Why the new playoff overtime rules are beyond stupid

[Nav22]

It is because as a country, we have become soft. The NFL is no different....

1000%.

Everyone felt SO SORRY for the poor Bills who got their little hearts broken by the Chiefs, that the media/fans cried their eyes out until the NFL changed the rule.

"Everyone gets a possession" is like "everyone gets a trophy."

"Equal" doesn't always mean "fair." They totally botched this rule change.

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

Remember when Jason Garrett won the toss, he kicked off and we loss. LOL.

 

[fivetwos]

Yeah, this changes the entire dynamic. You kickoff now if you win the coin toss. Way better advantage than winning the toss used to be.

That’s gotta depend on circumstance for the most part, no?

What if your defense just gave up a long, game tying drive in regulation? I wouldn’t want to send them right back out there.

I do see the OPs point overall though.

Either way the rules shouldn’t change in the postseason IMO.

 

[Point-of-the-Star]

Imagine working your butt off all year, your club has invested millions, fans invested...

Your team makes the playoffs...

In which both teams resulted in the same amount of points after regulation time.... only for to lose in overtime because you were not allowed to touch the ball.

Call it whining. I call it a blatant psychology trap.

The coin flip had a huge factor in deciding the game. Not the coaches or players.

Just playing devil's advocate here but wouldn't you consider the defense having the opportunity to stop their opponent from scoring an equal opportunity to win. These 2 phases of the game equally oppose each other (in theory). If you (your team) loses in OT then the correct way to look at it is that your defense should have stopped the opposing offense and got the ball for their offense.

Seems that in this offense oriented era that folks forget these equally opposing phases of the game.

 

[Aven8]

Reminder: the NFL stupidly changed the playoff OT rules so that a TD on the 1st possession no longer ends the game.

It was a rash decision after the Bills-Chiefs thriller last year, in which the Bills never touched the ball in OT because KC scored on its opening possession.

WAAAAH, poor Buffalo!!!

The logic went as follows: "But this is more fair! Now both teams are guaranteed a possession!"

Actually, it's LESS fair.

In order for overtime to be as fair as possible, there needs to be pros and cons to 1) getting the ball first, and 2) kicking off first. The coin toss must matter as little as possible.

Let's examine that.

Getting the ball first in OT - Regular season rules:

PRO: A TD wins the game!

CON: If we don't even get a FG, we're in grave danger of losing. If we get a FG, we still might lose.

Kicking off first in OT - Regular season rules:

PRO: A stop puts us in a GREAT spot to win the game! Even if we allow a FG, we've still got a shot!

CON: If we allow a TD here, we lose.

Getting the ball first in OT - New playoff rules:

PRO: *crickets*

CON: If we don't even get a FG, we're in grave danger of losing. If we get a FG, we still might lose. Even if we get a TOUCHDOWN, we still might lose - the opponent would have a shot to match our TD, with the benefit of knowing they need a TD so they'll be in 4-down territory... AND they could/should go for 2 if they DO score a TD, since a 50/50 proposition to win the game right then and there would be better odds to win vs kicking off to us in a sudden death situation where even a FG beats them.

Kicking off first in OT - New playoff rules:

PRO: The sweet benefit of knowing exactly what we need to do once we get the ball, regardless of what the opponent does on their opening possession. We get a stop? GREAT! A FG wins the game! We allow a FG, or even a TD? We STILL get a shot to match that, or even top it to win the game!

CONS: *crickets*

BOTTOM LINE: There is no longer any benefit to getting the ball first in OT in the playoffs. In fact, it would make zero sense for the coin toss winner to want the ball first!

That's NOT a good thing - the goal should be for the coin toss to matter as little as possible, with pros and cons for kicking off AND receiving first. So without any benefit for receiving the ball first, the coin toss winner has a much bigger advantage, and therefore the coin toss matters more than ever - let's kick off and see how our defense does, and no matter what happens on the opening possession, we'll have a shot to win once we get the ball!

Thanks for reading, if you made it this far!

Buffalo isn’t the only team that had this happen. KC had the same thing happen in Mahomes first year starting when Brady did the same thing to him in OT.

 

[Bullflop]

I was not aware but just saw an article saying the rules have changed since that chiefs bills game last postseason.

Now both teams will possess the balls even if the first team scores a touchdown.

What would be the chances of this team having an overtime game, winning the toss, and choosing to receive?

Your guess is as good as mine. Let's allow this thing to play out and see what the results indicate.

 

[jwitten82]

Just playing devil's advocate here but wouldn't you consider the defense having the opportunity to stop their opponent from scoring an equal opportunity to win. These 2 phases of the game equally oppose each other (in theory). If you (your team) loses in OT then the correct way to look at it is that your defense should have stopped the opposing offense and got the ball for their offense.

