Twitter: NFL Overtime Rule Changed for Playoffs

[CowboysFaninHouston]

That makes no sense at all.

Under the previous rules, the receiving team could ONLY win the game by scoring a TD on their opening possession. This created a natural pros/cons situation for getting the ball first vs kicking off first in OT.

There is no longer ANY advantage to getting the ball first in OT. None. Now every single team will elect to kick off and THAT will be a huge advantage now.

Kansas City knew that a TD wins the game BUT they also knew that if they failed to score, Buffalo has a golden opportunity to win with just a field goal. That’s called a trade-off and THAT was fair.

You know what’s UNFAIR? Getting the ball first (like Buffalo would under the revised rules - KC would surely elect to kick off when winning the coin toss) WITH ZERO UPSIDE FOR GETTING THE BALL FIRST. So the coin toss STILL creates a huge advantage for the winner, with zero downside to kicking first.

actually, under previous one, if the recieving team could score a TD, they would win. however if they scored a field goal and stopped the other team, they still could win by their defense stopping the other team (this would be a similar scenario to the new rule, where each team gets one possession). so there are more than one scenario that would lead to recieving team winning.

with that said, it was a great advantage to recieve than to kick the ball and it was very rare for any team to defer. so given league rule changes to offense, and similar to KC-Bills game last year, KC recieved the ball, they scored a TD and game was over, with Bills never getting a chance to step on the field again. why? because a coin toss decided the outcome.

and you might be correct that there might not be advantage to getting the ball first in overtime, although I somewhat disagree and I will explain in a bit. but at least new scenario reduces (not eliminates) the impact of "coin flip" as a potential luck factor to determine outcome of a game (again, KC-Bills game is a great example). you want players to decide outcome and not a coin. furthermore you want the whole group of players on each team to decided (offense and defense) and not just one side of the ball.

with that said, there is an advantage to recieve in overtime, and if similar to KC-Bills game, KC scores a TD first, then it puts the pressure on Bills to have to score a TD to at least tie the game, else its over. so yes, there is still an advantage to recieving first. We will probably see a good bit of both, deferring and recieving first.

so its your assumption that KC would decide to defer to buffalo. given how the game was played the last half of the 4th quarter, I would rather recieve, score and put the pressure on Bills to match it as opposed to put the pressure on myself. because if they score, then pressure is fully on my offense to score and if they don't I am done. vs. I score and there is less pressure on my defense to make a stop because even if they don't, I still get another chance at the ball, a second chance, in which when/if I score, the game is over (exactly like the old rule). if I don't score, its no different than the previous process, defense has to stop the other team from scoring.

so yes, there is an advantage in recieving, because I may get two chances to score their one. as opposed to one chance to their none.

I think there is fair and unfair in both scenarios. I just think its more fair to give each offense a chance at the ball. where in the first scenario one team may never get the chance and clear and only advantage is to recieve. in this new process, a team can choose to defer or recieve depending on the game and how it has transpired.

so in your opinion,
in new scenario there is zero upside to getting the ball first.
in previous scenario there is zero upside in defering.

why is one better than the other? I just don't get it.

 

[Nav22]

actually, under previous one, if the recieving team could score a TD, they would win. however if they scored a field goal and stopped the other team, they still could win by their defense stopping the other team (this would be a similar scenario to the new rule, where each team gets one possession). so there are more than one scenario that would lead to recieving team winning.

with that said, it was a great advantage to recieve than to kick the ball and it was very rare for any team to defer. so given league rule changes to offense, and similar to KC-Bills game last year, KC recieved the ball, they scored a TD and game was over, with Bills never getting a chance to step on the field again. why? because a coin toss decided the outcome.

and you might be correct that there might not be advantage to getting the ball first in overtime, although I somewhat disagree and I will explain in a bit. but at least new scenario reduces (not eliminates) the impact of "coin flip" as a potential luck factor to determine outcome of a game (again, KC-Bills game is a great example). you want players to decide outcome and not a coin. furthermore you want the whole group of players on each team to decided (offense and defense) and not just one side of the ball.

