Twitter: NFL Overtime Rule Changed for Playoffs

ghst187

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,515
Reaction score
11,351
OT is far less a problem than the lack of consistency and quality of the officiating in regulation…
 

MajesticRey

Well-Known Member
Messages
963
Reaction score
878
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?

This is an unnecessary debate. The purpose of the change was to eliminate the possibility of the team with the first possession in OT to score a TD and end the game right there. I think it’s a great change; a team like the Bills last year absolutely deserved to have a shot to match it or outright win with a 2-PT conversion.
 

Nav22

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,800
Reaction score
16,945
This is an unnecessary debate. The purpose of the change was to eliminate the possibility of the team with the first possession in OT to score a TD and end the game right there. I think it’s a great change; a team like the Bills last year absolutely deserved to have a shot to match it or outright win with a 2-PT conversion.
Right, as long as you’re okay with the reality that there’s zero benefit to getting the ball first in OT under these new rules.

There used to be pros/cons to kicking/receiving first in OT, but not anymore. That’s why it’s a terrible and lazy change, in my opinion.

The coin flip winner STILL has a huge advantage, because they’ll just choose to kick off first with the benefit of knowing exactly what they’ll need to do to win the game AND with all 4 downs to do so.
 

MajesticRey

Well-Known Member
Messages
963
Reaction score
878
Right, as long as you’re okay with the reality that there’s zero benefit to getting the ball first in OT under these new rules.

There used to be pros/cons to kicking/receiving first in OT, but not anymore. That’s why it’s a terrible and lazy change, in my opinion.

The coin flip winner STILL has a huge advantage, because they’ll just choose to kick off first with the benefit of knowing exactly what they’ll need to do to win the game AND with all 4 downs to do so.

Sure, I agree that the team that wins the coin flip starts off with an advantage. It now falls on both teams to execute.
 

Nav22

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,800
Reaction score
16,945
Sure, I agree that the team that wins the coin flip starts off with an advantage. It now falls on both teams to execute.
“Both offenses”, you mean.

Defense was once considered part of the sport as well.
 

DFWJC

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,330
Reaction score
48,172
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.
Not really...almost the opposite.

Both teams getting the ball in OT...is well, actual football.
Not some bs coin flip winner if both teams are great on offense, but not on D.
 

DFWJC

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,330
Reaction score
48,172
Only including one side of the ball (or one phase of the game) in OT (which can happen in sudden death, has always been moronic.

It's like
  1. Going to OT in basketball....one the team has Wilt Chamberlain but awful long-range scorers, one has Steff Curry....and they decide the game will be decided by a 3-point contest or....
  2. Extra Innings in Baseball....both teams have awful pitching but great hitting. They flip a coin to decide who gets to bat first and if they score a run they win...without the other team getting an at-bat. Its lunacy
 
Top