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

[fourhour]

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.

Been saying that since the 4th quarter ended. Had their chance to go to the SB, but chose to go for the tie!

 

[billdog3484]

theyll change the overtime rule...the patriots will lose the coin toss in overtime and win again!

 

[fourhour]

I don't recall anybody from Atlanta crying for a rule change. Am I right?

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

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!!!”

On top of this, BB would always elect to kick for another reason. Your field positioning will pretty much always be better or the same if you start OT on defense.

The team with OT possession will either score a TD or FG, which results in a kick-off or they miss a FG or punt. In which case, you probably have better field position. The exceptions being that the punt is downed inside the 25 or they miss a FG from within the 25 (highly unlikely for that option).

Pretty much the same or fewer yards to drive going 2nd (without a punt return).

 

[Steve102]

Where's my Tedy Bruschi thing??


Ted is right. That's what these teams can't figure out. Colin Cowherd said it best:

The Patriots, are sharper, craftier, and smarter than everybody else.

So these guys want to change the rules? Do you think it will help? Do you think if you change the rules, that will level the playing field? I don't think so, because Bill Belichick.

 

[Wheelman]

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!!!”

And then when they add that rule two things will happen:

1. Patriots win the coin toss and take the ball 2nd for each possession and have 4 down advantage.

2. They alternate for each set of possessions, in which case after the Patriots win the toss, they take the ball 2nd, knowing they'll get the ball first on the next set of possessions. Which will create the double whammy. Opponent defense has to defend against two consecutive possessions, totally gassed by the end of the 2nd. While the Patriots defense is getting well rested.

Next thing you know they'll get rid of the coin toss and find a different way to decide who gets to decide who has possession first.

The butthurt fans just don't get it. The OT rules as they are right now are as fair as it'll ever be.

 

[Doctor DDS]

I like the current rule about a TD winning it. Reduces possessions. Only thing I would change is replacing the coin flip with a rule that determines who gets option to have the ball first. That way everyone knows who will be getting the ball when OT starts. Maybe the team that receives the ball first would then get it "3rd" (impacts decision to receive or kick to start the game) Or the team with longer time of possession has the option to kick or receive. Not that any of these potential rules are overly compelling but they could make end of game decisions different (team scores TD late and knows other team would be getting ball first in OT - potentially makes going for 2 more likely)

 

[Wordsmyth]

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.

The butthurt Queefs can go pound sand.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Next thing you know they'll get rid of the coin toss and find a different way to decide who gets to decide who has possession first.

The butthurt fans just don't get it. The OT rules as they are right now are as fair as it'll ever be.

“Road team gets 1st possession, home team gets 2nd possession, except for games played in Massachusetts where it is reversed; for neutral site games the team from the AFC gets the ball first and the team from the NFC gets the ball second.”

 

[bormio]

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.

Especially if the Pats go for it on 4th down in their own territory - “They knew they had to go for it - not fair”.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

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

Our Fan base suffered a long time before entering into the present golden age .

 

[Steve102]

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.

Ladies and Gents, I give you Bill Belichick.

 

[reflexblue]

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...

Tell you what if the situation were reversed WE would probably be complaining about the rule, but BB and TB never would. They wouldn't say a thing.

 

[Patstastic]

Hurley: Chiefs, Andy Reid Should Be Embarrassed When Proposing Overtime Rule Changes

Agreed 100% here. It's called the National Football League. It's not called the Patrick Mahomes League. There are three facets to a game. If one facet fails miserably in OT, the other facet (Offense) shouldn't deserve the ball. And let's face it, the Chiefs are crying because they were on the receiving end of this rule. Had they won the coin toss, went and won the game in OT, would it be an issue? No it wouldn't.

Let's not forget Drew Brees had the ball first in OT. Had that work out? And had the Chiefs lost to the Colts or Chargers in OT, the outcry wouldn't be as big. This is all a reaction to the team that won the toss (Patriots). Mahomes could've scored a TD and won the game on their last possession. Instead he failed.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

What about the rule change where the official needs to warn a professional defensive end that he’s lined up in the neutral zone?

 

[Kontradiction]

Just put it back to sudden death. Oh, and, uh, maybe develop a defense too while you’re at it?

 

[Redstorm]

As a Chief fan I’d hate to score a touchdown in OT then wait for the other team to get the ball

If you allow 74 yards but hold the other team to a FG you still get the ball back. The new rules are fine and I am wary of a change.

 

[RobertWeathers]

My post on Chiefs Planet

RobertWeathers
Starter




Join Date: Jan 2019
Casino cash: $500

What a joke.

Next time Andy should put a defense on the field that can stop teams when it matters

 

[RobertWeathers]

What about the rule change where the official needs to warn a professional defensive end that he’s lined up in the neutral zone?

Only coaches who have a BMI of 40 or over get a final possession.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Only coaches who have a BMI of 40 or over get a final possession.

What if it's a 38 but they have moobs?