with that said, there is an advantage to recieve in overtime, and if similar to KC-Bills game, KC scores a TD first, then it puts the pressure on Bills to have to score a TD to at least tie the game, else its over. so yes, there is still an advantage to recieving first. We will probably see a good bit of both, deferring and recieving first.

so its your assumption that KC would decide to defer to buffalo. given how the game was played the last half of the 4th quarter, I would rather recieve, score and put the pressure on Bills to match it as opposed to put the pressure on myself. because if they score, then pressure is fully on my offense to score and if they don't I am done. vs. I score and there is less pressure on my defense to make a stop because even if they don't, I still get another chance at the ball, a second chance, in which when/if I score, the game is over (exactly like the old rule). if I don't score, its no different than the previous process, defense has to stop the other team from scoring.

so yes, there is an advantage in recieving, because I may get two chances to score their one. as opposed to one chance to their none.

I think there is fair and unfair in both scenarios. I just think its more fair to give each offense a chance at the ball. where in the first scenario one team may never get the chance and clear and only advantage is to recieve. in this new process, a team can choose to defer or recieve depending on the game and how it has transpired.

so in your opinion,
in new scenario there is zero upside to getting the ball first.
in previous scenario there is zero upside in defering.

why is one better than the other? I just don't get it.

That’s an odd spin from you to try to justify the lack of any upside for receiving first.

Any coach who would elect to receive first under these new rules should be fired immediately after the game.

“Pressure on the other team” is why you’d still want the ball first if you’re the Chiefs? No. Just no.

When you get the ball first, you have no clue whether a TD or a FG will be enough to win... but the team that kicks off first knows EXACTLY what they’ll need to do, whether it’s to score a TD or a FG, and thus can use all 4 downs to do so.

So why would the Chiefs want the ball first? Their defense gets a free shot at stopping the Bills, because the worst case scenario is they’ll still be able to use all 4 downs to go down the field and match whatever the Bills do (TD/FG).

“Fairness” would entail an advantage for receiving with a potential downside for doing so as well... there’s no longer any advantage.

Your “pressure” argument is silly. It’s overtime in an NFL playoff game, there’s plenty of pressure already. Teams will make choices based on logic and strategy, and there’s now zero advantage strategically to getting the ball first with zero ability to win the game on the opening possession AND zero clue what the opposing team will do with their possession.

 

[Praxit]

..there it is. Dak punches it in for win, with Xtra possession. ...

 

[DonaldM]

McCarthy missed it.

 

[shabazz]

They're slowly changing the rules to how college football OT is played. Pretty soon they'll be spotting the ball on the opposing team's 25 yard to begin possession!! LOL

Donavan McNabb and Najee Harris finally vindicated!

 

[shabazz]

Why not just leave it the way it was?

Instead of pinning your hopes on an overtime coin toss, maybe some teams will be more aggressive in regulation and not play for overtime. The bottom line is there is only so many ways to do this (short of adopting the college overtime format) so somebody is always going to whine and complain when their team loses.

If you don't want the coin toss to determine your fate, maybe, I don't know, get a stop on defense? Is that not part of your team?

the NFL has a long and undistinguished history of fixing what don’t be broken and chit

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

That’s an odd spin from you to try to justify the lack of any upside for receiving first.

Any coach who would elect to receive first under these new rules should be fired immediately after the game.

“Pressure on the other team” is why you’d still want the ball first if you’re the Chiefs? No. Just no.

you would be wrong.

When you get the ball first, you have no clue whether a TD or a FG will be enough to win... but the team that kicks off first knows EXACTLY what they’ll need to do, whether it’s to score a TD or a FG, and thus can use all 4 downs to do so.

but in the old way, you know if you score a TD you win and the other team never gets a chance. in this scenrio if you score a TD you are minimally gauranteed a second possession to end the game with any score.
if you score a field goal and the other team doesn't score a TD, then you get the ball again, a second possession which a field goal would win it....

