Fair Hooker
Footballguy
Wow. Who saw this coming?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
NFL overtime rule change PASSED. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Fair Hooker
- Start date
Don Quixote
Footballguy
Just for post-season. Will discuss expanding to regular season at May meetings.
Ron_Mexico
I Love Doggies
Can't find a link showing the post-season rule has been officially passed.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Doug B
Footballguy
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
giant banner on NFL.com
David Yudkin
Footballguy
For the playoffs only, if the team that gets the ball first scores a FG, the other team will get a chance to get the ball. But if the team that gets the ball first scores a TD, the game would be over.
Fair Hooker
Footballguy
Somebody better call Donovan McNabb.
Ron_Mexico
I Love Doggies
So if the team with the 1st possession scores the field goal, then the game is over if the second team doesn't score on their first possession ?Or is the the 4 point rule, which I prefer, where the first team to score 4 or more points wins ?
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
this
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
I think both teams should get 1 possesion regardless of scoring, then it's Sudden DEATH!
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
"If it's 4th-and-short at the 28-yard line, in the past it would be a no-brainer to kick a field goal. Because you win the game. Now if you kick the field goal, you give the opponent another chance."This right here makes it good, the coach will have to sweat out a decision.
dgreen
Footballguy
I think they should each get 2 possessions regardless of scoring. You know, just to be fair.
dgreen
Footballguy
That makes no sense. It's not like this is an issue that was just raised a couple months ago. OT has been in discussion for years.
dgreen
Footballguy
Me too.
comfortably numb
Footballguy
I assume if team with 1st possession does not score, team on next possession can win with a FG?Also,
This is just BEGGING for a team in the playoffs to lose on a opening kickoff
nyftbl_giants
Footballguy
LAME ! its like they knew something had to be done but wouldnt dare follow the collegiate format, which seems to end all questions of fairness. Im not sure if this is even better than leaving it as is other than entertainment value.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lehigh98
Footballguy
Why would they "test it out" on the more important games?
Ted Lange as your Bartender
Footballguy
Extreme example but bear with me:
Let's say the team that loses the toss recovers an onside kick, and then kicks a FG. Is the game over or do they have to kick it off again since the winning toss team never had a possession?
Now let's say the team that kicked the FG recovers another onside kick. Now is the game over or do they have to put the offense on the field again since the other team still hasn't had a possession?
Etc, etc.
Let's say the team that loses the toss recovers an onside kick, and then kicks a FG. Is the game over or do they have to kick it off again since the winning toss team never had a possession?
Now let's say the team that kicked the FG recovers another onside kick. Now is the game over or do they have to put the offense on the field again since the other team still hasn't had a possession?
Etc, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lehigh98
Footballguy
Can't have that, would wreak havoc on player and FF stats.LAME ! its like they knew something had to be done but wouldnt dare follow the collegiate format, which seems to end all questions of fairness. Im not sure if this is even better than leaving it as is other than entertainment value.
Chargers86
Footballguy
I think it's better than nothing. I am in favor. I just hope they make it the same for the regular season.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
If you score a safety, the other team already had a possession.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
The intent of the new rule is to try to prevent one team from winning by kicking a FG and not allowing the other team the chance to get the ball. For some reason, they determined that if a team allows a TD then they lose their right to get a possession.If the defense scored a safety, then there would be no need for that team to get their possession. So I would think the game would be over.
TommyGilmore
Footballguy
What about onside kicks? I've seen conflicting verbiage -- one site says that the other team merely has "an opportunity to possess the ball", but another site says the other team "will get a possession".
GregR_2
Footballguy
Prediction for the first big stink that will arise out of this.
In overtime, Team A kicks a field goal.
Team B receives a kick off. In their ensuing possession, a player fumbles. Defense recovers it and tries to run it back because the player isn't well coached, and then fumbles it back to the offense.
Game is, I assume, over because Team B didn't score in their possession? Even though they ended the play with the ball, it became a new possession when they recovered the ball? Lack of clarity leads to uproar and rioting, cats and dogs sleeping together. End of civilization as we know it.
In overtime, Team A kicks a field goal.
Team B receives a kick off. In their ensuing possession, a player fumbles. Defense recovers it and tries to run it back because the player isn't well coached, and then fumbles it back to the offense.
Game is, I assume, over because Team B didn't score in their possession? Even though they ended the play with the ball, it became a new possession when they recovered the ball? Lack of clarity leads to uproar and rioting, cats and dogs sleeping together. End of civilization as we know it.
nyftbl_giants
Footballguy
Can't have that, would wreak havoc on player and FF stats.LAME ! its like they knew something had to be done but wouldnt dare follow the collegiate format, which seems to end all questions of fairness. Im not sure if this is even better than leaving it as is other than entertainment value.
FF aside, It just seems like a waste of time, if they're considering change isnt it because they feel the current system is unfair ? to me, this does"nt solve that. Though wouldnt it be something to be up like 11 going into MNF overtime and dudes kicker puts up 4 OT field goals...DOH !
