No matter one's loyalty, where the hell is the logic behind not allowing the other team an opportunity to respond? This OT rule has always bothered me. Are the team owners okay with this rule that essentially comes down to who wins the coin toss?
The NFL's 1st possession TD wins the game overtime logic????
- Thread starter Cockish
- Start date
Agreed, not a fan of it at all. Prefer the college OT.
Pretty damn stupid if you ask me, why does the other team not get a chance to score a TD. It is totally unfair for the other team.
I believe that was only put in because the NFL used to have a huge issue with most OT games ending on a first possession field goal. Kickers are so good that getting into field goal range was almost too easy. Honestly, out of the 4-5 OT games I know of this year, I think this easthe only one that ended on the first possession.
Well, they had the opportunity to stop them.
Are you a Pat's fan?..Not buying it especially in an OT environment...both teams earned the right to play at least one possession in OT and the right for the other team's defense to stop them.
If so, then obviously the necessity to score a TD makes it more difficult but still...and it really penalizes the other team that earned the right to be in a playoff game.
Last edited:
And the other team should have to see if they could stop them too but they never got the chance. If both teams don't get the ball on offense then you never know how the game would have ended.
Absolutely not. I'm just saying it like it is. If you don't want them to score, stop them. The Rams did.
It has nothing to do with being fair. It is all about getting the game over for the TV schedule. They don't want a college style OT that can go multiple OT's and stretch too far into their next scheduled program.
I don't like the rule.
I was pulling for the Chiefs.
As someone else mentioned they had a chance to stop them. The Chiefs had 3 chances to stop them on 3rd and long and failed.
Thanks a lot Dee Ford
I was pulling for the Chiefs.
As someone else mentioned they had a chance to stop them. The Chiefs had 3 chances to stop them on 3rd and long and failed.
Thanks a lot Dee Ford
Last edited:
That is true. But it seems that in the majority of the overtime games, college and pro, by the 4th quarter, the defenses are worn out and the offenses are largely running rough-shod over them. With the way both offenses were moving the ball in the 4th quarter last night, we all had the feeling it was going to come down to whoever won the toss.
I can understand why the NFL wouldn't like the college rule that often results in 5+ overtime games. But it shouldn't be too hard to ensure both teams have a possession.
I kinda prefer the college model myself, but as noted, this is better than the old way where a good kick return and two first downs would result in a cheap FG for the OT win.
I was pulling for KC, but as the rule is, I guess if you're good enough to drive for a TD and the other team isn't able to stop you, you deserve the W.
What a dagger that turned out to be! Ugh!
I was pulling for KC, but as the rule is, I guess if you're good enough to drive for a TD and the other team isn't able to stop you, you deserve the W.
What a dagger that turned out to be! Ugh!
They had 60 minutes to win. They win if the Auburn player doesn't line up off sides. They also had 3 third and longs converted against them on the OT game winning drive. (Rams stopped the Saints after losing the coin toss)
If you don't like the OT rules, execute better during regulation.
The great thing is that Sony Michel and Todd Gurley are the starting rbs in the Super Bowl.
If you don't like the OT rules, execute better during regulation.
The great thing is that Sony Michel and Todd Gurley are the starting rbs in the Super Bowl.
Last edited:
I think the NFL and players' union were not in favor of long overtime periods because of the risk of injury to already fatigued players.
It bothers me as well and when I heard the ref say "it is heads" I felt that NE would likely win. I would be curious what percentage of teams that win the OT coin toss have won the game (since the new rule). I would not be surprised if it wasn't 60% or greater which is totally unfair. No professional sport should provide that big of an advantage due to winning a coin toss.
I think a better option would be a 5th quarter. Shorten to 10 minutes if needed. At least do this for the playoffs where it's win or go home. If still tied after 5th quarter the next score of any kind wins.
I think a better option would be a 5th quarter. Shorten to 10 minutes if needed. At least do this for the playoffs where it's win or go home. If still tied after 5th quarter the next score of any kind wins.
