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

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Nobody in KC gives a **** if Dee Ford lines up onsides.

Nobody in KC gives a **** if KC stops just one of three 3rd-and-10s in OT.

Regards,
Chris

 

[BradytoMosstoGronk]

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

All three had a lead (2 had a HUGE LEAD), and blew it. “Stars involved” all had their opportunity to go the super bowl or win it and lost it. What they really mean is our team couldn’t get it done and it’s not fair.

These overly sensitive babies need to get over it. The field goal in OT on the first possession for a win sucked, and they changed that to make it more fair - and it is. After that, If the Defense can’t make a stop with all these chances then you deserve to lose.

Lastly, Chiefs fans don’t have brain cells so there’s that.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

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.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with teams proposing rule changes due to the fact that rule was material in us winning a Lombardi.

I hope to see many proposals in the near future.

 

[HailHydra]

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.

---->>>>> THE SAINTS WON THE TOSS <<<<-----

 

[IllegalContact]

here's your participation trophy.....now sh*t the f*ck up

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

When your fan base thinks you're lucky if you get to the big game once every decade, you can understand them wanting to have a better chance. We Patriot fans just can't understand the exquisite pain these guys feel

 

[Deus Irae]

To be fair to the Chiefs, this mentality is pervasive in today's society. If something happens that people don't like, the immediate thought for far too many people is to wonder how they got screwed over by an external issue, and how it can be fixed to their satisfaction, rather than accepting that sometimes **** happens. It's become the go to way in politics, for example. And, again to be fair, when they made the new rule change, people were already talking about this being the next complaint.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

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.

Once again this is going to backfire on everyone. And the Pats will be the first to notice and capitalize on it.

I believe statistics have shown that since the current rule went into effect in 2011, the team who gets the ball first has won about 50% of the time. That’s what you would expect and want. Sure, some teams didn’t get a possession, but the overall results are right.

If the rule is changed so that each team is required to have one possession, the team that takes the ball 2nd will win the game significantly higher than 50% of the time (maybe as high as 60%). Why? The team with the ball first will treat it like a normal possession— typically 3 downs to get a first, take the field goal if needed. But the team with the ball 2nd will know exactly what is needed — if the first team didn’t score, they would play it straight; if the first team got a field goal they would use all 4 downs as necessary and adjust the individual play calling on each down as needed (a lot more 3rd down runs and short passes - unpredictability by the offense which favors the offense) but willing to settle for a field goal if needed; if the 1st team gets a TD then it’s the same 4 downs approach without the willingness to accept a field goal. Why would you ever take the ball first?

On top of that, what’s the next logical step? Patriots get ball first and score opening TD, Chiefs/Flavor of the Month come back and get a TD, Patriots come back and hit a field goal. “NOT FAIR! Patriots got to possess the ball twice!!! New rule is that everyone should have the same number of possessions!!!”

 

[edkk323]

Once again this is going to backfire on everyone. And the Pats will be the first to notice and capitalize on it.

I believe statistics have shown that since the current rule went into effect in 2011, the team who gets the ball first has won about 50% of the time. That’s what you would expect and want. Sure, some teams didn’t get a possession, but the overall results are right.

If the rule is changed so that each team is required to have one possession, the team that takes the ball 2nd will won the game significantly higher than 50% of the time (maybe as high as 60%). Why? The team with the ball first will treat it like a normal possession— typically 3 downs to get a first, take the field goal if needed. But the team with the ball 2nd will know exactly what is needed — if the first team didn’t score, they would play it straight; if the first team got a field goal they would use all 4 downs as necessary and adjust the individual play calling on each down as needed (a lot more 3rd down runs and short passes - unpredictability by the offense which favors the offense) but willing to settle for a field goal if needed; if the 1st team gets a TD then it’s the same 4 downs approach without the willingness to accept a field goal. Why would you ever take the ball first?

On top of that, what’s the next logical step? Patriots get ball first and score opening TD, Chiefs/Flavor of the Month come back and get a TD, Patriots come back and hit a field goal. “NOT FAIR! Patriots got to possess the ball twice!!! New rule is that everyone should have the same number of possessions!!!”

Too much thinking. The losers are too sad and stupid to think this far.

 

[Froob]

I agree actually, not a huge injustice though.

 

[patfanken]

Here's the undisputed fact. Both the league and the players union want to minimize the number of snaps they have their players play in every game. That's why in college first downs stop the clock until the sticks are reset, and the clock runs in the NFL - Fewer snaps. That's why there's a 40 second clock in the pro's and in the 20's in college. All things designed to LIMIT the number of snaps in the pro game. And there are other rules that seem to try and limit games to around 60 offensive snaps/game.

The rule of unintended consequences - Add the rule to change overtime so that if one team gets a FG, the other team would have a shot at getting the ball, has ALREADY extended the number of plays have to endure. By changing it again, so that both teams have a shot on offense regardless of what happens just lengthens the game exponentially.

What happens if both teams score TD's on their first drives. Do they BOTH get another shot. If they do, then the game would likely go longer than a 5th quarter. NEITHER the union nor the League want that.

Ultimately the current rule is EMINENTLY fair, because while sometimes the rule works against you, it will ultimately work FOR your just as many times over time.