So why would the Chiefs want the ball first? Their defense gets a free shot at stopping the Bills, because the worst case scenario is they’ll still be able to use all 4 downs to go down the field and match whatever the Bills do (TD/FG).

yes. just like last year. its quite simple and you are getting all twisted.
chiefs get the ball. chiefs go down and score a TD. Bills HAVE to score a TD else game is over. if they score a TD. I am gauranteed another possession, in which case I don't need a TD to win, all I need is a field goal.

“Fairness” would entail an advantage for receiving with a potential downside for doing so as well... there’s no longer any advantage.

fairness woudl entail that both teams get an opportunity to win the game and not just one team. in the old way, the recieving team has ALL the advantage. score a TD and you win.....the other team never gets a chance.

Your “pressure” argument is silly. It’s overtime in an NFL playoff game, there’s plenty of pressure already. Teams will make choices based on logic and strategy, and there’s now zero advantage strategically to getting the ball first with zero ability to win the game on the opening possession AND zero clue what the opposing team will do with their possession.

lack of an upside in recieving first. What's the upside in deferring in this scenario?

If you defer and the other team scores, all the pressure is on your offense. yes, if you have to score to just not to lose, all the pressure is on you, so totally disagree in your opinion. in playoff game against SF, all the pressure was on dallas to score a TD and tie the game just to get a chance in overtime.

so in old scenario you support. if you get the ball first, you know if you score a TD, you win. if you score a field goal you don't know if you win...no different than what you described above. the new scenario is the same. if you score a field goal, you don't know if you win.....its exactly the same in both cases. in the new scenario if you don't score, then there is a chance you lose if the other team scores any points....in the old scenario its exactly the same, you don't score, and any score wins the game.

in new scenario, if you elect to recieve you know you are not going to lose if you score....in fact you have a good chance of winning by scoring first. if your defense stops them, then you win. if your defense doesn't stop them, then you may get a second chance and any score including a field goal will win it. so its to your advantage to recieve and I bet will see it as much as defering if not more.

so again,

in old scenario, total advantage and you recieve..deferring is idiotic
so why isn't that an advantage? you haven't answered this question. why only one team gets a chance and the other has no choice and only depends on the outcome of what the other team does.

 

[Nav22]

you would be wrong.


but in the old way, you know if you score a TD you win and the other team never gets a chance. in this scenrio if you score a TD you are minimally gauranteed a second possession to end the game with any score.
if you score a field goal and the other team doesn't score a TD, then you get the ball again, a second possession which a field goal would win it....




yes. just like last year. its quite simple and you are getting all twisted.
chiefs get the ball. chiefs go down and score a TD. Bills HAVE to score a TD else game is over. if they score a TD. I am gauranteed another possession, in which case I don't need a TD to win, all I need is a field goal.


fairness woudl entail that both teams get an opportunity to win the game and not just one team. in the old way, the recieving team has ALL the advantage. score a TD and you win.....the other team never gets a chance.

lack of an upside in recieving first. What's the upside in deferring in this scenario?

If you defer and the other team scores, all the pressure is on your offense. yes, if you have to score to just not to lose, all the pressure is on you, so totally disagree in your opinion. in playoff game against SF, all the pressure was on dallas to score a TD and tie the game just to get a chance in overtime.

so in old scenario you support. if you get the ball first, you know if you score a TD, you win. if you score a field goal you don't know if you win...no different than what you described above. the new scenario is the same. if you score a field goal, you don't know if you win.....its exactly the same in both cases. in the new scenario if you don't score, then there is a chance you lose if the other team scores any points....in the old scenario its exactly the same, you don't score, and any score wins the game.

in new scenario, if you elect to recieve you know you are not going to lose if you score....in fact you have a good chance of winning by scoring first. if your defense stops them, then you win. if your defense doesn't stop them, then you may get a second chance and any score including a field goal will win it. so its to your advantage to recieve and I bet will see it as much as defering if not more.

so again,

in old scenario, total advantage and you recieve..deferring is idiotic
so why isn't that an advantage? you haven't answered this question. why only one team gets a chance and the other has no choice and only depends on the outcome of what the other team does.

