EWB Sports Discussion #3

[sahyder1]

There is always talk about the overtime rule in the NFL being completely unfair despite #s proving otherwise. A lot of people want both teams to get at least one shot with the ball in the overtime period. While I don't see it as being something that the NFL needs to fix urgently I have heard/read a few different proposals in the past few weeks that at least are worth a look into. The NFL in the past has not wanted to tweak the rule because it does not want longer games because of the risk of injury.

First to 6

The idea is simple. The game can end on the first possession of overtime....but only on a touchdown. If a team settles for a FG the other team would get a chance to drive down the field.

Ball on own 20

Each team gets at least one possession. Teams start on their own 20 and it is 4 down territory all the way. You must get a first down to continue your drive otherwise the other team takes over at their own 20 to try and score. First team to score wins.

College Rule

In NCCAA overtime play each team gets the ball at the opposition 25 and alternate possessions until one team outscores another after an even # of possessions. After 3 possessions each you must go for 2. For the NFL they could change it to the 35...but the rest of the concept stays the same.

One possession each

Regular rules...kickoff and coin toss included but each team gets one possession each. If its a tie at that point so be it.

Continue from 4th Quarter

The idea here is that the overtime would pickup right from the end of the 4th quarter...meaning you continue on with whatever the game situation was at the end of the 4th quarter. The idea is that a team deep in its own territory won't just play it safe and go to Overtime....but be forced to utilize the downs. First team to score still wins....but the late 4th quarter has more emphasis.

According to CBS Sportsline, "There have been 432 regular-season games that have gone to overtimes since the rule was adopted in 1974, with the team that received the kickoff winning 30 percent of the time after one series. That means 70 percent of the time each club had at least one possession." Of course this debate got restarted with the Colts/Chargers game from earlier in the playoffs but what most don't realize is that teams in the last 5 playoff overtime games the team that won the toss in overtime has only won once. Toss out your own ideas.

Previous Topics:

Spoiler: Click here to view

EWB Sports Discussion #2 - NFL Playoffs Tweak

EWB Sports Discussion #1 - Steroids and the Hall of Fame

Edited January 28, 2009 by sahyder1

[-A-]

According to CBS Sportsline, "There have been 432 regular-season games that have gone to overtimes since the rule was adopted in 1974, with the team that received the kickoff winning 30 percent of the time after one series. That means 70 percent of the time each club had at least one possession." Of course this debate got restarted with the Colts/Chargers game from earlier in the playoffs but what most don't realize is that teams in the last 5 playoff overtime games the team that won the toss in overtime has only won once. Toss out your own ideas.

Fair enough that the game doesn't always end on the first possession, but what are the percentages for 'team that wins the toss gets the victory vs. team that loses the toss gets the victory'? If there's any kind of noticeable bias towards the first group then the system is flawed because a team evenly matched with their opposition is being given an inherent advantage based on total chance. If it's 53-47 then it's not worth injuring more players and all the teams can get behind that. If it's 60-40 or more then it's a pretty serious issue. One team would have a 50% greater chance of winning than the other based on the flip of a coin.

Edited January 28, 2009 by -A-

[JStarr]

Now, that first to 6 idea is fairly novel, first I've heard of it.

It's annoying as hell to me that you can get a big kickoff return, get into FG range, and possibly win the game without even running an honest-to-God play. But, if a team is forced to score a TD to win immediately, it puts that much more emphasis on trying to move the ball, instead of just, "Let's run it up the middle three times AND FOR GOD'S SAKE, DON'T PUT THE KICKER ON THE HASHMARK!!!!!!!1111!!"

Taking a FG under that scenario could almost be considered trash talk, like, "Yeah, we know we have to score again, but we know you can't get there, so ha."

And normally, I'm in the "each team should get a shot at it" camp, but really, if you give up a TD on the first drive, tough shit, you should have made a stop. Either way, yeah, the current system still bugs the shit out of me...doubly so since everyone started this "let's call a timeout and give the kicker a mulligan" shit.

