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

[DarrylS]

The Pats score a TD against the Chiefs in OT and the game is over.. so KC wants to change the rules?? Perhaps everyone should be given participation trophies and teams participation banners like the Indy Colts...

WTF the Chiefs and their vaunted defense should have stopped them... more NFL insanity.

 

[jeffro]

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.

Exactly. They have something that is working pretty well. The proposed change is sure to give significant advantage in choosing to defend, since the team that starts out defending will have 4 downs if they need a matching score.

 

[meatface]

No one would suggest this rule if the Chief got the ball and scored first. I wouldnt

 

[ivanvamp]

The answer to the OP is no. Could the NFL work well with different OT rules? Sure, I guess, depending on what the changes were. It wouldn't be the worst thing if the rule was each team guaranteed one possession. But in the last three years the team getting the ball first has won 21 overtime games, lost 20, with 4 ties. Very small sample size, but in this past season's championship games it was 1-1. NE went down and scored but NO turned it over allowing LA to win on *their* first possession.

So the current system is pretty fair and equitable and there's no real reason to change it, other than to accommodate whining.

 

[SaCaCh]

I say yes both teams should potentially possess the ball. However you limit it to 6ish minute overtimes. Each team has 3 timeouts. If you score and run out the 6 minutes you win. If you score before the the time runs out the other team gets the ball with whatever is left on the clock.

 

[PatsFan2]

IF the league changes that rule again I'm calling Patriots conspiracy.

 

[PatsFan2]

I love the Rule as is if one Team kicks a a FG the other Team gets the ball. IF you can't stop a Team from scoring a TD Blame your Defense or ST's enough is enough.

 

[Deus Irae]

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

That doesn't solve the fairness issue. It just makes games longer and adds to the injury risk. The only fair overtime is no overtime, since there's no way that the league is going to just go to a straight coin toss for victory.

 

[Xerostomia]

Even if the rule does change, for some reason I see the scenario where the next couple of times the Patriots lose the coin toss in OT (everything eventually averages out), and still win because they were given a possession in OT with the new rules.

Then everyone complains that is not fair that the Patriots were able to 'go for it' on 4th down every time, and thus, the rule needs to be changed again because it is not fair that the Patriots were given a possession in OT.

I think if the OT rule does change, I would probably defer the coin toss every time. If the starting team scores either a FG or TD, the second team will go for it on 4th down every time and theoretically have an advantage (plus the advantage of the defense potentially getting a turnover like in the New Orleans game).

On the flip side, if the Patriots do get the ball 1st, probably Belichick figures out that going for a 2 point conversion results in a higher chance of winning, as not only does the other team need to score a TD, but they need to also get a 2 point conversion just to tie, and that is not fair either.
​

Thus after winning a few more OT games, the rules will have to be changed again. Clearly allowing the Patriots to even have the football in OT is not fair, the final new OT rules will be made:

Since the coin toss is too random, and the Patriots keep winning, they will decide the outcome of the game via Rock Paper Scissors and allow no team possession of the football in OT. Thus the team captains will then go against the other team captains, simultaneously, and we will then have the winner.

 

[ScottishPatriots]

This is complete nonsense the rules are fine, make a stop.

Eventually you have to make a stop anyway no matter if both teams possess the ball.

 

[Digit]

If you don't trust your defense to win the game, you -do- have the option to do an onside kick, Andy Reid. Use it. Or use timeouts to give your defense some rest so they can actually try to hold them to a FG so you can get the ball back. Dumbass.

 

[GodBrady]

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.

It would definitely be a big advantage. Imagine if Kansas City got the ball back after we scored. Well, now they know they have to score a touchdown. They're going for it on 4th down every time, guaranteed.

Patriots didn't have that luxury. The Pats wouldn't have tried to convert, say, a 4th and 10 on their opening drive in OT. They would've punted or kicked a field goal.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Talk to me after the Patriots lose in overtime. Then it would obviously be the time for a change.

 

[fnordcircle]

Need? Probably not if you're talking from a purely competitive standpoint. If you are worried about not getting a possession in OT how about keeping it from going to OT?

But from a viewing perspective I'd much rather see each team guaranteed a full possession. It's way more fun and that's why I watch football, not for some ****ing NFL bushido code nonsense,.

 

[Joker]

so I guess you won't be committing ritual seppuku any time soon, eh?...d%#*!@t

 

[Chevy]

Even if the rule does change, for some reason I see the scenario where the next couple of times the Patriots lose the coin toss in OT (everything eventually averages out), and still win because they were given a possession in OT with the new rules.

Then everyone complains that is not fair that the Patriots were able to 'go for it' on 4th down every time, and thus, the rule needs to be changed again because it is not fair that the Patriots were given a possession in OT.

I think if the OT rule does change, I would probably defer the coin toss every time. If the starting team scores either a FG or TD, the second team will go for it on 4th down every time and theoretically have an advantage (plus the advantage of the defense potentially getting a turnover like in the New Orleans game).

On the flip side, if the Patriots do get the ball 1st, probably Belichick figures out that going for a 2 point conversion results in a higher chance of winning, as not only does the other team need to score a TD, but they need to also get a 2 point conversion just to tie, and that is not fair either.
​

Thus after winning a few more OT games, the rules will have to be changed again. Clearly allowing the Patriots to even have the football in OT is not fair, the final new OT rules will be made:

Since the coin toss is too random, and the Patriots keep winning, they will decide the outcome of the game via Rock Paper Scissors and allow no team possession of the football in OT. Thus the team captains will then go against the other team captains, simultaneously, and we will then have the winner.

Never get in a land war in China ...
Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line
Never get into a rules war with Bill Belichick

 

[cmasspatsfan]

That doesn't solve the fairness issue. It just makes games longer and adds to the injury risk. The only fair overtime is no overtime, since there's no way that the league is going to just go to a straight coin toss for victory.

Maybe toss the coin 5 times, first to get 3 wins

 

[fourhour]

Changing the rules doesn't change the fact that the Patriots won.

 

[IcyPatriot]

That doesn't solve the fairness issue. It just makes games longer and adds to the injury risk. The only fair overtime is no overtime, since there's no way that the league is going to just go to a straight coin toss for victory.

I like this ... no overtime - game recorded as a tie.
Games tied in the 4th quarter would be more exciting if one team chooses to gamble.
In the playoffs if the score is tied game keeps going until there is a score of any kind.

 

[PatsDeb]

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.

That's Showtime to you pal!