Overtime Rules - Keep As Is? (2 Viewers)

[FreeBaGeL]

A coin flip did not decide the game, the game was decided in 13 seconds when Buffalo gacked away a game tying fg. Not kicking off in a way that put more pressure on KC and then not running a good scheme along with piss poor coverage is what cost Buffalo a chance to win. Those same short comings led to the eventual loss in OT, no need to reward bad play calling, bad play design and bad play execution.

KC got rewarded for their pitiful 4th quarter defense.  Why did they get to be rewarded for screwing up in the 4th quarter but Buffalo didn't?

Because of a coin toss.

 

[Zow]

Your bet is merely a deflection, so no, I am not.  

No, it's not - it's designed merely to see if you are willing to stand by what appears to be your argument that the outcome of the OT coin flip has no impact on the game's outcome. 

 

[dhockster]

Well, score a TD, yes. 

A FG, notsomuch. Then Bills get a drive & so on. 

But I agree - a small advantage to the receiving team. A much larger one if the receiving team is Mahomes & Co.

So really what people seek to want is a special rule for Mahomes, because he’s too good for the current format.

Or if the receiving team is Allen & Co.

The KC and Buffalo defenses were equally bad against great QB's, which is why they both gave up 36 points in regulation. The Chiefs won because only one bad defense got to show how bad they were in overtime. The coin toss determined that KC did not have to put their bad defense out on the field.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

No, it's not - it's designed merely to see if you are willing to stand by what appears to be your argument that the outcome of the OT coin flip has no impact on the game's outcome. 

It’s a dumb bet, because every team, weather conditions, quality of play etc effect the outcome. 

Just like last night.

so no, I will decline your dumb bet, because it would prove nothing except what would happen in that specific game with those specific teams.

Which comes full circular to my point: the Bills defense failed to make a stop or hold the Chiefs to a FG. The coin flip had minor impact comparatively, and your now repeated attempt to bully me into a dumb bet as though it would prove anything comes off as deflection from an intellectual debate on this subject. Thanks for the offer, but I will again decline. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Or if the receiving team is Allen & Co.

The KC and Buffalo defenses were equally bad against great QB's, which is why they both gave up 36 points in regulation. The Chiefs won because only one bad defense got to show how bad they were in overtime. The coin toss determined that KC did not have to put their bad defense out on the field.

A good point, and a fair hypothetical. Let’s evaluate: 

yup - same logic applies: hypothetically, the Bills won the toss, if Mahomes & Co wanted a shot, then that KC defense would have had to step up & make a stop or hold the Bills to a FG

Still no need for a rules change if they couldn’t. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Agreed. We can discuss this without throwing out $100 bet challenges. 

 

[rick6668]

How significant an advantage is it to win the coin toss?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Three proposals.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-conference-championship-games-dates-times-previews-early-odds-for-chiefs-vs-bengals-rams-vs-49ers/

 

[Joe Bryant]

How significant an advantage is it to win the coin toss?

For this game, it mattered a good bit I think. Someone can check the live betting odds but after KC won the toss, odds went to them. 

 

[The Dude]

I don't get the "each side touches the ball" argument.  If Buf had a shot in OT and tied it up - is there any doubt KC would have hit a FG to win?  And the disparity in touches would remain.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Also, the Win Percentage swings were wild. https://twitter.com/Football_Guys/status/1485661980404948998?s=20

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

KC got rewarded for their pitiful 4th quarter defense.  Why did they get to be rewarded for screwing up in the 4th quarter but Buffalo didn't?

Because of a coin toss.

But that’s not true. For one, KC wasn’t rewarded for their bad defense. They were rewarded for being able to drive 60 yards in 13 seconds and kick a game-typing FG. How is that missing in your framing of this? That’s why the game went to OT.  The Chiefs reward was more football instead of loss. 

And in fact Buffalo had multiple chances to stop the Chiefs in OT. They didn’t. That’s why they weren’t “rewarded” with an offensive possession. Hold the Chiefs to a FG or punt & the offense jogs out onto the field. 

