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

[Ilov80s]

Here is my final proposal. I think it’s ideal, closest to fair as possible.

No regular season OT. 

In the playoffs, first team to score wins. There is no coin toss, higher seed gets the ball to start OT. 

In the SB, it’s a series of 6 minute OT periods until one ends with a team ahead.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I love the “just play defence” argument.  When the team that wins the toss scores they don’t have to. 

They do if the defense holds them to 0 or 3.  The coin toss determines who does what 1st. But the team that receives sure could go 3 & out, or kick a FG, and at that point they most certainly do have to. 

Imagine extra innings where if the away team scores it is over. “JUST PITCH and you don’t need to worry about it”. If you think the home team should also have a chance to bat you are a whiner!

But that's not analogous to the OT rule they changed. A closer analogy using baseball would be,  [imagine extra innings where if you score 3 runs, the opponent either has to score 3 runs to extend play or score 4 runs to win.] 

Which, amusingly, pretty accurately describes baseball. Oh, except where MLB wussified the game by starting a runner at 2B without even getting a hit because people whined that "games are too long". 

The new change isn’t even FAIR.  Does it matter?  No it is never going to be fair and they shouldn’t even shoot for FAIR as the goal. 

This is the opposite of what the new change is doing. "Fairness"is totally their goal.

I can’t think of any argument that the change doesn’t make it FAIRER and as a league they should be striving to make changes with that goal in mind. Especially now that they are tying themselves to legal sports gambling. 
 

So wait - are they or are they not trying to make it fair? This seems to contradict your last sentence. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

In the SB, it’s a series of 6 minute OT periods until one ends with a team ahead.

And after 5 overtime periods, if a player dies on one team, they shoot a player on the other team and go 10 on 10. 

lol - I was with ya up to this one. They'll never do this. Players would seriously die on the field - it would be all bad.  

 

[The Duff Man]

This is the opposite of what the new change is doing. "Fairness"is totally their goal.

So wait - are they or are they not trying to make it fair? This seems to contradict your last sentence. 

I don’t think the new rule is fair. 
Both teams get a TD in OT and kick the point. Then team 1 gets the ball and wins with a FG. Two possessions to one. Not fair.

However I would argue that two possessions to one is MORE fair than one possession to zero. 

People may argue that there is no need to make OT more fair, I probably agree.  What does fairness have to do with football?  Inconsistencies in officiating have a much larger unfair impact on games than OT rules.

But I get why they are doing it.  Optics. 

 

[-OZ-]

They already do have different rules for the playoffs.  Regular season games can end in a tie.

Exactly. This argument is weak. This change is fine, although I would prefer if it was during the regular season too. 

 

[-OZ-]

I don’t think the new rule is fair. 
Both teams get a TD in OT and kick the point. Then team 1 gets the ball and wins with a FG. Two possessions to one. Not fair.

However I would argue that two possessions to one is MORE fair than one possession to zero. 

People may argue that there is no need to make OT more fair, I probably agree.  What does fairness have to do with football?  Inconsistencies in officiating have a much larger unfair impact on games than OT rules.

But I get why they are doing it.  Optics. 

Totally disagree. The new rule is fair. Giving the home team or away team an extra possession wouldn’t be fair, but this rule doesn’t favor one side over the other. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I don’t think the new rule is fair. 
Both teams get a TD in OT and kick the point. Then team 1 gets the ball and wins with a FG. Two possessions to one. Not fair.

However I would argue that two possessions to one is MORE fair than one possession to zero. 

But again: if the defending team holds them to a FG or 0 points, they then get the ball and can win with only a FG. 

Fair. 

People may argue that there is no need to make OT more fair, I probably agree.  What does fairness have to do with football?  Inconsistencies in officiating have a much larger unfair impact on games than OT rules.

But I get why they are doing it.  Optics. 

Optics? 

The coin flip is fair. It's a 50-50 chance that your team will get to make a decision on whether to receive, or kick the ball. 

Why isn't that fair? 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Exactly. This argument is weak. This change is fine, although I would prefer if it was during the regular season too. 

That's actually my biggest beef with it. 

 

[-OZ-]

That's actually my biggest beef with it. 

Understood. I assume that will change eventually. 

