My NFL Overtime Rules Fix

[Vitamike]

For the record, that sack fumble was a massive facemask on Rodgers.

View attachment 80057
View attachment 80058

I don't know what you are looking at Derski, it looks like Rodgers is biting the defenders finger!

That's a PF on AR!

 

[Wazmankg]

When will the we must all be equal folks start complaining of team A punts, then team B punts, then team A wins on a cheap FG. I mean team B didn't get a equal shot.

Not me. Not equal shots. At least 1 shot on offense is all. The concept of both teams getting an offensive opportunity is pretty intrinsic to the game in regulation time and they're not guaranteed equal offensive opportunities, either. Why shouldn't it be the same for OT ?

 

[Vitamike]

Still like my idea.

This whole business of 'if one team scores a TD and not a FG or has to punt then and only then it's over but if they only score a FG or have to punt then we give the other team a chance and go to sudden death' just seems as random if not more than my suggestion.

Give 'em both a chance on offense, and go to sudden death afterwards. If either team scores a TD on their first possession, they must go for two. That should prevent ties that last forever.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

Been thinking about this since the GB game last week.

The reason why you can't guarantee both sides getting the ball under the current rules is that the first team to possess the ball must punt on 4th down or risk turning the ball over...esp on a short field. While the second team to get the ball, already down pts will always use all 4 downs.

Ok so here's my new rules. There's still a coin toss and a kick off, however the receiving team must score a TD and not kick. They will use all 4 downs because if/when they're stopped the other team doesn't take over at that point. Instead the first team gets to kick it off to the second and now they too must score a TD.

When/if the second team gets stopped on all four downs, the ball is then kicked off a final time and any score wins the game. Regular rules the rest of the way with the first team to score winning.

This way, both teams get the ball with an equal opportunity.

I like it... It's better than the way it is now for sure...

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

Or how about just using college rules... but start the possession further back, like at your own 40 ... That was you still need some yards to get into field goal range... I love the college system, but have always wondered why they start out in field goal range... BACK um up to start , make scoring any points a little more difficult...

 

[Manster7588]

Not me. Not equal shots. At least 1 shot on offense is all. The concept of both teams getting an offensive opportunity is pretty intrinsic to the game in regulation time and they're not guaranteed equal offensive opportunities, either. Why shouldn't it be the same for OT ?

But why let team A have two chances to score and not team B.

 

[Vitamike]

But why let team A have two chances to score and not team B.

This is why my way is better....

Give 'em both a chance on offense, and go to sudden death afterwards. If either team scores a TD on their first possession, they must go for two. That should prevent ties that last forever.

That 2 point conversion can come into play for either team before team A gets another chance & both teams can still win with a field goal & defense or with defense & a field goal and you don't get burned if you give up a first possession TD.

Yes team B still knows whether they have 4 downs or not to get a first down or into the end zone because they started the OT period on defense, but at least both teams get the ball in the OT period.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Yeah, pretty much but I just can't get on board with it's-perfectly-fair-the-way-it-is. I can live with it's as good as it can be made to be.

That's been my view.

It's not changing, and I'm ok with that.

But, that shouldn't preclude any open discussion on how to maybe improve OT.

 

[Wazmankg]

But why let team A have two chances to score and not team B.

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with equal chances either, but ultimately there has to be a time limit. Admittedly, there's no perfect solution, but giving one team and not the other an offensive opportunity strikes me as 1 unfair aspect that we could do away with and a step in the right direction.

 

[jarntt]

Overtime should be another 15 minute quarter. If the game is still tied after that, then it's a tie.

psst...so which team goes on to the SB if it happens this week...

 

[The Derski]

psst...so which team goes on to the SB if it happens this week...

In that case, an online poll shall be held.

 

[Vitamike]

In that case, an online poll shall be held.

 

[Manster7588]

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with equal chances either, but ultimately there has to be a time limit. Admittedly, there's no perfect solution, but giving one team and not the other an offensive opportunity strikes me as 1 unfair aspect that we could do away with and a step in the right direction.

