News: Ravens to propose revolutionary "spot and choose" overtime procedure

[cowboyec]

As many as I can get

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I like it but the good ol' boy would never go for this in the NFL. NEVER. Doesn't shock me the Ravens came up with this. They've always been a proactive organization.

 

[MarcusRock]

So I think this is kind of dumb. Because you can manipulate the game in to your favor based on your strengths or opponents weaknesses.
Exp. Lets say I have a great defense and a slightly less than average offense. Your team has an ave. defense and a average offense. I win the toss and pick the 5 yd line as the "spot". Makes it mush easier for my team to score and also gives my D a condensed field to defend.

But what if your all-world defense was getting lit up the entire game? This is the strategy of the thing. You can play the overall percentages or you can only rely on that one game's data. I like both proposals but most are going to hate it because they're grouchy bastids that hate change or, in the case of the first example, just don't understand it. This is why the going to the ground rule was such a problem for the NFL ... your average football fan just didn't understand it, even after they reworded it to help. Not so sure sock puppet illustrations would have made a difference either. If any proposal flies, it'll be the second one so fans can grunt, "Mmm, game over. Me team have more points, me win!"

 

[aria]

The basis of my comments are about forcing a winner. Playing another period and still having a tie is useless.

Why does the offense or defense deserve any extra opportunities? If they couldn't get it done in regulation, why not just end the game there?

Special teams are just a much of the game as anything else, why not let them decide the outcome? similar to soccer & hockey having subsets of the game for scoring opportunities.

Like others have commented, people resist change but often after change is implemented it is regarded as positive. I simply think we could come up with ways to add importance to every play and decision while ensuring their is a winner.

I never said anything about tying, keep going. I highly doubt it would take more than 2 series for one team to win the game.

That’s fine, do away with OT altogether but if they’re going to have it then I think something similar to college is ideal.

Hockey still involves multiple players, not one. Soccer as well. It may be one on one but it’s not one play with one player, it still makes it somewhat of a team sport. If you insist on having FG kickers determine the outcome than I would prefer something like both FG kickers attempt from the 35, then 40, 45, 50 etc until one of them misses. This moving the ball around and other teams deciding where to kick from is too much. Keep it simple.

There already is importance with every play, it’s to win the game. I want to watch the most simplified version of football I can get without a bunch of string and caveats attached. It’s already bad enough with the officials and rule changes, no need to make it even more complicated.

 

[acr731]

Every team would be looking to sign me as an unrestricted free agent.

They would be hiring you to be the person who has to go out there to do the measurements. I suggest you wear gloves....

 

[J12B]

This is pretty much how it is already, especially if a coin toss is needed to determine who picks first lol

Completely unnecessary change.

Keep OT the way it is.

 

[Cattle_Rancher]

I wish they would just play it as the 5th quarter no kick off or anything we just pick up where we left off in the 4th. It would be just like they do from 1st to second quarter or from 3rd to 4th quarter.

 

[Bigtex67]

They should go with the old XFL "coin toss" method. Ball is 10-15 yards away and one player from each time goes after it at the whistle. Whoever gets the ball gets the choice of whether to start on offense or defense.....at least it would be fun to watch....

 

[JoeKing]

I'm more of a fan of traditional football so I hate it when they go proposing changes. I understand with time, society changes and so the game must adapt to remain popular. I just don't like it.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

Remove FG from inside 50 yards in OT. 40-49 seems so automatic for most kickers today, make teams think about it. Get a big play and get down to the 20 to just run out a FG team to end the game. Playing for a fg would not be an option in OT. That would be the only change needed.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Ravens to propose revolutionary "spot and choose" overtime procedure - ProFootballTalk

The overtime rules are poised for a potential shakeup far more intriguing than a simple reversion to true sudden death. Per multiple sources with knowledge of the situation, the Ravens will be proposing a pair of overtime procedures premised on the concept of "spot and choose."

It works like this: One team picks the spot of the ball to start overtime, and the other team chooses whether to play offense or defense.

