Playoff overtime rules would help the Patriots

[Haley]

A decent old article on this: Proposal to change OT rules in playoff games passed by 28-4 vote

Those statistics showed that since 1994, the team that won the overtime coin toss won the game 34.4 percent of the time on the first possession.

Overall, the team that correctly called the coin toss won overtime games 59.8 percent of the time in the last 15 years, or since kickoffs were moved back 5 yards to the 30.

I think the statistics speak for themselves. Whether or not the new rule will make OT more fair will I'm sure be measured in a similar fashion and adjusted if required. Personally, I am glad they do look into these things.

 

[Deus Irae]

A decent old article on this: Proposal to change OT rules in playoff games passed by 28-4 vote



I think the statistics speak for themselves. Whether or not the new rule will make OT more fair will I'm sure be measured in a similar fashion and adjusted if required. Personally, I am glad they do look into these things.

Why? What's the sense of them looking into things if they're going to ignore the findings? The obvious solution to the perceived problem was simply to move the kickoff back to the old position. Instead, the league went in a completely different, and idiotic, direction.

 

[Haley]

Well, you can either address the symptom or the illness. I'd rather see them adjust OT rules when fixing an OT problem than changing kickoff rules when fixing an OT problem.

Edit: Additionally I think you are misunderstanding the move. It was BACK 5 yards. From the 40 to the 35 and now the 30. Did you want them to keep moving back as kickers get better and eventually kick from the stands?

 

[Michigan Dave]

I'm on board with the new rule. While I get the theory behind the detractors who will say that a coin toss doesn't decide a game because defense/special teams are important aspects of the game and you are given the opportunity to stop the opponent...I think the old system did have an uneven strategical advantage to one team.

The premise of this thread on the bend-but-don't-break defense is a good example. While no team is saying "OK, D, go out there, give up 65 yards, and let 'em put 3 on the board", the philosophy on D of teams differs. Some favor not giving up the big play and sacrificing yards and tightening up in the red area. Clearly, that's a disadvantage in a sudden death OT system.

Say you're receiving the kick to start the game or the half in a normal situation. Your playcalling is done in a manner to fit the strategic goal of winning the game while knowing that 7 points is advantageous because your opponent will get several opportunities to counter. You coach it up accordingly. However, if you receive a kick knowing you need to only get 3 points to win the game, the strategy is altered.

I'm excited to see how this plays out. It seems fair to me.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, you can either address the symptom or the illness. I'd rather see them adjust OT rules when fixing an OT problem than changing kickoff rules when fixing an OT problem.

Edit: Additionally I think you are misunderstanding the move. It was BACK 5 yards. From the 40 to the 35 and now the 30. Did you want them to keep moving back as kickers get better and eventually kick from the stands?

1.) I didn't misunderstand at all. I know what was done.

2.) Your OT rules/OT problem argument is simply invalid, since kicking in the OT would be an OT rule.

 

[Haley]

1.) I didn't misunderstand at all. I know what was done.

2.) Your OT rules/OT problem argument is simply invalid, since kicking in the OT would be an OT rule.

So you recommend that they have a different kickoff yard line for OT and regular time? Not something I'd support, but to each their own.

You also recommend that they move back 5 yards every few years? They have tried it twice already and yet we still have this problem. Additionally you do realize you will run out of yards someday, right? Your plan is not sustainable.

Perhaps you should let them try something new and see how it pans out before complaining about it?

 

[420jim]

Someone complained that a 2pt saftey wins the game and a 3pt fg doesn't was crazy, misses the point. That on a saftey, the defence scored and following the free kick, the offence doesn't need to do anything but take 4 knees. Then both teams had their 1 possesion and the score is no longer tied, hence the 2pt saftey wins.

 

[JMarr]

I totally agree that the strategy of the game changes in overtime under the old rule--the goal of the offense is no longer to score TDs and the goal of the defense is no longer to keep the other team out of the endzone if you can. Maybe that's exciting to some people--to each his own.

But arguing that "no team has ever won or lost a game based on coin toss" is basically meaningless, it's so overly technical. Since scoring points is the object of the game, how about "the team that wins the toss usually has the initial advantage?" (Especially since picking up 30 yards and kicking a field goal in today's pass happy NFL is a relatively easy compared with hitting a home run or scoring a goal in soccer). Every sport or game I can think of allows both sides an equal chance to score in tiebreakers or overtime wherever possible.

In football the that fact that the team who has won the coin toss has wins 60% of of the time is not coincidence. The rule should be about not giving one team an unfair advantage, even if it only happens 10% of the time. Common sense.


.

 

[alamo]

So you recommend that they have a different kickoff yard line for OT and regular time? Not something I'd support, but to each their own.

I find it funny that some people who dislike moving the kickoff line because OT rules should be the same as regulation, support the new system where completely new rules have been invented just for overtime. Seems inconsistent to me.

You also recommend that they move back 5 yards every few years? They have tried it twice already and yet we still have this problem.

You've got it backwards. Moving the kickoff UP would help address the imbalance, moving the kickoff back has made it worse. The stats would be much closer if the first overtime posession stated at the 20 much more often.
Kicking off in overtime from the 40 would probably help a lot.

 

[Haley]

I find it funny that some people who dislike moving the kickoff line because OT rules should be the same as regulation, support the new system where completely new rules have been invented just for overtime. Seems inconsistent to me.

I guess this is because I've always considered the OT rules to be broken. The fact that only 1 team likely has to play defense is pretty busted. Just about anything is an improvement to me.