Both teams know the OT rules before the game starts, we fans know the rules, so to me all is fair. It's not like three refs let's one team score and then surprised the other team by telling them to go home. The FG to win in OT was unfair because the first team with the ball only needed 30 or 40 yards for a chance at a FG win, at least now if a D gets a stop they have their chance to tie or win the game. If you change it to both MUST get the ball, why would you give one team 2 chances to the others 1 chance? If you are saying team B has to have the chance to match team A they can change equal scores all night. At some point the rams will be so tired they will be shells of what they are and then you have a whole new complaint.
To me the current rule isn't broken.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Both teams know the OT rules before the game starts, we fans know the rules, so to me all is fair. It's not like three refs let's one team score and then surprised the other team by telling them to go home. The FG to win in OT was unfair because the first team with the ball only needed 30 or 40 yards for a chance at a FG win, at least now if a D gets a stop they have their chance to tie or win the game. If you change it to both MUST get the ball, why would you give one team 2 chances to the others 1 chance? If you are saying team B has to have the chance to match team A they can change equal scores all night. At some point the rams will be so tired they will be shells of what they are and then you have a whole new complaint.
To me the current rule isn't broken.

Knowing the rule(s) doesn't make it fair or equal.

I'd have much less problem with each team having an opportunity on offense, and then moving to sudden death. At least then you can argue "Well, you could have stopped them twice, and failed". At least they had a shot on offense, and if the defense is bad enough to give up back-to-back scoring drives, it at least eliminates the possibility of just 1 bad drive, a bad call, or a fluke play deciding the outcome of a game where the other team didn't even get a chance to respond with their offense.

 

[Broncos6482]

Knowing the rule(s) doesn't make it fair or equal.

I'd have much less problem with each team having an opportunity on offense, and then moving to sudden death. At least then you can argue "Well, you could have stopped them twice, and failed". At least they had a shot on offense, and if the defense is bad enough to give up back-to-back scoring drives, it at least eliminates the possibility of just 1 bad drive, a bad call, or a fluke play deciding the outcome of a game where the other team didn't even get a chance to respond with their offense.

I guarantee you, if they made a move so that both teams got possession, people would be crying that it's unfair that the team that received got two possessions and the other team only got one.

 

[Manster7588]

Let me add this.
Life's not fair, grow a pair and get over it.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I guarantee you, if they made a move so that both teams got possession, people would be crying that it's unfair that the team that received got two possessions and the other team only got one.

There's no doubt.

I don't argue that fact at all.

However, the statement that "Everyone knows the rules" doesn't make anything equal or fair.

Stating that if you don't want to lose the game, then don't let them score a TD is just as ridiculous.

However, at least by giving both teams an option on offense, and then going to sudden/death you can at least give a bit more weight to the 2nd argument outlined above by stating that if you don't want to lose, then how about not giving up back-to-back scoring drives.

This also would eliminate the potential of a fluke play, bad call/non call determining the outcome of the game on one single drive without the chance to respond in kind on offense for the other team. Not saying that happens often, but I mean if a team has held another team to 1, or even 2 scores all day long, and then just happens to give up 1 drive that happens to be in OT and loses the game is silly.

There will never be a perfect solution, but again, I think there are ways that this could be improved, and while it won't change anytime soon, that doesn't mean it shouldn't at least be discussed and/or looked at.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Let me add this.
Life's not fair, grow a pair and get over it.

Life's not fair, but games are meant to be played under equal rules and to be fair. Like it or not, that's how sports are supposed to be. That's why they have rules.

 

[Wazmankg]

Knowing the rule(s) doesn't make it fair or equal.

I'd have much less problem with each team having an opportunity on offense, and then moving to sudden death. At least then you can argue "Well, you could have stopped them twice, and failed". At least they had a shot on offense, and if the defense is bad enough to give up back-to-back scoring drives, it at least eliminates the possibility of just 1 bad drive, a bad call, or a fluke play deciding the outcome of a game where the other team didn't even get a chance to respond with their offense.

Yeah this ^. I think the people arguing for no change to the current format are the same ones who argued that the old sudden death format shouldn't have been changed.. "if your defense can't stop the other team, you don't deserve to win". I just never understood why that nugget of wisdom should only apply to 1 team. Still don't.

 

[Broncos6482]

Life's not fair, but games are meant to be played under equal rules and to be fair. Like it or not, that's how sports are supposed to be. That's why they have rules.

And yet, since the rule change, we have nearly a perfect split between the receiving team winning and the kicking team winning.

So if we know there's no perfect system, and the current system has resulted in a nearly even split, why mess with it? Why try to fix what is obviously working?