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

[EddardSnow67]

I just think no matter what you do that at some point a game will be decided that the general populous will hate and want yet another change.....

There is no real answer, I think what we have now is pretty good...as I mentionned before to win a playoff game offense, defense and St have to play well....defense counts...all these talking heads say defense wins championships....well then....

The answer is for more coaches and teams to be good enough to win, but the Patriots piss in everyone's cornflakes every year, so it's now about beating the Patriots rather than winning in general.

 

[EddardSnow67]

Having both teams get a “turn” is a tremendous advantage to the team that goes second. For one thing they can play 4 down football where the first team can’t.

That is in no way more “fair” than sudden death as it is.

The college rules are trash so let’s not go there either.

Also, regarding the college rules, every team in the NFL has a kicker who has a 95% chance to kick a field goal snapped from within the 25, whereas it's a legitimate question mark for at least half of college teams. The college rules would make games go forever in the NFL.

Texas A&M and LSU played seven overtimes in a game this year. The NFL already has a problem with the length of games. Nobody wants to watch seven overtime periods.

 

[sb1]

Also, regarding the college rules, every team in the NFL has a kicker who has a 95% chance to kick a field goal snapped from within the 25, whereas it's a legitimate question mark for at least half of college teams. The college rules would make games go forever in the NFL.

Texas A&M and LSU played seven overtimes in a game this year. The NFL already has a problem with the length of games. Nobody wants to watch seven overtime periods.

Yup. Or scores like 86-80.

 

[Bella*chick]

Not to mention the wear and tear on the players bodies.

 

[lurker1965]

Unless defense is illegal - wether it is or not is another discussion - no.

 

[Tony2046]

Not when you have Slater calling the coin toss

I think the new rule should be a 3 out 5 coin toss. Call it the Slater rule.

 

[bormio]

I'm not speaking as a Pats fan or a fan of any team in particular. I don't care about the game from yesterday. I care about what I want to see as a football fan going forward.

I jumped off my couch like everyone else when they won on Sunday. But I can also admit that I had the same little feeling I did after the 2016 Super Bowl, that something about it just doesn't feel fair.

What's funny is that if the Chiefs had won the toss and marched down the field and scored a TD, I guarantee you there'd be a lot more of you in this thread taking my position. There was no stopping either of those offenses at that point of the game.

NE winning the flip probably gave them at least a 60%+ chance of winning, KC winning the flip gave them would probably have done the same for them. Any system where the result of the coin flip affects the result of the game that much is flawed. The coin flip is a 50/50 proposition, but the OT rules should be designed so the result of the coin flip affects the outcome as little as possible. Achieving no effect however is virtually impossible in all situations. When teams are very likely to score a TD, like Sunday night, the problem is much worse.

BTW, I am not arguing for or against a change. I am just saying the reality is in this situation, the coin flip result likely strongly affected the outcome - which is what the OT rules are not supposed to do. Remember, the NE defense never faced the "if you are a champion, you would have made a stop" situation like the KC defense did.

 

[Kontradiction]

The problem with the "winner of the coin flip only wins 52% of the time" is that it takes into account every single overtime game played.

However I see a big difference between an overtime game in the playoffs and an overtime game in the regular season.

The priority in the regular season is to get to the end of the season with the majority of players intact, so the impetus to find out the "very best team" isn't as important as keeping them from playing 5 hour games.

You also have a number of regular season games between bad teams that end in bad ties or field goals because neither team has a potent offense.

In the playoffs, the chances of having a team that can drive the length of the field and score a touchdown (especially against a tired defense) goes way up vs. the regular season.

AND we need to figure out who the best team is.

So I don't think it's as simple as "52% everything is fine". It definitely should be looked at.

Say what? 16 games in the regular season for each team and you’re trying to assert that the primary goal is anything but winning? Welcome back by the way.

 

[Redman443]

No. Only the salty haters want the rules changed. The idea of overtime is to get the game over with as quickly as possible. Players are tired.

 

[Kontradiction]

Not to mention the wear and tear on the players bodies.

But but but it’s not FAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRR. Each game you have around 150 plays, give or take. If you can’t get the job done there then you should only have a sudden death period to pick it together after the conclusion of the 4th quarter. It’s a team game and if you have to go on defense first, then stop your opponent. If you can’t do that, then you have no business winning anyway. Don’t like it? Stop them.