I have a simple solution to the problem and, if fact, because it would greatly reduce the possibilities of OT so much, that going back to games ending in a tie, could/should be reconsidered.
Without changing the essence of the game, at all, it would increase the possibilities of the 6 point and 8 point Touchdowns, while decreasing the number of 7 point touchdowns.
Here's how it works. The weakness in the game today is the Point After Touchdown (The Extra Point or better yet, The Automatic). That's the only play in football where FAILURE is more exciting than success (will the missed extra point come back to haunt them?)
However, when a player scores, instead of bring the ball out to the center of the field for the PAT attempt, the ball would be brought out to a line perpendicular to where the ball was "Touched Down". Examples:
#1) The player scores in the corner of the end zone or, right at the pylon. The ball is then brought out, basically at the right or left sideline (OK, I'm easy, make it 1 yard in from the sideline).
#2) A player breaks wide open, untouched. Well, then the player is allowed to celebrate a little and run to the center of the end zone and spike the ball or take a knee or whatever and 'Touch Down' the ball. The ball would then be brought out for the PAT to that perpendicular line where the ball was 'Touched Down' (in this case, the middle of the field).
Example #1 would make kicking the PAT very difficult due to the severe angle ... perhaps forcing the team to attempt the 2 point conversion. In either case the 6 point (failure to convert) and 8 point TD's (successful 2 point conversion) would be increased.
Example #2 somewhat rewards the scoring team by giving an easier opportunity for at least a 1 point PAT (The Automatic) while retaining the option for a 2 point attempt. By increasing 6 and 8 point TD's, trailing teams would be more encourage to attempt 2 point conversions.
There's more to it but, that's the basics. It would work. There would be fewer OT's because of the increased variables. There would be more 2 point conversion attempts and more TD's without any extra point.
Thanks for listening.
Without changing the essence of the game, at all, it would increase the possibilities of the 6 point and 8 point Touchdowns, while decreasing the number of 7 point touchdowns.
Here's how it works. The weakness in the game today is the Point After Touchdown (The Extra Point or better yet, The Automatic). That's the only play in football where FAILURE is more exciting than success (will the missed extra point come back to haunt them?)
However, when a player scores, instead of bring the ball out to the center of the field for the PAT attempt, the ball would be brought out to a line perpendicular to where the ball was "Touched Down". Examples:
#1) The player scores in the corner of the end zone or, right at the pylon. The ball is then brought out, basically at the right or left sideline (OK, I'm easy, make it 1 yard in from the sideline).
#2) A player breaks wide open, untouched. Well, then the player is allowed to celebrate a little and run to the center of the end zone and spike the ball or take a knee or whatever and 'Touch Down' the ball. The ball would then be brought out for the PAT to that perpendicular line where the ball was 'Touched Down' (in this case, the middle of the field).
Example #1 would make kicking the PAT very difficult due to the severe angle ... perhaps forcing the team to attempt the 2 point conversion. In either case the 6 point (failure to convert) and 8 point TD's (successful 2 point conversion) would be increased.
Example #2 somewhat rewards the scoring team by giving an easier opportunity for at least a 1 point PAT (The Automatic) while retaining the option for a 2 point attempt. By increasing 6 and 8 point TD's, trailing teams would be more encourage to attempt 2 point conversions.
There's more to it but, that's the basics. It would work. There would be fewer OT's because of the increased variables. There would be more 2 point conversion attempts and more TD's without any extra point.
Thanks for listening.
Last edited:
Correct...KC did have an opportunity to stop them.
But, would you advocate a shootout in hockey or soccer where the winner of a coin toss got the chance to shoot first, and if they scored the game ends? The other team could have stopped them, right. But, in a shootout, at least the other team gets the chance to match the first team on offense.
I honestly think it should be 1 possession each, just like the filed goal rule now, then sudden death. No reason for it not to be. But hey, I'm also ok with how it is now, even if the Pats get to go back to the big game.
