Overtime Rule Change Proposition

[Th3Birdman]

So I caught Around the Horn at the barbershop a little while ago and the Arizona/Green Bay game came up. Inevitably, it came down to two talking points: the coin toss and the overtime rules.

Normally I cannot stand Michael Smith because he's a biased prick who thinks he's smarter than he is, but he had a point that I agree with, and have been talking about for a long time: in overtime, both teams should get an opportunity to handle the football, regardless of who scores first.

My opinion is that the current rules favor the team that wins the toss, and puts immense pressure on a defense that might be gassed from a full 4 quarters, therfore the rules should change to both teams get an opportunity to handle the football, regardless who scores first.

In basketball, an overtime truly decides who was the better team, not one that happens to get lucky.

I am quite biased about this, as we had two opportunities to secure HFA had we been given an opportunity to score in either the Jets game or the Broncos game, so I'm posing this as a question:

Should we change the overtime rules?

 

[glm]

No. If you wanna get a possession then don't let them score a touchdown.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

I've always thought a simple "I divide, you choose" scheme would work well:

One coach sets the field position (say ball on own 5 yard line), the other coach (whose team won the toss) decides whether to take the ball or not, and first coach chooses which end of field.

 

[FCB02062]

Giving teams a "last at bat" is the epitome of a competitive advantage to the team possessing after the other team score a TD.....because they would KNOW they have to use all 4 downs....

 

[Th3Birdman]

I've always thought a simple "I divide, you choose" scheme would work well:

One coach sets the field position (say ball on own 5 yard line), the other coach (whose team won the toss) decides whether to take the ball or not, and first coach chooses which end of field.

Would you mind explaining in more detail? I'm not quite sure I understand. Having a brain fart lol

 

[Th3Birdman]

Giving teams a "last at bat" is the epitome of a competitive advantage to the team possessing after the other team score a TD.....because they would KNOW they have to use all 4 downs....

I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. It's almost a condensed version of the halftime rules.

It would at the very least add a bit of strategy to how certain teams would prefer to play overtime, vis a vis, Bill Belichick.

 

[anditsgood]

IDK, you had 4 quarters to win, if you lose, you lose

Personally, i was fine with the last OT rules, and wasnt much a fan of this one, Whats next, everyone gets a lombardi
If you dont want to lose, Play Defense

 

[memento]

I don't believe OT is there to prove the better team, it's there to decide a winner. If you don't want to lose in OT then have more points after the first 60 minutes. We've only had the new OT rules for a few seasons... I'm still used to sudden death field goals to end overtime. Letting the other team get a shot to answer a field goal is already a concession to prolong the 3hrs of football and commercials we watch religiously.

 

[Th3Birdman]

I don't believe OT is there to prove the better team, it's there to decide a winner. If you don't want to lose in OT then have more points after the first 60 minutes. We've only had the new OT rules for a few seasons... I'm still used to sudden death field goals to end overtime. Letting the other team get a shot to answer a field goal is already a concession to prolong the 3hrs of football and commercials we watch religiously.

Yeah the sudden death FG is a classic part of football, but I like the fact we now can answer FGs. I just would prefer to take it a step further, and be able to answer a TD.

Due to two bungled opportunities in the secondary, the Pats lost both our overtime games this year, one of which to a team we play in a week, in their stadium, in a sudden death game.

I don't much like Green Bay (and I actually like Arizona), but after the way Green Bay took that game to overtime, I think it's criminal Rodgers didn't get an opportunity in OT.

 

[anditsgood]

Yeah the sudden death FG is a classic part of football, but I like the fact we now can answer FGs. I just would prefer to take it a step further, and be able to answer a TD.

Due to two bungled opportunities in the secondary, the Pats lost both our overtime games this year, one of which to a team we play in a week, in their stadium, in a sudden death game.

I don't much like Green Bay (and I actually like Arizona), but after the way Green Bay took that game to overtime, I think it's criminal Rodgers didn't get an opportunity in OT.