[HailtotheYo]

Eh, I'll always be in favor of a route that gives both teams an equal opportunity to win the game. "Sudden Death" doesn't do that.

The whole "well you should have stopped them" line is bullshit. BOTH teams have failed to do what it takes to win (in regulation) so indirectly punishing one for the inability of both is just wrong.

I'd like to see a "5th Quarter" type of deal. At the end of the 4th you simply add another quarter's worth of time on the clock. The teams do the switcheroo on the sides of the field, and the game continues. There's no "sudden death" or "one possession each" at all. You simply play another quarter. At the end of the "5th Q" if it's still tied, then you get to kiss your sister.

[Slogger]

I like that idea, But with the playoff's you would have to go the basketball route and play continuous OT.

Right?

Edited January 28, 2009 by Superbowl Slogger

[JStarr]

I like that idea, But with the playoff's you would have to go the basketball route and play continuous OT.

Right?

Since the NFL's never been in the business of doing WWF-style "double countouts" and giving people extra byes, then yes.

[HailtotheYo]

ok, obviously in the playoffs you'll just extend to however many periods it takes for one team to suck enough to actually lose the game ...

[Slogger]

I can't tell if your being serious or taking the piss.

[METALMAN]

Penalty shootout.

[HailtotheYo]

I can't tell if your being serious or taking the piss.

a little of both ..... the "suck enough" about the teams was taking the piss. The extending the periods until there's a winner was serious

[Slogger]

I was talking to Starr, But your answer works too.

[naiwf]

I'd favor a "5th Quarter" as well. It would make for some tough decisions as I'm sure linemen on both sides of the ball would be closed to gassed that late in a game, and it takes away from the special teams basically handing a team a victory with a huge kick return/penalty on the kicking team right after they blow the opening whistle.

The reason I don't like the rule as it stands is that the end of game situation is the only time in the course of an NFL game that a team can basically get two possessions in a row without knowing that it will happen in advance. For instance if the Cardinals win the toss and defer to the second half, they can get the ball last in the first half and get the second half kick, but their opponents KNOW that and can plan accordingly to some extent. At the end of a game, a guy like Warner can drive 70 yards for a tying FG attempt, then they can win the coin toss, go 20 yards after a nice run back and kick the game winner while the opposing offense looks on like a bunch of high paid spectators for the last 15 minutes (real time) of the game. The fact is that defenses need more time to recover than offenses and it almost always works out that the team that has to play defense twice in a row with no safety net will crack. It's even worse if the offense goes to the no huddle and you can't make substitutions.

[Lowerdeck]

Keep the current system of 15 minutes, and letting someone score. However, just let the other team after the score have an attempt to answer. If they can't, game over. If they do, the clock still goes on.

[-A-]

Like HORSE.

Actually, that would be a good idea. One team says 'We can score from our own 15' and if they succeed the other team has to match it. Then they say 'We can score from the 15 going no huddle the entire way' and if they succeed, likewise. Eventually they'd by playing with 7 people each, no running backs and the offensive co-ordinator has to be bound and gagged and buried under the 50 yard line.

[sahyder1]

Like HORSE.

Actually, that would be a good idea. One team says 'We can score from our own 15' and if they succeed the other team has to match it. Then they say 'We can score from the 15 going no huddle the entire way' and if they succeed, likewise. Eventually they'd by playing with 7 people each, no running backs and the offensive co-ordinator has to be bound and gagged and buried under the 50 yard line.

There will be a NFL team playing in Havana before you see this idea implemented. NFL will never do anything gimmicky with the game.

[-A-]

Pah, their loss. Clearly.

[sahyder1]

As the final couple of minutes were playing out I was thinking that if this game went into Overtime and a team won the first possession of overtime we'd be guaranteed a rule change this off season....fair or not. Goodell the other day brought up the issue in his State of the League address and the NFL seems serious about a possible rule change this off season. One of the ideas floating around is that on the first possession of overtime you would not be allowed to attempt a FG. The game would still end though if a team scored a touchdown on that first drive.