 

[Ilov80s]

And after 5 overtime periods, if a player dies on one team, they shoot a player on the other team and go 10 on 10. 

lol - I was with ya up to this one. They'll never do this. Players would seriously die on the field - it would be all bad.  

Die on the field? Only 1 SB has ever been tied at the end of regulation. 

 

[rockaction]

I have no real problem with the new rule. I think it's a good thing. 

Sports rules can be rather arbitrary at times. Baseball deciding you can no longer shift seems very arbitrary to me. Arbitrary rules are in place all the time. 

Arbitrariness tends to lead to questions about the rule. Is it fair or not? What would be more fair than the rule in place?

This new OT rule seems less arbitrary than the rule which came before, so I think that's a good thing. Both teams get a possession. Do with it what you can. 

Seems fair. Analytics guys, per a Twitter poll today, are split on how to proceed now. Does the winner of the toss want the ball first or second? They're unable to come to decision based on game theory. That's a good thing. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Die on the field? Only 1 SB has ever been tied at the end of regulation. 

You just can’t have endless overtimes

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Baseball deciding you can no longer shift seems very arbitrary to me.

why ya gotta remind me 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Analytics guys, per a Twitter poll today, are split on how to proceed now. Does the winner of the toss want the ball first or second? They're unable to come to decision based on game theory. That's a good thing. 

I’m curious…How were they split on the last overtime rules? 

 

[Ilov80s]

You just can’t have endless overtones. 

Any situation where teams can not tie presents the problem of an endless game. I believe a score for score system, like we see in college football, is more likely to result in a tie than a timed period. 

 

[Sam Quentin]

Can you  imagine the chaos of a hockey game not decided by sudden death?

Nope

 

[rockaction]

I’m curious…How were they split on the last overtime rules? 

They didn't say, but I think it was pretty standard that they wanted the ball. You could end the game on the first overtime drive right away without the other team's offense seeing the field. Seems easy-peasy. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

They didn't say, but I think it was pretty standard that they wanted the ball. You could end the game on the first overtime drive right away without the other team's offense seeing the field. Seems easy-peasy. 

By scoring a TD. 

Not by kicking a FG. A bit less easy peasy. 

 

[rockaction]

By scoring a TD. 

Not by kicking a FG. A bit less easy peasy. 

Right, but even by scoring a TD you've got a chance to never let them see the ball. Notice that not one team ever took the side they wanted to defend or deferred. 

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Putting aside the fairness issue, if I'm already down 7 in overtime I'm going for 2 and the win after my TD. Keeping a team that just scored a TD on their last possession from scoring just a FG on their next one dont sound good to me.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

There was quite a bit of debate on here about this after the Bills loss. 

I was squarely on the side of "it's fine. Don't mess with it."

I was very unhappy with the outcome of that game, but the result was fair and the rules in place were fine.  I would have preferred not to change anything.

 

[-OZ-]

Any situation where teams can not tie presents the problem of an endless game. I believe a score for score system, like we see in college football, is more likely to result in a tie than a timed period. 

You do realize there are adults in this forum who weren’t alive to see the last time a college game ended in a tie. 

 

[Ilov80s]

You do realize there are adults in this forum who weren’t alive to see the last time a college game ended in a tie. 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Ilov80s]

They didn't say, but I think it was pretty standard that they wanted the ball. You could end the game on the first overtime drive right away without the other team's offense seeing the field. Seems easy-peasy. 

Oh definitely get the ball first in the old system. New system I would guess gives the team that gets the ball 2nd the advantage because they have more information and know what they need to do to win/tie the game.

 

[-OZ-]

What does that have to do with anything?

I might misunderstand your point

I believe a score for score system, like we see in college football, is more likely to result in a tie than a timed period. 

last season, 9 overtimes was the longest ever. There’s no need for that in any non playoff game imo. 

 

[-OZ-]

Oh definitely get the ball first in the old system. New system I would guess gives the team that gets the ball 2nd the advantage because they have more information and know what they need to do to win/tie the game.

Totally agree here. I’m probably deferring if I’m getting the ball either way. Although the TD / TD / FG is still on the table which might change my mind. 

 

[Chaka]

It’s not at all semantics.

you flatly stated, and then subsequently defended your statement that the coin toss “decides a game”.

you went on to simplify by saying “maybe we should just do the coin flip” instead of playing OT.

