NFL overtime rule

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

That's the same exact thing we have, it just delays the sudden death for one possession. Then if Team A scores on its second possession and wins, you'll still have people whining that Team B didn't get two possessions like Team A did.

To me I think the only "unfairness" is not having a chance because of a coin flip. I get your whole "Defense" thing, but a guaranteed possession seems fair. After that, yeah, it's up to the defenses.

Plus I think it would put a lot more thinking into what to do if you win the coin flip. Knowing you at least get a chance to score, maybe you kick off and try and pin them deep and force a punt with good field position.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by GBBob

To me I think the only "unfairness" is not having a chance because of a coin flip. I get your whole "Defense" thing, but a guaranteed possession seems fair. After that, yeah, it's up to the defenses.

Plus I think it would put a lot more thinking into what to do if you win the coin flip. Knowing you at least get a chance to score, maybe you kick off and try and pin them deep and force a punt with good field position.

But what would happen after the B possesion if they didn't score? Does the game just go on with regular sudden death rules?

[dalakhani]

Why does there need to be sudden death? Why can't they just play another quarter?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Why does there need to be sudden death? Why can't they just play another quarter?

Because generally people don't want to watch five-hour games in the regular season.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Because generally people don't want to watch five-hour games in the regular season.

You have a valid point but there arent that many overtime games anyway. Maybe ten to twenty a year? It would seem the most fair way to settle it to me.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

You have a valid point but there arent that many overtime games anyway. Maybe ten to twenty a year? It would seem the most fair way to settle it to me.

I disagree, I still say that it's not unreasonable to ask a defense to get a clutch stop or else, and I also think that it would be brutal to watch. Something about this topic from KSK last week that I agree with:

For real. What a shitty ending to that Chargers game. Darren Sproles clinching it with a Mach 3 sprint to the end zone? BOR-ING. Why couldn’t the game have ended with Peyton Manning countering Sproles’ touchdown with a series of soul-killing passes to Dallas ****ing Clark, putting the game into 6 more overtimes with some kicker finally winning it with a perfunctory field goal? Man, would that have been satisfying!

Instead, we get an ending that was both swift and exhilarating. What a ripoff.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

But what would happen after the B possesion if they didn't score? Does the game just go on with regular sudden death rules?

Yes, at that point it would revert to Sudden Death

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Yes, at that point it would revert to Sudden Death

I think the whole problem with a situation like this is, it gives the team who gets the ball second an advantage. If team A gets in a 4th and short on the cusp of FG range they might punt to play the field position game. 4th downs will be a bit sketchy. Team B will have sort of a free look on the first possesion. If the game is tied, they would play it normally. If they are down then 4th down becomes an automatic go for it because the game is on the line, in a situation where they would usually punt. I feel that it gives Team be and advantage on the 1st possesion.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

I think the whole problem with a situation like this is, it gives the team who gets the ball second an advantage. If team A gets in a 4th and short on the cusp of FG range they might punt to play the field position game. 4th downs will be a bit sketchy. Team B will have sort of a free look on the first possesion. If the game is tied, they would play it normally. If they are down then 4th down becomes an automatic go for it because the game is on the line, in a situation where they would usually punt. I feel that it gives Team be and advantage on the 1st possesion.

So why not a full quarter?

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

So why not a full quarter?

My stance from the beginning is that there is nothing wrong with the current system. I truely believe that if it was reversed and Peyton Manning got the ball 1st and marched the Colts to victory that we aren't even having this conversation. But since the MVP got left on the sideline everyone is in an uproar about an injustice. The stats prove that the recieving team doesn't have a statistical advantage. Defense is a huge part of the game and last time I checked they could score too. The only thing I would agree to is letting the team getting the ball 1st start at the 20 this way there is no huge field position adavntage there. But then again Special Teams are important too and could pin teams in deep. Like I said, there's nothing wrong so don't fix it.

As far as your question, what is the solution if it's still tied after ot?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

As far as your question, what is the solution if it's still tied after ot?

ask McNabb????

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

My stance from the beginning is that there is nothing wrong with the current system. I truely believe that if it was reversed and Peyton Manning got the ball 1st and marched the Colts to victory that we aren't even having this conversation. But since the MVP got left on the sideline everyone is in an uproar about an injustice. The stats prove that the recieving team doesn't have a statistical advantage. Defense is a huge part of the game and last time I checked they could score too. The only thing I would agree to is letting the team getting the ball 1st start at the 20 this way there is no huge field position adavntage there. But then again Special Teams are important too and could pin teams in deep. Like I said, there's nothing wrong so don't fix it.

As far as your question, what is the solution if it's still tied after ot?

Play another one.

I guess im different but i dont mind watching a good game go into overtime. I would have enjoyed watching Peyton attempt to take his team down to tie the game against SD or potentially win with a two point conversion.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

My stance from the beginning is that there is nothing wrong with the current system. I truely believe that if it was reversed and Peyton Manning got the ball 1st and marched the Colts to victory that we aren't even having this conversation. But since the MVP got left on the sideline everyone is in an uproar about an injustice.

But what of paw Matty Cassel getting rawbbed by his aging defense's inability to stop an even more aging quarterback on 3rd and 15?! The Jets did nawt win that game fayuh and squayah!!! It was the coin toss that completed those four thousand consecutive passes to Dustin Keller, not the Jets!

[Danzig]

they could always use hockey rules. you have a five minute sudden death overtime( of course football would need more than that i'd imagine), followed by a shoot out. for the shoot out, set the teams kickers up at the forty, and see who makes more field goals out of 3 attempts. if it's still tied, back to another overtime. and their OT's are sudden death.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

I think the whole problem with a situation like this is, it gives the team who gets the ball second an advantage. If team A gets in a 4th and short on the cusp of FG range they might punt to play the field position game. 4th downs will be a bit sketchy. Team B will have sort of a free look on the first possesion. If the game is tied, they would play it normally. If they are down then 4th down becomes an automatic go for it because the game is on the line, in a situation where they would usually punt. I feel that it gives Team be and advantage on the 1st possesion.

That's kind of my point..it would introduce some more strategy, especially on what to do if you win the flip.

Look...not saying it's perfect but I don't like the randomness of a coin flip and the gimmickieness (?) of how it's settled in college, so...this is what I ended up with.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by GBBob

That's kind of my point..it would introduce some more strategy, especially on what to do if you win the flip.

Look...not saying it's perfect but I don't like the randomness of a coin flip and the gimmickieness (?) of how it's settled in college, so...this is what I ended up with.

I don't think there is any strategy there. Everyone would kick off, because you can't lose if you let the other team score, plus you would have a free look at 4th down. Just like everyone takes the ball when they win the flip now, everyone would be kicking off under that system.