Playoff Overtime (1 Viewer)

[dhockster]

I think the NFL rule for overtime in the playoffs is fine except for one little tweak. The team not receiving the opening kickoff will always get a chance to tie the game if the team receiving the initial kickoff continues to score touchdowns.

So team A wins the toss and scores a FG or punts or turns the ball over. Works as before, Team B gets the ball with a chance to win or tie the game. if they win, game over. If they tie, it is now sudden death.

If team A scores an opening TD, team B will get the ball with a chance to tie. If they fail to score, game over. If they score and tie the game, OT continues as from the beginning. If team A scores another TD, team B will get the ball with a chance to tie. Goes on that way until either Team A doesn't score a TD or Team B doesn't score a TD.

 

[Anarchy99]

I have never figured out the need to have both teams get the ball in overtime for one possession let alone multiple possessions. OT should be viewed as a tiebreaker situation and should not be intended to be 100% fair. Each team had 60 minutes to out score the other and had plenty of possessions and opportunities already. Even looking just at overtime, stop the other team from scoring a touchdown on their first possession to get the ball back. Teams CAN play defense, too. In fact, get a 3 and out and force a punt and your team will only need to kick a FG to win.

If people are so concerned about having things be fair and don't like the current OT rules, play out an entire overtime period and whichever team is ahead after 5 quarters wins the game.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I have never figured out the need to have both teams get the ball in overtime for one possession let alone multiple possessions. OT should be viewed as a tiebreaker situation and should not be intended to be 100% fair. Each team had 60 minutes to out score the other and had plenty of possessions and opportunities already. Even looking just at overtime, stop the other team from scoring a touchdown on their first possession to get the ball back. Teams CAN play defense, too. In fact, get a 3 and out and force a punt and your team will only need to kick a FG to win.

If people are so concerned about having things be fair and don't like the current OT rules, play out an entire overtime period and whichever team is ahead after 5 quarters wins the game.

Regular season i agree but post season should not be sudden death even if a td is scored.....lucky the pats won all 3 coin tosses in their ot playoff games or your tune would be different

 

[Anarchy99]

Regular season i agree but post season should not be sudden death even if a td is scored.....lucky the pats won all 3 coin tosses in their ot playoff games or your tune would be different

No it wouldn't. Not even the slightest. Teams have to play defense too. If you put up no resistance and your team lets the opponent march down the field and score a TD, you don't deserve to win.

I've always advocated continuing the game from where the ball was at the end of the 4th quarter as if it were a change of quarters. Keep the game going, same team keeps possession, next score wins. But most people wouldn't like that either.

 

[Gally]

No it wouldn't. Not even the slightest. Teams have to play defense too. If you put up no resistance and your team lets the opponent march down the field and score a TD, you don't deserve to win.

I've always advocated continuing the game from where the ball was at the end of the 4th quarter as if it were a change of quarters. Keep the game going, same team keeps possession, next score wins. But most people wouldn't like that either.

It would make the end of games a lot different.  No more kneeling to go into overtime. 

 

[domvin]

Adopt the college platform.    It'd be more scoring, and allow the nfl commercial breaks after each score, so lots of revenue.   Everyone wins....except the team losing in overtime

 

[Gally]

Adopt the college platform.    It'd be more scoring, and allow the nfl commercial breaks after each score, so lots of revenue.   Everyone wins....except the team losing in overtime

I wouldn't mind this but not at the 25 yd line.  Start from your own 40 yd line.  You have to actually get a first down or two to get into scoring position. 

 

[dhockster]

I have never figured out the need to have both teams get the ball in overtime for one possession let alone multiple possessions. OT should be viewed as a tiebreaker situation and should not be intended to be 100% fair. Each team had 60 minutes to out score the other and had plenty of possessions and opportunities already. Even looking just at overtime, stop the other team from scoring a touchdown on their first possession to get the ball back. Teams CAN play defense, too. In fact, get a 3 and out and force a punt and your team will only need to kick a FG to win.

If people are so concerned about having things be fair and don't like the current OT rules, play out an entire overtime period and whichever team is ahead after 5 quarters wins the game.

This makes no sense to me. You don't think tiebreakers need to be fair? 

Taking it a step further, you don't think both baseball teams need to have an at bat in extra innings?

Or shootouts in Hockey and Soccer have the same number of opportunities per team?

 

[Anarchy99]

This makes no sense to me. You don't think tiebreakers need to be fair? 

