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

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

Honestly, no matter how much they change them, no one will be satisfied.

With that being said, I never liked the original version of sudden death (the first any score wins). But the new version I've satisfied with. If any team can't stop opposing teams on scoring TDs, then it's on them.

 

[JMC00]

Nah. Maybe the Chiefs should make a stop on 3rd and 10 or maybe not get shut out in the 1st half while barely gaining 30 yards

 

[NashuaPats]

Here are the numbers in OT.



The rules are just fine. If KC won the coin flip, we wouldn't hear a word about it today. People are upset that MaHomes didn't get a chance to touch the ball in OT, but if he didn't get shut out in the first half, he wouldn't have needed to. And the team is about more than just the QB and offense.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I miss the old ot rules. I never had an issue with walk off field goals.

They used to call it "sudden death" overtime. Doesn't that sound better than "lingering death"?

 

[BobDigital]

I like them just fine. You need to pick a winner. Both teams have a chance to win no matter which team kicks off.

If you want to complain about it then you should have won in regulation.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The is the second “Be honest” thread this week. It’s kind of condescending, like I’m incapable of not being a huge homer and should feel guilty as fan for this terrible injustice. The OT rules are the best there have been (better than the old NFL OT rules and way better than college rules.). These were the rules going into the game, and no one complained about them beforehand. The “be honest” tone should be for those b1tching in hindsight. Were you really against these rules these same rules yesterday, or is your opinion just tainted by a defense that couldn’t stop a touchdown on the first drive? This is way better than the old way where a field goal won it...should both teams get 10 possessions from the 10-yard line?

 

[holyredeemer]

I haven’t read through everything yet, so if someone has already *****ed about it, my apologies. Every time this team wins a big game the rules have got to change in some fashion. It was maddening before but is now downright comical. Brisket said it best. F.E.A.

 

[MassPats38]

As always, your team loses, and change is needed. The original rule with first points wins was too luck-based. Here, TD to win (get a stop) or both teams get a chance. TDs are not easy, so get the stop.

Next thing will be we need the full 15 minutes, as one possession isn't enough to really get the full measure of both teams. Nobody will be happy as one team will lose.

 

[Nehalem]

As always, your team loses, and change is needed. The original rule with first points wins was too luck-based. Here, TD to win (get a stop) or both teams get a chance. TDs are not easy, so get the stop.

Next thing will be we need the full 15 minutes, as one possession isn't enough to really get the full measure of both teams. Nobody will be happy as one team will lose.

What happens if they are still tied after 15 minutes?

 

[Observer]

The current rule is fundamentally unfair. Both teams should get equal opportunity.

 

[KDPPatsfan85]

Why is it that everytime something goes in favor for the Patriots, they try to change the rules? It is getting ridiculous!

 

[HawaiianPatsfan]

Personally I think for the playoffs and the Super Bowl. They should play a full 10 minute extra quarter

 

[tobias funke]

My reason for changing OT is because explaining the current system to a new/casual fan makes you sound stupid. It should be simple, ESPECIALLY for the playoffs.

Rule: you need a Stop and a Score to win. That's it. Play until someone breaks serve.

 

[bormio]

The current rule is fundamentally unfair. Both teams should get equal opportunity.

Really that is easier said than done. Any system that gives possession to both teams favors the second team (the college scenario). Playing a set, limited time gives the advantage to the team going first. There is no truly fair system, only ones that seem less fair. The current system is more unfair when the teams are really likely to score TDs - like yesterday in KC.
Edit: maybe the fairest would be to give both teams possession from some point on the field, but eliminate all kicking options. No FGs and no XPs. You have the ball until you score or fail to get a first down. Then the other team gets the same shot. Score a TD - you have to go for 2.

 

[Observer]

Really that is easier said than done. Any system that gives possession to both teams favors the second team (the college scenario). Playing a set, limited time gives the advantage to the team going first. There is no truly fair system, only ones that seem less fair. The current system is more unfair when the teams are really likely to score TDs - like yesterday in KC.
Edit: maybe the fairest would be to give both teams possession from some point on the field, but eliminate all kicking options. No FGs and no XPs. You have the ball until you score or fail to get a first down. Then the other team gets the same shot. Score a TD - you have to go for 2.

I am not familiar with the college scenario so I didn't understand how the system that gives possession to both teams favors the second. Could you explain that?

 

[bormio]

I am not familiar with the college scenario so I didn't understand how the system that gives possession to both teams favors the second. Could you explain that?

The second team knows what it has to do - go for it on 4th, kick a FG etc. That is why college teams always choose to go second.
(Each teamgets the ball at the other team’s 25).

 

[Deus Irae]

The current rule is fundamentally unfair. Both teams should get equal opportunity.

The notion that the current rule is fundamentally unfair is laughable. Both teams have a 50% chance of winning the coin flip. It doesn't get more equal opportunity than that.

 

[bormio]

The notion that the current rule is fundamentally unfair is laughable. Both teams have a 50% chance of winning the coin flip. It doesn't get more equal opportunity than that.

What was New England’s win % after the coin flip yesterday - someone must have that stat. And it was well more than 50%.
Edit: Although may have dipped under 50% with the first 3rd and 10.

 

[Deus Irae]

What was New England’s win % after the coin flip yesterday - someone must have that stat. And it was well more than 50%.

NFL Overtime Rules Are Fair To Both Teams, Despite Incessant Whining Online

 

[Pessimistic Pete]

Absolutely not.

If the game can not be decided in 60 minutes, then both teams have to leave it up to the coin toss (and that's not even a guarantee of winning) to help them out.

I would puke if they ever used college football's ridiculous system, which at that point isn't even real football anymore.