The framing confuses me. 

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

The idea I've had for many years is instead of a traditional sudden death, or the current "unless the receiving team scores a TD" is to just make the rule that you have to have the lead and the ball to end the game.

I do get the safety argument, and we don't want players playing an extra 20 minutes of football, but for the playoffs, at least, I'd rather be fair.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

How significant an advantage is it to win the coin toss?

Depends how good the losing team’s defense is. 

 

[BobbyLayne]

I vote change. Yes, it's easy to say you the defense could have stopped them, but easier said than done after a long grueling game. Not that this was the case, but TDs can often happen via fluke.

Just seems like each team should have the ball at least once - a shame that a coin toss has to decide it in many cases.

I think the NCAA has the general right idea in how to handle OT.

Personally I’d like to see the NFL adopt playoff OT rules similar to the World Cup. One full extra period (15:00) and sudden death afterward if still tied. Keep the regular season OT as is.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The idea I've had for many years is instead of a traditional sudden death, or the current "unless the receiving team scores a TD" is to just make the rule that you have to have the lead and the ball to end the game.

That's interesting and something I'd never thought of. These forums rock. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

For this game, it mattered a good bit I think. Someone can check the live betting odds but after KC won the toss, odds went to them. 
 

true, but this harkens back to what I posted previously: you can’t change the rule because Patrick Mahomes/the Chiefs offense is really, really good. 

 

[JoeSteeler]

How about a punt, pass, and kick competition to decide tie games? 

 

[Joe Bryant]

The idea I've had for many years is instead of a traditional sudden death, or the current "unless the receiving team scores a TD" is to just make the rule that you have to have the lead and the ball to end the game.

More on this. What if you kick the tying field goal as time expires. You win?

 

[Joe Bryant]

true, but this harkens back to what I posted previously: you can’t change the rule because Patrick Mahomes/the Chiefs offense is really, really good. 

I didn't say that. I said for this game it mattered a good bit. 

 

[Anarchy99]

Here’s a radical OT solution which would be very fair and must watch TV. Neither team gets the ball. Do it like a soccer or hockey shoot out. 

Each team gets the ball at the 2 yard line like a two point conversion. Each team gets say 3 possessions, the team that scores more times wins. If still tied, keep the same thing going until one team scores and the other team doesn’t. You can even have the defense able to score if they can take the ball 100 yards off a turnover. Or don’t let the defense have the ability to score, so they could have both offenses and both defenses all ready to go on both sides of the field. 

Sure, it’s artificial and not like the way the game is played during the first 60 minutes. But it would be fairer and teams would not get as exhausted. 

 

[Godsbrother]

But in terms of what's exciting, it seems pretty clear that people feel a little let down that the game had to end the way it did. 

The ending did not make it any less exciting for me.  I thought it was a great game, one of the best I've ever seen, and I wasn't let down in the least and I was pulling for the Bills.   At that point I felt both teams had multiple chances to put the game away in regulation.

 

[BobbyLayne]

How about a punt, pass, and kick competition to decide tie games? 

Rock Paper Scissors down?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The idea I've had for many years is instead of a traditional sudden death, or the current "unless the receiving team scores a TD" is to just make the rule that you have to have the lead and the ball to end the game.

it’s an interesting idea, but you nailed it - NFLPA would balk at it for player safety. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

How about a punt, pass, and kick competition to decide tie games? 

This is the fear i think people have when change is discussed.

They look at how terrible the college system is and get worried that if they change the NFL system, there's a chance it might wind up as ridiculous as what the NCAA does. So they stick with what we have. 

 

[FreeBaGeL]

But that’s not true. For one, KC wasn’t rewarded for their bad defense. They were rewarded for being able to drive 60 yards in 13 seconds and kick a game-typing FG. How is that missing in your framing of this? That’s why the game went to OT.  The Chiefs reward was more football instead of loss. 

