NFL overtime rule

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Danzig

to be honest, other than regular season, i don't see why they can't end in a tie-but i can't see why baseball can't end in a tie either.

and it was really meant tongue in cheek...

Fair enough Dani, that's why I didn't post the first thing that came into my mind when I read the post. I thought there was a good chance at it being an off the cuff mark.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Fair enough Dani, that's why I didn't post the first thing that came into my mind when I read the post. I thought there was a good chance at it being an off the cuff mark.

glad you spared me then!

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Cry me a river. If your defense can't get a stop, you lose. This "everybody gets a chance" bullshit is absurd. This isn't Little League. Get a stop or go home. The shitty Pats couldn't stop old man Favre on 3rd & 15 and the Colts committed THREE asinine penalties that screwed them over. I'm supposed to feel sorry for these two teams.

You think the Eagles would've lost today if they'd lost a coin toss in overtime? I don't, because they have a competent defense.

[VOL JACK]

I think the extra quarter, is the best idea I have heard. I think 10 minutes would suffice instead of the usual 15.

[hi_im_god]

why can't they do like in soccer and have a kickoff? just have the field goal teams line up on the 45 yard line and fire away 5-10 times. whomever gets the most wins.

i think everyone can agree that's a fair way to resolve things.

[VOL JACK]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

why can't they do like in soccer and have a kickoff? just have the field goal teams line up on the 45 yard line and fire away 5-10 times. whomever gets the most wins.

i think everyone can agree that's a fair way to resolve things.

I dont know why they dont just start every soccer game that way. The rest is just a bunch of skinny dudes in high socks running around.

[horseofcourse]

They must have changed the rules since 1986. I could have sworn the Browns won the OT coin flip in the '86 AFC championship against the Broncos yet still didn't play in the Super Bowl. In what year did they change the rules to whomever wins the coin flip wins in overtime??

It's a crock. You're all crazy wanting to change the rules. It is 1 million times better than the college overtime as it is.

I would never change NFL overtime. It's perfect. If you win the coin flip go score. If you lose the coin flip play defense and prevernt a score. It's football. College is nonsense starting off in field goal range...then the mandatory 2 point conversion rule is pathetic starting the 3rd overtime.

[Danzig]

using that logic, horseofcourse, keeneland never had a bias either. of course it's not accurate to say that the coin flip winner always wins-but it's definitely tilted in that direction. all you have to do is get in field goal range to win, which is why many want both teams to have a shot at the ball in overtime. i don't think it's a crazy suggestion.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html

I'm going to bring this back and side with ateam and horseofcourse.

There is absolutely nothing that should be changed about overtime. If you lose the toss, make them go three and out or force a turnover. If a team gets the ball first, drives right over the defense and scores, they deserve to win.

The only thing they should change about overtime is informing all of the players, especially QB's, that the game CAN end in a tie.

[Danzig]

but antitrust...let's say you're driving, but run out of time-you just needed a few more years, you could kick the ball and win with a field goal. but the buzzer sounds. you lose the toss, the other teams gets the ball, gets a run back, and gets close enough for a field goal-bam, they win. but you had the ball last-they weren't stopping you, the clock stopped you. but because the fifth quarter starts with a coin toss, you don't get to remain on offense....perhaps, instead of stopping play completely, having a coin toss and kickoff, they should just keep going from where the fourth quarter ended...
i understand that both sides of the team have to play, but i also can see where people want the OT rules tweaked.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but antitrust...let's say you're driving, but run out of time-you just needed a few more years, you could kick the ball and win with a field goal. but the buzzer sounds. you lose the toss, the other teams gets the ball, gets a run back, and gets close enough for a field goal-bam, they win. but you had the ball last-they weren't stopping you, the clock stopped you. but because the fifth quarter starts with a coin toss, you don't get to remain on offense....perhaps, instead of stopping play completely, having a coin toss and kickoff, they should just keep going from where the fourth quarter ended...
i understand that both sides of the team have to play, but i also can see where people want the OT rules tweaked.

that is no excuse Zig.. if the clock runs out the clock runs out.. doesnt matter where you are. That is why there are two minute drills, and clock and time-out management. 60 minutes is up, you toss a coin and go to sudden death.

Regarding the situation you just laid out.. Can you imagine if a team was driving at the end of the game with the score tied "Dont worry fella's, we dont need to score here! No need to rush!" Its silly really.

Each team has a 50/50 chance of winning the coin toss. It is very fair. Each team has a defense who is supposed to keep the other team from putting points on the board. You either get the job done or you dont!

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but antitrust...let's say you're driving, but run out of time-you just needed a few more years, you could kick the ball and win with a field goal. but the buzzer sounds. you lose the toss, the other teams gets the ball, gets a run back, and gets close enough for a field goal-bam, they win. but you had the ball last-they weren't stopping you, the clock stopped you. but because the fifth quarter starts with a coin toss, you don't get to remain on offense....perhaps, instead of stopping play completely, having a coin toss and kickoff, they should just keep going from where the fourth quarter ended...
i understand that both sides of the team have to play, but i also can see where people want the OT rules tweaked.

This is nonsense. If the clock runs out on you, it's your fault, not the fault of the clock. Either save some timeouts, manage the clock better or try for more yards per play. More excuses for ineptitude. No team is owed anything. Either find a way to score before the buzzer or sit down.

