NFL overtime rules

[John K]

During the pre-game show yesterday, Bob Costas was very critical of the current NFL overtime rules, and I came up with this idea. In OT, give the ball first to whichever team ended regulation on defense, and then first score wins, whether it's a FG or TD. For one thing, that would give teams incentive to try to win the game in regulation, rather than just playing for OT late in the game, which happens quite often currently. People like Costas whine about the current rules being unfair, because one team may not even get a possession in OT, but teams aren't guaranteed an equal number of possessions during regulation. On average, about half the games end with one team having had an extra possession in regulation, if you count defensive and ST scores as possessions, even though no offensive plays are run in those instances. In fact , with the current OT rules, it's possible that one team will get two more possessions than the other during the course of the entire game, if they got an extra one in regulation, and then get the ball first in OT. My plan would ensure that neither team will ever have more than one extra possession, between regulation and OT combined, which is certainly more fair. This plan requires sort of a paradigm shift, i.e. looking at OT more within the context of the entire game, rather than viewing OT as a distinctly separate component, as we do currently. What do you think?

[allcat]

During the pre-game show yesterday, Bob Costas was very critical of the current NFL overtime rules, and I came up with this idea. In OT, give the ball first to whichever team ended regulation on defense, and then first score wins, whether it's a FG or TD. For one thing, that would give teams incentive to try to win the game in regulation, rather than just playing for OT late in the game, which happens quite often currently. People like Costas whine about the current rules being unfair, because one team may not even get a possession in OT, but teams aren't guaranteed an equal number of possessions during regulation. On average, about half the games end with one team having had an extra possession in regulation, if you count defensive and ST scores as possessions, even though no offensive plays are run in those instances. In fact , with the current OT rules, it's possible that one team will get two more possessions than the other during the course of the entire game, if they got an extra one in regulation, and then get the ball first in OT. My plan would ensure that neither team will ever have more than one extra possession, between regulation and OT combined, which is certainly more fair. This plan requires sort of a paradigm shift, i.e. looking at OT more within the context of the entire game, rather than viewing OT as a distinctly separate component, as we do currently. What do you think?

Here we are on what is fair again. How about starting it Rugby style to see who gets the ball, then every play one guy from each team leaves the field, no punting, just 4 downs and the other team takes over.

[91catAlum]

Eh.
I'd rather see the NFL go to the college OT rules, where each team gets the ball on the 25. Has anyone ever complained
that college OT rules are unfair?

My 2nd choice would be to just play a set amount of time, say 8 minutes. If still tied, go another 8. Etc.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[TIrwin24]

During the pre-game show yesterday, Bob Costas was very critical of the current NFL overtime rules, and I came up with this idea. In OT, give the ball first to whichever team ended regulation on defense, and then first score wins, whether it's a FG or TD. For one thing, that would give teams incentive to try to win the game in regulation, rather than just playing for OT late in the game, which happens quite often currently. People like Costas whine about the current rules being unfair, because one team may not even get a possession in OT, but teams aren't guaranteed an equal number of possessions during regulation. On average, about half the games end with one team having had an extra possession in regulation, if you count defensive and ST scores as possessions, even though no offensive plays are run in those instances. In fact , with the current OT rules, it's possible that one team will get two more possessions than the other during the course of the entire game, if they got an extra one in regulation, and then get the ball first in OT. My plan would ensure that neither team will ever have more than one extra possession, between regulation and OT combined, which is certainly more fair. This plan requires sort of a paradigm shift, i.e. looking at OT more within the context of the entire game, rather than viewing OT as a distinctly separate component, as we do currently. What do you think?

Here we are on what is fair again. How about starting it Rugby style to see who gets the ball, then every play one guy from each team leaves the field, no punting, just 4 downs and the other team takes over.

Or they could all just skip playing football and play Red Rover to decide the outcome.

[John K]

During the pre-game show yesterday, Bob Costas was very critical of the current NFL overtime rules, and I came up with this idea. In OT, give the ball first to whichever team ended regulation on defense, and then first score wins, whether it's a FG or TD. For one thing, that would give teams incentive to try to win the game in regulation, rather than just playing for OT late in the game, which happens quite often currently. People like Costas whine about the current rules being unfair, because one team may not even get a possession in OT, but teams aren't guaranteed an equal number of possessions during regulation. On average, about half the games end with one team having had an extra possession in regulation, if you count defensive and ST scores as possessions, even though no offensive plays are run in those instances. In fact , with the current OT rules, it's possible that one team will get two more possessions than the other during the course of the entire game, if they got an extra one in regulation, and then get the ball first in OT. My plan would ensure that neither team will ever have more than one extra possession, between regulation and OT combined, which is certainly more fair. This plan requires sort of a paradigm shift, i.e. looking at OT more within the context of the entire game, rather than viewing OT as a distinctly separate component, as we do currently. What do you think?