You’re guaranteed NOTHING by getting the ball first. Even if you score a TD.

The team that kicks off first could elect to go for 2 after scoring the matching TD, to avoid the “sudden death” aspect of the other team getting their 2nd possession of OT.

LOL it’s almost comical how terrible this rule is. Zero advantage to getting the ball first.

Is it fair if the Chiefs score a TD, kick the PAT, then the Bills score a TD and go for 2 for the win?

So the Chiefs got the ball first, scored a TD, then never get the ball back and lose? LOLLLLLLLLL

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

You’re guaranteed NOTHING by getting the ball first. Even if you score a TD.

The team that kicks off first could elect to go for 2 after scoring the matching TD, to avoid the “sudden death” aspect of the other team getting their 2nd possession of OT.

LOL it’s almost comical how terrible this rule is. Zero advantage to getting the ball first.

Is it fair if the Chiefs score a TD, kick the PAT, then the Bills score a TD and go for 2 for the win?

So the Chiefs got the ball first, scored a TD, then never get the ball back and lose? LOLLLLLLLLL

your first comment makes zero sense...so if KC gets the ball first, goes for 2. the other team is still guaranteed a possion. and in this case, they have to go for 2......so in this case, clearly the pressure is on them, first having to score a TD, secondly having to make a 2 point conversion.

its not comical, in fact the exact opposite.....if the NFL committee, filled with a bunch of smart NFL people, who do this for a living and have done this for a living thought it should be implemented. so are you saying every NFL team and all the people on the NFL competition committee are stupid and idiots and didn't think this through...and you are smarter than all of them? really. is that what you are saying....because last I read, the rule is in place now.

and yes, its fair for chiefs to score a TD and go for 1 (they have a choice)....and bills score a TD and go for 2. the chiefs had the option to go for 2 first and in yoru scenario they elected not to do it. it brings about strategies the coaches must decide on what to do. obviously there is a risk in going for 2, that is much much much much less in kicking a PAT. so bills going for 2 in your scenario has a higher chance of failing. in fact only 48% of 2 pt attempts are converted. so Bills more probably may fail and lose the game.

so is it fair that I get the ball, score a TD, get 6 points and game is over? and I never get a chance to play in overtime, because a coin decided my fate? where is the fairness in that....

.come on dude....at least put some thought into your responses. it lacks logic. its random. it sounds like you have dug in and all you want to do is win an argument.

sorry you have been absolutely wrong in every aspect of your argument. sorry. you are wrong. I am not the only one who thinks so......, the NFL thinks so....but I know you think you know better than them. right?

 

[KJJ]

The rule should have been corrected years ago

There was really no reason to correct it years ago. They improved it to where both teams got a possession provided the first team with the ball didn’t score a TD. It took one of the all-time great playoff games where one of the teams never saw the ball in OT to change the rule again.

 

[ChuckA1]

There was really no reason to correct it years ago. They improved it to where both teams got a possession provided the first team with the ball didn’t score a TD. It took one of the all-time great playoff games where one of the teams never saw the ball in OT to change the rule again.

