NFL News Owners pass a rule guaranteeing each team a possession in overtime

[signbabybrady]

All 3 things you listed (Walk off goal, HR, or an NBA buzzer beater) are "possible" but not necessarily all that likely.

A walk off goal is a guaranteed in the NHL playoffs, but many NHL OT games go to the shootout, which is nothing but a cheap gimmick.

A walk off HR in baseball happens, but is pretty rare. Ditto the NBA "buzzer beater".

True.

In baseball there's also walk off singles that are also very exciting. Every game won by the home team is a walk off. I suppose that's a little unfair but highly entertaining.

Yes NHL has the funky shoot- out in the regular season. A fair enough compromise. I'd be ok with a FG kick competition in regular season if we went back to real sudden death in the playoffs.

And Basketball you're right the buzzer beater doesn't happen every time. But their OT rules are the fairest and simplest by just adding 5 minutes and playing on.

 

[NFL Mystique]

There is a way to not get the ball first and win......it involves your defense making a stop.

It's a stupid rule. The current OT rules in regular season are good imo.

 

[jmt57]

Seems fair. No more coin flip stuff

Owners pass a rule guaranteeing each team a possession in overtime

NFL owners approved a rule change allowing both teams to possess the ball in overtime during the regular season.

www.nbcsports.com

If they are going to guarantee each team gets a possession, then they also need to guarantee that each team gets a full possession.

In other words, either remove the game clock on the second possession after ten minutes have passed, or make OT a full 15 minutes.


If this is all about making it fair for both teams, then how do the owners reconcile one team holding the ball for seven or eight minutes, but the team that lost the coin flip only having two minutes or less to score a touchdown - just to tie?

 

[denverpatsfan]

Thank God. Let's give everyone a trophy while we are at it!

 

[sb1]

Do the NCAA OT rules. That's the best one IMO.

I like it too but they'd have to tweak it. Otherwise might see some 78-72 games lol

Just go back to true sudden death.

 

[CanadianPatriot]

I don't love it, I think it's still too favorable to the team getting the ball second who will know what they need to get and play with the mindset that will go for it on any 4th downs.

I still think that the previous OT scoring rules (first team to possess scoring a TD ends the game, FG gives the other team a possession) were the best that we've had and the most balanced in terms of win % between the team receiving the ball first or second. I remember seeing that it was almost a 50%/50% split in terms of who won the game between the team getting the ball first or second under those rules. The biggest flaw from this format in my opinion was not the scoring/possession rules themselves, but rather the luck factor of the coin flip arbitrarily awarding the first possession.

I believe that the best solution to the NFL's overtime rules would be to go back the previous scoring and possession format, but remove the coin flip at the beginning of OT to determine who gets the ball first. Instead, the beginning of overtime can simply be a continuation of the end of the 4th quarter; so the team with the ball last when the clock hits 0:00 in the 4th has the ball with the same field position and in the same situation to start overtime. This would make strategy and game management decisions in the 4th quarter even more paramount as some of those decisions can directly impact the first possession of overtime in the event of a tie game at the end of regulation.

For example, a team down 7 pts scoring a TD late in the 4th quarter would have a more interesting decision to make for the convert: go for 2 to decide the game right then and there, or go for 1 to tie the game, but knowing that you would then be kicking off and playing defense to start OT where a walk-off TD on the first possession can end the game. Similarly a team down 3 running a two minute drill would have more incentive to drive for a winning TD in regulation, if they're too conservative or lack execution and have to settle for a field goal to tie, they would start OT on defense.

I've gone through multiple scenarios under this idea and haven't been able to think of one yet where this would be worse than the old scoring/possession format with the coin toss. I also think the general fan sentiment would be much more accepting of a team not getting an overtime possession in games featuring a first possesion walk-off TD if the luck factor from the coin toss was completely removed from deciding which team gets the ball first.

