and you opted to respond to something I didn't say...

 

[RobertWeathers]

Gotta agree with Deus on this. If they are going to mess with OT, go with the college rule or play the whole period.

 

[lurker1965]

I don't really have a problem with the rule change, even if Lord Favre was the reason for it. Coin flips should not determine the outcome of a game.

I agree. The rule that team's cannot play defense in OT...

I forgot. Which emoticon shows sarcasm?

 

[IcyPatriot]

I think the new rule means we'll be seeing the 2pt conversion less ... and i like the 2pt'er.