Twitter: NFL Overtime Rule Changed for Playoffs

Hoofbite said:

that was my point. What makes week 17 any less important than a playoff game? “Win and in” is pretty common.

Click to expand...

Just wait - an NFL team will lose out on getting a division title or wildcard spot because of a game that went to overtime ....but because they lost the coin toss, they don't get the opportunity to possess the ball and win the game after the opponent scores a TD on the opening OT drive.

Make the overtime rules the same for regular season and playoff games.

Motorola said:

That's why the the original Overtime rules for the NFL aka "Sudden Death" created in 1940 for regular season games, then in 1946 for championship games was Ideal.

The college " overtime" structure is pure mindless, foolish BS.
The "periods" are in actually just possessions - reminiscent of how high school playoff games at regulations' end were decided back in the past; in Texas, the term was "penetrations".

Start at the opponent's 25 - score TD + FG; THEN - if both teams are tied after THREE "OT periods " now required going for 2-point conversion = 1995 season through 2020 season.
However - after a quarter century of 17-17 ties going to 35 -34, 28-28 ties going to 50-49 ...followed by
games that went 7 and 9 "overtimes" with scores 71-63 and 74-72 = BASKETBALL GAME RESULTS.
One college game in 2017 with a 3:30 pm eastern time start didn’t end until after 8pm .
Starting with the 2021 season-- teams tied after the first overtime must run a 2-Pt conversion play.
If still tied after the 2nd "OT" - the teams now have to do 2-point conversions (as opposed to the previous few seasons when they weren't required to do it until after the 5th "overtime".
Utterly stupid decision making that didn't take into account the scenarios that could- and did- happen that made many a college football game ending a farce.

Click to expand...

They’ve changed the rule in college because it just wouldn’t end
That’s probably some of the owners worry
If you say both teams get the ball in OT and both score you still end up with one team having the ball more
They need something that’s fair and not real time consuming
But even under new playoff rules one team could have the ball more than the other
Equal times with the ball means more time the game goes on which creates problems for the networks
There isn’t really a fair and quick solution

conner01 said:

They’ve changed the rule in college because it just wouldn’t end
That’s probably some of the owners worry
If you say both teams get the ball in OT and both score you still end up with one team having the ball more
They need something that’s fair and not real time consuming
But even under new playoff rules one team could have the ball more than the other
Equal times with the ball means more time the game goes on which creates problems for the networks
There isn’t really a fair and quick solution

Click to expand...

Go back to original Overtime rules = first team scores wins the game.
11 players each play on offense versus 11 players each play on defense.
Offense chooses plays and performs them to advance the ball to score
Defense selects formations /schemes / stunts - or individual player(s) steps up to make a move to counter the opponent that results in 4th down or turnover.

Motorola said:

Go back to original Overtime rules = first team scores wins the game.
11 players each play on offense versus 11 players each play on defense.
Offense chooses plays and performs them to advance the ball to score
Defense selects formations /schemes / stunts - or individual player(s) steps up to make a move to counter the opponent that results in 4th down or turnover.

Click to expand...

Not sure you want a game ending on a team winning coin flip and driving the ball 40 yards to kick a FG

conner01 said:

Not sure you want a game ending on a team winning coin flip and driving the ball 40 yards to kick a FG

Click to expand...

After several seasons, the league realized the teams getting the first possession were just nickle-and-diming their way down the field...content with gaining 5 - 4 - 3 yards a play, moving the chains at a snail's pace to get into FG range.
I even recall times teams getting inside of the 10 yard line - but refrained from scoring a TD and just opted for the chip shot kick.
Therefore I was on board with the OT change that the if the initial OT possession resulted in a field goal, the other team is granted the ball with a possession for a chance to win the game with a touchdown.
I felt that was a change that worked well.

Motorola said:

After several seasons, the league realized the teams getting the first possession were just nickle-and-diming their way down the field...content with gaining 5 - 4 - 3 yards a play, moving the chains at a snail's pace to get into FG range.
I even recall times teams getting inside of the 10 yard line - but refrained from scoring a TD and just opted for the chip shot kick.
Therefore I was on board with the OT change that the if the initial OT possession resulted in a field goal, the other team is granted the ball with a possession for a chance to win the game with a touchdown.
I felt that was a change that worked well.

Click to expand...

I agree
I’m not sure there is a perfectly fair rule that allows equal possessions without extending the game
Because of the playoffs this is a issue now because one team never got the ball. The argument against any change is all they had to do is keep them out of the end zone which obviously gets you a shot
It was such a high profile game it raised the issue
I’m sure many games over the years one team never got the ball but this was a playoff game

Nav22 said:

Why would any team elect to receive the ball first now?

Stupid change. There’s now a huge advantage to kicking first in OT. All because some crybabies didn’t like seeing Buffalo lose.

Click to expand...

How is it stupid? Seems like a personal opinion rather than an objective take on your part.

WoodysGirl said:

Click to expand...

Arlington Jonesboys Playoffs, Playoffs!...

MajesticRey said:

How is it stupid? Seems like a personal opinion rather than an objective take on your part.

Click to expand...

Because the coin toss STILL provides a huge advantage, only now teams will just kick off rather than receive.

There’s zero advantage to getting the ball first now.

Nav22 said:

Because the coin toss STILL provides a huge advantage, only now teams will just kick off rather than receive.

There’s zero advantage to getting the ball first now.

Click to expand...

That’s still much better than losing the game because of a 50/50 coin flip.