You could simply say you’re backing off that position because it was wrong to say that, instead of whatever this defensive nonsense is.


 

“greater than zero advantage” is one hell of a retreat from an absolutist statement that a coin toss literally decides games. 

Are you seriously running with this? It was hyperbole, I said you win. I don't think games should be decided by a coin toss. The toss has far too much influence already, that has always been my point.

Please let's not have a message board conversation, that veteran posters like you and I should have outgrown back in 2004.

 

[Chaka]

Getting the ball second with the new rule is objectively an advantage. It's like the dealer in blackjack. More information is better.  

It might reduce the advantage that the old rules gave, but it definitely does not eliminate the advantage from winning the coin flip altogether. 

Under the old rules, going first was a clear advantage, but not as much as pure sudden death.  The "everyone gets the ball unless you score a touchdown" rule was a compromise to minimize the advantage of sudden death.  

Under the titans proposal, the team going first could go for two and end it, which mitigated the advantage somewhat in the other direction, because going second is such a clear and obvious advantage. Under that rule, going for two and making it ends the game.  Under this rule, going for two and making it is the only way to ensure your opponent can't end the game without you getting another chance to score.  

I understand what it might turn into, you make great points about the potential advantages it could impart. 

Will the advantages outweigh the distorted influence the coin toss already has? No idea. Is this the ideal solution? I don't think so. But the previous systems were broken and needed to be changed. This change is a recognition of that fact. The 2010 change was better than pure sudden death, the jury is out on if/how much better this new change will be.

One thing I can say with confidence is these new strategic options for OT, in and of themselves, will make overtime imminently more fascinating.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Totally agree here. I’m probably deferring if I’m getting the ball either way. Although the TD / TD / FG is still on the table which might change my mind. 

I would take the ball just for the 2 out of 3 advantage you mention. Or you force them to go for 2 and the win if they see that coming.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Are you seriously running with this? It was hyperbole, I said you win. I don't think games should be decided by a coin toss. The toss has far too much influence already, that has always been my point.

Please let's not have a message board conversation, that veteran posters like you and I should have outgrown back in 2004.

Ok, that’s good to know. I thought you were seriously arguing that a coin flip literally decided games. Because I only know what you posted. 

I agree that was ridiculous, but I do appreciate you clarifying.

And yes, I agree that like grown-ups, using your words to say what you actually meant would have avoided this confusion.

Thanks again for clarifying. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I was very unhappy with the outcome of that game, but the result was fair and the rules in place were fine.  I would have preferred not to change anything.

Yep. I saw no need for aN NFL rules change.

Seemed more like what was required was a “bills defensive upgrade” 

 

[Chaka]

Anyone have the official language on this rule?

The Athletic is reporting that the Vikings objected to the fact that the team that takes possession after a first-drive touchdown has unlimited time to score.

Is it true that the OT would be untimed after a first possession score? That sounds very ungood.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Anyone have the official language on this rule?

The Athletic is reporting that the Vikings objected to the fact that the team that takes possession after a first-drive touchdown has unlimited time to score.

Is it true that the OT would be untimed after a first possession score? That sounds very ungood.

I’ve been searching for that, and can’t find the specific language. 

This is the NFL.com’s statement. Says a lot about the why, but it’s kinda thin on the “how” other than both teams will get a possession.

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-owners-approve-modified-overtime-rule-ensuring-possession-for-both-teams-in-

Suggest following Tom Pellisero. He’s on this like a fat kid on a ho ho.

https://twitter.com/tompelissero/status/1508848882440196106?s=21&t=N0W0fEN1TKlyayfBoSqNXg

 

[Chaka]

Ok, that’s good to know. I thought you were seriously arguing that a coin flip literally decided games. Because I only know what you posted. 

I agree that was ridiculous, but I do appreciate you clarifying.

And yes, I agree that like grown-ups, using your words to say what you actually meant would have avoided this confusion.

Thanks again for clarifying. 

Did you honestly need clarification as to whether or not I actually believed a coin flip should decide a football game?

<curious w/a tinge of sarcasm>Should we include emotion tags with our posts now </curious w/a tinge of sarcasm>

 

[TartanLion]

Moving in the right direction. 
 

