Jump to content

Changing OT in playoffs


CanadaSteve
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

BTW, Tony Romo had it absolutely correct. You have to squib that kick-off.

YES!  Again, this isn't a sour grapes thing because the Bills lost.  The Bills lost that game, I think, for two reasons 1) Playing WAY too soft on defense the final 13 seconds and 2) Why did they not squib kick the ball, knock off 3-4 seconds, and force Mahomes to go for a hail mary?

But again, in the playoffs, it seems ridiculous, to me, that each team does not get one possession of the ball, no matter what happens.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Explain to me why a team that has more offensive yards deserves an advantage over a team with less offensive yards, in a game where points matter, and those points are tied.

Why not choose less penalty yards? And I am not advocating that. 

Make ot any stat you like. Make it most sacks if you want. I'm just saying you can make it based on play and not a guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

In many ways, today's NFL is getting a little ridiculous.  It's far too easy to drive down the field plus kickers in general (not for us, of course) are getting too good (e.g. Justin Tucker hitting a 66 yarder to win a game).   They need the wide hash marks like in college football to make the angles on the kicker tougher.  Also, they need to bring back defense.  The #1 rated defense just got absolutely shredded.  Someone mentioned that the Chiefs had the #27 defense in the NFL, yet they're the top team.  Something is broken.

I absolutely agree with that point as well.  The NFL has gotten so wrapped up in trying to make games into shooting match outs, they have lost part of the whole game.

It is similar in baseball how it seems the only way to generate runs anymore is to hit home runs rather than chip away at scoring runs through 'small ball.'

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

That's the point: Why let a game come down to a coin toss?  It's the only major sport that is decided on something so frivolous as winning a coin toss.  If you are a sport in which offense/defense does not transition automatically throughout the game, then each team should be given one chance on both offense and defense (just like baseball).  

That would be like the final game of the World Series being decided in extra innings because the Jays won a coin toss and hit a home run without the other team getting a chance to respond.

 

Yeah but having a top and bottom half of an inning is just part of what baseball is.  Football has "sudden death" (though not really anymore).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CanadaSteve said:

I absolutely agree with that point as well.  The NFL has gotten so wrapped up in trying to make games into shooting match outs, they have lost part of the whole game.

It is similar in baseball how it seems the only way to generate runs anymore is to hit home runs rather than chip away at scoring runs through 'small ball.'

I heard that baseball focuses on the HR due to analytics.  The shift defense takes away a lot of the hits.  Therefore you have to hit it out of the park to avoid the defense entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

EXACTLY!  So each team should get a chance to play offense and defense once.  If we score and stop you, it's equal.  If we score and stop you, it's equal.  

That isn't  what I am saying. If the team kicks a FG, your D did it's  job to an extent,  they stopped them but the other team has a ceazy good FG kicker so they still scored. The other team should get a chance to do the same. If your D fails and allows a TD, game over. You have players on D that making 10's of millions of dollars. Step up and earn that money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Yeah but having a top and bottom half of an inning is just part of what baseball is.  Football has "sudden death" (though not really anymore).  

Baseball is a whole different sport. In baseball defense dictates to the offense. In football it is vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scott Dierking said:

Baseball is a whole different sport. In baseball defense dictates to the offense. In football it is vice versa.

The comparison was made in terms of having each team touch the ball in OT (sort of like a top and bottom half of the inning).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Why not give both teams the opportunity to play an extra period in total? Just like, say the game of football?

Because then you are basically say, hey D, go ahead and screw up as much as you want, as a matter of fact, send out the second string. It makes no difference what you do, the O is all that matters. The pressure is on us, not you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, More Cowbell said:

Because then you are basically say, hey D, go ahead and screw up as much as you want, as a matter of fact, send out the second string. It makes no difference what you do, the O is all that matters. The pressure is on us, not you. 

Both defenses were totally gassed and worn out yesterday. they were each chasing a dynamic QB with explosive playmakers. The defense never had a chance.