Last edited by a moderator:
dgreen
Footballguy
I don't think it has anything to do with being fair. I think it has to do with a large demand for OT to be different.Can't have that, would wreak havoc on player and FF stats.LAME ! its like they knew something had to be done but wouldnt dare follow the collegiate format, which seems to end all questions of fairness. Im not sure if this is even better than leaving it as is other than entertainment value.
FF aside, It just seems like a waste of time, if they're considering change, isnt it because they feel the current sysytem is unfair ? to me, this doenst solve that. Though wouldnt it be something to be up like 11 going into MNF overtime and dudes kicker puts up 4 OT field goals...DOH !
TommyGilmore
Footballguy
Better scenario: Team A kicks field goal....Team B fumbles kickoff.......Team A then fumbles ball back to Team B.........and Team B subsequently scores a touchdown.Does Team B win? Technically, it scored a TD on the kickoff. Or was the ball dead the moment Team A recovered the first fumble?
Silver & Black
Footballguy
I know I'll probably get flamed, but I am truly disappointed in this rule. Or any rule that changes OT in the NFL.
To me it's quite simple. Overtime is something extra because the game couldn't be decided in regulation. Why tinker with rules or argue that its not fair if a team loses the coin flip......the solution is siimple. If a team is afraid of losing the coin flip and going into OT, well, then decide the game in regulation! You have a whole game to outscore your opponent. You should game plan for the sudden death OT and realize that if the game is tied, you may lose the toss and not get possession.
Still further, even if you lose the toss, you don't automatically lose. Man up! Play defense and ensure you get possession in OT if you lose the toss.
To me, I just dont see the equitable arguments and quarelling about what's fair or not fair in overtime. It's sudden death, plain and simple. Win the game in regulation if you're afraid to lose the toss or can't count on your defense for a stop when you really need one.
Just my two cents.
To me it's quite simple. Overtime is something extra because the game couldn't be decided in regulation. Why tinker with rules or argue that its not fair if a team loses the coin flip......the solution is siimple. If a team is afraid of losing the coin flip and going into OT, well, then decide the game in regulation! You have a whole game to outscore your opponent. You should game plan for the sudden death OT and realize that if the game is tied, you may lose the toss and not get possession.
Still further, even if you lose the toss, you don't automatically lose. Man up! Play defense and ensure you get possession in OT if you lose the toss.
To me, I just dont see the equitable arguments and quarelling about what's fair or not fair in overtime. It's sudden death, plain and simple. Win the game in regulation if you're afraid to lose the toss or can't count on your defense for a stop when you really need one.
Just my two cents.
Don Quixote
Footballguy
I would think having the ball kicked off to you is "opportunity of possession," whether the ball travels 12 yards or 70 yards upon kickoff. So, game would end on first FG. But not sure if there is something else in the language.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Explain to me how this could even happen. Team A kicks FG. Team B fumbles kickoff. Game over. Both teams had a possession.
Are you suggesting that Team B fumbled on the same play after recovering a fumble on the kickoff?
loose circuits
Footballguy
If the ball isn't dead when Team A recovered it, then wouldn't he just kneel and game over?
nyftbl_giants
Footballguy
LAME ! its like they knew something had to be done but wouldnt dare follow the collegiate format, which seems to end all questions of fairness. Im not sure if this is even better than leaving it as is other than entertainment value.Can't have that, would wreak havoc on player and FF stats.
FF aside, It just seems like a waste of time, if they're considering change, isnt it because they feel the current sysytem is unfair ? to me, this doenst solve that. Though wouldnt it be something to be up like 11 going into MNF overtime and dudes kicker puts up 4 OT field goals...DOH !I don't think it has anything to do with being fair. I think it has to do with a large demand for OT to be different.
Probably, I just wish the deciding factor of that demand was to level the opportunities.
Shoot, lets just line up 11 each at opposite 40s drop the rock on the 50 and watch the carnage. Recovery wins
gridiron-ghost
Footballguy
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
They don't address if the kicking off team tries an onside kick? My assumption is the same rule would prevail where the recovering team needs a TD to win and a FG would give the other team a shot. But what is the team that recovered the onside kick scored a FG and then decides to do another onside kick and recovers. Do they need a FG to win? Could they win with 2 FG's?I am fine with the existing OT rule, but if people really feel there is something unfair after a tie and then a 50/50 chance and then the chance to hold the other team without scoring, this is A LOT better than the absurd college system. However, I think just flipping the coin in advance of the game so that teams know who wins the toss in OT would be the best method.
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
I agree as I said above. Looking at the other side, the rules have made it now a 60-40 winner (still seems fair) for the winner of the toss so offenses are scoring easier now (look at which teams made the SB) so an adjustment is understood (even if I don't agree). I still say just flip the coin in advance of the game then you know the deal.
Don Quixote
Footballguy
No. Receiving team had opportunity to possess; FG would win game. From Mort's twitter: "Opportunity to possess, good example is team loses coin toss but recovers an onside kick. Then kicks FG. Game over. Receiving team blew it."
road warrior
Footballguy
My main gripe about it is if Team A kicks a field goal, Team B will have the advantage of going for it on 4th down throughout their possession to try and score either a FG or TD (to win it).
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Which may make a team want to kick off after winning the coinflip.
road warrior
Footballguy
That's what I'd do.
Similar threads