Taking it a step further, you don't think both baseball teams need to have an at bat in extra innings?

Or shootouts in Hockey and Soccer have the same number of opportunities per team?

Hockey and soccer have overtime sudden death periods. Basketball has timed overtime. Are those fair?

Like I said, I liked the concept of sudden death overtime without starting OT with a kickoff. Just keep playing until someone scores and wins. IMO, OT is just an extension of a game that both teams had every opportunity to already win.

 

[dhockster]

Hockey and soccer have overtime sudden death periods. Basketball has timed overtime. Are those fair?

Like I said, I liked the concept of sudden death overtime without starting OT with a kickoff. Just keep playing until someone scores and wins. IMO, OT is just an extension of a game that both teams had every opportunity to already win.

Yes, those are fair because both teams have an opportunity to possess the ball/puck and score. In football, where one team can score a TD in one possession and win the game, it is not equivalent.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I think the NFL rule for overtime in the playoffs is fine except for one little tweak. The team not receiving the opening kickoff will always get a chance to tie the game if the team receiving the initial kickoff continues to score touchdowns.

So team A wins the toss and scores a FG or punts or turns the ball over. Works as before, Team B gets the ball with a chance to win or tie the game. if they win, game over. If they tie, it is now sudden death.

If team A scores an opening TD, team B will get the ball with a chance to tie. If they fail to score, game over. If they score and tie the game, OT continues as from the beginning. If team A scores another TD, team B will get the ball with a chance to tie. Goes on that way until either Team A doesn't score a TD or Team B doesn't score a TD.

I like this, if only because it somewhat eliminates the luck of the coin toss. A team with a better offense than defense should not be always be stuck with the wrong side of the coin. It's not that way in regulation, why must it be that way in overtime.

 

[kutta]

I like the idea of just saying both teams get at least one possession. It’s not perfect, but it’s a lot closer to perfect than anything else I’ve heard, and it’s simple.

 

[kutta]

I have never figured out the need to have both teams get the ball in overtime for one possession let alone multiple possessions. OT should be viewed as a tiebreaker situation and should not be intended to be 100% fair. Each team had 60 minutes to out score the other and had plenty of possessions and opportunities already. Even looking just at overtime, stop the other team from scoring a touchdown on their first possession to get the ball back. Teams CAN play defense, too. In fact, get a 3 and out and force a punt and your team will only need to kick a FG to win.

If people are so concerned about having things be fair and don't like the current OT rules, play out an entire overtime period and whichever team is ahead after 5 quarters wins the game.

Actually, I think NFL football is the only OT that is obviously NOT fair. All other sports give both teams a pretty equal shot. The NFL is pretty messed up compared to other sports.

 

[Insein]

They should just play another 15 mins. Score as much as you want in that period. At least then we're playing football.

 

[Bronco Billy]

I love the college football concept.  These guys are pros.  Move the starting point back to the 40 and run it the way the colleges do.

 

[Tool]

"Since the overtime rule was changed for the 2011 postseason, eight playoff games have gone into overtime. Five were decided with a touchdown on the opening drive."

5/8 is kind of a lot.  I think in the playoffs teams are expending  so much physical and emotional energy that when they get to OT they're just done.

 

[fightingillini]

I love the college football concept.  These guys are pros.  Move the starting point back to the 40 and run it the way the colleges do.

I do too.  

But I think moving it back to 40 could cause the OT to be more of a FG kicking contest.  And I would hate that.  Rather see teams win in OT with touchdowns.

So I would support moving it UP to the 20 and eliminate FGs......you can only score a TD.  For the 2nd OT and later, a team must go for 2.  Personally I think it would be more exciting.  More big 3rd and 4th down plays, or 2 point conversions to tie/win.  Forces the offense to be more aggressive, which the fans would love.

 

[zftcg]

Adopt the college platform.    It'd be more scoring, and allow the nfl commercial breaks after each score, so lots of revenue.   Everyone wins....except the team losing in overtime

Imagine what that would do for fantasy. You're up big as the clock runs down at the end of MNF, but your opponent has Mahomes, Kelce, Kamara and Lutz. Next thing you know, it's the 3rd OT and your 30-point lead has completely disappeared.

Not arguing that that's good or bad, but it would definitely add a different element. Anytime there was an OT game, it would likely end up deciding a bunch of match-ups.

 

[Gally]

I do too.  