 

[EddardSnow67]

NE winning the flip probably gave them at least a 60%+ chance of winning, KC winning the flip gave them would probably have done the same for them. Any system where the result of the coin flip affects the result of the game that much is flawed. The coin flip is a 50/50 proposition, but the OT rules should be designed so the result of the coin flip affects the outcome as little as possible. Achieving no effect however is virtually impossible in all situations. When teams are very likely to score a TD, like Sunday night, the problem is much worse.

It's simply not true that both teams had the same chance of losing if they lost the toss. Why? Because the Chiefs defense had been on the field for 39 minutes and 81 plays at that point while the Patriots had been on the field for 21 minutes and 47 plays.

The Patriots had stopped KC on five out of nine legitimate possessions (I'm not counting the Chiefs possession before the half or the Chiefs possession at the end of regulation because the former started with 27 seconds left and the latter was a soft defense from the Patriots and didn't reflect how the Pats would have played over time defensively) in the game before overtime.

The the Patriots had an advantage either way. They could play their defense with fresh personnel - keep in mind they shut the Chiefs out in the first half - whereas the Chiefs were stuck with dog tired defensive players.

So, the Patriots had a better chance of scoring than the Chiefs *and* a better chance of stopping them because the Chiefs simply did what the Patriots wanted all game and their offensive approach was complicit in their fatigue on defense. Not to mention, the Patriots defense is objectively better than the Chiefs.

I agree that the team who wins the toss sometimes has the advantage, but to say that both defenses had the same chance of stopping their offensive counterparts just isn't true.

The Chiefs could have mitigated this. They could have tried to move down the field methodically. They could have run the ball more, just to keep the clock from stopping. They actually averaged 3.4 yards per rush, it's not like the Patriots were setting them back with tackles in the backfield. Hell, there were a half dozen schematic things KC could have done differently to give their defense some semblance of a chance.

Belichick schooled Andy Reid yet again. It's hard enough to keep up with Belichick without playing directly into his hands. The Chiefs were also lucky the Patriots had two turnovers and were stopped on 4th down on one possession in Chiefs territory.

We should be talking about how the Chiefs were fortunate to even make it a game. That's not even getting into the missed calls going against the Patriots.

As I think about it more and more and I look over the film, I just don't have any idea what the plan was for the Chiefs from a coaching standpoint.

 

[Deus Irae]

I grew up playing pretty much every sport you could play. Never once did anyone say "Next 'point' wins" only to be responded to with "But that's not fair!". It was always understood that any sort of overtime type of situation, be it because a game was a tie, or because it was getting late, was going to be sudden death. So all this whining because someone didn't get equal time is something I find laughable.

 

[EddardSnow67]

The Patriots doubled the Chiefs up in yardage and plays. They dominated the game. Chiefs fans should be wondering why they needed almost every break to go their way to even get to overtime. But God forbid anyone ever gives the Patriots credit.

I'm surprised interceptions in the end zone weren't outlawed after 14-15.

 

[bormio]

It's simply not true that both teams had the same chance of losing if they lost the toss. Why? Because the Chiefs defense had been on the field for 39 minutes and 81 plays at that point while the Patriots had been on the field for 21 minutes and 47 plays.

The Patriots had stopped KC on five out of nine legitimate possessions (I'm not counting the Chiefs possession before the half or the Chiefs possession at the end of regulation because the former started with 27 seconds left and the latter was a soft defense from the Patriots and didn't reflect how the Pats would have played over time defensively) in the game before overtime.

The the Patriots had an advantage either way. They could play their defense with fresh personnel - keep in mind they shut the Chiefs out in the first half - whereas the Chiefs were stuck with dog tired defensive players.

So, the Patriots had a better chance of scoring than the Chiefs *and* a better chance of stopping them because the Chiefs simply did what the Patriots wanted all game and their offensive approach was complicit in their fatigue on defense. Not to mention, the Patriots defense is objectively better than the Chiefs.

I agree that the team who wins the toss sometimes has the advantage, but to say that both defenses had the same chance of stopping their offensive counterparts just isn't true.

The Chiefs could have mitigated this. They could have tried to move down the field methodically. They could have run the ball more, just to keep the clock from stopping. They actually averaged 3.4 yards per rush, it's not like the Patriots were setting them back with tackles in the backfield. Hell, there were a half dozen schematic things KC could have done differently to give their defense some semblance of a chance.

Belichick schooled Andy Reid yet again. It's hard enough to keep up with Belichick without playing directly into his hands. The Chiefs were also lucky the Patriots had two turnovers and were stopped on 4th down on one possession in Chiefs territory.

