Be honest: Do the OT rules to end games need changing?

[Ring 6]

In certain situations with the rule, you might choose to go 2nd. BB did it vs Denver even before the only a TD wins rule existed.

Actually he chose the wind

 

[Deus Irae]

The notion that the current overtime is unfair because it's possible that only one team gets the ball is an absurdity. Overtime is begun with the most fair maneuver possible, a 50/50 chance. As I've tried to get through the heads of the willfully thick,

YOU'RE NOT LOOKING FOR EQUALITY OF OUTCOME. YOU'RE LOOKING FOR EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY, AND YOU HAD THAT WITH A 50/50 CHANCE AT GETTING THE BALL FIRST. IN A TWO PARTY SITUATION, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO GET A MORE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY THAN 50/50.

 

[Observer]

The notion that the current overtime is unfair because it's possible that only one team gets the ball is an absurdity. Overtime is begun with the most fair maneuver possible, a 50/50 chance. As I've tried to get through the heads of the willfully thick,

YOU'RE NOT LOOKING FOR EQUALITY OF OUTCOME. YOU'RE LOOKING FOR EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY, AND YOU HAD THAT WITH A 50/50 CHANCE AT GETTING THE BALL FIRST. IN A TWO PARTY SITUATION, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO GET A MORE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY THAN 50/50.

I already covered this before. If you want a 50/50 chance, why even play overtime? Just call the game on a toss. But that would perhaps be laughable?

 

[EddardSnow67]

I already covered this before. If you want a 50/50 chance, why even play overtime? Just call the game on a toss. But that would perhaps be laughable?

But it's not a 50/50 chance of winning, it's just a 50/50 chance of getting the ball. You still have to play football.

 

[Deus Irae]

I already covered this before. If you want a 50/50 chance, why even play overtime? Just call the game on a toss.

That would, indeed, be a fair way of determining the winner. The reason it's not done is because people aren't actually looking for a fair outcome, and would feel let down by such a manner of conclusion. They're looking for one team to win on the field. Coin toss + on field play = compromise solution designed to combine some level of fairness with a greater chance of on field play being the determinant.

But that would perhaps be laughable?

No. It would actually be sensible, if it were all about fairness. Playing a game for longer than its natural time is inherently unfair. It warps the honest result (tie) and impacts the entire league. The league actually understands that, which is why it allows for a tie after just one overtime period in the regular season, and it's shortened the overtime period in the regular season.

The fairest form of overtime, with no uneven odds and no unnatural play, is no overtime at all, with the game called a tie. But the league doesn't like ties.

 

[EddardSnow67]

That would, indeed, be a fair way of determining the winner. The reason it's not done is because people aren't actually looking for a fair outcome, and would feel let down by such a manner of conclusion. They're looking for one team to win on the field. Coin toss + on field play = compromise solution designed to combine some level of fairness with a greater chance of on field play being the determinant.



No. It would actually be sensible, if it were all about fairness. Playing a game for longer than its natural time is inherently unfair. It warps the honest result (tie) and impacts the entire league. The league actually understands that, which is why it allows for a tie after just one overtime period in the regular season, and it's shortened the overtime period in the regular season.

Perfectly stated.

 

[bormio]

The college system is terrible though. Say you defend first, intercept a pass and run it all the way back to the 1 yard line. A great play that puts you a yard from winning - nope. You get the ball at the 25. Of course you can try a FG, but still.

 

[Observer]

That would, indeed, be a fair way of determining the winner. The reason it's not done is because people aren't actually looking for a fair outcome, and would feel let down by such a manner of conclusion. They're looking for one team to win on the field. Coin toss + on field play = compromise solution designed to combine some level of fairness with a greater chance of on field play being the determinant.



No. It would actually be sensible, if it were all about fairness. Playing a game for longer than its natural time is inherently unfair. It warps the honest result (tie) and impacts the entire league. The league actually understands that, which is why it allows for a tie after just one overtime period in the regular season, and it's shortened the overtime period in the regular season.

The fairest form of overtime, with no uneven odds and no unnatural play, is no overtime at all, with the game called a tie. But the league doesn't like ties.

So you agree with what I said in my post then... a coin toss is the fairest way and the current system is not fair if the idea is to decide the game on merit rather than on chance. My position is that if you are going to claim to decide the game on merit, then both teams should have equal opportunity to play their best hand. The winning team should have one more point AND one more stop.

 

[Deus Irae]

So you agree with what I said in my post then... a coin toss is the fairest way and the current system is not fair if the idea is to decide the game on merit rather than on chance. My position is that if you are going to claim to decide the game on merit, then both teams should have equal opportunity to play their best hand. The winning team should have one more point AND one more stop.

Your reading comprehension (or just your reading in general) on this issue has been abominable. In the very post you quoted while writing the above, I stated:

The fairest form of overtime, with no uneven odds and no unnatural play, is no overtime at all, with the game called a tie.

which clearly means that I don't agree with what you said in your post. And your initial position was that the current system is fundamentally unfair,

The current rule is fundamentally unfair. Both teams should get equal opportunity.

which is an absurd position.


I suggest that you take heed of the first rule of holes.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

Chiefs will propose OT rule change guaranteeing both teams a possession

Chiefs will propose OT rule change guaranteeing both teams a possession

 

[Delicate Genius]

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

All respect for Chiefs has evaporated. I get all the hate for the Patriots, but how can anyone root for all these b1tch teams?

 

[sb1]

Link
Chiefs will propose OT rule change guaranteeing both teams a possession

Hilarious. Next rule is the Patriots have to start a game at minus 7 points instead of 0.

 

[Patstastic]

Rule is fine as is.

 

[sb1]

Rule is fine as is.

Yep. Once they made it a TD walkoff, that fixed any problems the rule might have had.

Maybe if the Chiefs could stop 1 of the 6(?) third and longs in the last couple of minutes and OT then they would have won...

 

[maust]

I get a kick out of the 'games decided by a coin flip' argument as though the winner of the toss walks away with the game and that's it. With the advent of the current rules a TD is required in order to prevent the other team from getting a possession. Get a damn stop if you want the win. Going to a matching possessions format could lead to interminable overtimes where teams beat the stuffing out of each other and the eventual winner ends up being meat on the table for their next opponent.

 

[maust]

Ahem...

How Many Rule Changes Have the Pats Spawned to Try To Crush The Dynasty?

 

[Kargetina]

Breaking News: “Patriots fined all first round picks until 2025 for beating teams before OT after the league changed the rules to allow both team possessions. Bill Belichick and Tom Brady are suspected in threatening their players to “win in regulation or else forfeit the right to become Patriots player of the week”, sources say.

 

[Patstastic]

Yep. Once they made it a TD walkoff, that fixed any problems the rule might have had.

Maybe if the Chiefs could stop 1 of the 6(?) third and longs in the last couple of minutes and OT then they would have won...

Indeed. They want the rules changed because the result didn't benefit them. Stats show the winner of the toss isn't a sure bet to win the game.

 

[jah]

Rodgers never touched the ball in Seattle in the NFCCG
Ryan never touched the ball in the Super Bowl
Mahomes never touched the ball in AFCCG

Quit eliminating stars involved in the biggest part of the game and NFL season.

This is a real post by a Chiefs fan. Embarrassing.