nfl overtime rule change

[Herbert Anchovy]

Reactionary nonsense.

 

[RedSmithClone]

I don't know if this is just reactionary nonsense. I just think it's a delayed reaction to what has been known for years - sudden death OT just does not work in the game of football.
They should copy futbol - during which SD OT would work - and play out a specific time for an overtime session.
You tell me how bad it hurts a TV schedule when a Stanley Cup or World Series game plays on late into the night? More people tune in when they get word at how insane a game is getting.
Just play the damn game until there is a winner after a full extra period of football played. Both teams will touch the ball and fluke or not a game will be decided fairly.
MINGYA!

 

[Smallpotatoes]

what is so friggin hard about playing a 15 minute OT period?
If in the regular season it's still tied after OT then it's a tie.
If after the playoff game is tied after OT you do another 15 or 10 or 5 minute quarter.

Why not get rid of regular season OT, period? Make coaches decide to go for the tie or the win. Not every game needs a winner until the postseason.

We can't abide ties in this culture.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Play OT, you have to win by 6 - that's the better version of this rule.

 

[Football_Bat]

what is so friggin hard about playing a 15 minute OT period?
If in the regular season it's still tied after OT then it's a tie.
If after the playoff game is tied after OT you do another 15 or 10 or 5 minute quarter.

Why not get rid of regular season OT, period? Make coaches decide to go for the tie or the win. Not every game needs a winner until the postseason.

We can't abide ties in this culture.

So let the coach that plays for one be excoriated. It'll take care of itself.

 

[trifectarich]

Overtime wouldn't screw up anyone's television schedule if we didn't have five minutes of commercials after a score, come back for the kickoff and then leave for another five minutes of beer ads.

Actually, there are no commercials in overtime.

My point is, if you move the game along at a better pace than you currently do, you can play OT and not let this drag on all day. And it's not the end of the world if the 1 o'clock games don't end conveniently within a 15-minute window for TV.

And playing by two sets of rules; who does the NFL think it is, major league baseball?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Overtime wouldn't screw up anyone's television schedule if we didn't have five minutes of commercials after a score, come back for the kickoff and then leave for another five minutes of beer ads.

Actually, there are no commercials in overtime.

My point is, if you move the game along at a better pace than you currently do, you can play OT and not let this drag on all day. And it's not the end of the world if the 1 o'clock games don't end conveniently within a 15-minute window for TV.

And playing by two sets of rules; who does the NFL think it is, major league baseball?

NASCAR.

 

[mb]

Donovan McNabb doesn't know WHAT to think.

 

[zagoshe]

The best version of this rule -- at least the way they are trying to write it is this --

"Overtime shall be played until one team scores MORE than three points."

 

[spnited]

The best version of this rule -- at least the way they are trying to write it is this --

"Overtime shall be played until one team scores MORE than three points."

I thought the idea was to give each team a chance.
If Team A receives, kicks a FG, then kicks off and intercepts a pass, why would they need to score 6 points? Each team had a chance. One scored, one didn't, game over.

Or, they could forget all this bullsht and just leave it the way it is, because it works OK.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

The best version of this rule -- at least the way they are trying to write it is this --

"Overtime shall be played until one team scores MORE than three points."

I thought the idea was to give each team a chance.
If Team A receives, kicks a FG, then kicks off and intercepts a pass, why would they need to score 6 points? Each team had a chance. One scored, one didn't, game over.

Or, they could forget all this bullsht and just leave it the way it is, because it works OK.

Because that's the rule, if you hypertechnically examine every potential rule to make sure that it does no more than meet the impetus for the change in the most narrowly tailored way, you end up with a silly game that doesn't look like football - see college.

 

[spnited]

If you make a team score six points or win by six points in OT, you are altering the rules that are used for 60 minutes.
That is as contrived as the college football tie-breaker system (which is NOT overtime, but the equivalent of a shootout)

 

[nmmetsfan]

they want to eliminate "fluke victories."

Wrong.

They want the team that loses the toss to have a chance.

What a bunch of rubes over here

The team that loses the toss had a chance to win in the first 60 minutes. They also have a chance to stop their opponent from scoring. Trying to fix something that isn't broken.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

If they don't go to college overtime (which they won't), they shouldn't bother ****ing with it.

NFL overtime isn't perfect, but if that's the worst thing about the NFL, they're doing pretty well.

 

[spnited]

College overtime is a farce...it's not overtime it's a shootout/tie-breaker.

 

[zagoshe]

The best version of this rule -- at least the way they are trying to write it is this --

"Overtime shall be played until one team scores MORE than three points."

I thought the idea was to give each team a chance.
If Team A receives, kicks a FG, then kicks off and intercepts a pass, why would they need to score 6 points? Each team had a chance. One scored, one didn't, game over.

Or, they could forget all this bullsht and just leave it the way it is, because it works OK.

OK, try this....

"The first team to score four points OR the team that is leading AFTER both teams have had at least one possession."

 

[spnited]

Or leave it the **** alone. Sudden death...there's a reason it's called that

 

[zagoshe]

Or leave it the **** alone. Sudden death...there's a reason it's called that

I don't like sudden death in football unless both teams have one possession or you at least make the first team to touch the ball to score a touchdown.

Kickers are too good these days (well, last year's playoffs aside) that a 55-yarder is not out of the question for most teams, which means a team only has to get to the 38 to score and win the game.

That just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Stoney]

The best version of this rule -- at least the way they are trying to write it is this --

"Overtime shall be played until one team scores MORE than three points."

I like that idea. And I like this proposal. I wouldn't have a problem if one team didn't get the ball IF they gave up a TD on the opening drive. A TD earns the win.

But I hate these OTs where one team wins a coin flip, only gets a first down or two, but gets a penalty that gets them near the 35, they kick a long field goal, game over before the other guy's had a chance. I've seen WAY too many NFL games end that way and it always leaves a bad taste.

 

[spnited]

30% of all OT games end on the first possession..not all of them by field goal. Can't find a number on FG on first possession but I'm betting it's about 20%.


It's ain't broke. Does not need fixing.