What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

New OT Rule for Playoffs Only: Now THIS is the Worst Rules Change Ever...Or Is It? (1 Viewer)

Anarchy99

Footballguy
I will relish when the first postseason game goes TD-TD-FG in the first three possessions of overtime. Then the contingent of it’s not fair people will stomp their feet and demand OT needs to be an equal number of possessions. 

 

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
I will relish when the first postseason game goes TD-TD-FG in the first three possessions of overtime. Then the contingent of it’s not fair people will stomp their feet and demand OT needs to be an equal number of possessions. 
the second TD team knew they could lose on the next possession....they should have went for 2 if they didn't think their defense could stop them...

now if you are talking TD+2, TD+2, FG....then I guess all you can really say is the second team had a chance to stop them twice (plus once on a 2 pointer) and didn't....and thems the breaks....

TD+2, TD+2, FG..... is really the only issue....

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
the second TD team knew they could lose on the next possession....they should have went for 2 if they didn't think their defense could stop them...

now if you are talking TD+2, TD+2, FG....then I guess all you can really say is the second team had a chance to stop them twice (plus once on a 2 pointer) and didn't....and thems the breaks....

TD+2, TD+2, FG..... is really the only issue....
“But the 2nd team didn’t get the ball twice and the 1st team did! It’s not faaaaaaiiir!”

 

Gally

Footballguy
the second TD team knew they could lose on the next possession....they should have went for 2 if they didn't think their defense could stop them...

now if you are talking TD+2, TD+2, FG....then I guess all you can really say is the second team had a chance to stop them twice (plus once on a 2 pointer) and didn't....and thems the breaks....

TD+2, TD+2, FG..... is really the only issue....
So why can't you use the bolded for true sudden death or even how the rule used to be.  You had a chance to stop them all game and didn't.....and thems the breaks.  

I really so no difference in these two statements.  Just because it's OT?  I mean you had the whole 60 minute game to win the game so why complain about OT?

 

ghostguy123

Footballguy
Simple

Home team gets the ball first with the rules they had been using.

New rule only applies for the Super Bowl (and  neutral sites as well I guess)

 

-OZ-

Footballguy
I will relish when the first postseason game goes TD-TD-FG in the first three possessions of overtime. Then the contingent of it’s not fair people will stomp their feet and demand OT needs to be an equal number of possessions. 
It’s shocking to think a losing team’s fans could ever complain about anything. 

 

Grigs Allmoon

Footballguy
Here's a thought: play defense, and you'll get a possession in OT.
Here's a thought: 95% of rule changes in the past 20 years are in favor of the offense. This has become an offensive league. It's nowhere near a 50/50 split between offense and defense. Therefore, barring an anomaly where a team has an insanely good defense, the offense has a distinct advantage. As a result, winning the coin toss is a huge advantage. The numbers show it.

That said, I still don't understand how we don't just to to instant sudden-death when the 4th quarter clock expires. That is, once the 4th quarter clock expires, the game clock is turned off. Keep playing from that spot and the next team to score wins.

That completely eliminates the coin-toss, which can completely flip the game based 100% on luck. And it rewards any field-position gained by the team that just got the kickoff from the team that just tied the game. This is a game of taking turns (and taking field position). Let the team that got the ball after the tying score get their full turn instead of the possibility of "You don't get to finish your turn. We're just going to stop and flip a coin and start a new turn."

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
Here's a thought: 95% of rule changes in the past 20 years are in favor of the offense. This has become an offensive league. It's nowhere near a 50/50 split between offense and defense. Therefore, barring an anomaly where a team has an insanely good defense, the offense has a distinct advantage. As a result, winning the coin toss is a huge advantage. The numbers show it.

That said, I still don't understand how we don't just to to instant sudden-death when the 4th quarter clock expires. That is, once the 4th quarter clock expires, the game clock is turned off. Keep playing from that spot and the next team to score wins.

