Overtime Rule? Your opinions.....
by SteelChad88 on Jan 8, 2009 2:00 PM EST
40 comments
Hey guys, I decied to write this post about the controversial overtime rule in the NFL about flipping the coin and ending the game on the first score. I was watching NFL network and the broadcasters were talking to the NFL officiating supervisor about some controversial penalties, most notably the Matt Ryan safety last week as well as the pass interference call in the Colts/Chargers game in overtime. Then they brought up the overtime issue of teams wining on the coin toss and Rich Eisen was argueing about Peyton Manning, the NFL MVP, not getting a touch of the football in overtime. He then went on to try to compare the college football overtime to NFL overtimes and that we should let both teams have a chance to score.
I often find it dissapointing when your team loses the coin toss because theres possibly a 70-80% chance your team will be losing unless your defense shows up due to teams getting in field goal range.
Heres my opinion, ELIMINATE FIELD GOALS in overtime. I would rather see the first team to score a touchdown in overtime, that would be more fair because on average, after the kickoff, the team would have to go 70-80 yds to score as opposed to 40-50yds just to get the field goal and win. Field goals are fine in regulation but in overtime they should give the game to the first team who scores a touchdown, that would bring in all aspects of the game, especially goal line O and goal line D.
What are your thoughts fellow Steeler fans?
0 recs |
40 comments
Email
Print
Comments
They should fight to the death
Let each team choose a player to fight. Then give these two player a large club. The last one standing wins!
But seriously, maybe the college version is best. I don’t think you should take fieldgoals out because they are part of the game.
NO MORE TIES!! Say it with me NO MORE TIES! NO MORE TIES! They already go by that rule in Cali. You california folks know what I mean by that.
"The team that scores the most points wins."
John Madden
(Master of the obvious)
by PixburghArn on Jan 8, 2009 2:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm glad we got Silverback on our team, then.
Fight to the death? Perfect. Now u r talking his lingo!
But really seriously, the college rules, although exciting, suck too. It’s not football.
I agree no more ties. A tie is like kissing your sister.
I say just treat the regular seasom games like the playoffs. In other words, keep playing until you drop. It’s not that hard to score! Especially with the way the rules are written and enforced now-a-days! The ;ongest game ever played was an AFC playoff game between Miami and San Diego and that was only Double OT. It’s Football!!
The last team standing wins.
by Jonny B. on Jan 9, 2009 1:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Arena League Rules
Stop laughing, please. The Arena League rules get it right and its the least amount of change from the current rules: One team kicks off just like the beginning of a regular game. The game is not over until each team has had a possession (so if you score a FG you have to kick it off to the other team). If the score is still tied after one possession, you play sudden death: first team to score wins.
This keeps the excitement of the sudden death scenario but gives both teams a fair shot.
by CarlWeathersMustache on Jan 8, 2009 2:20 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
That one's good too
"The team that scores the most points wins."
John Madden
(Master of the obvious)
by PixburghArn on Jan 8, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I do enjoy the college system, but I don’t view the current system as “flawed”, just different. If your defense can’t stop a team from scoring a FG in overtime, than get a better defense. If you don’t want a better defense, win the game in regulation. It’s that simple.
We went through the stats here at some point, and the team that lost the coin toss was not likely to lose 70-80% of the time.
by steelguy99 on Jan 8, 2009 2:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I am with ya.
Defense is just as big a part of the game if it loses you the game in Sudden Death OT. The onus is on you to stop the other team. Don’t like it? Get a better defense.
Guns don't kill people. Lamar Woodley kills people.
by BostonWahoo on Jan 8, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a traditionalist
IMO, no change is needed.
As far as Peyton not getting a chance in overtime…that why it’s a team game! The defense needs to stand up and make a stop. If the defense can’t stop the opposing team from scoring in over time, a TD or a field goal, game over…you lose.
