New OT format

[jayfan]

My take.

THE GOOD: Owners passed a new OT format allowing both teams at least one possession. Even if Team A scores a TD, Team B will now get the ball. If the game is still tied after Team B's first possession, then it becomes sudden death until time expires.

THE BAD: The OT period will remain 10 minutes long. The initial proposal of the rule change included extending the OT period from 10 to 15 minutes to better accommodate the guaranteed possession, but the owners rejected that part. This is a problem. With a 10 minute limit, and only 2 timeouts per team, Team A could conceivably milk nearly all the clock on its first possession. The extra 5 minutes would have alleviated this.

If you're changing the rules so that both teams get a possession, then take steps to ensure that both teams actually get a legitimate possession.

 

[Xeliou66]

I wish they would just eliminate tie games altogether, but this new OT rule is an improvement because it allows both teams to get the ball, it’s less about luck now, in the past whichever team lucky enough to win the coin toss usually won

 

[Lake Shore Drive]

My take.

THE GOOD: Owners passed a new OT format allowing both teams at least one possession. Even if Team A scores a TD, Team B will now get the ball. If the game is still tied after Team B's first possession, then it becomes sudden death until time expires.

THE BAD: The OT period will remain 10 minutes long. The initial proposal of the rule change included extending the OT period from 10 to 15 minutes to better accommodate the guaranteed possession, but the owners rejected that part. This is a problem. With a 10 minute limit, and only 2 timeouts per team, Team A could conceivably milk nearly all the clock on its first possession. The extra 5 minutes would have alleviated this.

If you're changing the rules so that both teams get a possession, then take steps to ensure that both teams actually get a legitimate possession.

The one area they could tinker with for possible revisions starting in '26 is not necessarily putting a set time limit on OT when it involves scoring drives, at least to giving each team a realistic shot at scoring. By this let's say team A wins the toss, takes the ball and goes downfield for a TD or FG, but takes 8 minutes to do so. That leaves team B just a couple on their end. In this situation why not remove the time limit and give them ample time to match or beat.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

Stupid.

Until OT results in a two man sack race of which the team has to use two offensive players for the first 50 yards, and then two defensive players for the second 50 yards and race the length of the field (goal line to goal line, switching at mid field), I'll never take NFL OT seriously.

These rules are simple and everyone understands them, and it would benefit the game greatly.

 

[jayfan]

The one area they could tinker with for possible revisions starting in '26 is not necessarily putting a set time limit on OT when it involves scoring drives, at least to giving each team a realistic shot at scoring. By this let's say team A wins the toss, takes the ball and goes downfield for a TD or FG, but takes 8 minutes to do so. That leaves team B just a couple on their end. In this situation why not remove the time limit and give them ample time to match or beat.

Right. Along those lines, I was thinking have each team's first possession be un-timed. If the game is still tied at that point, put 5 minutes on the clock for sudden death.

But again, simply making the period 15 minutes instead of 10 minutes would have solved the issue. Don't understand why the owners declined.

Now the rule is really, both teams are guaranteed a possession... time permitting.

 

[Albuquerque Rams]

I really don't understand why the NFL only went halfway here.

 

[shopson67]

If every rule change wasn't in favor of offense, they could've left the OT rules as they originally were. Defense used to get stops in OT to the point where teams would choose to kickoff to get better field position post-punt.

The less complicated the better. The artificial rules like the craziness that is now called the kick off (with the landing zone and players waiting for the catch to move) are absurd to me.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

If every rule change wasn't in favor of offense, they could've left the OT rules as they originally were. Defense used to get stops in OT to the point where teams would choose to kickoff to get better field position post-punt.

The less complicated the better. The artificial rules like the craziness that is now called the kick off (with the landing zone and players waiting for the catch to move) are absurd to me.

Agreed 100%. The NFL way overcomplicates rules, and it creates a lot of head scratching and confusion for regular fans and players/coaches alike. Keep it simple. "But player safety." ... lmao oh my fuckin' ass player safety. NFL could give two fucks about it as long as revenue and ticket sales are up. Still don't allow weed, but pump their players full of mind altering drugs/chemicals because I'm sure they get a kickback from big pharama.

Same shit when they started politicizing things in the NFL... well they canned that shit real quick when ratings started dropping.

 

[Cincyfan78]

My take.

THE GOOD: Owners passed a new OT format allowing both teams at least one possession. Even if Team A scores a TD, Team B will now get the ball. If the game is still tied after Team B's first possession, then it becomes sudden death until time expires.

THE BAD: The OT period will remain 10 minutes long. The initial proposal of the rule change included extending the OT period from 10 to 15 minutes to better accommodate the guaranteed possession, but the owners rejected that part. This is a problem. With a 10 minute limit, and only 2 timeouts per team, Team A could conceivably milk nearly all the clock on its first possession. The extra 5 minutes would have alleviated this.

If you're changing the rules so that both teams get a possession, then take steps to ensure that both teams actually get a legitimate possession.

I agree - I hate the old way because of people saying "Well, if you want the ball, stop the other team"...but in an instance where the other team is just methodically driving down the field and using up 7-8-9 minutes to do so...well...you have to stop the other team. So, I realize I'm at risk for a massive contradiction, but I'm not sure that these are the same. In one scenario one team may NEVER get a chance to touch the ball...in the other, there is a chance, even if you give up a score. Now, go out there and get a stop.

I can also understand why not 15 extra minutes, but maybe going to 12? Wish they would just go more with the college version, but start further out. Maybe start at your own 40, and trade off until someone wins.