I don’t buy the ‘just play defence’ argument. It’s nonsense. In the case of Bills/Chiefs game neither team was playing any form of defence from the start of the 4th quarter onwards, except the Chiefs D never even had to ‘just play defence’ to get their team over the line. 
 

There is no situation where one team not even getting a chance with the ball is acceptable to me. Moving in the right direction. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Did you honestly need clarification as to whether or not I actually believed a coin flip should decide a football game?

<curious w/a tinge of sarcasm>Should we include emotion tags with our posts now </curious w/a tinge of sarcasm>

In this case, apparently I did, as you seemed quite seriously to be arguing that a coin flip literally decided the games, going so far as to suggest eliminating OT play altogether in favor of the coin flip. 

Perhaps your sarcasm was a bit less than apparent. Apologies for my density. You could have easily responded to my 1st challenge with “I was being sarcastic, I don’t really think that a coin flip decides the game” and changed the entire nature of our exchange for the better.

I try not to assume that everything you post is sarcasm, because I respect your football & FF opinions. 

 

[Obie Wan]

It's better to have different rules for the playoffs than the regular season? 

 

you are correct

they should play to a tie and let both teams advance

they could each play a half of the next playoff game

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

you are correct

they should play to a tie and let both teams advance

they could each play a half of the next playoff game

lol, no. i just don’t see what the problem was with the current playoff OT rules. 

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I don’t think the new rule is fair. 
Both teams get a TD in OT and kick the point. Then team 1 gets the ball and wins with a FG. Two possessions to one. Not fair.

However I would argue that two possessions to one is MORE fair than one possession to zero. 

People may argue that there is no need to make OT more fair, I probably agree.  What does fairness have to do with football?  Inconsistencies in officiating have a much larger unfair impact on games than OT rules.

But I get why they are doing it.  Optics. 

in your scenario...if the second team gets a TD....they could try to go for two to win the game and not have to kick the ball back to team 1....they have a choice right there to try to win the game...

 

[Leroy Hoard]

if the second team gets a TD....they could try to go for two to win the game and not have to kick the ball back to team 1....they have a choice right there to try to win the game...

Or the team that scores first could gamble and go for 2 themselves, thus giving them at worst that 3rd possession. If they make it.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Or the team that scores first could gamble and go for 2 themselves, thus giving them at worst that 3rd possession. If they make it.

correct....thats whats kind of cool is there is actually some pressure on the team that gets the ball first if they do score a TD....if they "settle" for one....they know the other team will use all four downs all the way down the field AND have a chance to win with a two pointer.....but if they go for two and don't get it....the other team will still use all four downs to try and get a TD and then just has to kick the extra point to win.....I actually like the fact that some serious decisions/stratigies will have to be factored in....

 

[Stinkin Ref]

my thought is if you score a TD....you go for two...if you get it, you are guaranteed a chance to win the game with another possession....if you don't, you just need your defense to keep them out of the end zone....

 

[Ilov80s]

I might misunderstand your point

last season, 9 overtimes was the longest ever. There’s no need for that in any non playoff game imo. 

Yeah I’m not in favor of the trading scores system because of what you said for college OTs that can go on forever. 

 

[Anarchy99]

in your scenario...if the second team gets a TD....they could try to go for two to win the game and not have to kick the ball back to team 1....they have a choice right there to try to win the game...

This is why I like ties in the regular season (and prefer sudden death in OT). You have 60 minutes to strategize how to win a football game. Many times, teams get complacent and just play for a tie. Both teams get 3 TD, kick 3 XP, add a FG, and have regulation end at 24-24.  Yawn. Then when a team loses in OT on the first drive, the fan base cries it wasn't fair. Generally speaking, it's not the players that are griping, as they know the rules.

IMO, teams that don't want to settle for a tie (if there was no OT in the regular season) would be compelled to play differently. Go for it on 4th and short. Don't kick a FG and try to get a TD. Go for a 2 point conversion. Even more so if they went back to sudden death OT. Don't rely on a coin toss . . . be more aggressive DURING the game. I think that would make games MORE interesting, not less interesting . . . and it would end up with games being more fair for those people clamoring that OT isn't fair.