Coin toss. I don’t remember what the stats were…but I thought it was just over 50% (maybe 55-60%) of the time the team that wins flip wins the game. Anybody remember?
by SteelerMike on Jan 8, 2009 2:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
First link I found suggests around 52%, not the most official.
http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html
according to here, 60%, not the most official either.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nflinsider/2007/03/overtime_issue_unresolved.html
by steelguy99 on Jan 8, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nail meet hammer
As far as Peyton not getting a chance in overtime…that why it’s a team game!
Well said. I doubt any of the talking heads would ever say it was unfair that Harrison never got a tackle during OT. He’s the DPOTY, after all.
by Varmint on Jan 8, 2009 4:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do not change this whatsoever
All these people crying for college rules can suck it. Why dont we just elect our super bowl teams with a computer? Lets just go ahead and say from now on every playoff team just meets up in some damn bowl named after a snack or a bank or a fast food joint?!
This is absolute garbage. If you dont have a damn defense dont be in the playoffs! Thats why the Colts lost.
By changing the rule to everybody gets a possession you are basically saying the Defense doesnt matter. Lets just make it a bloody shootout.
Hell why dont we just adopt some other rules? Like the Arena Football receiver running start?
Or lets just set up some nets for the kickoffs to bounce off of.
Or lets go ahead and say only 1 foot needs to be inbounds for a catch.
One things for sure, regardless Donovan McNabb wont know what the hell is going on.
End of rant.
by Mechem on Jan 8, 2009 3:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
+1
This is professional football. If your football team (offense, defense, special teams) can’t get it done then you weren’t meant to be in the playoffs. It’s a team sport. Not a QB chance sport.
by Hochuli loves Broccoli on Jan 8, 2009 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm fine with how overtime is except
the coin toss, I’d rather the home team always gets the ball first if it goes to overtime. This has the dual purpose of allowing the nfl to monkey around with international games while still having some value to home field, and at the end of regulation the visiting team will be hungrier to not want to go to overtime (vs most teams always are happy to get to overtime).
And if the coin toss matters in overtime- does it also matter at the start of the game? Again, I would say replace all coin tosses with home field selection and alternate each year for the super bowl.
by vherub on Jan 8, 2009 3:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Why is this so hard?
The vast majority of sports add one period of normal play time. Then the game is normal, you’re just playing a 5th quarter. If it ends in a tie then during the regular season it’s a tie. In the playoffs it goes to a 6th quarter of sudden death, but no secondary coinflip. The ball goes to whatever team kicked in the first overtime.
I don’t see the downside to this. You stop the stupid get to the thirty and kick it on 2nd down crap. You don’t remove special teams from the game like you do in college and we get an exciting end of the game.
by Chicago Steeler on Jan 8, 2009 3:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I would be in favor of simply extending the current game as it is but with the fact that the last person to score wins. Sudden death but no coinflip style. Thats the only change I’ll accept.
So basically you could sit there with 30 seconds left in the 4th, call a running play and then start playing the 5th. Now first to score wins but it keeps the ball in the hands of the team who had it.
by Mechem on Jan 8, 2009 3:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It's fine the way it is
After San Diego beat Indy in overtime everyone jumped on the “it’s a shame the game ended without Peyton ‘MVP’ Manning touching the ball” bandwagon … well I say %$#@ Peyton; he had four quarters to win and didn’t do it, now deal with the rules of the game. The game wasn’t lost in overtime. The game was just lost. Too bad. Better luck next year.
Yes, a coin flip gives the advantage to the team who gets the ball. However, if both teams get the ball, the advantage goes to the second team, as they know what they need points-wise. You know, you’re allowed to play defense too … maybe stop the first team from scoring if that’s what you have to do to win…
As far as the statistics go, the winner of the coin flip wins between 50 & 60% of the time … right around half. Seems to make sense to me … that means that the team who wins the coin flip loses the game almost half of the time. Sounds to be about as fair as possible.
Or if we’re using statistics to make the game fairer, let’s say it’s unfair that the Lions lost all of their games; we should’ve given them at least 8 wins. Maybe all teams can start with 8 wins granted, just to assure at least a 50/50 shot. Seems fair, huh. **** that **** … play the ******* game.
