Competition proposes Shortening OT by 5 min..

[TinhWoodhead]

Just don't have overtime. Give both teams a loss on their record. Also replace the game
with viagra commercials.

Or just let the refs decide the outcome at the end of the game if both teams are tied

 

[lurker1965]

A player injured with 4:59 left would tell you what difference it makes.


So CFL and XFL. OK, can a rouge win it?





More ties in the regular season upsets you? Some of us can do, you know, fractions. We will tell you how the "not loss but not win" affects playoff scenarios.

DaBruinz, trying to figure out what you disagreed with.
I assume you don't have a problem with the rouge quip. Perhaps you feel that no one understands fractions. If that is the case, I assure you some people do.
Or maybe you are claiming the player injured with 4:59 left does not think shortening it by 5 minutes makes a difference.
You may want to rethink your position on any of those.

 

[brdmaverick]

More ties in the regular season upsets you? Some of us can do, you know, fractions. We will tell you how the "not loss but not win" affects playoff scenarios.

Yes, more ties would upset me, but not because I can't do the math to figure out where someone sits in the standings.

When a tie happens I feel like both teams walk off the field feeling like it was a 'loss'. Plus I feel like those players put so much on the line physically and mentally that they deserve to have an end result that has a winner and a loser. All that work and prep either paid off or it didn't. I hated ties in hockey too.

 

[patchick]

The NHL wasn't always just a 5 min OT. That is only a recent change. In fact, OT in hockey is completely different than a regular period in that they go to 1 less man on the ice and it's sudden death.. If it's tied after that, they have a shoot out similar to soccer.. And that takes more than 5 minutes to complete..

Duly noted. I was just suggesting that there's nothing necessary or even expected about OT length being the same as a period of play. I don't trust the competition committee's alleged motives on this particular change, but in principle it makes sense to periodically review the OT format and whether it's fulfilling its purpose.

 

[AzPatsFan]

All it does is increase the chances of a game ending in a tie.

They adopted the long kick PAT. Had they merely moved the PAT start line LOS, to the one yard line rather than the two, it would have encouraged 2 point tries and still kept uncertainty. If they had set the ball at at the stripe rather than in the middle, it would have made the PAT Kick tougher too, on a sharp angle kick.

Doing this would serve to minimize ties in regulation.

 

[Sicilian]

Their reasoning is silly, but the rule change is fine.

I still think the best solution to OT is to make it sudden death, but don't reset anything if tied after the 4th quarter. Whoever had the ball keeps it wherever they were at the end of the 4th. Just treat OT like a continuation of the 4th.

Not only would this result in more situations where the game could end early in OT, but would add an interesting wrinkle to the extra point if a team scores a TD down by 7 with only a few seconds left in regulation. If they just settle for the tie, the other team has the automatic upper hand on sudden death. Or they could risk going for two and have the game end.

 

[catent]

I'm sure it has already been said, but in my opinion the only fair and sensible way to play a genuine 'overtime' is to play one, 15 minute period -- which is timed, scored, and legislated by the same rules that apply during the fourth quarter. Whoever leads after that 15-minute overtime period wins. If the game is still tied at that point, it ends as such.

Problem solved, right?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I'm sure it has already been said, but in my opinion the only fair and sensible way to play a genuine 'overtime' is to play one, 15 minute period -- which is timed, scored, and legislated by the same rules that apply during the fourth quarter. Whoever leads after that 15-minute overtime period wins. If the game is still tied at that point, it ends as such.

Problem solved, right?

Nope.

You want OT to put the fear of a quick loss into coaches so that they won't go into a shell as the 4th quarter ends and will actually try to win the game in regulation. (And that's even more of a problem with the "OT is just a continuation of Q4" proposals.)

Not to mention making the players have to play full quarter always once you get to OT.

 

[ivanvamp]

Given the premise that there's no completely fair way to do overtime in a way that makes sense (the college system is dumb and is more like a shootout in hockey than it is the normal football game, and automatically requiring a 15-minute overtime puts too much stress on the players' bodies), I don't know what's wrong with the current NFL overtime rules.

The team with the ball first gets the advantage of knowing that if they score a TD, the game is over right there. But they have the disadvantage of knowing that if they don't score at all, the other team just needs a FG to win the game. And if the first team scores a field goal, the second team has a more natural "four down" advantage, knowing that they HAVE to be in four down territory until they get into field goal range - that's not something the first team really has.

So they balance out, for the most part. So why the need for a change? Just because the Patriots beat the Falcons without Ryan touching the ball in OT?

 

[brdmaverick]

Given the premise that there's no completely fair way to do overtime in a way that makes sense (the college system is dumb and is more like a shootout in hockey than it is the normal football game, and automatically requiring a 15-minute overtime puts too much stress on the players' bodies), I don't know what's wrong with the current NFL overtime rules.

The team with the ball first gets the advantage of knowing that if they score a TD, the game is over right there. But they have the disadvantage of knowing that if they don't score at all, the other team just needs a FG to win the game. And if the first team scores a field goal, the second team has a more natural "four down" advantage, knowing that they HAVE to be in four down territory until they get into field goal range - that's not something the first team really has.

