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

[pazrul72]

I agree that the change to a TD to win was better than the old way. If there are two strongly offensive teams playing each other in a back and forth gane, then it's about the coin toss. I have a problem with that if we are in the losing end.

So just for the sake of argument, KC gets the ball, I will even grant they use a 4th down or two to get a TD, then what? Sudden death and there is no way in hell you can convince me TB12 is not getting at least a field goal. Only now he just needs a FG not a TD to win and we are back to the old rules we both agree suck. I disagree the coin toss is what decided that game. The chiefs inability to stop 3! 3rd and 10’s decided that game. The rule is fair, it’s the outcome that non pats fans want to change and the chiefs should be embarrassed to even suggest a change.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Atlanta proposes 25 Point Mercy Rule

Well played.

 

[Wheelman]

Coaches’ subcommittee recommends video official

So what's the deal here? Did the other coaches shutdown Andy Reid's OT proposal?

 

[bormio]

Coaches’ subcommittee recommends video official

So what's the deal here? Did the other coaches shutdown Andy Reid's OT proposal?

Are they recommending the video official be allowed to call penalties?? But only the really egregious ones? Seems ripe for severe inconsistency. We keep laying on layers of replay in an attempt to make perfect what never can be.

 

[goheels22002]

Coaches’ subcommittee recommends video official

So what's the deal here? Did the other coaches shutdown Andy Reid's OT proposal?

Wait. Now the teams want video cameras on every play? Does that mean the referees are cheating? Spygate II?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I think I’m just on Gruden’s side now: get rid of replay. Game flows so much better, and the games used to end with both teams knowing they got a few calls they shouldn’t and didn’t get a few they should. With so much replay, it makes fans think they’re entitled to perfection, and Sean McVeigh made the great point that football (and officiating) is an imperfect sport. Maybe just the last two minutes.

 

[bormio]

I think I’m just on Gruden’s side now: get rid of replay. Game flows so much better, and the games used to end with both teams knowing they got a few calls they shouldn’t and didn’t get a few they should. With so much replay, it makes fans think they’re entitled to perfection, and Sean McVeigh made the great point that football (and officiating) is an imperfect sport. Maybe just the last two minutes.

Bingo - there seems to be a belief that if we just had enough replay, every call would be correct. I really think it might be an age thing. When you can’t see well anymore, when your knee aches nearly all the time and when you can’t pee like you used to - you realize that life isn’t perfect. And you accept it.

 

[brdmaverick]

I think a change in the OT rule is in order. If the coin flip went to KC we might have been *****ing.

Some people sure, but not me. Sure, I'd be disappointed and wonder 'what if the coin did flip our way?', but I wouldn't be looking for a rule change. I was at the Jets game in 2015 when the Jets scored a TD on the opening drive of OT to win the game.

I wasn't looking for a rule change then and I'm not looking for one now. I think the current setup is great. I feel like if you give up a TD you deserve to lose, plain and simple.

 

[1960Pats]

I heard an analysis on the radio today on one of those gambling shows and they tried to answer the question of how to make the coin flip irrelevant.

Their conclusion was that, keeping the same scoring rules as now (TD wins, FG gives the opposition a shot) the team winning the coin flip could choose between:

A) taking the ball first but at the 15 yard line, with no kickoff.

Or

B) kicking off.

The reasoning is that when starting a drive at the 15, the odds of what team scores next is precisely 50-50.

I prefer no change, since it is not too far from 50-50 now... maybe 53-47, IIRC.

Does that 53 percent represent the times the team winning the toss won on the first possession or on any possession?

 

[1960Pats]

I get where Andy and the chiefs are coming from. That was a crushing loss for them. I can see how they would feel that way and really if the situations were reversed many on this board would say the exact same thing.
In all candor, a coin toss should not be so important in deciding a game.
I do not think it has anything to do with the Patriots.
A crushing loss like that in front of your home fans with the #1 seed and as favorites leaves a bad taste in your mouth for a long time.

The coin toss didn't decide the game. The Chiefs' lack of defense did. If you don't stop a team from scoring you deserve to lose. I'd say the same thing if the Chiefs won the toss and marched down the field or even ran the kickoff back.

 

[1960Pats]

The Pats lost all of the coin tosses at the beginning of each playoff game but the other team deferred and allowed the Pats to march down the field. The only time they didn't score was in the SB due to the Brady pick.

They did win the coin toss for the OT in the AFCCG though.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Does that 53 percent represent the times the team winning the toss won on the first possession or on any possession?

This data is from two years ago, so the numbers could have changed some:

Since the NFL instituted its new overtime rules, there have been 87 overtime games. Five have been ties, and the team to get the ball first has won 45 of the remaining 82. That’s 54.8 percent, meaning simply winning the coin toss makes a team 9.6 percent more likely to win.

The NFL’s Overtime Rules Aren’t Fair — but Neither Are the Alternatives

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Some people sure, but not me. Sure, I'd be disappointed and wonder 'what if the coin did flip our way?', but I wouldn't be looking for a rule change. I was at the Jets game in 2015 when the Jets scored a TD on the opening drive of OT to win the game.