If it had been corrected years ago, "one of the all-time great playoff games where one of the teams never saw the ball in OT" wouldn't have occurred. Both teams would have had a chance to score. Certainly you can see this

 

[Nav22]

your first comment makes zero sense...so if KC gets the ball first, goes for 2. the other team is still guaranteed a possion. and in this case, they have to go for 2......so in this case, clearly the pressure is on them, first having to score a TD, secondly having to make a 2 point conversion.

its not comical, in fact the exact opposite.....if the NFL committee, filled with a bunch of smart NFL people, who do this for a living and have done this for a living thought it should be implemented. so are you saying every NFL team and all the people on the NFL competition committee are stupid and idiots and didn't think this through...and you are smarter than all of them? really. is that what you are saying....because last I read, the rule is in place now.

and yes, its fair for chiefs to score a TD and go for 1 (they have a choice)....and bills score a TD and go for 2. the chiefs had the option to go for 2 first and in yoru scenario they elected not to do it. it brings about strategies the coaches must decide on what to do. obviously there is a risk in going for 2, that is much much much much less in kicking a PAT. so bills going for 2 in your scenario has a higher chance of failing. in fact only 48% of 2 pt attempts are converted. so Bills more probably may fail and lose the game.

so is it fair that I get the ball, score a TD, get 6 points and game is over? and I never get a chance to play in overtime, because a coin decided my fate? where is the fairness in that....

.come on dude....at least put some thought into your responses. it lacks logic. its random. it sounds like you have dug in and all you want to do is win an argument.

sorry you have been absolutely wrong in every aspect of your argument. sorry. you are wrong. I am not the only one who thinks so......, the NFL thinks so....but I know you think you know better than them. right?

Bahahahahahahaha

So now KC... after getting the ball first... needs to score a TD AND GO FOR 2 in order to guarantee their theoretical 2nd possession???

This just gets worse and worse.


Then if they FAIL on the 2-point conversion, all the Bills need to do is score a TD and kick a PAT for the win!!!

So it’s STILL unfair, and the Bills STILL have the huge advantage by kicking off first.

I know you’re just hell-bent on not being wrong at this point. There’s literally no advantage to getting the ball first. I’m sorry.

 

[Hoofbite]

So week 17 will have different rules? Week 17 doesn't matter as much, I guess.

Dumbest decision ever. This is micromanaging to the nth degree. I don't care for any sport where the rules suddenly change when people think it "means something". Same with the bogus "let em play" nonsense you hear in the playoffs as DBs mug the hell out of WRs and get away with what would otherwise have been a penalty for any game prior to the postseason.

 

[ChuckA1]

So week 17 will have different rules? Week 17 doesn't matter as much, I guess.

Dumbest decision ever. This is micromanaging to the nth degree. I don't care for any sport where the rules suddenly change when people think it "means something". Same with the bogus "let em play" nonsense you hear in the playoffs as DBs mug the hell out of WRs and get away with what would otherwise have been a penalty for any game prior to the postseason.

I think this only deals with playoff games, not week 17 games.

 

[KJJ]

If it had been corrected years ago, "one of the all-time great playoff games where one of the teams never saw the ball in OT" wouldn't have occurred. Both teams would have had a chance to score. Certainly you can see this

The original OT rule for the playoffs was sudden death, first team to score wins. They ended up changing the rule giving both teams a chance with a possession provided the first team with the ball doesn’t score a TD. That was a fair rule but the KC/Bills back and forth playoff game made the league rethink it. Many rule changes have been made because of playoff games. The incidental contact rule was implemented the following season after Super Bowl XIII involving a controversial PI call on Benny Barnes. The Dez catch against Green Bat in the playoffs ended up changing the catch rule. However this new rule will only apply to the playoffs. Things have to happen in postseason that impact the outcome of a game to force rule changes.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Bahahahahahahaha

So now KC... after getting the ball first... needs to score a TD AND GO FOR 2 in order to guarantee their theoretical 2nd possession???

This just gets worse and worse.


Then if they FAIL on the 2-point conversion, all the Bills need to do is score a TD and kick a PAT for the win!!!

So it’s STILL unfair, and the Bills STILL have the huge advantage by kicking off first.