So they balance out, for the most part. So why the need for a change? Just because the Patriots beat the Falcons without Ryan touching the ball in OT?

Amen, keep it the way it is.

I've been asked many times....well, how would you feel if the Falcons got the ball first and they scored a TD.............and I would be perfectly ok with that logic. If you give up a TD then it's completely your fault then you deserve to lose, plain and simple.

 

[brdmaverick]

Their reasoning is silly, but the rule change is fine.

I still think the best solution to OT is to make it sudden death, but don't reset anything if tied after the 4th quarter. Whoever had the ball keeps it wherever they were at the end of the 4th. Just treat OT like a continuation of the 4th.

Not only would this result in more situations where the game could end early in OT, but would add an interesting wrinkle to the extra point if a team scores a TD down by 7 with only a few seconds left in regulation. If they just settle for the tie, the other team has the automatic upper hand on sudden death. Or they could risk going for two and have the game end.

You get points for trying. I'll give you big points for being creative, but I wouldn't be a big fan of this either. In a tie game near the end of regulation it would eliminate the 2 minute drill. For instance, if the game is tied and you have the ball at your own 20 with 1 minute and 2 time outs there is no incentive/need to score before regulation is over. As such, you would play your normal offense as opposed to a 2 minute offense. Perhaps you would like that, but I wouldn't be a fan of it.

 

[fnordcircle]

imo if a game is tied at the end of the 4th then just let the Commissioner pick who he thinks should be declared the winner.

 

[Tunescribe]

imo if a game is tied at the end of the 4th then just let the Commissioner pick who he thinks should be declared the winner.

Yeah, they can put him on the jumbotron giving thumbs-up or thumbs-down to the home team.

 

[fourhour]

No punting in overtime! Play it out. If your offense can't score, your defense must protect your goal line.

 

[1960Pats]

TNF games are the first games of the week. So currently a team that plays a TNF game has 10 days until its next game. A bye week before the TNF game would give a team an additional ten days of rest. You would have a whole different TNF game imo. Rested players and teams that have had enough time to prepare for the game regardless if they have to travel or not.

They could have 4 teams get a bye for 8 weeks and schedule teams that are playing each other around the bye. There would be no advantage to any teams if they did it that way. They could also do it by splitting the 4 bye week teams up by other equal methods and they would all be fair to everyone.

I'm sure that Mike Tomlin has better ideas, but those won't matter as long as they don't ban his specialty, the two point conversion that worsens his team's chances. He has that rule down.

 

[Sicilian]

You get points for trying. I'll give you big points for being creative, but I wouldn't be a big fan of this either. In a tie game near the end of regulation it would eliminate the 2 minute drill. For instance, if the game is tied and you have the ball at your own 20 with 1 minute and 2 time outs there is no incentive/need to score before regulation is over. As such, you would play your normal offense as opposed to a 2 minute offense. Perhaps you would like that, but I wouldn't be a fan of it.

You raise a valid point. The most obvious detrimental example would be the 2001 Super Bowl. Tom Brady's initial legacy wouldn't be nearly as impressive if he'd had no time constraint in which to execute that drive.

From a fairness standpoint though, it's the most "even". It puts the onus on the defense in that situation to play a complete defense, and not just hang back and play for overtime (not that that's what St. Louis was doing there, just in general).

All things considered though, I'm perfectly fine with the current system. Just food for thought.

 

[1960Pats]

Amen, keep it the way it is.

I've been asked many times....well, how would you feel if the Falcons got the ball first and they scored a TD.............and I would be perfectly ok with that logic. If you give up a TD then it's completely your fault then you deserve to lose, plain and simple.

It sounds so simple doesn't it? And it's dead on target.

 

[brdmaverick]

From a fairness standpoint though, it's the most "even". It puts the onus on the defense in that situation to play a complete defense, and not just hang back and play for overtime (not that that's what St. Louis was doing there, just in general).

All things considered though, I'm perfectly fine with the current system. Just food for thought.

Yeah, even though I wouldn't go for it, like I said, I appreciated the thought. It was creative and made me think. I definitely knew where you were going for the fairness part, too. After all, I think that's everyone's biggest concern......the coin flip deciding a winner. Your way would at least eliminate that.

 

[Galeb]

So, the Competition Committee has come up with a brilliant plan to shorten OT by 5 Minutes.. Why? Because that extra time puts such a hardship on teams that may play on a Thursday night..

Competition committee to propose 10-min overtimes

I have news for the NFL.. Any game played on Sunday is a Hardship on the teams playing because they are playing on short rest regardless.. The only way to ensure that it's not is to make it so that teams don't play the Sunday before a Thursday game..

Would love to see the Pats score a field goal in overtime after a 9:59 drive first game of the season. Rule would die faster than the tuck rule.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Or just let the refs decide the outcome at the end of the game if both teams are tied

Don't even put that thought on the table. Don't go anywhere near that idea.

If Goodell hears it, he'll say something like, "Hmmm...I should decide the outcome of games that end in a tie after 60 minutes. I can do whatever I want when it comes to player discipline. Why can't I decide the winner of a tie game?"