But I think moving it back to 40 could cause the OT to be more of a FG kicking contest.  And I would hate that.  Rather see teams win in OT with touchdowns.

So I would support moving it UP to the 20 and eliminate FGs......you can only score a TD.  For the 2nd OT and later, a team must go for 2.  Personally I think it would be more exciting.  More big 3rd and 4th down plays, or 2 point conversions to tie/win.  Forces the offense to be more aggressive, which the fans would love.

That makes it a little too gimmicky like the 3v3 OT period in hockey.  It is interesting but not really a good representation of the game.  Defense is still part of the game.  I say move it back to your own 40 so that you have to get a couple 1st downs to even get in FG range.  Then you have all aspects of the game represented while still giving both teams the same number of opportunities. 

 

[Steeler]

I hate the college rule.  I think the current OT rules are fine for many of the reasons @Anarchy99 mentioned.  The team without the ball can actually prevent their team from losing the game by preventing a score, so it's not totally unfair IMO.  I get that arguments against my position, I just disagree with them.  However, if a change is made I wouldn't mind both teams getting one possession and then after that it should be sudden death - did i mention I hate the college rule?

 

[jwsbowler]

I hate the college rule.  I think the current OT rules are fine for many of the reasons @Anarchy99 mentioned.  The team without the ball can actually prevent their team from losing the game by preventing a score, so it's not totally unfair IMO.  I get that arguments against my position, I just disagree with them.  However, if a change is made I wouldn't mind both teams getting one possession and then after that it should be sudden death - did i mention I hate the college rule?

I am in total agreement with Steeler's thoughts.  

 

[joey]

Imagine what that would do for fantasy. You're up big as the clock runs down at the end of MNF, but your opponent has Mahomes, Kelce, Kamara and Lutz. Next thing you know, it's the 3rd OT and your 30-point lead has completely disappeared.

Not arguing that that's good or bad, but it would definitely add a different element. Anytime there was an OT game, it would likely end up deciding a bunch of match-ups.

If this format is being suggested for NFL playoff games, then it won’t affect fantasy games since the fantasy season would already be over. For those in post season contests (probably a tiny percentage of overall fantasy owners), yes, it’s a new wrinkle they’d have to be aware of. 

 

[rockaction]

I don't see why both teams shouldn't receive at least one possession regardless of the offensive outcome of the first possession. 

Kansas City should have seen the field this year in OT. It wasn't a fair ending, IMHO, and it didn't seem representative of each team's talents.  

 

[zftcg]

If this format is being suggested for NFL playoff games, then it won’t affect fantasy games since the fantasy season would already be over. For those in post season contests (probably a tiny percentage of overall fantasy owners), yes, it’s a new wrinkle they’d have to be aware of. 

Hey, if you can imagine a hypothetical rule change that has no realistic shot at happening anytime soon, I'm allowed to imagine a different hypothetical rule change that's equally unlikely to happen any time soon!

 

[joey]

Hey, if you can imagine a hypothetical rule change that has no realistic shot at happening anytime soon, I'm allowed to imagine a different hypothetical rule change that's equally unlikely to happen any time soon!

My wife, Salma Hayek, agrees with you.

 

[jabarony]

1.  I think it would be more palatable if, since you can win on the first possession, the team getting the ball first actually somewhat  earns it (compared to a coin toss anyways). 

2..What that method is can be hashed out.  Least # of challenges used (improved viewing experience!)? Longest FG or TD?   1 play for each team - most yards gained gets possession?  Lineup 1 player from each team and have them race towards the ball for possession?

... I work better in a committee setting. You guys figure out part 2.

 

[ZenoRazon]

Both teams get to return a kickoff and have four downs, the team that gains the most yards wins.  Obviously a TD is the goal. No field goals.

 

[ghostguy123]

I say if the team who gets the ball first scores a TD they get an automatic 7.

Then the other team gets a chance to score, and if they do they have to go for 2.  

 

[Anarchy99]

I say if the team who gets the ball first scores a TD they get an automatic 7.

Then the other team gets a chance to score, and if they do they have to go for 2.  

So just to be clear, the team that scores first would not even have the option to go for 2? In that case, no team would ever want the ball first. The team getting the ball second would have the advantage knowing that they could win with a FG, a TD, or a TD and two point conversion (depending what the other team did on their first possession). While the team that had the ball first could get a TD and lose and not even get another opportunity to possess the ball. Call me not so in favor of this option. 