That completely eliminates the coin-toss, which can completely flip the game based 100% on luck. And it rewards any field-position gained by the team that just got the kickoff from the team that just tied the game. This is a game of taking turns (and taking field position). Let the team that got the ball after the tying score get their full turn instead of the possibility of "You don't get to finish your turn. We're just going to stop and flip a coin and start a new turn."
Or they could just play defense, hold the opponent to a FG or 0 points, then get the ball back & win. Maybe even on a FG, which the other team couldn’t do. 

Or as others have said, they could not play for a tie during regulation. 

Lots of non rules-changing possibilities. 

Otherwise we’ll see 1000 more rules changes for losing teams who’s feels hurt when they lose. :cry:  

 

Chaka

Footballguy
"Play defense" is a disingenuous argument considering that is exactly what the league doesn't want and has been neutering that side of the ball for years. Yes, I see what I did there.

 

Chaka

Footballguy
Does anyone think the team that wins the coin toss to start the game should get the ball to start both half's of the game?

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
"Play defense" is a disingenuous argument considering that is exactly what the league doesn't want and has been neutering that side of the ball for years. Yes, I see what I did there.
That’s a disingenuous narrative I see in this topic, sure. 

Meanwhile teams pay defensive players millions of dollars to (checks notes) play defense. You know, on the field. Like it’s 1/2 of the game of football or something. 

Who knew all those highly paid defensive coordinators weren’t actually doing that job at all. :rolleyes:

Try this test: go film yourself telling Aaron Donald that he doesn’t actually play defense. I’ll wait. :whistle:  

 

Chaka

Footballguy
That’s a disingenuous narrative I see in this topic, sure. 

Meanwhile teams pay defensive players millions of dollars to (checks notes) play defense. You know, on the field. Like it’s 1/2 of the game of football or something. 

Who knew all those highly paid defensive coordinators weren’t actually doing that job at all. :rolleyes:

Try this test: go film yourself telling Aaron Donald that he doesn’t actually play defense. I’ll wait. :whistle:  
Stop pretending it's a level playing field.

 

Chaka

Footballguy
Chaka: "NFL defenses have been neutered by league rules giving offenses a clear advantage."

HSG: "Oh yeah? Well, can you beat up Aaron Donald?"

Chaka: "...da fu...???"  :shrug: :no:

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
Chaka: "NFL defenses have been neutered by league rules giving offenses a clear advantage."

HSG: "Oh yeah? Well, can you beat up Aaron Donald?"

Chaka: "...da fu...???"  :shrug: :no:
Well can you? 
:lol:  

i just think your narrative about neutered defenses is vastly overblown.  

It’s kind of a lazy & exaggerated  argument to justify your point, when in fact, NFL Defenses do very regularly force opponents to go 3 & out, or hold opponents to field goals.
 

happens all. The. Time. Pretty much every game in fact.

But yeah sure that’s an impossible task whatever was I thinking.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

BoltBacker

Footballguy
I will relish when the first postseason game goes TD-TD-FG in the first three possessions of overtime. Then the contingent of it’s not fair people will stomp their feet and demand OT needs to be an equal number of possessions. 
If you have possession of the ball at the end of regulation and you don't have MORE points than your opponent.... then you lose. Period.

Doesn't seem any less arbitrary than any of these OT rules, the players don't have any more exposure to injury than normal. and most importantly the game fits more neatly into an expected television block.

The new goal of football is to have the same number of points or more than your opponent and give the ball back to them with 0:01 left on the clock. 

Oh, and while we are at it the home team gets to decide if they kick or receive. Coins! Coins? Get the #### outta' here!

 

ghostguy123

Footballguy
Here's a thought: 95% of rule changes in the past 20 years are in favor of the offense. This has become an offensive league. It's nowhere near a 50/50 split between offense and defense. Therefore, barring an anomaly where a team has an insanely good defense, the offense has a distinct advantage. As a result, winning the coin toss is a huge advantage. The numbers show it.

That said, I still don't understand how we don't just to to instant sudden-death when the 4th quarter clock expires. That is, once the 4th quarter clock expires, the game clock is turned off. Keep playing from that spot and the next team to score wins.