We should be talking about how the Chiefs were fortunate to even make it a game. That's not even getting into the missed calls going against the Patriots.

As I think about it more and more and I look over the film, I just don't have any idea what the plan was for the Chiefs from a coaching standpoint.

The New England pass rush was shot at the end of the game. KC scored 24 in the 4th. I don’t know if chances were equal, but KC was quite likely to score

 

[bigballas]

i dont understand the whole both offense needs to have a possession. if the defense of the non-receiving team does ITS jobs, the offense gets either better field position or instant win (FG) its fair

take a look at this scenario:
1. Team A wins kick off and receives
2. Team B kicks off place kick style and Team A starts at avg of their own 25 yds
3. Team B defense stops them to 3 and out and gets punt
4. Team B defense will be starting with better field position

Are we going to now argue that well Team A didn't have as good of field position so they should get a shot too? IF you say no, whats your counterargument?

I'm not even getting into turnovers where Team B can just kick a FG and walk off with a win

also, i dont have the stats but its way less than 50% a team will score on a kick off drive . expected pts per drive are 2 . advantage defense

2018 OFFENSIVE DRIVE STATS | Football Outsiders

 

[bormio]

If the Bears and Ravens are playing, the coin flip result gives little advantage. When the Chiefs and Pats are, it gives a lot more. It is what it is.

 

[EddardSnow67]

The New England pass rush was shot at the end of the game. KC scored 24 in the 4th. I don’t know if chances were equal, but KC was quite likely to score

Actually, this was how the KC possessions went in the 4th:

1. 3 and out

2. Short field after an interception, only went 23 yards

3. Incomplete pass
Fumble by Kelce, recovered by the Patriots, called back for a hold that was legit but often isn't called
Incomplete pass
Incomplete pass, ******** PI and legit RTP (I thought the pass rush was shot? Yet they were pressuring Mahomes on these possessions)
Incomplete pass
38 yard pass made possible by a blatant, missed pick play
2 yard touchdown run that the Patriots weren't interested in stopping because they wanted to save time

4. The only legitimately poorly played sequence on the part of the Patriots in the second half.

The Patriots had a far, far better chance of stopping the Chiefs than the Chiefs had of stopping the Patriots. They were still getting pressure in the 4th quarter, unless you're referring to the possession on which they were rushing two or three guys with under 40 seconds left in the game.

It's just not logical to think that a defense that has been on the field for 81 plays and 39 minutes isn't far more fatigued than a defense that had been on the field for 47 plays and 21 minutes. That's more than an entire quarter's worth of time and an entire half's worth of snaps.

That's with two turnovers!! One was at the damn one yard line! The other went off a receiver's hands!

Again, the team winning the toss has a bit of a mathematical advantage in overtime, but the Patriots flat out earned that advantage. It wasn't given to them by the coin toss, they pummeled the Chiefs until they didn't want anymore because that was their strategy going in. They've said as much.

Edit: Also, while they technically scored 24 points in the 4th, their first touchdown came with 14:51 on the clock. The majority of the drive was in the 3rd quarter.

 

[EddardSnow67]

If the Bears and Ravens are playing, the coin flip result gives little advantage. When the Chiefs and Pats are, it gives a lot more. It is what it is.

If the Patriots and Chiefs had possessed the ball the same amount of time and had been on the field for the same amount of snaps, I would agree with you.

You're discounting the main theme of the game, which was that the Patriots were intentionally keeping the ball away from the Chiefs to wear down their defense and keep the Pats defense fresh. It's a fact that the Patriots defense was a lot fresher.

 

[Observer]

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.

First of all, let me say that I am glad that the rule is what it is and all the hand-wringing is mainly because the Pats won.

Now, I get your position but my position is not laughable by any stretch. There are two ways to think about overtime:
1. Both teams are equal but we have to pick one so let's decide by chance. In this case, yes your system of deciding by a coin toss would be the most fair. But then why go through the charade of playing extra time at all?

2. The teams are unequal but we need more time to determine which deserves to advance. In this case both teams should get equal opportunity to demonstrate their skill both on offense and defense. Many are making the argument that losing the toss is not a big deal and all the defending team has to do is make a stop. But in a game where you have entirely different teams on offense and defense, this is just not a valid argument. In a game like soccer where the same players are responsible for both offense and defense, this type of argument is much more valid but even soccer got rid of golden goal overtime because it was too sudden death.

 

[blackglass3]

So, Slater would not have been able to call heads if we were the home team.

...guess Belichick knew what he was doing with Gronk in Miami this whole time.