 

[ghostguy123]

So just to be clear, the team that scores first would not even have the option to go for 2? In that case, no team would ever want the ball first. The team getting the ball second would have the advantage knowing that they could win with a FG, a TD, or a TD and two point conversion (depending what the other team did on their first possession). While the team that had the ball first could get a TD and lose and not even get another opportunity to possess the ball. Call me not so in favor of this option. 

So then choose to kickoff.  

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

1.  I think it would be more palatable if, since you can win on the first possession, the team getting the ball first actually somewhat  earns it (compared to a coin toss anyways). 

2..What that method is can be hashed out.  Least # of challenges used (improved viewing experience!)? Longest FG or TD?   1 play for each team - most yards gained gets possession?  Lineup 1 player from each team and have them race towards the ball for possession?

... I work better in a committee setting. You guys figure out part 2.

Have the head coaches bid for it. Because auctions are fun!

By which I mean: the two HC's meet at midfield at the end of regulation. Instead of a coin flip, they take turns bidding successively lower numbers for what yard line they'll start on. The winning (lowest) bid receives the ball on that yard line, without a kickoff, 1st and 10.

There is likely a mathematically optimal range of a few yards on which most winning bids would settle after a few iterations, but nobody would ever be able to claim the process was unfair.

 

[Steeler]

I say if the team who gets the ball first scores a TD they get an automatic 7.

Then the other team gets a chance to score, and if they do they have to go for 2.  

I don't like this because it's too different from the actual game of football.  Suddenly, in OT the rules change and the first TD of OT worth a different amount of points that any other TD in the history of the NFL.  PASS.

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't like this because it's too different from the actual game of football.  Suddenly, in OT the rules change and the first TD of OT worth a different amount of points that any other TD in the history of the NFL.  PASS.

Did you say the same about the two point conversion?

 

[Steeler]

Did you say the same about the two point conversion?

No because the 2 point conversion can be used after any TD -  it's not limited to a specific set of circumstances in OT.  Awarding a different point amount for something that occurs under a specific set of circumstances is different from allowing the 2 point conversion.

 

[ghostguy123]

No because the 2 point conversion can be used after any TD -  it's not limited to a specific set of circumstances in OT.  Awarding a different point amount for something that occurs under a specific set of circumstances is different from allowing the 2 point conversion.

In my scenario, would you choose to have the ball first or second?

 

[Steeler]

In my scenario, would you choose to have the ball first or second?

I would opt to play a roshambo tournament - if we are going to change the rules lets really change the rules! 

 

[ghostguy123]

I would opt to play a roshambo tournament - if we are going to change the rules lets really change the rules! 

So what you are saying is you aren't sure?  Seems it would be fair then.

 

[Gally]

In my scenario, would you choose to have the ball first or second?

You would always choose to have the ball second.  It gives you the most knowledge on what you have to do to win and can then strategize/play call accordingly.  You may only need to play for a FG. 

 

[dhockster]

I have no problem with the current playoff OT rules other than the team receiving the kickoff being able to score a TD and the game is over. It's like having a hockey or soccer shootout and having the first team score and they win without the other team even having a chance to take a shot.

So the team that gets the ball second in OT gets a chance to match the first team's TD for as long as the first team scores TD's. Once the team receiving the ball first does not score a TD, then sudden death can start because at that point the initial team that kicked off will have an opportunity to actually win the game.

Some Examples using NE/KC:

NE scores an opening TD, KC scores a TD. NE scores a TD on their second drive, KC does not. NE wins. Fair?

NE scores an opening TD, KC scores a TD. NE punts. KC Punts. NE kicks a FG, NE wins. Fair? (in this situation, NE had one more possession, but KC had a chance to win the game on their 2nd possession, so they can't say they did not have an opportunity to win)

NE scores an opening FG, KC scores a TD. KC wins. Fair?

Based on what actually happened, two great teams played a great game which ended in a tie. Then a HOF QB given the opportunity led his team to a TD. The opposing MVP QB never got an opportunity to lead his team to a TD because his team did not win a coin toss. To me, that makes the result of the game very arbitrary.

 

[Steeler]

So what you are saying is you aren't sure?  Seems it would be fair then.

I think the current rules are OK and don't feel the need to make OT more fair.  But I would be concerned with your concept or the college rules or any other concept that drastically (to me) changes the game of football from the way it was played in the previous 60 minutes during regulation.