That completely eliminates the coin-toss, which can completely flip the game based 100% on luck. And it rewards any field-position gained by the team that just got the kickoff from the team that just tied the game. This is a game of taking turns (and taking field position). Let the team that got the ball after the tying score get their full turn instead of the possibility of "You don't get to finish your turn. We're just going to stop and flip a coin and start a new turn."
While that may be fair, it would completely eliminate all the awesome end of game finishes

 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Duff Man

Footballguy
The most annoying part is the narrative that the rule was changed because of what happened to the Bills. 
Meanwhile Bills fans know they lost because of coaching and not the OT rules. 

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
The most annoying part is the narrative that the rule was changed because of what happened to the Bills. 
Meanwhile Bills fans know they lost because of coaching and not the OT rules. 
The NFL basically said that was why they did this. Not sure if that’s a “narrative” or the “actual factual reason” they did this. :shrug:  

 

renesauz

IBL Representative
funny thing is that the stats weren't really showing THAT strong a need for a change. The team winning the coin toss was only winning 52% in the regular season since the last change. It was quite a bit higher for playoff games but the sample size was dramatically smaller too.

Not worth a lot of argument. I think it was a silly change, but not really a big game changing thing.It might effect 2 games this year...and statistically speaking, only has around a 10% chance of even effecting the results of either of THOSE games....and certainly not effecting them in any UNFAIR way.

Much ado about nuttin

 

Chaka

Footballguy
funny thing is that the stats weren't really showing THAT strong a need for a change. The team winning the coin toss was only winning 52% in the regular season since the last change. It was quite a bit higher for playoff games but the sample size was dramatically smaller too.

Not worth a lot of argument. I think it was a silly change, but not really a big game changing thing.It might effect 2 games this year...and statistically speaking, only has around a 10% chance of even effecting the results of either of THOSE games....and certainly not effecting them in any UNFAIR way.

Much ado about nuttin
I know some people in Vegas who would say a lot about the value of 2.8% 

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
Maybe they should do a series of celebrity coin tosses. This month’s theme: “Batman villains”.

First up, it’s Two-Face! Ohnooooooo! :o   

 

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
Here's a thought: 95% of rule changes in the past 20 years are in favor of the offense. This has become an offensive league. It's nowhere near a 50/50 split between offense and defense. Therefore, barring an anomaly where a team has an insanely good defense, the offense has a distinct advantage. As a result, winning the coin toss is a huge advantage. The numbers show it.

That said, I still don't understand how we don't just to to instant sudden-death when the 4th quarter clock expires. That is, once the 4th quarter clock expires, the game clock is turned off. Keep playing from that spot and the next team to score wins.

That completely eliminates the coin-toss, which can completely flip the game based 100% on luck. And it rewards any field-position gained by the team that just got the kickoff from the team that just tied the game. This is a game of taking turns (and taking field position). Let the team that got the ball after the tying score get their full turn instead of the possibility of "You don't get to finish your turn. We're just going to stop and flip a coin and start a new turn."
I've pounded the table for this for a long time.....just keep playing from the point of interruption (which is when the regulation clock expires).....just keep playing...

if you have it and its 3rd and 10 when regulation expires....you start OT with you having the ball 3rd and 10 and next score wins...

if the only argument is "this eliminates awesome endings"....I say who cares....we are not shooting for awesome endings....we are shooting for the fairest way to end a game without it being a tie....don't stop it and start over, just keep playing...

this would strategically affect the way many teams approach the end of regulation and would be very "awesome" to watch....

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
I've pounded the table for this for a long time.....just keep playing from the point of interruption (which is when the regulation clock expires).....just keep playing...

if you have it and its 3rd and 10 when regulation expires....you start OT with you having the ball 3rd and 10 and next score wins...

if the only argument is "this eliminates awesome endings"....I say who cares....we are not shooting for awesome endings....we are shooting for the fairest way to end a game without it being a tie....don't stop it and start over, just keep playing...

this would strategically affect the way many teams approach the end of regulation and would be very "awesome" to watch....
I don’t hate the idea, but I can see a Hail Mary at the end of every regulation that’s tied, hoping for the DPI. 

OT starts 1st & goal with the ball at the 1. And won’t that just be thrilling.   :yawn:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
I don’t hate the idea, but I can see a Hail Mary at the end of every regulation that’s tied, hoping for the DPI. 