If overtime was the way you suggested, it would completely eliminate the two-minute drill in a tie game. Another way to make the game longer and more boring.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but antitrust...let's say you're driving, but run out of time-you just needed a few more years, you could kick the ball and win with a field goal. but the buzzer sounds. you lose the toss, the other teams gets the ball, gets a run back, and gets close enough for a field goal-bam, they win. but you had the ball last-they weren't stopping you, the clock stopped you. but because the fifth quarter starts with a coin toss, you don't get to remain on offense....perhaps, instead of stopping play completely, having a coin toss and kickoff, they should just keep going from where the fourth quarter ended...
i understand that both sides of the team have to play, but i also can see where people want the OT rules tweaked.

also to add to my post 53... why would you reward a team that failed to score before time expired?

[Danzig]

i'm not personally saying that would be the best way....i'm just saying that the current system isn't the only way to handle it. i think by suggesting various ideas, a workable solution could be reached-maybe i'm wrong. of course, it doesn't matter anyway, unless the nfl wants a change.
to be honest, and i think i said this before, i don't see why regular season games can't end in a tie. kick in OT in the postseason. but then, i don't understand why baseball doesn't do the same thing, rather than 13-15 inning marathons, especially considering the amount of games they play.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

also to add to my post 53... why would you reward a team that failed to score before time expired?

maybe because of situations such as the denver/san diego debacle, when a ref screwed up??

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm not personally saying that would be the best way....i'm just saying that the current system isn't the only way to handle it. i think by suggesting various ideas, a workable solution could be reached-maybe i'm wrong. of course, it doesn't matter anyway, unless the nfl wants a change.
to be honest, and i think i said this before, i don't see why regular season games can't end in a tie. kick in OT in the postseason. but then, i don't understand why baseball doesn't do the same thing, rather than 13-15 inning marathons, especially considering the amount of games they play.

Excuse me Mr. McNabb, oops! I mean Zig, NFL regular season game CAN end in a tie... after a 15 minute sudden death overtime.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the rule, college overtimes are very silly, yet I will admit they are exciting.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

maybe because of situations such as the denver/san diego debacle, when a ref screwed up??

LOL

I'm going to take it easy on ya Ziggy cause I like ya!

[King Glorious]

While we're at it, we should probably stop giving the home team the final at-bat in baseball. If after 8 1/2 innings, the road team has the lead, game over. Why should we give the home team equal opportunity? Same thing if it goes to extra innings. If on the first pitch of the 10th, the home pitcher gives up a home run, game over. Sudden death baseball. Makes as much sense as any silly sudden death football talk. It's only sudden death when both teams are given the same opportunity. You get some game like the Jets/Pats game where neither team could stop the other one. The Jets didn't earn that victory any more than the Patriots did. If the coin had gone the other way, the Pats likely would have had the victory. A coin flip should not determine who wins a professional sporting event. It shouldn't even factor in at all. If they want to do it that way, why even play the games at all? Let's just flip coins at the beginning and whoever wins, wins the games.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

While we're at it, we should probably stop giving the home team the final at-bat in baseball. If after 8 1/2 innings, the road team has the lead, game over. Why should we give the home team equal opportunity? Same thing if it goes to extra innings. If on the first pitch of the 10th, the home pitcher gives up a home run, game over. Sudden death baseball. Makes as much sense as any silly sudden death football talk. It's only sudden death when both teams are given the same opportunity. You get some game like the Jets/Pats game where neither team could stop the other one. The Jets didn't earn that victory any more than the Patriots did. If the coin had gone the other way, the Pats likely would have had the victory. A coin flip should not determine who wins a professional sporting event. It shouldn't even factor in at all. If they want to do it that way, why even play the games at all? Let's just flip coins at the beginning and whoever wins, wins the games.

This is crazy talk KG and the comparison to baseball is laughable!

How do the teams not have equal opportunity??? All they have to do is make a stop and they get the ball?!?!?!?

funny stuff! Nobody on here has come up with an idea better than what is already happening. Its not going to happen.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

This is crazy talk KG and the comparison to baseball is laughable!

How do the teams not have equal opportunity??? All they have to do is make a stop and they get the ball?!?!?!?

funny stuff! Nobody on here has come up with an idea better than what is already happening. Its not going to happen.

Equal opportunity is letting both teams have the ball and making both teams have to stop the other. Making one team have to stop the other is not equal. I don't understand how anyone can rightfully argue that it is equal. You are saying that all they have to do is make a stop...well not make both teams have to do that same thing? Why is that onus only on one team? And I couldn't disagree more that nobody has come up with a better idea than what's currently in place. I've read several ideas that I think are much better than the current system. I've thought about it some more and I'd let each team have the ball once. Either your defense stops them and you make them punt and you get it or if they score, you get in on a kickoff. After each team has had it once, now, first to score wins. And on any touchdowns, no kicking the extra point. Have to go for two.

And why is the baseball talk laughable? If you give up a run in the top of the 10th, the game should be over right? I mean, all the home team should have to do is get a stop and then take advantage of their own chance right? If they can't get a stop in the top of the 10th, why do they deserve a chance in the bottom? It's the same thing as the football overtime currently is.