 

[ghostguy123]

I think the current rules are OK and don't feel the need to make OT more fair.  But I would be concerned with your concept or the college rules or any other concept that drastically (to me) changes the game of football from the way it was played in the previous 60 minutes during regulation.

You mean like the original overtime rules, then the current rules?

 

[ghostguy123]

You would always choose to have the ball second.  It gives you the most knowledge on what you have to do to win and can then strategize/play call accordingly.  You may only need to play for a FG. 

Well, maybe.  If neither team scores on their drive then you want the ball with that 3rd posession

 

[steelers1080]

I'd vote for OT similar to college rules but start on the 20 and you have to go for 2 if you score a TD. Also, in the regular season there's just 1 opportunity for each team and then it goes to a tie, so teams aren't caught possibly going to 3, 4, 5 rounds. In the playoffs, you go until a team wins and you have to go for 2 on every TD. 

I enjoy the college rules and it makes the end of the game exciting and, in my opinion, more fair. No one ever said that it had to be fair, but it is incredibly frustrating to see your team lose when the offense, many teams' strong suit, never got a chance.  Yes, the defense could step up and get a stop, but the coin flip gives an inherent advantage and that just seems crazy in modern times.

Keeping an OT that is skewed based on a coin is equal to Jon Gruden's idea of getting rid of all instant replay imo.

 

[Steeler]

You mean like the original overtime rules, then the current rules?

No.

 

[ghostguy123]

No.

Well, the old overtime and the current overtime are completely different than the first 60 minutes.  You said you don't want to change it from how the first 60 minutes are played.

 

[Steeler]

Well, the old overtime and the current overtime are completely different than the first 60 minutes.  You said you don't want to change it from how the first 60 minutes are played.

Sigh.  The only difference in OT is the length of time they play until someone wins.  Kickoffs, Punts, Defense, Offense, field position, first downs, etc. are all part of the current OT rules.  There are no magic scenarios where a team "automatically" gets 7 points for a TD.  Or the college rules where kickoffs, punts, and field position are removed from the equation.

 

[ghostguy123]

Sigh.  The only difference in OT is the length of time they play until someone wins.  Kickoffs, Punts, Defense, Offense, field position, first downs, etc. are all part of the current OT rules.  There are no magic scenarios where a team "automatically" gets 7 points for a TD.  Or the college rules where kickoffs, punts, and field position are removed from the equation.

Sudden death isnt a difference?

Anyway, I like the idea of giving the other team a chance to possess the ball even if the first team scores a TD, but it has to be in such a way to prevent a bunch of ties.  

 

[Gally]

Well, maybe.  If neither team scores on their drive then you want the ball with that 3rd posession

I would still get to know what I needed on the first possession to win the game.  That is why I would always want to go second.  If I didn't score then it doesn't really matter because I had my chance to win. 

 

[Gally]

I'd vote for OT similar to college rules but start on the 20 and you have to go for 2 if you score a TD. Also, in the regular season there's just 1 opportunity for each team and then it goes to a tie, so teams aren't caught possibly going to 3, 4, 5 rounds. In the playoffs, you go until a team wins and you have to go for 2 on every TD. 

I enjoy the college rules and it makes the end of the game exciting and, in my opinion, more fair. No one ever said that it had to be fair, but it is incredibly frustrating to see your team lose when the offense, many teams' strong suit, never got a chance.  Yes, the defense could step up and get a stop, but the coin flip gives an inherent advantage and that just seems crazy in modern times.

Keeping an OT that is skewed based on a coin is equal to Jon Gruden's idea of getting rid of all instant replay imo.

I have never understood why you need to force teams to go for 2 after TD's in overtimes.  I understand the rationale to try and minimize the OT rounds but for the current NFL with the longer PAT we have seen enough of them missed that it makes the choice to go for 2 pts a little more desirable.  So keep that aspect in play rather than force everyone to always go for two. 

ETA:  I would go the other way and make teams start on their own 40 yd line so you have to get a couple first downs to get in FG range.  I don't want to have them in scoring position right away. 

 

[lod001]

Not reading thru this but the logical playoff OT is to just simply keep playing from the spot the ballw as at when the 4th Q is over. You are going to play until someone scores regardless even if it takes 3 days for a team to score so why let a coin flip determine it...which in its current state of 'score a TD, you win and they lose', is the dumbest of dumb ideas.