If the one team picks, for example, the offense’s own 20 yard line, the opponent would then choose whether to play offense from their own 20 or to play defense, with the other team having the ball on its own 20. This would minimize greatly the impact of the coin toss; under this proposal, the coin toss would be used only to give the team that wins the toss the right to pick the spot of the ball (along with the end zone to be defended) or to choose offense or defense.

Read Full Story

not a fan of this. the advantage goes to the team that chooses the offense or defense.

instead, they can simplify it....each team gets at least one chance at the ball in over time. after each team got a chance, then its sudden death....that way the game is not decided by flip of a coin.

 

[tyke1doe]

I like the current system. Win toss, score touchdown, game over. Win toss, don't score touchdown, other team gets a chance to end the game with a touchdown, safety or field goal.

 

[sunalsorises]

Both teams get the ball on the opponent’s 40 simultaneously. There would be 44 players on the field at once at opposite ends of the field like two games happening at once. First team to score a TD wins. No downs.

 

[BrassCowboy]

ehhh too gimmicky

 

[JD_KaPow]

So I think this is kind of dumb. Because you can manipulate the game in to your favor based on your strengths or opponents weaknesses.
Exp. Lets say I have a great defense and a slightly less than average offense. Your team has an ave. defense and a average offense. I win the toss and pick the 5 yd line as the "spot". Makes it mush easier for my team to score and also gives my D a condensed field to defend.

You mean you pick the opponent's 5 yard line? Great! I take the ball, kick a FG, and the game is over. Thanks!

 

[JD_KaPow]

not a fan of this. the advantage goes to the team that chooses the offense or defense.

instead, they can simplify it....each team gets at least one chance at the ball in over time. after each team got a chance, then its sudden death....that way the game is not decided by flip of a coin.

Never understood this. The game isn't decided by flip of a coin. Defense is half your team, after all. And before the recent changes, the team getting the ball won right around 50% of the time. It was a perfectly fair system, people just didn't like the optics of a team scoring on the first drive and winning, because the other team "didn't get an opportunity." They did get an opportunity: they got an opportunity to stop you and take the ball.

Personally, I think they should just play a 5th quarter (maybe a shortened one) and a tie should be a perfectly acceptable outcome.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Remove FG from inside 50 yards in OT. 40-49 seems so automatic for most kickers today, make teams think about it. Get a big play and get down to the 20 to just run out a FG team to end the game. Playing for a fg would not be an option in OT. That would be the only change needed.

There's a better way to accomplish this. Make FGs harder all the time. There's nothing good about 51-yard FGs being nearly automatic.

Move the goal posts closer together. Make FGs a lot harder, period. Take the success rates back to where they used to be 50 years ago. Make teams go for it on 4th down more often. I cannot see any downside to this. Plus, no OT-specific rule needed.

People say, "don't change the game." But the game changes even if the rules stay the same. The game is radically different today from how it used to be, in part because success rates of FGs are so much higher.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Never understood this. The game isn't decided by flip of a coin. Defense is half your team, after all. And before the recent changes, the team getting the ball won right around 50% of the time. It was a perfectly fair system, people just didn't like the optics of a team scoring on the first drive and winning, because the other team "didn't get an opportunity." They did get an opportunity: they got an opportunity to stop you and take the ball.

Personally, I think they should just play a 5th quarter (maybe a shortened one) and a tie should be a perfectly acceptable outcome.

defense is half the team. offense scores the points (99% of the time), so the team that gets their offense on the field has an advantage. all I am saying is that both offenses should get a chance...and both defenses should get a chance.

 

[JD_KaPow]

defense is half the team. offense scores the points (99% of the time), so the team that gets their offense on the field has an advantage. all I am saying is that both offenses should get a chance...and both defenses should get a chance.

You can say the offense gets an advantage, but how do you reconcile that idea with the near 50-50 outcomes of OT over the years?

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

You can say the offense gets an advantage, but how do you reconcile that idea with the near 50-50 outcomes of OT over the years?

what I want to know is how many ended in sudden death......

not sure if the 50/50 outcome is when both teams got a chance at the offense.....and given its overtime, and teams tied, it tells you its a close game and any one team could have won it.