It would add an extra layer to coaching strategy in the 4th quarter. We would be able to go over and analyze all of the game management decisions of the teams and coaches that led to the overtime unfolding in the way that it did. The reason a team would not get a chance with the ball in overtime would be more closely tied to that team's coaching decisions and execution, especially late in games, which is much easier to stomach as a fan than a 50/50 coin flip.

 

[Pape]

Give me sudden death. its a bajillion times better.

the nfl ot has become participation football... why bother doing this? just get rid of OT all together.

win lose or tie, all done in a nice neat 60 minute package > everyone gets a chance cuz its not fair otherwise...

hard to believe this is the same nfl that railroaded the Patriots then Brady mewling about "fairness".

 

[signbabybrady]

I don't love it, I think it's still too favorable to the team getting the ball second who will know what they need to get and play with the mindset that will go for it on any 4th downs.

I still think that the previous OT scoring rules (first team to possess scoring a TD ends the game, FG gives the other team a possession) were the best that we've had and the most balanced in terms of win % between the team receiving the ball first or second. I remember seeing that it was almost a 50%/50% split in terms of who won the game between the team getting the ball first or second under those rules. The biggest flaw from this format in my opinion was not the scoring/possession rules themselves, but rather the luck factor of the coin flip arbitrarily awarding the first possession.

I believe that the best solution to the NFL's overtime rules would be to go back the previous scoring and possession format, but remove the coin flip at the beginning of OT to determine who gets the ball first. Instead, the beginning of overtime can simply be a continuation of the end of the 4th quarter; so the team with the ball last when the clock hits 0:00 in the 4th has the ball with the same field position and in the same situation to start overtime. This would make strategy and game management decisions in the 4th quarter even more paramount as some of those decisions can directly impact the first possession of overtime in the event of a tie game at the end of regulation.

For example, a team down 7 pts scoring a TD late in the 4th quarter would have a more interesting decision to make for the convert: go for 2 to decide the game right then and there, or go for 1 to tie the game, but knowing that you would then be kicking off and playing defense to start OT where a walk-off TD on the first possession can end the game. Similarly a team down 3 running a two minute drill would have more incentive to drive for a winning TD in regulation, if they're too conservative or lack execution and have to settle for a field goal to tie, they would start OT on defense.

I've gone through multiple scenarios under this idea and haven't been able to think of one yet where this would be worse than the old scoring/possession format with the coin toss. I also think the general fan sentiment would be much more accepting of a team not getting an overtime possession in games featuring a first possesion walk-off TD if the luck factor from the coin toss was completely removed from deciding which team gets the ball first.

It would add an extra layer to coaching strategy in the 4th quarter. We would be able to go over and analyze all of the game management decisions of the teams and coaches that led to the overtime unfolding in the way that it did. The reason a team would not get a chance with the ball in overtime would be more closely tied to that team's coaching decisions and execution, especially late in games, which is much easier to stomach as a fan than a 50/50 coin flip.

Seems like you're saying don't let the game end in a tie. If it's tied and the clock strikes zero just keep playing until there is a winner. I like this suggestion. (I suppose regular season could be add ten minutes before declaring a tie)

 

[Nehalem]

They should just eliminate OT in the regular season.

I think when I looked at it historically there was ~1 OT game per week of the season.

I can live with 1 tie game per week.

Also make it interesting at the end of the game where teams have to decide to go for the tie or gamble for a win.

 

[CanadianPatriot]

Sorry - double post

 

[CanadianPatriot]

Seems like you're saying don't let the game end in a tie. If it's tied and the clock strikes zero just keep playing until there is a winner. I like this suggestion. (I suppose regular season could be add ten minutes before declaring a tie)

In a way, yes, I'm saying that under this format, it would be more beneficial for a team mounting a comeback in the 4th quarter to be more aggressive and try to win the game in regulation rather than settle for ties and go on defense to start overtime.