And in fact Buffalo had multiple chances to stop the Chiefs in OT. They didn’t. That’s why they weren’t “rewarded” with an offensive possession. Hold the Chiefs to a FG or punt & the offense jogs out onto the field. 

The framing confuses me. 

But if you flip the coin toss the exact opposite is true.  Then you'd just be saying Buffalo was rewarded for being able to score two touchdowns in the last 2 minutes, and KC was punished for playing horrible defense down the stretch.

Both teams played great offense and poor defense.  Mahomes didn't "earn" a possession in overtime any more than Allen did.  Buffalo's defense didn't deserve to be punished anymore than KC's did.

The entire narrative of "xxxx lost because they couldn't get a stop" and "xxxx won because they executed great on offense" completely flips entirely if the coin toss lands on tails instead of heads.

You can't just say "if the BIlls wanted to win they should have stopped them in overtime" because KC didn't have to stop anyone in overtime and they still won.  You can't just say "if the Bills wanted to win they should have just stopped them at the end of regulation" because the Chiefs also failed to stop the Bills at the end of the game (twice) and they still won.  The only difference in the two teams was the coin toss.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sure, it’s artificial and not like the way the game is played during the first 60 minutes. But it would be fairer and teams would not get as exhausted. 

I hear you. But I think that's what people hate about college though as it just feels like a gimmick. And why people think the NFL is better than hockey or soccer on this. 

Settle this the way the first 60 minutes were played. Not with some gimmick.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The idea I've had for many years is instead of a traditional sudden death, or the current "unless the receiving team scores a TD" is to just make the rule that you have to have the lead and the ball to end the game.

I do get the safety argument, and we don't want players playing an extra 20 minutes of football, but for the playoffs, at least, I'd rather be fair.

And sorry, I misread what you wrote. 

I think you could make the argument for no overtime ever and this is just how you end every game in regulation. The NFLPA would love that. 

 

[nysfl2]

Rules stay the same but Team A gets to choose where the ball is placed and team B then gets to choose if they want the ball or to play defense.

I have heard suggested that the two teams 'bid' for starting field position. Whoever agrees to take the ball closest to their own end zone gets it first. Keep the OT rules as they are.

If both are willing to take the ball at the one yard line, then go to coin-flip. But I doubt that would ever happen. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I didn't say that. I said for this game it mattered a good bit. 

I understand. It mattered because of the Chiefs offense. The context is why the % swung so much. 

if this is Bills / 49ers and the 49ers won the toss, I doubt it would have been so significant. 

My (implied) point was, in this topic of whether the rules should be changed, I think it’s relevant to view the subject without the specific game context. Because these were two otherworldly offenses & two defenses that weren’t playing great. In a different game / context, the “need for a rules change” may not be such a dramatic debate. 

Sorry if that wasn’t clear. 

 

[ericttspikes]

I still find it amazing that Josh Allen was 10-0 in winning coin tosses this year before finally losing one in OT last night. Those are long odds. If the coin toss means something, Buffalo took full advantage of it this year.

 

[dhockster]

A good point, and a fair hypothetical. Let’s evaluate: 

yup - same logic applies: hypothetically, the Bills won the toss, if Mahomes & Co wanted a shot, then that KC defense would have had to step up & make a stop or hold the Bills to a FG

Still no need for a rules change if they couldn’t. 

Every other sport that has games end in a tie, gives each team equal opportunity to win in overtime, except football: 

Soccer: Extra time of regular play to determine winner. if no winner is determined, Penalty kick shootout where each team is given 5 tries to score goals. if still tied after 5 tries, sudden death kicks where a winner is determined when one team scores a goal and the other doesn't. Each team gets an equal number of opportunities to score.

Baseball: Extra innings are played until one team scores more runs than the other in an inning. Both teams are always given an opportunity to bat.

Basketball: Extra 5 minutes of play. Each team has an equal amount of time to score more points than the other team.