I don’t give the slightest shit that Peyton had to mope and watch from the bench. He should’ve won the game in regulation if it’s that big of a deal…
by Fahey on Jan 8, 2009 3:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
hogwash!!!
can’t figure how anyone could actually argue the current OT is fine… and I’d be willing to bet a couple months rent on the fact that if the Steelers/chargers game went into OT and Steelers lost the same way the colts did, there would not be a single Steelers Fan saying they’re “okay” with the current OT structure… That’s ludicrous if you do… the current OT is set up to end the game… not achieve a winner of the game…
I think the resolution is simple: just like the other professional sports… OT should be another quarter… if it’s still tie after 1OT then have a 2nd OT… If need be, cut the 2OT and all OT’s following to just 10 minute quarters… at the beginning of each OT there is a coin flip just like the beginning of a game…
by WETSU on Jan 8, 2009 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right, because the steelers have never lost in overtime.
by steelguy99 on Jan 8, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It seems
as though 50 to 60% is about as fair as it’s gonna get in any professional sport. If the current system provides those percentages then keep the current system. A late drive and enough final second plays win you the game? Incredible! A late drive and enough final second plays to force overtime? Maybe you’ll get the ball, maybe you won’t … Deal with it. The coaches and players know the rules (with only the occasional overblown-media storm exception) and should play accordingly.
Forcing overtime does not and should not guarantee you an opportunity to come back and win; it does and should guarantee an extension of the clock for a bit longer within a predefined and ultimately (and statistically) fair approach to finishing up the game.
If the numbers were drastically different, like the winner of the coin flip wins 90% of the time, then it’s time to switch it up … but in all honesty, and completely separate from devotion to any one team, the system as it stands offers about as even a result as you’ll find in any game.
I’d be fine with an entire extra quarter as an OT period … but what we have is a system that provides damn near even results; you’ll seldom, if ever, find a perfect 50/50 breakdown in any one category of professional sports, and what we have with the NFL is a system that provides pretty even odds … as even as we’re likely to find in any one statistical category that “determines” the outcome of the game.
There’s no league bylaw that says the media darlings are guaranteed a chance to be the hero once again. Yeah, it’s frustrating to watch your heroes sit on the bench without a chance to win … what’s forgotten is that they all were already given 60 solid minutes of chances to win. If they don’t capitalize on what they’ve already been guaranteed and provided with, well they have nothing to complain about after the fact.
(And my apologies SteelChad; I wasn’t directing my anger toward the OT talk toward you … or wasn’t intending to, in any case. It just pisses me off that in a game like SD & Indy, the play-by-play during the entire OT is on nothing but how unfair the system is because Peyton didn’t get the ball … and all the next-day mainstream media articles followed suit … which isn’t what you were doing; this was just my initial reaction to all the talk as it’s the most recent case within the issue.)
by Fahey on Jan 8, 2009 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I Agree...
In no way am I saying that Peyton should have got the ball in overtime, Hell, San Diego gave him like 2-3 chances to win that game so he didn’t deserve that last overtime drive. I just suggested that the maybe it might be better to end the game with a touchdown instead of just a field goal. But I do agree with you about Peyton, I don’t care if he is MVP, the D should have showed up and they didn’t, too many penalties and I get sick of ESPN analysts taking Peytons side all of the time.
by SteelChad88 on Jan 8, 2009 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OT
I understand the argument that defense is as important to a team as offense. But that assumes that it is of equal difficulity to stop a score than to get a score.
This is why they dont have sudden death in basketball or baseball, but do have it in Hockey (goals are harder to come by).
I believe it is “easy” to get a FG in the modern NFL. No one would care about the OT rules if a FG was harder to get… but with all the rules and developments that favor the offense… having sudden death without giving each team a chance really makes a coin flip more important than it should be.
