OT rules not good for playoffs

[Xeven]

Flip of coin should not decide champions.

 

[atlantacowboy]

I hate the NFL OT rules. It is absolutely a crime that the Bills basically lost that game on a coin flip.

 

[terra]

Sudden death should mean exactly that. Bluntly speaking if you cannot get it done in 60 minutes you should not expect anything.

Cry me a river. You all whining about this cannot understand that there HAS to be a loser and that is the way it is.

So the Chiefs won the coin flip; it was up to the Bills D to make a stop and they could not.

wah
wah
wah

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Flip of coin should not decide champions.

It doesn't.

Execution does after the flip.

Don't change anything.

Sudden death.

Not you take a turn then you take a turn..... etc

 

[Vtwin]

Defense is part of the package. Hold the coin toss winner to a field goal and the offense gets their chance.

 

[cowboybish]

Flip of coin should not decide champions.

I'm fine with the OT rules the way they are now during the regular season but not in the playoffs. Each team should have a chance to have the ball one time. If the score is tied at that point the team to score next wins regardless of how long the game lasts with no time limit.

 

[Kevinicus]

Defense is part of the package. Hold the coin toss winner to a field goal and the offense gets their chance.

Was it part of the package for the Chiefs?
Is the offense a part of the package as well?

It's a stupid system. Always has been. It's not quite as stupid as pure sudden death, but it's still very stupid.

 

[TheCoolFan]

Give me 7 minutes of a full period in the playoffs. Whoever leads at the end of that 7 minutes is the winner and if it is still tied, then you can do the sudden death format in a second OT (even just a FG on the first possession to win like the old way).

Sure, the defense is supposed to get a stop but what happens if there is a ticky tack pass interference or big missed penalty that sets up the offense with great field position and then they can punch it in? If you really want to ensure that the more deserving team wins, you need to at least offer the potential of both teams getting the ball.

Now strategy can play a role in this too - the first team with possession can try to dink and dunk their way down the field and eat up as much clock as possible but at least you could realistically say that the defense had a chance to stop them.

 

[Vtwin]

Was it part of the package for the Chiefs?
Is the offense a part of the package as well?

It's a stupid system. Always has been. It's not quite as stupid as pure sudden death, but it's still very stupid.

It would have been if the Bills defense could have made a play.

 

[Kevinicus]

It would have been if the Bills defense could have made a play.

Exactly, "if." That's the problem.

Make both teams use both aspects of their team. If the Bills defense has to make a play, make the Chiefs defense have to do the same. If the Chiefs offense gets to make a play, let the Bills do the same.

 

[Flamma]

Under the current OT rules the team that won the coin toss is 86-67-10. That's a 52% chance at winning. And how many of that 52% did they score a TD on the first drive?

 

[nightrain]

If they made a stop or forced a FG they were right in it. Bills had a top D in the NFL, but had no answer all night vs. the Chiefs. Over 500 yards of offense. Yikes!

 

[_sturt_]

 

[Hoofbite]

1 possession guaranteed and then next score wins after each possession might work. Nobody defers in overtime without incredibly ridiculous weather conditions, but they defer all the time to start the game. Doesn't really make sense to have rules that inherently change the significance of the coin toss from one toss to the next.

The idea that 60 minutes of great football can be erased on the kickoff or only drive is kind of lame. I used to feel a bit differently, but there are too many stipulations to OT anymore. Don't have a chance if you give up a TD, but do have a chance if it's a FG. FG can win for one team but not the other depending on when it's kicked. Challenges? I don't even understand how they work in regular season anymore so who knows what the OT rules say. Some guy not on-site can just overrule the judges. Maybe he does, and maybe he doesn't. Take the KISS approach; keep it simple, stupid.

Give each team at least 1 chance to possess the ball. If one team cannot defend on 2 drives; so be it. To that point, I would like all challenges that are not coaching challenges to be erased. I don't care when they occur. The first 28 minutes of a half are just as important as the last 2 minutes. Put the onus on the coaches and move on.

 

[terra]

1 possession guaranteed and then next score wins after each possession might work. Nobody defers in overtime without incredibly ridiculous weather conditions, but they defer all the time to start the game. Doesn't really make sense to have rules that inherently change the significance of the coin toss from one toss to the next.

The idea that 60 minutes of great football can be erased on the kickoff or only drive is kind of lame. I used to feel a bit differently, but there are too many stipulations to OT anymore. Don't have a chance if you give up a TD, but do have a chance if it's a FG. FG can win for one team but not the other depending on when it's kicked. Challenges? I don't even understand how they work in regular season anymore so who knows what the OT rules say. Some guy not on-site can just overrule the judges. Maybe he does, and maybe he doesn't. Take the KISS approach; keep it simple, stupid.

Give each team at least 1 chance to possess the ball. If one team cannot defend on 2 drives; so be it. To that point, I would like all challenges that are not coaching challenges to be erased. I don't care when they occur. The first 28 minutes of a half are just as important as the last 2 minutes. Put the onus on the coaches and move on.

It was simple once when it was true sudden death. That rule lasted how long? Should never have been changed. All this whinning is just that.

 

[EST_1986]

It doesn't.

Execution does after the flip.

Don't change anything.

Sudden death.

Not you take a turn then you take a turn..... etc

The college OT rules with some tweaking to make it harder would have been the perfect ending to that game. Playoff OT should be changed.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Literally nobody said a word about the overtime rules heading into the playoffs.

Now, folks are complaining because of a particularly entertaining game with two QBs playing at a high level that nobody wanted to see end.

The game was not determined on coin flip.

The Bills defense had an opportunity to stop KC from driving the field in 13 second to tie the game and the another chance to stop KC from scoring the winning touchdown.

It’s a team sport.

They shouldn’t be given another shot because it would have been cool to see Allen take another stab at it.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

These rules are way, way better than the old ones where you could win by winning the coin toss and then just kicking a field goal. Still, with the current rules, you'd better be able to play defense in case you lose the coin toss. If your D is good enough to either stop them, get a turnover, or hold them to a field goal, your team can still win.

 

[Hoofbite]

It was simple once when it was true sudden death. That rule lasted how long? Should never have been changed. All this whinning is just that.

It's no less simple now, and wouldn't be any less simply under the set-up I suggested.

Doing something for the sake of having always done it that way isn't a good reason to keep doing it. If there's a better way, who cares how long you've been doing it one way or the other?

The current rules are better than the old, but they could still get better.

 

[jsb357]

I have a solution for playoff overtime rules...