Hockey: Sudden death overtime. First goal wins. However each team is playing offense and defense at the same time, so each team has an equal opportunity to win the game.

Football: One team can win the coin toss to possess the ball first, and if they score a TD, the game is over. The other team is not given an opportunity to possess the ball to tie the score in an equal number of overtime possessions.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

How about a punt, pass, and kick competition to decide tie games? 

Stole my joke 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Soccer: Extra time of regular play to determine winner. if no winner is determined, Penalty kick shootout where each team is given 5 tries to score goals. if still tied after 5 tries, sudden death kicks where a winner is determined when one team scores a goal and the other doesn't. Each team gets an equal number of opportunities to score.

the shootout in soccer is the all-time absolute worst way to determine a winner. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I still find it amazing that Josh Allen was 10-0 in winning coin tosses this year before finally losing one in OT last night. Those are long odds. If the coin toss means something, Buffalo took full advantage of it this year.

Interesting point. 

 

[culdeus]

Also, the Win Percentage swings were wild. https://twitter.com/Football_Guys/status/1485661980404948998?s=20

Those things seem to be very broken when trying to evaluate whether a team will settle for a FG or not.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I have heard suggested that the two teams 'bid' for starting field position. Whoever agrees to take the ball closest to their own end zone gets it first. Keep the OT rules as they are.

If both are willing to take the ball at the one yard line, then go to coin-flip. But I doubt that would ever happen. 

It’s a fun ideas, but what a time consuming & weird intermission that'd be. 

And because it’s the NFL, you know they’d have the bidding sponsored, with a famous game show host coming out to MC it. It would be a cluster of epic proportions. 

But I do love the idea. 

 

[zamboni]

the shootout in soccer is the all-time absolute worst way to determine a winner. 

Regular season NHL does it the same way. The NHL system has its own issues, but at least they have the good sense to let them gruel it out - with both teams getting scoring chances -  during the Stanley Cup playoffs.

 

[JoeSteeler]

This is the fear i think people have when change is discussed.

They look at how terrible the college system is and get worried that if they change the NFL system, there's a chance it might wind up as ridiculous as what the NCAA does. So they stick with what we have. 

Exactly.  
 

No matter what format they choose, there are still going to be (potentially huge) pluses/minuses and an advantage to one team. 

OT today is not perfect but not sure what can be done without extending games and having a greater potential for injuries.

Instead of a coin toss, why not just let the higher seed go first? They earned the higher seed over a 17 game season. 

 

[JoeSteeler]

Stole my joke 

must have flown over my head

 

[BobbyLayne]

the shootout in soccer is the all-time absolute worst way to determine a winner. 

Ditto for the NHL system. Can’t believe someone upthread thinks that’s a good idea.

Then again last night people in TSP were saying Tyreek should have gone down on the one instead of scoring lol.

 

[dhockster]

the shootout in soccer is the all-time absolute worst way to determine a winner. 

Agreed, I am not advocating for a shootout. But they don't award a winner after the first team scores on their first kick and not give the other team a chance to score. Which is what the NFL currently does.

 

[PantherThunder]

I don't like how KC vs BUF ended either, it was an all-timer and people may remember it more for the ending and Josh Allen just watching helpless from the bench. 

Chiefs score a TD, then Buffalo scores a TD, then what?  Next TD wins again anyway?  Keep playing until someone doesn't score a TD?  Force them to go for 2 on the conversions?  These guys have been killing each other for 60 minutes, how much longer do you want them to play?  On the flip side, think of SF and GB.  As conditions got worse, they may have just punted the ball back and forth for another hour (well assuming GB's special teams didn't screw up again which is a big ask evidently).

In this game both defenses were gassed. I was thinking Buffalo should get a chance. The more I though about it. Buffalo scores then what? Would it be sudden death after that? They both had plenty of chances in regulation. Sudden death is just that. Only one team can win 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

But if you flip the coin toss the exact opposite is true.  Then you'd just be saying Buffalo was rewarded for being able to score two touchdowns in the last 2 minutes, and KC was punished for playing horrible defense down the stretch.