I'm still in favor of ties during the regular season, I get the whole issue of player safety and not wanting to put the players through more than a single 10 or 15 minute quarter of overtime for non-playoff games. There can still be ties if the score was tied after the overtime was played.

The main thing that I was saying was to go back to when the OT rules were good and balanced - if the first team to get the ball scores a TD on their first OT drive, the game is over, but if they only can score a FG, then the other team gets a possession. The change would be to get rid of the coin toss and let the situation at the end of the 4th quarter when the clock hits 0:00 determine how the OT begins.

Another interesting scenario under this format: tie game with 3 seconds left in the 4th and the clock stopped, it's a 2nd and 10 with the offense in range to kick a 55 yard FG. Do you trust your kicker to kick the game winning FG in regulation? If he misses then overtime begins with your team on defense with unfavorable field position. You can also decide to run an offensive play on 2nd and 10, and then, barring a turnover, overtime would begin with you on offense facing a 3rd down (or 1st down if the 10 yards are gained) in the opponent's half of the field, but you would be taking the risk of needing a TD to end the game, having to settle for a FG in overtime in this scenario would give the other team a chance with the ball.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Seems fair. No more coin flip stuff

Owners pass a rule guaranteeing each team a possession in overtime

NFL owners approved a rule change allowing both teams to possess the ball in overtime during the regular season.

www.nbcsports.com

The one possession rule for each team feels more fair at the cost of taking away the visceral feel of, one score and you lose. Hopefully this means that the TD still wins it but the FG does not.

BTW I understand why ties are necessary for OT to keep a time limit on the game and reduce injuries. But ties feel like a letdown conclusion to a game.

 

[jmt57]

I don't love it, I think it's still too favorable to the team getting the ball second who will know what they need to get and play with the mindset that will go for it on any 4th downs.

I still think that the previous OT scoring rules (first team to possess scoring a TD ends the game, FG gives the other team a possession) were the best that we've had and the most balanced in terms of win % between the team receiving the ball first or second. I remember seeing that it was almost a 50%/50% split in terms of who won the game between the team getting the ball first or second under those rules. The biggest flaw from this format in my opinion was not the scoring/possession rules themselves, but rather the luck factor of the coin flip arbitrarily awarding the first possession.

I believe that the best solution to the NFL's overtime rules would be to go back the previous scoring and possession format, but remove the coin flip at the beginning of OT to determine who gets the ball first. Instead, the beginning of overtime can simply be a continuation of the end of the 4th quarter; so the team with the ball last when the clock hits 0:00 in the 4th has the ball with the same field position and in the same situation to start overtime. This would make strategy and game management decisions in the 4th quarter even more paramount as some of those decisions can directly impact the first possession of overtime in the event of a tie game at the end of regulation.

For example, a team down 7 pts scoring a TD late in the 4th quarter would have a more interesting decision to make for the convert: go for 2 to decide the game right then and there, or go for 1 to tie the game, but knowing that you would then be kicking off and playing defense to start OT where a walk-off TD on the first possession can end the game. Similarly a team down 3 running a two minute drill would have more incentive to drive for a winning TD in regulation, if they're too conservative or lack execution and have to settle for a field goal to tie, they would start OT on defense.

I've gone through multiple scenarios under this idea and haven't been able to think of one yet where this would be worse than the old scoring/possession format with the coin toss. I also think the general fan sentiment would be much more accepting of a team not getting an overtime possession in games featuring a first possesion walk-off TD if the luck factor from the coin toss was completely removed from deciding which team gets the ball first.

It would add an extra layer to coaching strategy in the 4th quarter. We would be able to go over and analyze all of the game management decisions of the teams and coaches that led to the overtime unfolding in the way that it did. The reason a team would not get a chance with the ball in overtime would be more closely tied to that team's coaching decisions and execution, especially late in games, which is much easier to stomach as a fan than a 50/50 coin flip.