Here we are on what is fair again. How about starting it Rugby style to see who gets the ball, then every play one guy from each team leaves the field, no punting, just 4 downs and the other team takes over.

Or they could all just skip playing football and play Red Rover to decide the outcome.

All joking aside, that's exactly why I hate college OT...because it deviates so much from the normal way of playing football. College OT is only slightly better than the shootouts used by the NHL to settle ties. I believe the rules, and the normal way of playing the game, should be altered as little as possible in OT.

[91catAlum]

During the pre-game show yesterday, Bob Costas was very critical of the current NFL overtime rules, and I came up with this idea. In OT, give the ball first to whichever team ended regulation on defense, and then first score wins, whether it's a FG or TD. For one thing, that would give teams incentive to try to win the game in regulation, rather than just playing for OT late in the game, which happens quite often currently. People like Costas whine about the current rules being unfair, because one team may not even get a possession in OT, but teams aren't guaranteed an equal number of possessions during regulation. On average, about half the games end with one team having had an extra possession in regulation, if you count defensive and ST scores as possessions, even though no offensive plays are run in those instances. In fact , with the current OT rules, it's possible that one team will get two more possessions than the other during the course of the entire game, if they got an extra one in regulation, and then get the ball first in OT. My plan would ensure that neither team will ever have more than one extra possession, between regulation and OT combined, which is certainly more fair. This plan requires sort of a paradigm shift, i.e. looking at OT more within the context of the entire game, rather than viewing OT as a distinctly separate component, as we do currently. What do you think?

Here we are on what is fair again. How about starting it Rugby style to see who gets the ball, then every play one guy from each team leaves the field, no punting, just 4 downs and the other team takes over.

Or they could all just skip playing football and play Red Rover to decide the outcome.

All joking aside, that's exactly why I hate college OT...because it deviates so much from the normal way of playing football. College OT is only slightly better than the shootouts used by the NHL to settle ties. I believe the rules, and the normal way of playing the game, should be altered as little as possible in OT.

I see what you mean. In that case, the only way to do it is to have a coin toss, and then play for some set amount of time whether it's a full 15 minute quarter or something less, like the 8 minutes I suggested. Whoever is ahead when time expires wins, just like in regulation. If still tied, repeat.

[John K]

During the pre-game show yesterday, Bob Costas was very critical of the current NFL overtime rules, and I came up with this idea. In OT, give the ball first to whichever team ended regulation on defense, and then first score wins, whether it's a FG or TD. For one thing, that would give teams incentive to try to win the game in regulation, rather than just playing for OT late in the game, which happens quite often currently. People like Costas whine about the current rules being unfair, because one team may not even get a possession in OT, but teams aren't guaranteed an equal number of possessions during regulation. On average, about half the games end with one team having had an extra possession in regulation, if you count defensive and ST scores as possessions, even though no offensive plays are run in those instances. In fact , with the current OT rules, it's possible that one team will get two more possessions than the other during the course of the entire game, if they got an extra one in regulation, and then get the ball first in OT. My plan would ensure that neither team will ever have more than one extra possession, between regulation and OT combined, which is certainly more fair. This plan requires sort of a paradigm shift, i.e. looking at OT more within the context of the entire game, rather than viewing OT as a distinctly separate component, as we do currently. What do you think?

Here we are on what is fair again. How about starting it Rugby style to see who gets the ball, then every play one guy from each team leaves the field, no punting, just 4 downs and the other team takes over.

Or they could all just skip playing football and play Red Rover to decide the outcome.

All joking aside, that's exactly why I hate college OT...because it deviates so much from the normal way of playing football. College OT is only slightly better than the shootouts used by the NHL to settle ties. I believe the rules, and the normal way of playing the game, should be altered as little as possible in OT.

I see what you mean. In that case, the only way to do it is to have a coin toss, and then play for some set amount of time whether it's a full 15 minute quarter or something less, like the 8 minutes I suggested. Whoever is ahead when time expires wins, just like in regulation. If still tied, repeat.

Why have a coin toss? Why not my idea that the team on defense at the end of regulation, gets the ball 1st in OT? With a coin toss, it's possible that one team will end up with two extra possessions during the course of the game. With my plan, it's guaranteed that neither team will ever have more than one extra possession. Isn't that more fair? Plus, as I said, there would be the added benefit of making the end of regulation more interesting, because teams would have incentive to go for the win, rather than just playing for OT.

[91catAlum]

During the pre-game show yesterday, Bob Costas was very critical of the current NFL overtime rules, and I came up with this idea. In OT, give the ball first to whichever team ended regulation on defense, and then first score wins, whether it's a FG or TD. For one thing, that would give teams incentive to try to win the game in regulation, rather than just playing for OT late in the game, which happens quite often currently. People like Costas whine about the current rules being unfair, because one team may not even get a possession in OT, but teams aren't guaranteed an equal number of possessions during regulation. On average, about half the games end with one team having had an extra possession in regulation, if you count defensive and ST scores as possessions, even though no offensive plays are run in those instances. In fact , with the current OT rules, it's possible that one team will get two more possessions than the other during the course of the entire game, if they got an extra one in regulation, and then get the ball first in OT. My plan would ensure that neither team will ever have more than one extra possession, between regulation and OT combined, which is certainly more fair. This plan requires sort of a paradigm shift, i.e. looking at OT more within the context of the entire game, rather than viewing OT as a distinctly separate component, as we do currently. What do you think?