Both teams played great offense and poor defense.  Mahomes didn't "earn" a possession in overtime any more than Allen did.  Buffalo's defense didn't deserve to be punished anymore than KC's did.

The entire narrative of "xxxx lost because they couldn't get a stop" and "xxxx won because they executed great on offense" completely flips entirely if the coin toss lands on tails instead of heads.

You can't just say "if the BIlls wanted to win they should have stopped them in overtime" because KC didn't have to stop anyone in overtime and they still won.  You can't just say "if the Bills wanted to win they should have just stopped them at the end of regulation" because the Chiefs also failed to stop the Bills at the end of the game (twice) and they still won.  The only difference in the two teams was the coin toss.

I’m with you on much of this, just not your conclusion.

I've already conceded that if the shoe was on the other foot, the same thing would have likely played out for the Bills. 

And just like how it actually did play out, if the Bills had driven down and scored, I still wouldn’t see a need for a rules change. The Chiefs failed to stop the bills, leaving 13 seconds on that insanely awesome TD to Davis. The Bills shoulda won that game in regulation on that play.

My biggest beef with your argument is the concept of “reward” and “punishment”. I didn’t really see the Bills as being punished or the Chiefs as being rewards per say. 

I saw the Chiefs earn a trip to overtime with one of the best 13 second drives in NFL history. 

I saw the Chiefs get lucky / Bills get unlucky with a coin toss.

And then I saw the Chiefs execute a brilliant drive culminating in a touchdown, earning the win. And simultaneously the Bills defense did not make a stop, thus they did not earn an offensive possession.

Using terms like “reward/punishment” seems to strip the achievements away from the players who accomplished those things, or in the Bills case, failed to do so.

In either case, I still don’t think it justifies a rules change. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Ditto for the NHL system. Can’t believe someone upthread thinks that’s a good idea.

Then again last night people in TSP were saying Tyreek should have gone down on the one instead of scoring lol.

I saw that & SMH. Yes, post hoc, knowing Allen comes down and scores, and knowing Mahomes then drives to tie it, it makes sense. 

But down X number of points, you score the TD. Every time. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

They both had plenty of chances in regulation. Sudden death is just that. Only one team can win 

I keep coming back to this. It sucks that one of them had to lose, but I don’t think it constitutes a rules change. 

 

[5-ish Finkle]

More on this. What if you kick the tying field goal as time expires. You win?

In his example, unless I misread, he mentioned a team had to have the lead and the ball to win.  Tying FG = not a lead. Without a lead, no win.  Guess they'd play another quarter?

 

[dhockster]

My amendment to the current rules that I stated on the first page was simply as long as the team winning the coin toss scores TD's, the other team has a chance to tie with a TD (If the other team doesn't tie with a TD, the game is over). No sudden death until the coin toss winning team kicks a FG or doesn't score. Then the game goes to sudden death as it does under the current rules. I think that is fair to both teams.

It may lengthen some OT games, but I think ultimately the players would be willing to play the extra time and have the game decided fairly then have one team lose because they didn't get the same opportunity to score as the winning team.

Is this not a viable option?

 

[culdeus]

And sorry, I misread what you wrote. 

I think you could make the argument for no overtime ever and this is just how you end every game in regulation. The NFLPA would love that. 

I mean for regular seasons is it a foregone conclusion that just simply ending games in ties would result in horribly different outcomes for the playoffs?  I tend to doubt it.  

 

[Zow]

Agreed. We can discuss this without throwing out $100 bet challenges. 

I genuinely wasn't trying to be flippant. Instead, I was trying to push the issue of seeing whether the other poster was genuine in his position that the coin flip has no impact on the outcome of the game and/or trying through an indirect method to relay the point that the coin flip is a significant factor in the game's outcome, though not the deciding factor.