The times OT appeared to be "unfair" the past 10 years stemmed more from the lack of urgency and strategy in the first 4 quarters of the game. How about making coaches make strategic in-game decisions and put the players' feet to the fire to have to come through in a high-pressure moment BEFORE a game ever got to OT? (And that's leaving out the part that teams still are allowed to play defense at the end of games.)

As I see it, teams will be less motivated to try to win in regulation in the playoffs. Now they know they are guaranteed a possession in OT, so why risk anything at the end of a do or die post season game? Personally, I don't think that's exciting football. In the old sudden death OT system, teams down 3 would consider going for it on 4th and goal from the 3 with 20 seconds to go in the game. Now kicking the FG is a no brainer move, as that team knows they automatically get another possession. If they adapt the "each team gets a possession" rule in the regular season at some point, I would expect more OT games.
 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This is why I like ties in the regular season (and prefer sudden death in OT). You have 60 minutes to strategize how to win a football game. Many times, teams get complacent and just play for a tie. Both teams get 3 TD, kick 3 XP, add a FG, and have regulation end at 24-24.  Yawn. Then when a team loses in OT on the first drive, the fan base cries it wasn't fair. Generally speaking, it's not the players that are griping, as they know the rules.

IMO, teams that don't want to settle for a tie (if there was no OT in the regular season) would be compelled to play differently. Go for it on 4th and short. Don't kick a FG and try to get a TD. Go for a 2 point conversion. Even more so if they went back to sudden death OT. Don't rely on a coin toss . . . be more aggressive DURING the game. I think that would make games MORE interesting, not less interesting . . . and it would end up with games being more fair for those people clamoring that OT isn't fair.

The times OT appeared to be "unfair" the past 10 years stemmed more from the lack of urgency and strategy in the first 4 quarters of the game. How about making coaches make strategic in-game decisions and put the players' feet to the fire to have to come through in a high-pressure moment BEFORE a game ever got to OT? (And that's leaving out the part that teams still are allowed to play defense at the end of games.)

As I see it, teams will be less motivated to try to win in regulation in the playoffs. Now they know they are guaranteed a possession in OT, so why risk anything at the end of a do or die post season game? Personally, I don't think that's exciting football. In the old sudden death OT system, teams would consider going for it on 4th and goal from the 3 with 20 seconds to go in the game. Now kicking the FG is a no brainer move, as that team knows they automatically get another possession. If they adapt the "each team gets a possession" rule in the regular season at some point, I would expect more OT games.
 

This is your best post on this forum, ever. I couldn’t agree more.

The only thing I’ll add is that it further highlights how dumb these OT rules are.

Like MLB, instead of backing off of what was a bad rules change, they’ve doubled down & compounded the issue.

Now we get to spend the rest of eternity deciding what’s “fair” every time a team loses and their fans/owners cry about it.

That was about the best damn football game I’ve ever seen & everyone is ruining the memory by calling it “unfair”. Make it stop. 

 

[Leroy Hoard]

correct....thats whats kind of cool is there is actually some pressure on the team that gets the ball first if they do score a TD....if they "settle" for one....they know the other team will use all four downs all the way down the field AND have a chance to win with a two pointer.....but if they go for two and don't get it....the other team will still use all four downs to try and get a TD and then just has to kick the extra point to win.....I actually like the fact that some serious decisions/stratigies will have to be factored in....

There is a certain thread in this forum that will get bumped a lot this season. The one where we discuss what dummies certain head coaches are for their late game decisions.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

There is a certain thread in this forum that will get bumped a lot this season. The one where we discuss what dummies certain head coaches are for their late game decisions.

Oh lort I can see it now. It absolutely will harken back to the bad old days of sudden death where coaches are idiots for any decision they make. 

Kick, receive, go for 1, go for 2, FG or go for it on 4th - the possibilities are endless and everyone will hate them regardless.

And won’t that be a hoot.

 

[Chaka]

There is a certain thread in this forum that will get bumped a lot this season. The one where we discuss what dummies certain head coaches are for their late game decisions.

Or not, seeing as this rule does not impact regular season OT.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Or not, seeing as this rule does not impact regular season OT.

I guess I should have read the thread title before I responded. Give me a break, I'm new around here.

 

[Chaka]

I guess I should have read the thread title before I responded. Give me a break, I'm new around here.

I would but breaks have been specifically excluded from this thread's charter.

You'll have to speak with ownership.