Here we are on what is fair again. How about starting it Rugby style to see who gets the ball, then every play one guy from each team leaves the field, no punting, just 4 downs and the other team takes over.

Or they could all just skip playing football and play Red Rover to decide the outcome.

All joking aside, that's exactly why I hate college OT...because it deviates so much from the normal way of playing football. College OT is only slightly better than the shootouts used by the NHL to settle ties. I believe the rules, and the normal way of playing the game, should be altered as little as possible in OT.

I see what you mean. In that case, the only way to do it is to have a coin toss, and then play for some set amount of time whether it's a full 15 minute quarter or something less, like the 8 minutes I suggested. Whoever is ahead when time expires wins, just like in regulation. If still tied, repeat.

Why have a coin toss? Why not my idea that the team on defense at the end of regulation, gets the ball 1st in OT? With a coin toss, it's possible that one team will end up with two extra possessions during the course of the game. With my plan, it's guaranteed that neither team will ever have more than one extra possession. Isn't that more fair? Plus, as I said, there would be the added benefit of making the end of regulation more interesting, because teams would have incentive to go for the win, rather than just playing for OT.

I don't think it works. If a team ties the game in regulation and leaves no time on the clock, the other team gets the ball first.
If they tie the game and leave 1 second on the clock, then the kickoff is a touchback, they go on defense for one play, then get the ball to start OT? That's the part I don't like.

[John K]

During the pre-game show yesterday, Bob Costas was very critical of the current NFL overtime rules, and I came up with this idea. In OT, give the ball first to whichever team ended regulation on defense, and then first score wins, whether it's a FG or TD. For one thing, that would give teams incentive to try to win the game in regulation, rather than just playing for OT late in the game, which happens quite often currently. People like Costas whine about the current rules being unfair, because one team may not even get a possession in OT, but teams aren't guaranteed an equal number of possessions during regulation. On average, about half the games end with one team having had an extra possession in regulation, if you count defensive and ST scores as possessions, even though no offensive plays are run in those instances. In fact , with the current OT rules, it's possible that one team will get two more possessions than the other during the course of the entire game, if they got an extra one in regulation, and then get the ball first in OT. My plan would ensure that neither team will ever have more than one extra possession, between regulation and OT combined, which is certainly more fair. This plan requires sort of a paradigm shift, i.e. looking at OT more within the context of the entire game, rather than viewing OT as a distinctly separate component, as we do currently. What do you think?

Here we are on what is fair again. How about starting it Rugby style to see who gets the ball, then every play one guy from each team leaves the field, no punting, just 4 downs and the other team takes over.

Or they could all just skip playing football and play Red Rover to decide the outcome.

All joking aside, that's exactly why I hate college OT...because it deviates so much from the normal way of playing football. College OT is only slightly better than the shootouts used by the NHL to settle ties. I believe the rules, and the normal way of playing the game, should be altered as little as possible in OT.

I see what you mean. In that case, the only way to do it is to have a coin toss, and then play for some set amount of time whether it's a full 15 minute quarter or something less, like the 8 minutes I suggested. Whoever is ahead when time expires wins, just like in regulation. If still tied, repeat.

Why have a coin toss? Why not my idea that the team on defense at the end of regulation, gets the ball 1st in OT? With a coin toss, it's possible that one team will end up with two extra possessions during the course of the game. With my plan, it's guaranteed that neither team will ever have more than one extra possession. Isn't that more fair? Plus, as I said, there would be the added benefit of making the end of regulation more interesting, because teams would have incentive to go for the win, rather than just playing for OT.

I don't think it works. If a team ties the game in regulation and leaves no time on the clock, the other team gets the ball first.
If they tie the game and leave 1 second on the clock, then the kickoff is a touchback, they go on defense for one play, then get the ball to start OT? That's the part I don't like.

That's a good point. I hadn't considered a scenario like that.

[WeedKillinCat]

I like the current NFL OT rules. Its up to the defense to stop the first drive from being in the end zone. I hate the NHL shootout. They are proposing playing 4 on 4 for 5 minutes and then playing 3 on 3 for a few more minutes. They are using that format in the AHL

[John K]

I like the current NFL OT rules. Its up to the defense to stop the first drive from being in the end zone. I hate the NHL shootout. They are proposing playing 4 on 4 for 5 minutes and then playing 3 on 3 for a few more minutes. They are using that format in the AHL

I actually think that's a great idea. I also hate shootouts, and anything that would reduce the number of shootouts would be a good thing.