That is why I say put in a 10 minute intermission (playoffs only), and play a full 10 minute period. Re-set the game in which there is such importance. Take the randomness away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Both defenses were totally gassed and worn out yesterday. they were each chasing a dynamic QB with explosive playmakers. The defense never had a chance.

That is why I say put in a 10 minute intermission (playoffs only), and play a full 10 minute period. Re-set the game in which there is such importance. Take the randomness away.

I don't  agree and every OT game is not going to have a gassed D. When the Jets played the Pats at home with Fitz as the QB in his first year with us and the game went to OT and we win on a TD, were the Pats gassed on D or did two defenders just run into each other allowing the Jets to get in position for a TD play?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, playtowinthegame said:

We don't change a rule every time someone loses a close game. Bills had many opportunities to win the game and they blew it. Enough with this whoa is the Bills crap. F the Bills. 

I'm thinking any team that has Leslie Frazier scheduled for a HC interview cancelled the appointment.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, More Cowbell said:

I don't  agree and every OT game is not going to have a gassed D. When the Jets played the Pats at home with Fitz as the QB in his first year with us and the game went to OT and we win on a TD, were the Pats gassed on D or did two defenders just run into each other allowing the Jets to get in position for a TD play?

I bring up a "gassed defense" because opponents of a "full period" bring up that players are more likely to be injured. That is the main component of my proposal of having an intermission. 

The reason for doing the full period, is so each team has the same opportunity.  Not that way currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

I bring up a "gassed defense" because opponents of a "full period" bring up that players are more likely to be injured. That is the main component of my proposal of having an intermission. 

The reason for doing the full period, is so each team has the same opportunity.  Not that way currently.

There are a host of reason why that won't  happen but mostly because a full period could last 45 minutes which would screw up start time of the next game if it happens in an early game. Short OT periods work. Score fast or lose. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, More Cowbell said:

There are a host of reason why that won't  happen but mostly because a full period could last 45 minutes which would screw up start time of the next game if it happens in an early game. Short OT periods work. Score fast or lose. 

 

I already stated that is why the NFL won't do it. I made my extra period 10 minutes (just like the current), but it is played in full. 

My intermission is 10 minutes, so that creates about 13 minutes of real time "extra" time for networks, in comparison to what a full period would currently do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to consider all the variables and not just the circumstances that existed last night. I'm not seeing that with any of these new OT rule proposals.

The problem with adding an extra quarter:

What if that ends in a tie? Keep adding quarters indefinitely, with those same rules in place? If you're not going to do that, then it undermines the rationale of having the extra-quarter rule in the first place. After one OT period if they then go to a coin toss because football's too exhausting and it's risking too many injuries, with the rationale that they both had an equal opportunity in OT1 before that, then I'd argue they both already had that in the first place: regulation time. So you either have to keep adding a infinite quarters if needed or the "in the interest of fairness" argument falls apart.

They don't need to add an extra quarter/period. They just played 4 of them and both teams had equal opportunities to close it out in regulation (with the only advantage being home field). One extra quarter has another built-in unfairness, which I'll get to.

The problem (of trying to fix the unfairness) of one team getting two possessions in a row:

Because of last night, when reading the first posts here I was initially sympathetic to was changing the unearned advantage of a coin toss (as the league tried to fix by eliminating a FG sudden-death rule on the first possession). But on top of that, just to alter it so team A can't tie it up, and then - with team A's offense still in a zone and team B's defense still exhausted from the last drive - team A gets a second possession in a row.

Except even THAT would require some additional, nuanced rules: in last night's case it sounds easy when there's a game-tying score as time expires. What if no one's scored the whole 2nd half of the game and it's been tied since the 2nd quarter? Base it on who had the last possession in regulation? What if team A tied it up with 0:03 on the clock? Technically team B had the final possession. While there are certainly "fair" ways of making a rule to avoid an unjust penalization like that, it's too confusing for the fans to need to be armed with a rule book, where the rules have so many if/then conditions the network would almost have to flash a QR code on the screen so people can quickly reach a web page with the official rules.

Here's the other thing no one is considering, because it didn't come up in last night's game: weather and wind.