I wasn't looking for a rule change then and I'm not looking for one now. I think the current setup is great. I feel like if you give up a TD you deserve to lose, plain and simple.

I second this. Please don’t put me in the group of people who’d be b1tching. If you didn’t complain about the format before the game, don’t complain after the game. The only possible gripe I’d have is if the toss was rigged/controversial, and I think that Jets game did involve a botched “we want possession” or something if I recall correctly, but even then I wasn’t whining.

 

[Chevrolet]

The coin toss didn't decide the game. The Chiefs' lack of defense did. If you don't stop a team from scoring you deserve to lose. I'd say the same thing if the Chiefs won the toss and marched down the field or even ran the kickoff back.

If you have 2 power house offenses that can score at will and BOTH defenses suck, in that situation, most likely the coin toss will decide the game. In that sitiuation, which is not that uncommon, the team that gets the ball has a huge advantage decided by the toss of a coin.

It has worked out welll for Pats in SB 51 and in the AFC title game this year. But sooner or later the Patriots will come up on the painful side of the coin toss.

 

[ErniesPinkStripes]

If you have 2 power house offenses that can score at will and BOTH defenses suck, in that situation, most likely the coin toss will decide the game. In that sitiuation, which is not that uncommon, the team that gets the ball has a huge advantage decided by the toss of a coin.

It has worked out welll for Pats in SB 51 and in the AFC title game this year. But sooner or later the Patriots will come up on the painful side of the coin toss.

And that will be fine, I would look to why the D couldn't at least hold them to a FG, rather than wonder what could have been with the coin toss.

The reason why this is all laughable is that if ATL or KC had won the tosses /games, we wouldn't hear a peep about changing the OT rules.

I'd also like to say, I'd be ok with the 4th quarter continuation. Anything more than that is unnecessary IMO, I like the OT rules as is. Automatically guaranteeing the offense a possession lessens the importance of the defense, which is dumb.. And what if both teams score a TD and the game is still tied? Does the 2nd have to go for 2? Really? Tie game? Awesome.

 

[Simpelton]

If they change this rule, then the next time, they'll score a TD, and then the Patriots get the ball back and score a TD and a 2 point conversion, and they'll just complain that THAT isn't fair.

You can't foil a master strategist by changing the rules, because he'll master the new meta faster than other less ably led teams possibly can.

Expect Belichick to adapt to any further rules changes earlier on than anyone else. just like he's always done.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

If you have 2 power house offenses that can score at will and BOTH defenses suck, in that situation, most likely the coin toss will decide the game. In that sitiuation, which is not that uncommon, the team that gets the ball has a huge advantage decided by the toss of a coin.

It has worked out welll for Pats in SB 51 and in the AFC title game this year. But sooner or later the Patriots will come up on the painful side of the coin toss.

Did you see the Falcons offense at the end of SB51? Patriots were winning that game regardless of the coin toss. Good chance Atlanta goes 3 and out or turns it over. Watch that last drive in regulation when Atlanta gets the ball back tied with 50 seconds. Ryan was the most psyched out I’ve ever seen a veteran QB.

As for the Chiefs game, who knows? The Chiefs already had HFA due to one of the flukiest plays of the last 10 years. I’d sure take HFA over “first dibs” in the unlikely event of OT.

 

[brdmaverick]

ok a half silly idea......

Still have the rules play out like they do, but instead change the coin toss with something else. Something that adds at leastds a little more ‘skill’ to the teams.....

Like even rock-paper-scissors gives the home team more involvement than hoping the away team guesses wrong.

Or someone earlier did a bidding game to start field position of OT. I’ll tweet it and say both teams do a blind bid for field goal length. The furthest team kicks from that spot. A male means your team won the ‘coin toss’. A miss and the other team wins the ‘coin toss’.

So yes, my twist is that there is nothing wrong with it rules (if u give up a td you deserve to lose), but I do see an opportunity to change the coin toss

 

[1960Pats]

If you have 2 power house offenses that can score at will and BOTH defenses suck, in that situation, most likely the coin toss will decide the game. In that sitiuation, which is not that uncommon, the team that gets the ball has a huge advantage decided by the toss of a coin.

It has worked out welll for Pats in SB 51 and in the AFC title game this year. But sooner or later the Patriots will come up on the painful side of the coin toss.

There were two conference championship OT games this year between teams with potent offenses, and one winning coin flip team won and one team lost. It doesn't get any more fair than that.

I was fine with the rules before they were changed, but now that they've been changed I agree with them. I don't care how a team scores. If you can't keep the other team out of the end zone you deserve to lose.

In both cases you mentioned (SB 51 and the AFCC this year) the high powered offense had a chance to win the game in regulation but didn't. If I were a Chiefs fan or a Falcons fan I'd take my medicine like a man. If it happens to the Pats I would do the same.

 

[brdmaverick]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brady had a perfect OT record going into OT of the Broncos game in 2015. The Broncos scored a TD to win the game.

The Pats run at a perfect season was over (dropped to 10-1).

Brady's perfect OT record was ruined and he NEVER got the ball.

To this fan base's credit, I don't recall overtime rules being the topic of conversation. No, it was 'why did that no-name receiver muff the punt return?' (I'm failing to remember his name)