If that is the case, play a whole QT of football

 

[FreeCourtroomBrady]

Green Bay got knocked out of the playoffs the last 2 years by massive plays before Rodgers even got to touch the ball.

 

[Patsrock]

So I caught Around the Horn at the barbershop a little while ago and the Arizona/Green Bay game came up. Inevitably, it came down to two talking points: the coin toss and the overtime rules.

Normally I cannot stand Michael Smith because he's a biased prick who thinks he's smarter than he is, but he had a point that I agree with, and have been talking about for a long time: in overtime, both teams should get an opportunity to handle the football, regardless of who scores first.

My opinion is that the current rules favor the team that wins the toss, and puts immense pressure on a defense that might be gassed from a full 4 quarters, therfore the rules should change to both teams get an opportunity to handle the football, regardless who scores first.

In basketball, an overtime truly decides who was the better team, not one that happens to get lucky.

I am quite biased about this, as we had two opportunities to secure HFA had we been given an opportunity to score in either the Jets game or the Broncos game, so I'm posing this as a question:

Should we change the overtime rules?

Pats had a chance to score vs Broncos and went 3 and out.

Pats gave up the chance for the ball vs the Jets.

Pats screwed up both OT games, didn't lose because of the system.

 

[Th3Birdman]

If that is the case, play a whole QT of football

Sure, I'm even open to that actually. I like basketball rules in this case.

I hate seeing teams get away with some lucky BS (Pats included, although I'll take it). I went on a 4 page tirade against the Seahawks in the game thread two weeks ago lol

 

[anditsgood]

Sure, I'm even open to that actually. I like basketball rules in this case.

I hate seeing teams get away with some lucky BS (Pats included, although I'll take it). I went on a 4 page tirade against the Seahawks in the game thread two weeks ago lol

I hear you, but i either want true sudden death, or i want a full quarter, just none of this we got to be fair bull crap, because we didnt play when we were suppose to

 

[Patsrock]

Green Bay got knocked out of the playoffs the last 2 years by massive plays before Rodgers even got to touch the ball.

Don't give up 80 yards plays. Defense is part of the game too. Stop them, get the ball back and score and win.

 

[Gwedd]

If that is the case, play a whole QT of football

This. Play a full 15 minute quarter. 2 T/O's and 1 challenge per team.

Whomever has the most points when the quarter ends is the winner. During the playoffs, if it's a tie, then either play ANOTHER full quarter, or use a coin toss to determine the winner.

 

[anditsgood]

This. Play a full 15 minute quarter. 2 T/O's and 1 challenge per team.

Whomever has the most points when the quarter ends is the winner. During the playoffs, if it's a tie, then either play ANOTHER full quarter, or use a coin toss to determine the winner.

I would then go to sudden death after the first O.T. (that way, i still get my sudden death)

 

[TBR]

Giving teams a "last at bat" is the epitome of a competitive advantage to the team possessing after the other team score a TD.....because they would KNOW they have to use all 4 downs....

Totally agreed. The 4 down aspect is definitely a big advantage.

Although, perhaps they can still allow for teams to respond to a TD (in the playoffs only), except after that TD is scored, the clock would drop to 2 minutes.

 

[anditsgood]

Giving teams a "last at bat" is the epitome of a competitive advantage to the team possessing after the other team score a TD.....because they would KNOW they have to use all 4 downs....

In baseball, you cannot score on defense, like you can in other sports

 

[Th3Birdman]

Totally agreed. The 4 down aspect is definitely a big advantage.

Although, perhaps they can still allow for teams to respond to a TD (in the playoffs only), except after that TD is scored, the clock would drop to 2 minutes.

To mitigate that problem, I like AndItsGood's suggestion-- another quarter.

I mentioned this a few weeks back and got **** on for saying it so that's why I didn't bring it up this time, as I thought the general concensus for the site was that a whole other quarter is a bad thing.