You can bet ONE thing for certain. If KC had won the toss and scored a TD, BB would NOT be whining to the competition committee for any changes. He simply would have blamed himself for the poor defense that allowed the Chiefs to have scored a TD, and spent the off season working his ass off to figure out how to make it better.

Remember the Pats lost Superbowl LII because they allowed the Eagles to score 41 FREAKIN' points. BB didn't whine or try and change the rules. He went back to work and FIXED the issues with a team most observers believed had a weaker roster. The end result, of course, was that the defense held the #2 offensive team in the league to just THREE point!

BTW- on the PFT comments page on this topic, I'd say about 80% of the commenters have a similar position to mine.

 

[50-yard-line]

Once again this is going to backfire on everyone. And the Pats will be the first to notice and capitalize on it.

I believe statistics have shown that since the current rule went into effect in 2011, the team who gets the ball first has won about 50% of the time. That’s what you would expect and want. Sure, some teams didn’t get a possession, but the overall results are right.

If the rule is changed so that each team is required to have one possession, the team that takes the ball 2nd will win the game significantly higher than 50% of the time (maybe as high as 60%). Why? The team with the ball first will treat it like a normal possession— typically 3 downs to get a first, take the field goal if needed. But the team with the ball 2nd will know exactly what is needed — if the first team didn’t score, they would play it straight; if the first team got a field goal they would use all 4 downs as necessary and adjust the individual play calling on each down as needed (a lot more 3rd down runs and short passes - unpredictability by the offense which favors the offense) but willing to settle for a field goal if needed; if the 1st team gets a TD then it’s the same 4 downs approach without the willingness to accept a field goal. Why would you ever take the ball first?

On top of that, what’s the next logical step? Patriots get ball first and score opening TD, Chiefs/Flavor of the Month come back and get a TD, Patriots come back and hit a field goal. “NOT FAIR! Patriots got to possess the ball twice!!! New rule is that everyone should have the same number of possessions!!!”

I was about to post this same thing - if the first team scores, the team with the second possession gains a HUGE advantage in knowing from the start that every series is four-down territory.

The team that gets the ball first can't do that.

 

[Sicilian]

Overtime rules don't have to be "fair". You've got 60 minutes of football to try to win the game outright. If neither team can do that, you can't be angry at the fate that you didn't seize.

That said, based on the results thus far, the current rules are pretty damn close to 50/50 (aka, "fair").

 

[Bonzo]

I agree actually, not a huge injustice though.

Yeah, it's possible here to be on board with every take simultaneously: I can agree with a tweak to the OT format, and the butthurt Chiefs should still be embarrassed of themselves.

 

[Canuck]

Heads will explode if another team scores the first TD in OT and the Patriots come back and score a TD on their possession and go on to win the game.

 

[Froob]

Here's the undisputed fact. Both the league and the players union want to minimize the number of snaps they have their players play in every game. That's why in college first downs stop the clock until the sticks are reset, and the clock runs in the NFL - Fewer snaps. That's why there's a 40 second clock in the pro's and in the 20's in college. All things designed to LIMIT the number of snaps in the pro game. And there are other rules that seem to try and limit games to around 60 offensive snaps/game.

The rule of unintended consequences - Add the rule to change overtime so that if one team gets a FG, the other team would have a shot at getting the ball, has ALREADY extended the number of plays have to endure. By changing it again, so that both teams have a shot on offense regardless of what happens just lengthens the game exponentially.

What happens if both teams score TD's on their first drives. Do they BOTH get another shot. If they do, then the game would likely go longer than a 5th quarter. NEITHER the union nor the League want that.

Ultimately the current rule is EMINENTLY fair, because while sometimes the rule works against you, it will ultimately work FOR your just as many times over time.

You can bet ONE thing for certain. If KC had won the toss and scored a TD, BB would NOT be whining to the competition committee for any changes. He simply would have blamed himself for the poor defense that allowed the Chiefs to have scored a TD, and spent the off season working his ass off to figure out how to make it better.

Remember the Pats lost Superbowl LII because they allowed the Eagles to score 41 FREAKIN' points. BB didn't whine or try and change the rules. He went back to work and FIXED the issues with a team most observers believed had a weaker roster. The end result, of course, was that the defense held the #2 offensive team in the league to just THREE point!

BTW- on the PFT comments page on this topic, I'd say about 80% of the commenters have a similar position to mine.

Here’s one where everybody wins: No OT and Roger Goodell decides who win. Less snaps and safer.

 

[fourhour]

Coin toss win didn't help the Saints.

 

[Chevy]

Heads will explode if another team scores the first TD in OT and the Patriots come back and score a TD on their possession and go on to win the game.

Ernie and Bill will have 2 or 3 special 2pt plays just for this.

 

[bormio]

Chiefs at the 20 with 11 seconds left and no time outs and 2nd down. Elected to chicken out and kick the FG. Deserve what they got.

 

[Bonzo]

Heads will explode if another team scores the first TD in OT and the Patriots come back and score a TD on their possession and go on to win the game.

If my team got possession and scored the TD first, I'd be extremely tempted to go for two: make it, and you've guaranteed (at a minimum) an extra possession, guarding against that scenario; miss it, and the other team still has to drive the field.