PDA

View Full Version : Proposed overtime rule change


FlyingDutchman
03-19-2010, 10:38 AM
anyone watching ESPN? the league is looking into a rule change for overtime in only the playoffs...the change would be, if a team gets the football first and scores a touchdown, the game is over. if they score a field goal, the other team has a chance to answer with a possession. If both teams score a field goal then the next team to score wins...follow?
FlyingDutchman
03-19-2010, 10:39 AM
This is coming up for a vote next week i believe
Thurmal
03-19-2010, 10:42 AM
Overtime is fine the way it is. Who cares if a losing team never got to possess the ball? I'm pretty sure defense is just as much a part of the game as offense.
ddaryl
03-19-2010, 10:44 AM
sounds ******ed to me.

How about just play a quarter, if no one scores play another quarter.


or give each team a possession. If no one scores give each team another possession

KISS... Keep It Simple Stupid
FlyingDutchman
03-19-2010, 10:44 AM
Overtime is fine the way it is. Who cares if a losing team never got to possess the ball? I'm pretty sure defense is just as much a part of the game as offense.

agreed, but just hold the team to a field goal then. if two teams are in a dog fight in the playoffs going shot for shot scoring and end in a tie, do you think it should basically come down to a coin toss?
OpIv37
03-19-2010, 10:47 AM
sounds ******ed to me.

How about just play a quarter, if no one scores play another quarter.


or give each team a possession. If no one scores give each team another possession

KISS... Keep It Simple Stupid

I like the quarter idea. I hate the college football matching possession idea.

I think the intent is good- basically, give each team an equal shot. I think the proposed implementation is terrible. It's far too complicated.
PromoTheRobot
03-19-2010, 11:14 AM
I like the quarter idea. I hate the college football matching possession idea.

I think the intent is good- basically, give each team an equal shot. I think the proposed implementation is terrible. It's far too complicated.
Complicated? You have a low threshold for confusion then.

PTR
OpIv37
03-19-2010, 11:19 AM
Complicated? You have a low threshold for confusion then.

PTR

I never said I was confused. I said the rule was complicated.

Remember, these are the same refs who botched a simple coin toss in overtime a few years back, prompting fool-proof rule changes. Do you trust them to sort out something like this? I certainly don't.
MikeInRoch
03-19-2010, 11:28 AM
The solution is so freaking easy. After the opening kick off in OT, no more kicks are allowed. Period. No punting. No FGs.
sven233
03-19-2010, 11:56 AM
The solution is so freaking easy. After the opening kick off in OT, no more kicks are allowed. Period. No punting. No FGs.
I kind of like this, but I would make 1 change......you should be allowed to kick FGs (NO PUNTING ALLOWED). Here is the reason:

If you win the toss, you will have a decision to make. Do you take the ball first and just assume you will go down and score without being stopped OR do you give up the ball and hope your defense will get a quick 4 downs and out and give yourself GREAT field position (maybe already in FG range).

EITHER WAY, LEAVE IT AS FIRST SCORE WINS!!!

Actually it adds a little strategy to OT and will make you think twice about accepting the ball first. Good defensive teams may actually choose to play defense and risk never seeing the ball if they get scored on. Good offensive teams may choose to roll the dice that they can move the ball and not get stopped on 4th down already in FG range. This method may be enough to scare teams off from automatically taking the ball first in OT.

The only thing I don't like about it is that it does take the kickoff return out of it for the 2nd team and eliminates punting (changes the way the game is normally played), but that can be overlooked and won't be missed. That is why I think this method would be great. Do you take the ball and risk getting stopped in FG range for the other team or do you play defense hoping to get a stop so you can get a quick FG chance. Seems like this could work. Would make teams think twice.
ddaryl
03-19-2010, 12:31 PM
The solution is so freaking easy. After the opening kick off in OT, no more kicks are allowed. Period. No punting. No FGs.

interesting.... entriuging

could work

:brilliant:
Philagape
03-19-2010, 12:41 PM
They should do it like hockey .... a football shootout!!

Each team gets at least three turns where there's just a QB, WR and one defender. From their own 40-yard-line, the QB throws a bomb to receiver to score a touchdown on one play. The receiver cannot catch the ball before the 20-yard line.
Bombs! Entertainment!!!