If the college system is too wacky for you… fine. How about we have the same exact rules except just have each team get the ball at least once. If the score is still tied, go to SD.
by Danto85 on Jan 8, 2009 3:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I will add to that…
The coin flip winner needs to just have one “good” drive, while the loser needs to have a good defensive drive and then a good offensive drive. If def is an important part of the team game, than both sides should have to use it once. Losing the coin flip now means you have to do double what the CF winner needs to do.
Anyone know the percentage of OTs that end in one drive? 2 Drives?
by Danto85 on Jan 8, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
acutally
you don’t even need a good drive… you are literally one play away… one missed tackle…. one dumb penalty…
by WETSU on Jan 8, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we ought to also have the time the end of the game ends be randomized? 60 minutes? That’s crazy talk. When there’s only 20 seconds on the clock and the opposing team has the ball on and a team is up by 1, they are just one missed tackle…one dumb penalty…away from losing. As a solution, I suggest that the game just suddenly stop when there is between 5 to 1 minute left, that way a team can’t bank on that last minute play to win the game.
by steelguy99 on Jan 8, 2009 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I sense your Sarcasm… maybe it’s just too simple for you to understand…
the point is if you lose with 20 seconds left on the clock in the 4th quarter by one missed tackle or one dumb play, you’ve already played 59 minutes and 40 seconds of REGULATION… you deserve that loss…
but when regulation expires with a tie you enter OT which is often, if not always, referred to as a “new game”.
how bout’ this… lets just have an opening toss and who ever wins the toss can elect to kick, receive or defer… and then who ever scores first on Sunday will go to the AFC Championship.
by WETSU on Jan 8, 2009 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You propose to change the rules and have done nothing to convince anyone here that the rules should be changed. Thus, the rules stay the same.
by steelguy99 on Jan 8, 2009 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But what makes this system right?
I don’t see why this is better than a normal overtime period. In every way I feel like it’s worse.
by Chicago Steeler on Jan 8, 2009 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the rules ought to change
I would prefer a modified college system, put each team on their own 25 instead of the other side, and no kicking from the start. That would work for NFL caliber teams.
by OhioSteel on Jan 8, 2009 11:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
BUT
Heres something to think about. Suppose the Chargers start passing and go 3 and out. Now you might get the ball back around the 30-40 which could be considerably better field position than the starting kick. So now your Offensive drive is now much smaller. Less is needed.
I just think you have to play the game to win in 60 minutes and quit complaining.
Everybody is upset over the MVP not touching the ball.
Well heres news for you, he shouldnt be the MVP!!! Yeah they won 9 games. Against mostly lousy teams. Heck even the game they beat us in, we pretty much gave to them.
by Mechem on Jan 8, 2009 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In defense of Peyton...
…he carried that team. The team has a record of 9 and 7, but he more or less put the team on his shoulder and carried them to most of those victories. MVP is not a team award, it’s about individual effort. Peyton did put in some effort this season.
But I’m 100% behind you in saying that him being the MVP should mean nothing to OT rules.
And he stank.
by Varmint on Jan 8, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He still wasnt MVP
In my personal opinion I view MVP this way.
Who was truly the most valuable to their teams success?
To me it was a tough call this year because lots of players played at a high level. But I honestly think, and this may sound crazy, but you have to give it to either Jake Delhomme or Adrian Peterson.
AP makes a solid case because there is no way that the Vikings make the playoffs without him. And he led the league in rushing. He certainly is worthy.
JD however I think was crucial to the Panthers success and we all saw how much they sucked without him last year.
Anyway just saying. I feel like beating up a bunch of POS’s in the 2nd half of the year when your first half was absolute shit does not make you MVP
by Mechem on Jan 8, 2009 7:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
firstly
why is Peyton a theme in this thread? Just because one analyst, commentator, whatever gives his idiotic opinion that the MVP gets a chance, you guys act like that is the current thought process on OT rules. Oh, and btw, I’m not sure where you guys are getting 9-7, but the Colts went 12-4.