Sometimes it's a really low scoring game and it goes to OT because it's stormy, not because it's a sucky-defense shootout. Well, what if the bigger advantage in OT isn't who gets the ball first, but rather which way you're facing?

Shifting this back to the extra quarter(s) idea, if they play a whole extra quarter, who decides which endzone each team is defending for the entirety of OT? Or are they to then play two OT quarters so they can fairly switch sides also? The coin toss covers this neatly, without confusion, and without adding another halftime.

The only other idea I can think of (whether always or just in pre-SB playoff games) would be that the home team gets either the first possession or choice of endzone to defend - rationalizing that this is home field advantage, and a playoff team's earned this with a higher seeding. Maybe there's something to that, but that doesn't solve anything for OT in the super bowl where there is no home team (unless there's an MLB rule in place where one conference is nominally the "home" team, but then you may as well just have a coin toss in the first place). There shouldn't be SB-only rules, and there is no home team in the SB, so I don't care for this idea either.

Too many rule changes for the playoffs, or too complex rules all the time

As one poster did bring up, this is a spectator sport and the spectators shouldn't have to memorize the different rules in place for the playoffs vs. the regular season, nor overly complex ones for the regular season either, even if they're arguably a little fairer. 

The only rule change that exists for the playoffs, because it has to, is that the game can't end in a tie. That's enough, and it's easy for everyone to understand both the what, the why, and the how. 

What then?

I think we're just back to something simple: a coin toss. Everyone understands it, and it's a rule that's been in place for a long time. They did what they could to eliminate a sudden death FG on the first possession, and I think that's enough.

If one team feels screwed by losing the toss, they had 4 quarters to close the deal by winning outright (especially if the complaining team just gave up the late lead that led to OT in the first place). Like last night: a team that kicks off with 0:13 on the clock and the lead, where the game still goes to OT, has already pissed away its monumental advantage like no one else ever had before.

Yes there's a built-in unfairness, and that unfairness isn't for football reasons. Deal with it or win the game in regulation to avoid it. Also, as someone else said: play some defense.

First one to read all this gets a prize.

  • Upvote 1
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott Dierking said:

I bring up a "gassed defense" because opponents of a "full period" bring up that players are more likely to be injured. That is the main component of my proposal of having an intermission. 

The reason for doing the full period, is so each team has the same opportunity.  Not that way currently.

No they don't have the same opportunity by adding a full period. See that chapter in my book above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No they don't have the same opportunity by adding a full period. See that chapter in my book above.

In my scenario, the coin flip would still exist, and the winner of the flip gets to choose same as beginning of the game. Good read though, but I felt the movie may be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't love the OT rules, but the Bills have no one to blame but themselves, Inexcusable coaching and defense in the last 13 seconds. 

When you are kicking off up by a FG with 13 seconds left in the game, you are supposed to win.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott Dierking said:

I already stated that is why the NFL won't do it. I made my extra period 10 minutes (just like the current), but it is played in full. 

My intermission is 10 minutes, so that creates about 13 minutes of real time "extra" time for networks, in comparison to what a full period would currently do.

Well here is another reason it won't  happen. It exposes player to more injury risk. After a full game these players are not just physically  fatigued,  they are mentally fatigued as well and that is how injuries happen, when you aren't  alert. In your scenario, a team can score more than once. Can you imagine if a team in this extra period is down two TD's and a player sustains a career ending injury?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like they are thinking of changing it. Hold on, my phone is ringing...

 

NFL Network's Ian Rapoport said the NFL competition committee is "likely" to consider proposed changes to the league's overtime rules. 

This comes after the Chiefs beat the Bills in overtime of their Divisional Round game without Buffalo having a single overtime possession. It was something of an anticlimactic finish to the most epic contest in recent league history. Rapoport pointed out how long it took for the league's "traditionalists" to come around on previous changes to the NFL's former sudden death overtime format in which a team could win with a field goal. An overtime format in which both teams get at least one possession seems inevitable, though it could take years to push through. 

Jan 24, 2022, 9:31 AM ET
 
  •  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...