:brilliant:



Seriously, I think the proposal is a good idea. I've never been in favor of changing the OT rules, but this is an ok compromise because winning with a FG on the first possession is pretty cheap.
Mr. Pink
03-19-2010, 01:10 PM
I like the rules in their current state...no change is needed.
ParanoidAndroid
03-19-2010, 02:33 PM
Overtime is fine the way it is. Who cares if a losing team never got to possess the ball? I'm pretty sure defense is just as much a part of the game as offense.

Then, by that logic, the other team's defense should also be measured.
madness
03-19-2010, 02:45 PM
A change is needed since the odds have changed. Before '93 the odds of winning in OT were 46.8% for both the loser and winner of the coin toss. Since '94 the odds went up to almost 60% for the winner in OT. The change is due to moving the kickoff back 5 yards in '94 and the increased talent of kickers in the NFL. The NFL will never admit it but they'd rather have a game decided by a TD instead of a FG.
Don't Panic
03-19-2010, 10:00 PM
The solution is so freaking easy. After the opening kick off in OT, no more kicks are allowed. Period. No punting. No FGs.

Interesting... first time I've heard this. The ST supporters wouldn't be happy, but f em. The coin toss alone would be a difficult decision, and each coach would definitely earn his paycheck. Good thought...
Turf
03-20-2010, 09:12 AM
The flaw with this plan is the other team gets to keep using 4 downs to get first downs, it's unfair. For me its simple. Either the team with the most offensive yards gets the ball first, rewarding performance, and/or you have to win by 4.
Akhippo
03-20-2010, 08:09 PM
We should get the coaches to earn their money. Instead of a coin toss make it a skill. Rock paper scissors. 2 out of 3.

Seriously, just make the OT rule the first one to score at least six points. Period.
Opening kickoff for TD. Game over
Pick six. Game over. Or any defensive touchdown.
A long opening drive down the field for a score. Game over
MikeInRoch
03-20-2010, 10:10 PM
The flaw with this plan is the other team gets to keep using 4 downs to get first downs, it's unfair. For me its simple. Either the team with the most offensive yards gets the ball first, rewarding performance, and/or you have to win by 4.

What, because they didn't have the option to use 4 downs before? What game are you watching?
Thief
03-20-2010, 11:06 PM
I never said I was confused. I said the rule was complicated.

Remember, these are the same refs who botched a simple coin toss in overtime a few years back, prompting fool-proof rule changes. Do you trust them to sort out something like this? I certainly don't.I am pretty sure they will manage to tell the difference between a FG and a TD.
Thief
03-20-2010, 11:10 PM
The solution is so freaking easy. After the opening kick off in OT, no more kicks are allowed. Period. No punting. No FGs.What does that solve?
Turf
03-20-2010, 11:43 PM
What, because they didn't have the option to use 4 downs before? What game are you watching?

Well dickhead, once the first team scores using 3 downs, the other team gets the added benefit of going for it on every 4th down because if they don't, they lose. It's unfair. Understand?
If they need to win by 4 they still stand the chance of losing by giving up possesion and the other team kicking a field goal and winning
What game are you watching? You're as dense as the NFL.
FlyingDutchman
03-20-2010, 11:54 PM
i think this seems pretty fair. it stops teams who get the ball first in ot from just running the ball once they get in field goal range in OT. it makes them keep playing the game like they should. i mean, even the best of defenses let teams get into field goal range and then stop them. they shouldnt be punished after a long hard faught game in the playoffs for this
PromoTheRobot
03-20-2010, 11:56 PM
Overtime is fine the way it is. Who cares if a losing team never got to possess the ball? I'm pretty sure defense is just as much a part of the game as offense.
...until the Bills lose the coin flip in the Super Bowl and lose on bad PI call and a FG and never touch the ball.

PTR
FlyingDutchman
03-21-2010, 09:46 AM
Just announced on ESPN.... the competition committee (whatever the eff that is) voted 8-0 to pass this new rule. Goes to final vote Wednesday
Throne Logic
03-21-2010, 10:28 AM
The flaw with this plan is the other team gets to keep using 4 downs to get first downs, it's unfair. For me its simple. Either the team with the most offensive yards gets the ball first, rewarding performance, and/or you have to win by 4.

I was thinking win by 6, but I like 4 even more.

I also really like the idea of using a quantitative in-game stat to decide who gets to choose "kick or receive" in OT.