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

[ctpatsfan77]

For example, the coin toss winner can choose to kick the ball off in OT, but the loser still gets to choose which goal to defend.
You see? The Chiefs wants the coin toss to be even more advantageous for the winner by allowing the winner to choose if he wants to decide on the option of whether he wants to have the power of choosing if he wants to kick or receive, or have the option of choosing which goal to defend.

As near as I can understand it, the idea here is that the Chiefs' proposal would mean that the original coin toss winner would get to make one of four choices at the start of OT:

• Kick
• Receive
• Defend the north end zone
• Defend the south end zone

Making that choice eliminates the other member of that pair; the coin toss loser then gets to choose from the remaining pair. I don't see how that's more advantageous than the status quo, other than the fact that there isn't a new randomization.

 

[Ring 6]

You misunderstand me.

When you win a coin toss whether at the start of the game or at the end of the game, it means you choose if you want to kick or receive.

With the coin toss at the start of the game you can choose to defer your decision to the 2nd half.

With the coin toss at the start of OT, winner gets to choose whether he wants to kick or receive, loser gets to choose which way to kick/which goal to defend.
For example, the coin toss winner can choose to kick the ball off in OT, but the loser still gets to choose which goal to defend.
You see? The Chiefs wants the coin toss to be even more advantageous for the winner by allowing the winner to choose if he wants to decide on the option of whether he wants to have the power of choosing if he wants to kick or receive, or have the option of choosing which goal to defend.

Now the loser really suffers in the coin toss. Isn't the whining about OT rules about trying to make it "more fair". Don't all the whiners lament how a coin toss decides the game? So why would you make the coin toss give even more advantage to one team? That makes no freaking sense!

Even with that ridiculous rule proposal of both teams possessing the ball once, the coin toss winner is at a greater advantage. That goes against what the "game decided by a coin toss crowd" wants.

You can choose which goal to defend on any coin toss.

 

[Bledsoehasaring]

Since the change, the odds have been 52 percent winners if you win the toss, And 48 percent winners if you lose the toss. I don’t care at all about “fairness” in overtime, but that is as close as you will ever get to it.

 

[Wheelman]

You can choose which goal to defend on any coin toss.

I was wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

Wrong!

I don’t think it is wrong !

 

[Wheelman]

Deleted so I don't mislead anyone. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[Ring 6]

Wrong!

Rule 4-2-2: Toss Of Coin
Not more than three minutes before the kickoff of the first half, the Referee, in the presence of both team’s captains (limit of six per team, active, inactive or honorary) shall toss a coin at the center of the field. Prior to the Referee’s toss, the call of “heads” or “tails” must be made by the captain of the visiting team, or by the captain designated by the Referee if there is no home team. Unless the winner of the toss defers his choice to the second half, he must choose one of two privileges, and the loser is given the other. The two privileges are:

a) The opportunity to receive the kickoff, or to kick off

b) The choice of goal his team will defend.

 

[Wheelman]

Deleted so I don't mislead anyone. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[Ring 6]

Because now you're giving more power to the coin toss winner.

At least with the current way the loser gets something from the coin toss.

OT coin toss winner gets to choose to kick or receive.
OT coin toss loser gets to choose to which way to defend.

or the proposed:

OT coin toss winner gets to choose to kick or receive, or can choose which way to defend.
OT coin toss loser gets 2nd fiddle.

You see, coin toss winner has all the power in the proposed rule change. At least with the current rule change, it's not giving the coin toss winner a power to choose whatever he wants.

You have this all wrong.
The toss winner chooses to
1) kick
2) receive
3) defend a goal

If they choose 1, then the toss loser picks 3
If they choose 2, then the toss loser picks 3
If they choose 3, then the toss loser picks 1 or 2

 

[Ring 6]

If you win a coin toss in OT. You get to choose if you want to receive or kick the ball. You do not get to choose which way to defend even if you choose to kick the ball.

See the game BB told Matthew Slater to kick the ball off in OT if he won the toss. Then Blakeman asked the rats player?(I think it was the rats) which way they wanted to defend.

You can choose
1) Kick
2) receive
3) defend a goal

If you choose to defend a goal the opponent chooses kick or receive

If slater had chosen which way to defend the jet player would have chosen kick or receive.

 

[Wheelman]

Deleted so I don't mislead anyone. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[Ring 6]

If that was the case, Belichick would have told Blakeman what he wanted because Blakeman walked up to BB to ask him if he got what he wanted because Slater was confused.

Yes Belichick wanted to kick.blakeman asked BB because he was concerned that sister was confused. He wasn’t. Blakeman assumed you would chose the goal to defend since it would follow the other team would take receive. But bb valued going in defense first over direction. No one had ever done that before.
Teams have chosen to defend a goal after winning the ot toss when weather was a factor.
I just quoted the rule to you.

One team decides kick or receive the other decides direction
The team winning the toss gets to pick which one they want. The team losing the toss gets the remaining choice.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Since the change, the odds have been 52 percent winners if you win the toss, And 48 percent winners if you lose the toss. I don’t care at all about “fairness” in overtime, but that is as close as you will ever get to it.

I’m guessing that guranteeing a possession would give the second team getting the ball a huge advantage. You wouldn’t want the ball first.

 

[carmelo15]

Honestly anyone that thinks the rule should be changed is an idiot. Defense gets paid too right, ok then.

 

[Ring 6]

This explains it and references the time bb chose direction when winning the OT toss. I was at that game.

This actually isn't the first time Belichick has chosen the side of the field in overtime. He did it in a 2013 game against the Broncos on a windy day in Foxboro. In that game, the wind led to a critical Broncos special teams turnover and the Patriots won on a field goal. The Vikings also did it earlier this year on a windy day in Minnesota, and the wind was a factor in a Vikings win. It's a bit confusing why Belichick would've asked for that today -- it's downright balmy in New York, a non-wintry 60 degrees without much wind -- but it's something he's done before.

The confusion is actually about the fact that Belichick wanted Slater to select a direction. Slater says "we want to kick that way," but the part that was really critical was "that way." The problem is that he led off his response with "we want to kick." You can choose to kick or receive to start overtime, or you can choose a direction. You can't pick both

What happened on the Jets-Pats OT coin toss?

 

[Wheelman]

Yes Belichick wanted to kick.blakeman asked BB because he was concerned that sister was confused. He wasn’t. Blakeman assumed you would chose the goal to defend since it would follow the other team would take receive. But bb valued going in defense first over direction. No one had ever done that before.
Teams have chosen to defend a goal after winning the ot toss when weather was a factor.
I just quoted the rule to you.

One team decides kick or receive the other decides direction
The team winning the toss gets to pick which one they want. The team losing the toss gets the remaining choice.

Got it thanks! My bad. Sorry.

I'm sorry @ctpatsfan77 I was wrong.

I'll shut the hell up now.

 

[Joker]

Shut up about shutting up!!!! You're driving me Roman N-V-T-S....nuts

 

[TheRainMaker]

Why not just go an extra quarter? Tied at the end of OT? Sudden death rules apply like it is now.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I like the idea of just playing - if tied - on through the fourth quarter past 0:00, no field position reset or coin toss. Next score wins. Late 4th quarter becomes that much more strategic.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Why not just go an extra quarter? Tied at the end of OT? Sudden death rules apply like it is now.

Then after we win the toss and score a TD. the losing team will be crying that its unfair, just kicking the can a quarter.