I know you’re just hell-bent on not being wrong at this point. There’s literally no advantage to getting the ball first. I’m sorry.

OMG. you are all over the place. you can't even follow your own hypotheticals that you made up. I just responded to your ridiculous made up scenarios. now you are saying, why are you responding to my hypotheticals....I am not saying they should or should not for 2...so let me simplify, perhaps even you can follow..

KC has the opportunity to score a TD. if they do they have an opportunity to go for 2 or kick. Bills get the ball, they have an opportunity to score a TD they have an opportunity to go for PAT or 2.

see, simple. its not that hard. see, both get an opportunity. which is fair....you spun yourself crazy with all your hypotheticals.

you need to go back and read your own responses and see if you are able to follow your own lack of logic.

but apprantley many others like the idea too. including many NFL people, NFL analystsa and NFL players, but hey those NFL people are clueless, but you know best!!! that's the funny part.

your use of emoji's seems like you know lost the argument, trying to get out of it, so hey, let me laugh it off and fade away as gracefully as I can. yeah, there is no graceful way out of the mess you made of yourself

quit while you are behind.

 

[Nav22]

OMG. you are all over the place. you can't even follow your own hypotheticals that you made up. I just responded to your ridiculous made up scenarios. now you are saying, why are you responding to my hypotheticals....I am not saying they should or should not for 2...so let me simplify, perhaps even you can follow..

KC has the opportunity to score a TD. if they do they have an opportunity to go for 2 or kick. Bills get the ball, they have an opportunity to score a TD they have an opportunity to go for PAT or 2.

see, simple. its not that hard. see, both get an opportunity. which is fair....you spun yourself crazy with all your hypotheticals.

you need to go back and read your own responses and see if you are able to follow your own lack of logic.

but apprantley many others like the idea too. including many NFL people, NFL analystsa and NFL players, but hey those NFL people are clueless, but you know best!!! that's the funny part.

your use of emoji's seems like you know lost the argument, trying to get out of it, so hey, let me laugh it off and fade away as gracefully as I can. yeah, there is no graceful way out of the mess you made of yourself

quit while you are behind.

Hahahahahaah yeah the NFL NEVER makes silly rule changes that are panned instantly.

Nice try.

YOU brought up the Chiefs make-believe “advantage”, not me.

YOU said their advantage is that they can score a TD and that would GUARANTEE THEM A 2nd POSSESSION IN OT.

YOU said that.

Then you had to change your tune after I shot that down, by bringing up the very real possibility that the Bills would go for 2 if they scored the matching TD.

LOLLLL THEN you had nowhere to go but down.... so you brought up the LAUGHABLE proposition of the Chiefs getting the ball first, scoring a TD.... then going for 2 just to ensure that they can’t lose the game on the Bills 1st possession of OT.

Hilarity. What team would go for 2 in such a scenario, thus all but ensuring a LOSS if they failed on the 2 and the other team scores a TD (and kicks a PAT)????????

And this, remember, was your example of an ADVANTAGE for the team that gets the ball first! BAAAHAHAHAAHAHA

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

You’re guaranteed NOTHING by getting the ball first. Even if you score a TD.

what?

this makes zero sense....so in old scenario, you get the ball first and you score a TD you are not guaranteed anything? WRONG. you are gauranteed a win. you get that. right? just want to make sure.

The team that kicks off first could elect to go for 2 after scoring the matching TD, to avoid the “sudden death” aspect of the other team getting their 2nd possession of OT.

lets follow your scenario......the team that gets the ball first. scores. ok.... goes for 2 and converts...ok....now the other team gets the ball. there is no sudden death until both offenses get a chance to play....
you get that? right?

LOL it’s almost comical how terrible this rule is. Zero advantage to getting the ball first.

so you advocate for a team to have an advantage by getting the ball first, like the old rule. so a flip of the coin is how you like to decide the winner.
ooookkk then.