Interesting concept. Here's another:

Coin flip for initial possession; winner gets the ball at the fifty yard line.
Teams alternate possession - but with just one play on offense, one on defense, etc., with no punts allowed.
Game ends on the first score.

 

[Bobby T]

I don't love it, I think it's still too favorable to the team getting the ball second who will know what they need to get and play with the mindset that will go for it on any 4th downs.

I still think that the previous OT scoring rules (first team to possess scoring a TD ends the game, FG gives the other team a possession) were the best that we've had and the most balanced in terms of win % between the team receiving the ball first or second. I remember seeing that it was almost a 50%/50% split in terms of who won the game between the team getting the ball first or second under those rules. The biggest flaw from this format in my opinion was not the scoring/possession rules themselves, but rather the luck factor of the coin flip arbitrarily awarding the first possession.

I believe that the best solution to the NFL's overtime rules would be to go back the previous scoring and possession format, but remove the coin flip at the beginning of OT to determine who gets the ball first. Instead, the beginning of overtime can simply be a continuation of the end of the 4th quarter; so the team with the ball last when the clock hits 0:00 in the 4th has the ball with the same field position and in the same situation to start overtime. This would make strategy and game management decisions in the 4th quarter even more paramount as some of those decisions can directly impact the first possession of overtime in the event of a tie game at the end of regulation.

For example, a team down 7 pts scoring a TD late in the 4th quarter would have a more interesting decision to make for the convert: go for 2 to decide the game right then and there, or go for 1 to tie the game, but knowing that you would then be kicking off and playing defense to start OT where a walk-off TD on the first possession can end the game. Similarly a team down 3 running a two minute drill would have more incentive to drive for a winning TD in regulation, if they're too conservative or lack execution and have to settle for a field goal to tie, they would start OT on defense.

I've gone through multiple scenarios under this idea and haven't been able to think of one yet where this would be worse than the old scoring/possession format with the coin toss. I also think the general fan sentiment would be much more accepting of a team not getting an overtime possession in games featuring a first possesion walk-off TD if the luck factor from the coin toss was completely removed from deciding which team gets the ball first.

It would add an extra layer to coaching strategy in the 4th quarter. We would be able to go over and analyze all of the game management decisions of the teams and coaches that led to the overtime unfolding in the way that it did. The reason a team would not get a chance with the ball in overtime would be more closely tied to that team's coaching decisions and execution, especially late in games, which is much easier to stomach as a fan than a 50/50 coin flip.

Or keep it the way it was and get rid of the coin toss. Home team gets the choice. In the small percentage of games it matters it’s part of having home field advantage. BTW college overtime sucks and is far more unfair if that’s anyone’s concern. Going second is always a massive advantage. NFL is doing the same thing by guaranteeing a team a possession.

 

[Ring 6]

Should the team that wins the coin flip defer so they know whether they have to score a TD or FG when they get it ?

Yes always

 

[Ring 6]

This must be the most we've ever agreed. Shanny made the right call. The only advantage from either choice is taking it first and getting it third. There's no actual mechanical benefit to taking it second.

Of course there is. It played out in that game. Shanahan was wrong because he put up a drive for the chiefs to beat. The chiefs getting the ball second started in 4 down territory.

 

[TheRainMaker]

The rules keep changing because of how bad the product has become. I think there was a game where one team tried to tie rather than win because they running out of time. That's some bush league crap.

 

[UGAPatsfan]

Had to do something it was BORING. I LOVE the NCAA format, though I thought I’d hate it initially.

 

[Froob]

Of course there is. It played out in that game. Shanahan was wrong because he put up a drive for the chiefs to beat. The chiefs getting the ball second started in 4 down territory.

what stopped the niners from going for it?

 

[PlainOldEd]

This must be the most we've ever agreed. Shanny made the right call. The only advantage from either choice is taking it first and getting it third. There's no actual mechanical benefit to taking it second.

Unless weather is a major factor...