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

[sb1]

I guess not surprisingly there’s more handwringing this morning over the OT rules having the Patriots walk off another TD. I doubt there would be as much concern if it went the other way but I digress.

Some like Florio think the college rules would be better to let both teams get a shot with the football. I really hope we never see that here.

I didn’t like a cheap FG winning the game but I do like very much a TD doing it. I think it’s fine as it is.

 

[Froob]

I think so, but losing on a touchdown is a lot easier to swallow than losing on a field goal. I doubt many are *****ing if the Chiefs win.

 

[everlong]

Another rule change because of the Patriots? Stop the presses.

 

[PF_SU]

No, the current OT rules are fine as they are. Don't want to lose with your offense never having gotten a shot? Just stop them from scoring a TD.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

I was first against it, but taking the long term view and seeing how the league has turned the game - and made it more popular - by focusing primarily on offense and scores, I realize that it is probably best to give the chance to both Os when the game goes to OT.

After all, when teams invest so heavily on the O and the prime attraction of the team are the QB/RB/WRs, why not let both of them shoot it out again when everything is even?

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Nah. It's overtime. It's good enough we got rid of the "actual sudden death" where just a field goal wins it. You give up a TD it SHOULD be game over

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

No

I couldn’t help but laugh listening to local sports radio this morning (Pittsburgh area) and the next segment was going to be whether ot rules need changed. Id be willing to bet my life savings that if the chiefs won the toss and scored a td to win nobody would be saying a damn thing about the rule.

 

[ErniesPinkStripes]

I think the OT rules are something the NFL actually got right for a change.

You have all of regulation to win the game. Once OT starts, the stakes should change.

You lose the coin toss, fine get a turnover, stop, or at least hold them to a field goal.

You give up a long TD drive to start OT, go cry to your mama, you deserve to lose.

It's called Football, not Offense, or Quarterbackball. 3 phases to the game, and I think people, us included, forget that sometimes.

 

[Sully]

For the regular season leave it as is games have to end. For the playoffs both teams should get one offensive possession. After that first team that scores wins.

 

[Fixit]

Let's say that the rule is changed so that both teams get the ball, and if the second team ties it, next score wins (this is the most common rule proposal I've heard). Pats score a TD, then KC answers with a TD of their own. Tie ball game, next score wins.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION AS THE CURRENT RULE, EXCEPT NOW JUST A FIELD GOAL CAN BEAT YOU.

Don't want to lose? Play some ******* defense.

 

[RIpats88]

No,

If the cheifs wanted to win they couldv' stopped the patriots on any of those 3rd and 10's and stopped them from getting a touchdown. They had plenty of chances to prevent a touchdown.

On the other end, the Saints got the ball first and threw an interception. Don't see anyone complaining about OT rules there.

 

[sb1]

If the college rules come to the NFL I really think we will see plenty of 82-76 scores in games that drag on. Something like that would fundamentally change the sport in the wrong way. I have zero interest in an NFL with scores like that.

No thanks.

 

[slam]

College system is the worst! Anything but that.

It should stay as is. But if it has to change at all, I'd suggest this: If first team scores, the 2nd team can't attempt a score that would tie the game. If the first team gets a FG, the 2nd team has to get a TD. If the first team gets 7, the 2nd team has to go for 2 if they score. If the first team converts a 2 point conversion after a TD, game over.

 

[carmelo15]

Ya I think they should change it cause only the offensive players get payed in OT right.

The ****

 

[1960Pats]

I didn't think the rules should have been changed in the first place. If you can't stop a team from scoring (in any way) then you deserve to lose.

Now that the Pats have won twice in the playoffs using the new rule I'm sure they'll be changed to give each team a chance with the ball.

Let me tell you how that will work out. The Pats will be in a big playoff game that goes into OT and Slater will call heads, the Pats will win the toss but Belichick will take the defer option. That way the Pats will know what they'll need to win and Brady will get the job done.

Then, five years later, the NYFL will change the rules again and Tom, Bill and Ernie will come up with the solution.

 

[PF_SU]

Let's say that the rule is changed so that both teams get the ball, and if the second team ties it, next score wins (this is the most common rule proposal I've heard). Pats score a TD, then KC answers with a TD of their own. Tie ball game, next score wins.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION AS THE CURRENT RULE, EXCEPT NOW JUST A FIELD GOAL CAN BEAT YOU.

Don't want to lose? Play some ******* defense.

Absolutely. If you want to change OT rules the only logical way to go would be to get rid of sudden death altogether and adopt an NBA-style OT... which nobody wants to see. Otherwise you are just arbitrarily postponing the issue.

 

[Raymond]

Oh, now we are concerned with this because St Patrick didn't get the ball in OT?

I like the fact that the team with nerves of steel can have an edge in OT. Everybody doesn't get a trophy, OK?

You want to win the game then take care of business in regulation.

 

[bormio]

Any system that gives both teams an automatic shot favors the second team. Even the college system. NFL got this right. Yesterday the first team won one and the second team won one.

 

[luuked]

The entire thing is a cluster**** to begin with. Personally I would do completely away with the sudden death aspect of it and let the teams play a full 15 minute period.

Right now the team that chooses to receive assumes the risk that their opponents can finish the game with a FG if you fail to convert. And we were in three 3rd and longs yesterday where each might have been a season ender. At least there is a fair exchange of risk/value there unless your defense just went through about 80 snaps and is gased.

Just guaranteeing a possession doesn't change too much about the coin flip affecting things too much anyway. Because if you do that teams will just chose to kick instead as there is no danger of never getting the ball in the first place and as the second team to possess you might be able to win with a FG.

 

[tasmlab]

I think they are fine and liked the recent change to require a TD over a FG.

The only fix I would do is replace the random coin flip with some other metric that relates to how the game was going. I don't know what it would be, maybe whomever had longer TOP or more total yards would get to choose to receive/kick first. But I'm nitpicking at this point.