I agree with you and this would not add a great deal of time. But only for the playoffs. Stay as is for regular season.
They had 60 minutes to win. They win if the Auburn player doesn't line up off sides. They also had 3 third and longs converted against them on the OT game winning drive. (Rams stopped the Saints after losing the coin toss)
If you don't like the OT rules, execute better during regulation.
The great thing is that Sony Michel and Todd Gurley are the starting rbs in the Super Bowl.
I am only agreeing here because I am in position to win STRAIGHT CASH HOMIE, everyone that submitted playoff rosters, had Gurley, only 2 (including your's truly) had Michel.
Sorry thigh man....your diatribe is longer than the overtime period.
Thanks for sharing.
Interesting, or the NFL could just require 2-pt conversion attempts in OT.
I would be ok with each team getting a possession. If it's still tied after that, the next team to score wins.
LOL... that's as close as you'll ever come to saying Go Dawgs! Just messing with you... good luck in your group.
Despite it seeming unfair, it has actually been very balanced. The team that gets the ball first in OT doesn't score a TD to win very often and i believe it's been fairly close to 50/50 as to which team actually wins, as was the case yesterday.
LOL... that's as close as you'll ever come to saying Go Dawgs! Just messing with you... good luck in your group.
When you play Clem-Tech, I totally roll with y'all.
100% vs UT, tOSu, UM, UF
99% of the time vs Bama & All Barn
******past these peeps debates have to occur******
Thank you sir, that is the only fair way to do it. I don't care how long it takes or what tv shows get interrupted, these guys fight their asses off for 4 quarters and end with a tie only to have the 1st team that scores a TD win it. Total BS.
I thought I understood the OT rule in the NFL but I guess I don't (because the I don't follow NFL). Please explain! I could google the rule but it's more fun discussing it with posters.
Thanks in advance.
EDIT: I just looked up the rule:
"Each team gets an opportunity to possess the ball unless a touchdown or safety is scored on the first possession".
So, if team A receives the ball first and they score a touchdown on the first drive, the game is over? Am I understanding the rule correctly?
Just for curiosity, how does scoring a Safety first end the game.
Thanks in advance.
EDIT: I just looked up the rule:
"Each team gets an opportunity to possess the ball unless a touchdown or safety is scored on the first possession".
So, if team A receives the ball first and they score a touchdown on the first drive, the game is over? Am I understanding the rule correctly?
Just for curiosity, how does scoring a Safety first end the game.
Last edited:
This is the NFL -- if neither team can win in four 15 minute quarters and about 2 hours worth of TV timeouts with roster payrolls of hundreds of billions of dollars, I think they ought to either let the mascots wrastle for it or decide by some other sport.
Roll a damn basket out there and have a dunk contest, or make them cast bass lures at a bucket, or see who can change all four tires and gas up Martin Truex Jr. the fastest.
What I don't understand is why they played an indoor game at 3 p.m. and a freezing cold game at night. I think Tom Brady doesn't have real blood anymore. He's probably pumped full of some sort of synthetic blend of various plant based oil additives.
Roll a damn basket out there and have a dunk contest, or make them cast bass lures at a bucket, or see who can change all four tires and gas up Martin Truex Jr. the fastest.
What I don't understand is why they played an indoor game at 3 p.m. and a freezing cold game at night. I think Tom Brady doesn't have real blood anymore. He's probably pumped full of some sort of synthetic blend of various plant based oil additives.
Now that there is funny as heck, I don't care who you are. LOL! I mean the part about how to decide a tie game in OT.
Someone please answer my question above.
Also, the OT period in NFL playoff games can continue for 15 minutes if only FGs are scored, it that correct.
Also, the OT period in NFL playoff games can continue for 15 minutes if only FGs are scored, it that correct.
Also included in the rule is a defensive score also ends the game. A safety would qualify as that.