Getting the ball first is not a “disadvantage” unless you royally screw up. But even then, at least you had one offensive possession in OT.

conner01 said:

Fans want games decided by players, not kickers lol
I rather see the cheerleaders wrestle for it than kickers

Click to expand...

Who says we need to use footballs? How about who can kick a ham sandwich the furthest?

MajesticRey said:

That’s still much better than losing the game because of a 50/50 coin flip.

Getting the ball first is not a “disadvantage” unless you royally screw up. But even then, at least you had one offensive possession in OT.

Click to expand...

Of it’s a disadvantage to get the ball first now.

You have no chance at winning the game on your opening possession. With the new rule, you can even LOSE the game after scoring a TD on your opening possession.

Your opponent will get to play defense first THEN know exactly what they need to do to win/tie the game, and can use all 4 downs to accomplish that goal.

Nobody ever “lost the game” because of losing the coin flip.

I don’t like the overtime change. It means a longer overtime, and data shows that means more injuries, which is why the NFL and Players Union always wanted OT to end as fast as possible.

And it still isn’t fair. Now no one will take the ball first. Having the ball second is a huge advantage in OT.
If you have the ball first, you will almost always have only 3 downs to keep a drive going. You will either punt or kick a FG rather than risk not scoring at all. The only time you might consider going on 4th down is if you are at the wrong end of your kicker’s range on 4th and short.

However, the second team with the ball, even if they start on their own 20-25, will have 4 downs all the way down the field. If the first possession resulted in a FG, the second team will go on every 4th down all the way till tying the game. If the first possession ends in a TD, the second team will never kick. They will have an extra down every 10 yards as they try to string first downs together. That is a huge advantage for the team that has the ball second, knowing what they need and knowing they have 4 downs for their entire drive when the team that had the ball first had only 3 downs.

There will never be a perfect system. And what really changes? Say KC scored a TD, but Buffalo DID get a possession and scored a TD to tie. Now KC only needs a FG to win because the game ends on the third possession to score points. Now people are still going to say it wasn’t fair to not give Buffalo a second chance with the ball. Maybe they would have gotten a FG to tie or a TD to win. It never ends.

Nav22 said:

Of it’s a disadvantage to get the ball first now.

You have no chance at winning the game on your opening possession. With the new rule, you can even LOSE the game after scoring a TD on your opening possession.

Your opponent will get to play defense first THEN know exactly what they need to do to win/tie the game, and can use all 4 downs to accomplish that goal.

Nobody ever “lost the game” because of losing the coin flip.

Click to expand...

Uhh, that’s because your defense didn’t hold. But think about it this way:

If you take the first possession and score a TD, then the other team HAS to score a TD to stay in the game. Even if they do score, you get the ball AGAIN with a sudden death drive.

The team that gets the ball first is absolutely in a favorable position to win in OT.

MajesticRey said:

Uhh, that’s because your defense didn’t hold. But think about it this way:

If you take the first possession and score a TD, then the other team HAS to score a TD to stay in the game. Even if they do score, you get the ball AGAIN with a sudden death drive.

The team that gets the ball first is absolutely in a favorable position to win in OT.

Click to expand...

Not true at all.

Let’s take the Chiefs-Bills game for example.

Chiefs get the ball first and score a TD. They kick the PAT to go up 7.

Bills respond and score a TD. Why would they kick a PAT to tie the game, knowing the Chiefs would get the ball back and only need a FG to end the game? They wouldn’t... they’d go for 2 and the win.

Nav22 said:

Not true at all.

Let’s take the Chiefs-Bills game for example.

Chiefs get the ball first and score a TD. They kick the PAT to go up 7.

Bills respond and score a TD. Why would they kick a PAT to tie the game, knowing the Chiefs would get the ball back and only need a FG to end the game? They wouldn’t... they’d go for 2 and the win.

Click to expand...

I could counter you and say that the Chiefs could theoretically go for 2 on their first score instead to set the bar. That makes it impossible to lose on their opponent’s ensuing possession, and then they’d only need a field goal to win.

MajesticRey said:

I could counter you and say that the Chiefs could theoretically go for 2 on their first score instead to set the bar. That makes it impossible to lose on their opponent’s ensuing possession, and then they’d only need a field goal to win.

Click to expand...

That wouldn’t be a sensible strategy at all for the Chiefs.

Failing on the 2 would almost ensure a loss if the Bills score an ensuing TD, and even if the Chiefs convert the 2 the Bills could still tie it.

CowboyStar88 said:

The same people crying that both teams should get a chance to possess the ball in OT are the same people crying about giving out participation trophy's in sports.

Leave the rule alone you had 4 quarters to get it done, you had a chance to hold the other team to a FG in OT instead of letting them score a TD.

Click to expand...

Yup. You want the ball? Stop the other team.

But it's too hard!!!!

Nav22 said:

That wouldn’t be a sensible strategy at all for the Chiefs.

Failing on the 2 would almost ensure a loss if the Bills score an ensuing TD, and even if the Chiefs convert the 2 the Bills could still tie it.

Click to expand...

That same logic applies to the team with the second possession: if they fail their two point attempt, they automatically lose instead of allowing their defense to have a chance at a stop or turnover.

MajesticRey said:

That same logic applies to the team with the second possession: if they fail their two point attempt, they automatically lose instead of allowing their defense to have a chance at a stop or turnover.

Click to expand...

Going for 2, if you’re Buffalo in my scenario, gives you almost a 50/50 chance at winning, right?

What are their odds of winning if they attempt a PAT and then kick off to the Chiefs, with the Chiefs needing only a FG to win? Better or worse than 50/50?