Is it fair if the Chiefs score a TD, kick the PAT, then the Bills score a TD and go for 2 for the win?

So the Chiefs got the ball first, scored a TD, then never get the ball back and lose? LOLLLLLLLLL

yes, its fair.....its coaches decisions....again, I repeat, the chiefs had a choice to go for 2. their coach made the decision not to do it.

the bills have a decision to go for 2 or kick PAT.....if they go for two, there is a 52% chance they fail.....

a flip of a coin doesn't decide the outcome of the game. the coaches and players do. on the field. as it sould be. not referees' random flip.

you get that right?

but in your opinion, its more fair for a referee to flip a coin, a random team gets the ball, goes down and scores and game over..... that's more fair? to you? please explain how that's fair.

 

[Doomsday101]

what?

this makes zero sense....so in old scenario, you get the ball first and you score a TD you are not guaranteed anything? WRONG. you are gauranteed a win. you get that. right? just want to make sure.


lets follow your scenario......the team that gets the ball first. scores. ok.... goes for 2 and converts...ok....now the other team gets the ball. there is no sudden death until both offenses get a chance to play....
you get that? right?




so you advocate for a team to have an advantage by getting the ball first, like the old rule. so a flip of the coin is how you like to decide the winner.
ooookkk then.

yes, its fair.....its coaches decisions....again, I repeat, the chiefs had a choice to go for 2. their coach made the decision not to do it.

the bills have a decision to go for 2 or kick PAT.....if they go for two, there is a 52% chance they fail.....

a flip of a coin doesn't decide the outcome of the game. the coaches and players do. on the field. as it sould be. not referees' random flip.

you get that right?

but in your opinion, its more fair for a referee to flip a coin, a random team gets the ball, goes down and scores and game over..... that's more fair? to you? please explain how that's fair.

It is fair because defense plays as well, if you go out and stop the opposing team or hold them to 3 points you then get the ball with a chance to tie or win. I'm not saying it is a bad rule change I'm not in favor of it. By the way in OT you bet I want kick off, that way if I give up a TD and then get the ball I have 4 downs to keep the drive alive, if you have the ball 1st and are faced with a 4th and long chances are you punt or if long FG range you try the kick

 

[Nav22]

what?

this makes zero sense....so in old scenario, you get the ball first and you score a TD you are not guaranteed anything? WRONG. you are gauranteed a win. you get that. right? just want to make sure.


lets follow your scenario......the team that gets the ball first. scores. ok.... goes for 2 and converts...ok....now the other team gets the ball. there is no sudden death until both offenses get a chance to play....
you get that? right?




so you advocate for a team to have an advantage by getting the ball first, like the old rule. so a flip of the coin is how you like to decide the winner.
ooookkk then.

yes, its fair.....its coaches decisions....again, I repeat, the chiefs had a choice to go for 2. their coach made the decision not to do it.

the bills have a decision to go for 2 or kick PAT.....if they go for two, there is a 52% chance they fail.....

a flip of a coin doesn't decide the outcome of the game. the coaches and players do. on the field. as it sould be. not referees' random flip.

you get that right?

but in your opinion, its more fair for a referee to flip a coin, a random team gets the ball, goes down and scores and game over..... that's more fair? to you? please explain how that's fair.

I’ll hold your hand one more time to help you through this.

WHY WOULD THE CHIEFS, OR ANY TEAM, WANT TO GO FOR 2 AFTER SCORING A TD ON THEIR OPENING POSSESSION IN OVERTIME?

Do you not see how STUPID of a decision that would be, at that time of the game? Don’t be so dense.

Almost as stupid as any team electing to receive first in OT under the new rules. There is ZERO strategic advantage to wanting the ball first now.

LOLLLL the mere fact that you have the Chiefs needing to SUCCESSFULLY CONVERT A 2-POINT CONVERSION just to ensure their 2nd possession of OT should tell you something about the stupidity of this new rule.