You've got it backwards. Moving the kickoff UP would help address the imbalance, moving the kickoff back has made it worse. The stats would be much closer if the first overtime posession stated at the 20 much more often. Kicking off in overtime from the 40 would probably help a lot.

mmm could be. I have a terrible sinus infection that combined with the drugs could certainly have me bass ackwards.

Still, I'd think it best to try something new before criticizing it. It isn't like we can change it anyway. And who knows, even Deus just might like it.

 

[TruthSeeker]

It is a very interesting though. But the rule says: "If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball." If you recover an onside kick, has the non-kicking team ever "possesse[d]" the ball? I'm not sure. Would the recovering team really only need a field goal here? I don't think it's clear. I had thought of a variation -- what happens if the receiving team muffs the ball on the kick off and the kicking team recovers? What must that team now do to win? I would argue that it has not yet "possesse[d]" the ball. But that's weird. What if you kick it off, the receiver catches it and takes two steps then fumbles. I think that would be "possess[ion]" within the meaning of the rule. I think the rule should say that the team that does not kick off may not win with a field goal -- that is the intent of the rule, but by focusing on posession it makes it unclear.

To make a long explanation short, the team receiving a kick (kickoff, punt, or even a field goal attempt) is considered to have had the opportunity to possess the ball whether or not they ever gain possession.

 

[A.C Vegas]

The thing about the onside kick is not really all that smart even if it is a loophole cause you only realistcly have a 10-25% chance to recover it and if you don't your opponent has hte ball on your side of hte field need 40-50 yards to win and 15-20 yards to tie it.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The thing about the onside kick is not really all that smart even if it is a loophole cause you only realistcly have a 10-25% chance to recover it and if you don't your opponent has hte ball on your side of hte field need 40-50 yards to win and 15-20 yards to tie it.

Actually, surprise onside kicks succeed about 60% of the time as is referenced in this article

So, if you execute a surprise onside kick, you'd have a
- 60% chance of winning the game outright
- plus the chance of stopping the other team without giving up a point and winning the game
- plus the chance of winning after the other team ties the game (known to be about 60% because it's exactly the same as previous years OT rules for a team receiving a kickoff)

Given that the other team has 4 downs, not 3, to continue a drive when they are out of field goal range, I expect that a surprise onside kick is a higher win percentage than kicking deep. A non-surprise onside kick only succeeds about 20% of the time, so that's seems like a very bad strategy to me.

 

[alamo]

So, if you execute a surprise onside kick, you'd have a
- 60% chance of winning the game outright
- plus the chance of stopping the other team without giving up a point and winning the game
- plus the chance of winning after the other team ties the game (known to be about 60% because it's exactly the same as previous years OT rules for a team receiving a kickoff)

Given that the other team has 4 downs, not 3, to continue a drive when they are out of field goal range, I expect that a surprise onside kick is a higher win percentage than kicking deep. A non-surprise onside kick only succeeds about 20% of the time, so that's seems like a very bad strategy to me.

This may be a better proposition than what you first mentioned (onside kick to start overtime). I am sure Belichick has run the numbers (or more likely had Ernie Adams run them) to know whether he would do this if presented with the need.

It's certainly a wrinkle that few have picked up on so far, perhaps as the playoffs start and this could happen people will bring it up. (Likely some fan will email Florio about it and suddenly it will become a hot topic, complete with questions to Aiello about its legality etc.)

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

To make a long explanation short, the team receiving a kick (kickoff, punt, or even a field goal attempt) is considered to have had the opportunity to possess the ball whether or not they ever gain possession.

Do you have a cite. It's not what the second part of the rule actually says. It says: "If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball."

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

My problem with the new rule is that they have absolutely no data. They are writing a rule based on a perception of fairness, but I think the new rule actually gives a substantial advantage to the kicking team. In fact, I would prefer to lose the toss, or if winning it, choosing to kick. I doubt we'll get nearly enough data to be able to say for sure what the answer is. There will probably be fewer than 1 such games a year on average.

We do on the other hand have data about the effect that the kick off yardline (and thus the average starting field position) has on overtime.

I think a simple modification to the rule would be to figure out an approximate yardline for starting possession is truly a 50/50 proposition in the mind of the average coach. And then just forget kicking off. You flip a coin. If you win the coin flip, you can either take the ball starting at X yard line, or playing defense. I don't know where the right starting yardline is, but I think we probably have sufficient data to made an educated guess about the point at which coaches would be 50/50. For example, if your choice was to start the game at the 5 yard line or have your opponent start on the 5 yard line, you'd almost always pick playing defense, I would think. Alternatively, if you had to choose between starting at the 40 or letting your opponent to the same, you'd take the ball. I think an OT rule that said you could either start at the 15 or let your opponent do the same would be a simple way to bring it back to a 50/50 proposition, which really should be the only goal in a one-game playoff where a tie is not an option.

 

[jah]

inb4 Patriots don't have an overtime game in the playoffs

 

[TruthSeeker]

Do you have a cite. It's not what the second part of the rule actually says. It says: "If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball."

I do not have a cited reference and I overlooked the language at that point. Your objection is well-taken.

I did read a well-documented discussion about what "opportunity to possess the ball" means shortly after this rule was passed and that is what I was attempting to clarify.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I think a simple modification to the rule would be to figure out an approximate yardline for starting possession is truly a 50/50 proposition in the mind of the average coach.

Statistically, this is about the 15 yard line.

The main objection to your proposal is that it takes special team play (opening kickoff) out of play. My preference is that the kickoff be done from the 40 or 45 yard line which would go a long way to evening out the "coin flip" advantage.