OT starts 1st & goal with the ball at the 1. And won’t that just be thrilling.   :yawn:  
not so fast....are you going to throw that hail mary if its third and one....probably not....cause you know you are going to keep playing and then all you need is a FG....

DPI never called on hail mary's....it could get picked...other team starts OT with ball....hail mary's would probably be one of the last things you see...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Anarchy99

Footballguy
I've pounded the table for this for a long time.....just keep playing from the point of interruption (which is when the regulation clock expires).....just keep playing...

if you have it and its 3rd and 10 when regulation expires....you start OT with you having the ball 3rd and 10 and next score wins...

if the only argument is "this eliminates awesome endings"....I say who cares....we are not shooting for awesome endings....we are shooting for the fairest way to end a game without it being a tie....don't stop it and start over, just keep playing...

this would strategically affect the way many teams approach the end of regulation and would be very "awesome" to watch....
I also have suggested in multiple threads that teams should just continue the game from when the clock hit zero. Switch sides of the field and keep going, sudden death, same down and distance. It's the most logical conclusion. Basically, it just extends the game, next score wins. The coin toss, having another kickoff, installing artificial scoring or possession requirements, etc. all seem forced and unnecessary. 

People apparently like the excitement at the end of games to get to OT and hoping teams get another life to win in overtime. On the flip side. people wouldn't like teams just taking their time, no urgency, no use of a no huddle offense, no need to use timeouts or manage the clock, nothing up tempo. From that perspective, the end of games could be very boring and anticlimactic . . . which is likely not what the league or the fans want. But you wouldn't see teams giving up and kneeling to run out the clock to get to overtime. Every play would matter (even if the urgency to run the plays wouldn't).

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
not so fast....are you going to throw that hail mary if its third and one....probably not....cause you know you are going to keep playing and then all you need is a FG....

DPI never called on hail mary's....it could get picked...other team starts OT with ball....hail mary's would probably be one of the last things you see...
Ok. So not a Hail Mary. Maybe it’s just taking a deep shot. Get the DPI call & It’s 1st down at the 28. 

OT starts & they kick a FG. Game over. :yawn:  

 

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
Ok. So not a Hail Mary. Maybe it’s just taking a deep shot. Get the DPI call & It’s 1st down at the 28. 

OT starts & they kick a FG. Game over. :yawn:  
deep shots have a better chance of getting picked and you can't bank on a DPI....if you take your deep shot and it gets picked, the other team gets the ball and just needs a FG to beat you....

all you would want to do is keeping moving the chains and play for maybe a FG....so not much risk...

about the only thing you might miss out on are long FG attempts to win games in regulation....

this by far would be the most fair way to end a game....which many are complaining about....by saying its boring or it loses some excitement is trying to have your cake and eat it too....which is, as we have seen, pretty much impossible...I think the strategy in the way games end approaching the end of regulation would make up for the excitement....coaches would have to be thinking about the potential of the game going to OT and becoming sudden death well before just the final seconds....

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
Stinkin Ref said:
deep shots have a better chance of getting picked and you can't bank on a DPI....if you take your deep shot and it gets picked, the other team gets the ball and just needs a FG to beat you....

all you would want to do is keeping moving the chains and play for maybe a FG....so not much risk...

about the only thing you might miss out on are long FG attempts to win games in regulation....

this by far would be the most fair way to end a game....which many are complaining about....by saying its boring or it loses some excitement is trying to have your cake and eat it too....which is, as we have seen, pretty much impossible...I think the strategy in the way games end approaching the end of regulation would make up for the excitement....coaches would have to be thinking about the potential of the game going to OT and becoming sudden death well before just the final seconds....
I would think such a rules change what result in more teams trying to just win it in regulation. 

 

bryhamm

Footballguy
Ilov80s said:
I actually think the coin toss for playoff OT shouldn’t exist. The home team should get the advantage. They theoretically earned it by being better during the season. 
Except this isn't true.  A division winner with a 10-7 record would be the home team over a wild card with a 12-5 record.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top