Competition Committee ponders possible postseason overtime change

[Doomsday101]

I don't see anything wrong with OT as it stands. There are 2 sides of the ball offense and defense. They changed it already so that a FG on opening drive could not win the game, giving other team a big advantage knowing they had to come up with at least a FG meaning on 4th down the have to go for it. No matter what rule changed you put in someone (the loser) will feel cheated.

 

[Flamma]

Then implement the one possession for each team. If both score. Then the next score wins. I think that is something all teams and fans can live with.
They had a chance in 15 minutes, so after that. go back to what is proposed, or even the rules as now.
At least both teams had their chance in the 1st OT.

But both teams had their chance in 4 quarters, why is it any different just because you played another? To be totally fair, play 15 minute quarters until someone wins.

 

[jazzcat22]

But both teams had their chance in 4 quarters, why is it any different just because you played another? To be totally fair, play 15 minute quarters until someone wins.

We know that will never happen.

 

[McKDaddy]

Teams know going into the game what will happen if they aren't leading at the end. There are 60 minutes to avoid going into ot.

This is the part so many people seem to overlook. At the end of the day, there needs to be a winner. Whether in regulation or OT. Also, pro football isn't a game that is designed for playing indefinitely (roster size). Moreover, the networks don't want the games to drag on outside their alloted time. Ultimately, they have more say in what the NFL approves than anyone.
At some point, "If only we'd had another chance" just isn't a valid objection.
I'm open to reasonable suggestions as long as they are designed to force a winner in a relatively short period of time.

 

[McKDaddy]

There are 2 sides of the ball offense and defense.

We can't overlook special teams. I wouldn't be opposed to allowing the kicking game to decide it.
Plus, it adds another element of decision making to the game. If your kicker sucks, it makes the coach more likely to take risks in regulation rather than risk OT.

 

[fivetwos]

Like I said. How do you do it while maintaining the integrity of the game? You'd have to play 15 minute quarters until someone wins. The other choice is the college crap that looks like little kids made up. It's an insult to the sport. What cracks me up is people like that horse crap. Might as well have FG kicking competitions to determine the winner in OT. College OT is comedy.

Yeah the college thing is a mess.

Can't find a winner after four quarters? Let's play a completely different game to determine it.

Flawed.

Dunno, maybe a mandatory five minute real time break. The gassed defense is a real thing, but I do see the point of needing a stop to deserve the win.

 

[Motorola]

And what if no one scores

Or - both teams score x number of points each to remain tied at the end of OT?

 

[fivetwos]

make it 10min so its middle ground but then what if its tied again? they cant have games go on forever like weve seen in college or other 19 inning MLB baseball games. has to be a compromise. Yes each should get possession on offense for sure, that's a no brainer.

or first OT, 10min clock same rules as regulation, 2nd OT, first score wins.

Point here is if a TD on first possession should end the game.

Thinking about it, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the game clock not needed in OT in a playoff game?

I guess the difference is changing sides if the wind is a factor, but that's kinda minimal. Don't think we have seen a double OT since KC/Mia long long ago.

There can't be a tie, so....not sure why we even need a clock.

 

[DogFace]

I think it's garbage. When I rethink it, I still see trash. It's a gimmick. I turn the game off when college goes into OT. Some of us rather teams win or lose the same way they played the entire game. Not something invented in someone's backyard.

Wasn’t football was invented in someone’s backyard?

 

[Doomsday101]

Point here is if a TD on first possession should end the game.

Thinking about it, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the game clock not needed in OT in a playoff game?

I guess the difference is changing sides if the wind is a factor, but that's kinda minimal. Don't think we have seen a double OT since KC/Mia long long ago.

There can't be a tie, so....not sure why we even need a clock.

as you said in post season should it go into the clock is used to change direction outside of that the game continues until a winner

 

[Miller]

Here is my question and I think it’s legit…first team scores a TD. Second team then has to score a TD. So obviously they are going for it every 4th down, pulling out all the trick plays etc. Couldn’t you then argue that the first team didn’t have an advantage having to use regular strategy. It sounds dumb..and it is.. but my point is people will whine about anything. I don’t get what’s wrong now. If you don’t want to lose, don’t give up a TD first drive. The only way to do it is have timed periods until someone wins if that doesn’t work.

 

[CouchCoach]

If the post season needs addressing, why not for the entire season? The only OT rule in the post season that can't change is no ties allowed.

If they want to fix it for the fans, send the PK home in OT. No FG's or PAT's.

 

[blueblood70]

Point here is if a TD on first possession should end the game.

Thinking about it, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the game clock not needed in OT in a playoff game?

I guess the difference is changing sides if the wind is a factor, but that's kinda minimal. Don't think we have seen a double OT since KC/Mia long long ago.

There can't be a tie, so....not sure why we even need a clock.

NO a td on first possession shouldn't win the game need both sides to touch it have to add that means a score by the oppositions defense on first drive can't win it either ie pick 6 or scop and score type deal. Both offenses should get a touch..

 

[Flamma]

Dunno, maybe a mandatory five minute real time break. The gassed defense is a real thing, but I do see the point of needing a stop to deserve the win.

I didn't know they didn't already do that. But I'm not paying that close attention. If it's the playoffs, and you're going in to OT, there should probably be a 5-10 minute intermission.

 

[Whirlwin]

Then that is what you call a tie.

What about the playoffs

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Oh gosh, this bs. There's nothing unfair about it. Just because people didn't like the outcome of one game now it's all unfair all of a sudden? Play both sides of the ball and you'll be fine.

What would've happened different in that game do people think? Both offenses were scoring every possession. Both defenses were gassed. Lets say the rule was already in place. The outcome would've been the EXACT SAME THING. Chiefs would've scored, Bills would've scored then too. And the the Chiefs would've scored again!

What a change! Very fair now! Lol