Secondly, why so much hostility? It seems like the proponents of the current system get angry and pissy at the thought of changing it, eliciting snarky comments. Football is an ever-changing game. Rules change all the time in an effort to get a more quality product. To the people who say that it is a team game and that you’re defense should be good enough or get out of the playoffs, that really doesn’t make much sense. So, what is sooo outrageous that the suggestion of eliminating getting a FG brings out such sarcasm and smart ass comments? Its pretty ridiculous. On one hand, you hear traditionalists complain about kickers, and how useless they are, and then you hear them talk about OT and how if your D can’t stop them you don’t deserve to be there, effectively putting the game in a kicker’s hands.
The college way will never work, because for some reason there are too many people in the NFL that hate it. Arkansas has been in three of the top five longest games in NCAA history and I can tell you right now, if you truly love football, its OT rules are very enjoyable. Its great fun to watch teams duke it out and try to match or beat what the other team has done. But that’s fine. If you are a detractor of it, so be it.
The simple easy way is to just eliminate the kicker out of OT. If you don’t get it in the EZ, you don’t win. Why is that so terrible?
by steelerark on Jan 9, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You seem to be operating under the assumption that sarcasm and smart ass comments aren’t the norm from certain posters, and are just used when they are “pissed”.
You know what they say about assumptions.
by steelguy99 on Jan 9, 2009 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OT Considerations
I had this chat with friends (in real life!) and these are the factors we discussed.
1. OT rules should be a reflection of a full football game. It should not be a shoot-out involving only a few of the players. Whatever the format, it should include the offense, defense, and at least the potential for special teams play.
2. Having endless quarters added to the game would be too brutal for regular season play. Sixty minutes of football is typically a harsh way to spend an hour. Adding more than one additional 15 minute quarter could result in many more injuries. Tired players make mistakes and they start to get rather surly. I could see a team playing 15 minutes then saying, “That’s it! You guys take it. We want to survive for the post season.”
3. The rules should not negate the same types of play made during the game. As one poster wrote above, one play could decide the game in OT. Well, yeah! That’s the way it works during regulation. One good throw to a receiver could get you to the 30 for a field goal. By the same token, one errant throw near Carter or Polamalu could cost you six points and the whole game.
by Varmint on Jan 8, 2009 5:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
1. agree
2. disagree – even in the current OT there is the potential to play a full 15 minute quarter… tired players are part of the game. noone will ever say" thats it, you guys take it, we want to survive for teh post season." these guys are competitors…
3. disagree – you’re absolutly correct that with “that’s the way it works during regulation. one good throw to a receiver could get youto the 30 for a field goal. one errant throw near Carter or Polamalu could cost you six points and the whole game.” BUT BUT BUT… after that one good throw or one errant throw that ends up in a score you get the ball back!!!
by WETSU on Jan 8, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
really?
regarding point 3 – you’re going to give a QB that just threw a pick one more chance? I think it comes down to two things – your D is on the field, and it you’re afraid of the coin flip, play to win in regulation. Just like Shanahan did when he went for two in that game at the beginning of the season. (that was the chargers game, right?)
by acrollet on Jan 8, 2009 9:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
regarding my response to point 3
i believe that Varmint is making the point that like in OT, one play could decide a game in regulation. I agree with that…
my point 3 is, during regualtion, if there’s 10 minutes, 2 minutes or 15 seconds left in the game and your QB throws a pick 6… you get the ball back and the defense has to stop you again…
the object of the game is to score the most points in 60 minutes… but if there’s a tie, the object changes to score first it what ever amount of time it takes…. i don’t like how someone can win a coin flip in OT, take the ball, make a little drive, kick a field goal and win after they just played 60 minutes of even football… it’s not that difficult to make a little drive and kick a field goal… i haven’t looked but i’d be curious to know what % of opening drives of regulation time result in atleast a field, if not a TD…. and also what % of the time the team that scores first wins the game…
by WETSU on Jan 9, 2009 8:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
