NFL rule change could be coming to overtime

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

People complain about the old OT just being a coin flip. This would just make it a series of coin flips.

Incorrect. One coin flip. The coin flip only determines which team plays offense first. The loser would choose which side of the field to play on for the entire OT.

 

[Old Lion]

The 2 point conversion battle seems to be fairest way to do it. And the quickest more often then not.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Incorrect. One coin flip. The coin flip only determines which team plays offense first. The loser would choose which side of the field to play on for the entire OT.

Two point conversions are basically just 50/50s. That's what I mean. I'd rather the game end in a tie than go to a shootout.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

The 2 point conversion battle seems to be fairest way to do it. And the quickest more often then not.

100% agreed.

Winner of Coin Toss - Chooses whether to play offense or defense first.
Loser of Coin Toss - Chooses which side of the field to play on.

Each team gets an equal opportunity to win.

If you put the ball on the 2 yard line, then you could pass, run, statue of liberty or philly special.

OT wouldn't last very long, which protects the safety of the players and the organizations playing them millions of dollars to play.

 

[Robotech]

100% agreed.

Winner of Coin Toss - Chooses whether to play offense or defense first.
Loser of Coin Toss - Chooses which side of the field to play on.

Each team gets an equal opportunity to win.

If you put the ball on the 2 yard line, then you could pass, run, statue of liberty or philly special.

OT wouldn't last very long, which protects the safety of the players and the organizations playing them millions of dollars to play.

OT comes down to one play? That would barely be better than just letting a coin flip decide the winner of the game.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

OT comes down to one play? That would barely be better than just letting a coin flip decide the winner of the game.

No. Each team gets the ball at least once. If both teams convert or not convert, then you move toward OT#2. You go back and forth until one team converts and the other side does not. The coin toss simply determines who goes on offense first and which side of the field to play on.

 

[Robotech]

No. Each team gets the ball at least once. If both teams convert or not convert, then you move toward OT#2. You go back and forth until one team converts and the other side does not. The coin toss simply determines who goes on offense first and which side of the field to play on.

Kinda seems like the soccer penalty shootout, which isn't so great. I'd rather a team really earn the win instead of putting them in scoring position already.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Kinda seems like the soccer penalty shootout, which isn't so great. I'd rather a team really earn the win instead of putting them in scoring position already.

You had 60 minutes to win the game. The OT is designed to settle the tie. Shootouts in hockey, soccer and rugby are fun to watch. Sorry, but I don't agree/comprehend your logic. You're still EARNING the win. You have to score on offense, and stop the other team on defense.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

You had 60 minutes to win the game. The OT is designed to settle the tie. Shootouts in hockey, soccer and rugby are fun to watch. Sorry, but I don't agree/comprehend your logic. You're still EARNING the win. You have to score on offense, and stop the other team on defense.

I think it is about earning breaking the tie.
If they cant do it with additional series then I am fine with it ending in a tie. Zero reason to put them in scoring position to start.

 

[Robotech]

You had 60 minutes to win the game. The OT is designed to settle the tie. Shootouts in hockey, soccer and rugby are fun to watch. Sorry, but I don't agree/comprehend your logic. You're still EARNING the win. You have to score on offense, and stop the other team on defense.

I'd rather it just end in a tie then since both teams had 60 minutes already to get it done. Free scoring position is lame.

 

[Robotech]

You had 60 minutes to win the game. The OT is designed to settle the tie. Shootouts in hockey, soccer and rugby are fun to watch. Sorry, but I don't agree/comprehend your logic. You're still EARNING the win. You have to score on offense, and stop the other team on defense.

And I think this would be a bad way to break ties in the playoffs. Make a team earn it. Make OT closer to real football.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

You had 60 minutes to win the game. The OT is designed to settle the tie. Shootouts in hockey, soccer and rugby are fun to watch. Sorry, but I don't agree/comprehend your logic. You're still EARNING the win. You have to score on offense, and stop the other team on defense.

Shootouts in hockey and soccer don't usually occur until after they play a full OT period.

If your suggestion is the two point thing after a full OT quarter then I guess I get it but I'd rather just have them tie.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

And I think this would be a bad way to break ties in the playoffs. Make a team earn it. Make OT closer to real football.

Exactly this. OT should more or less just continue the game. Putting the ball at the 2 or 25 and trading possessions doesn't continue the game. It makes you play an entirely different game.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

And I think this would be a bad way to break ties in the playoffs. Make a team earn it. Make OT closer to real football.

That point doesn't make any sense to be. I am not asking them to play rock-paper-scissors or a thumb war. I am advocating for using an existing phase of the game and applying it OT.

 

[Wazmankg]

10 or 15 minutes .. idc. But both teams get at least 1 shot on offense. After that whomever is in, or takes, the lead wins. If neither does after 10 or 15 it's a tie. I hate college OT.. too contrived. But CFB is just an exhibition sport anyway, so who cares.