Seems that in this offense oriented era that folks forget these equally opposing phases of the game.

Exactly, I hate when people use that argument, it's a dumb one. Your defense has every opportunity to stop the opponent from scoring a touchdown. I agree, I hate the new rule change, people just wanted to see the KC-Bills game go on forever I guess, but somebody had to lose eventually.

 

[Denim Chicken]

In order for overtime to be as fair as possible, there needs to be pros and cons to 1) getting the ball first, and 2) kicking off first. The coin toss must matter as little as possible.

If you want the coin toss to matter less then you should like the new rules. Before winning the toss and receiving was an incredible advantage. Now it does not matter as much.

 

[ryanbabs]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but say a team wins the toss and goes on to score a TD. Then the other team goes and also scores a TD. Doesn’t the next score win? That would be advantage to the team that won the toss.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Overtime rule change was needed, but they should alter it even more and go to a college style OT

Boom! College got it right. The pros not so much.

 

[Nav22]

If you want the coin toss to matter less then you should like the new rules. Before winning the toss and receiving was an incredible advantage. Now it does not matter as much.

The coin toss in playoff OT matters MORE now, since there's now zero benefit to getting the ball first.

 

[Nav22]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but say a team wins the toss and goes on to score a TD. Then the other team goes and also scores a TD. Doesn’t the next score win? That would be advantage to the team that won the toss.

If the 2nd team scores a TD, they'd go for 2 and the win... or at least they should.

50/50 shot to win the game right then and there with the 2-point conversion.

Less than 50/50 shot to win if you kick the PAT (which isn't even a 100% lock that you make it), then kick off, when your opponent just needs a FG to beat you.

Zero benefit to getting the ball first.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Both teams get 1 shot at the Stanford lateral play and the most yards accumulated wins

 

[kskboys]

IMO if you can't win a game in the first 60 minutes then don't complain about sudden death in the 10 minutes afterwards.

But hey, the NFL is an entertainment league

That's pretty much what I was going to say!!!!

In football, there's just no way to make OT fair. Nature of the game.

 

[kskboys]

It is because as a country, we have become soft. The NFL is no different....

Soft, apathetic, drug-addled, out of touch, and quite stupid.

 

[AmericasTeam81]

I prefer sudden death overtime. You know, like it used to be.

 

[Flamma]

That’s gotta depend on circumstance for the most part, no?

What if your defense just gave up a long, game tying drive in regulation? I wouldn’t want to send them right back out there.

I do see the OPs point overall though.

Either way the rules shouldn’t change in the postseason IMO.

I admit, you make a valid point. But I think in a case like that you're at a disadvantage.

 

[OmerV]

Reminder: the NFL stupidly changed the playoff OT rules so that a TD on the 1st possession no longer ends the game.

It was a rash decision after the Bills-Chiefs thriller last year, in which the Bills never touched the ball in OT because KC scored on its opening possession.

WAAAAH, poor Buffalo!!!

The logic went as follows: "But this is more fair! Now both teams are guaranteed a possession!"

Actually, it's LESS fair.

In order for overtime to be as fair as possible, there needs to be pros and cons to 1) getting the ball first, and 2) kicking off first. The coin toss must matter as little as possible.

Let's examine that.

Getting the ball first in OT - Regular season rules:

PRO: A TD wins the game!

CON: If we don't even get a FG, we're in grave danger of losing. If we get a FG, we still might lose.

Kicking off first in OT - Regular season rules:

PRO: A stop puts us in a GREAT spot to win the game! Even if we allow a FG, we've still got a shot!

CON: If we allow a TD here, we lose.

Getting the ball first in OT - New playoff rules:

PRO: *crickets*

CON: If we don't even get a FG, we're in grave danger of losing. If we get a FG, we still might lose. Even if we get a TOUCHDOWN, we still might lose - the opponent would have a shot to match our TD, with the benefit of knowing they need a TD so they'll be in 4-down territory... AND they could/should go for 2 if they DO score a TD, since a 50/50 proposition to win the game right then and there would be better odds to win vs kicking off to us in a sudden death situation where even a FG beats them.

Kicking off first in OT - New playoff rules:

PRO: The sweet benefit of knowing exactly what we need to do once we get the ball, regardless of what the opponent does on their opening possession. We get a stop? GREAT! A FG wins the game! We allow a FG, or even a TD? We STILL get a shot to match that, or even top it to win the game!

CONS: *crickets*

BOTTOM LINE: There is no longer any benefit to getting the ball first in OT in the playoffs. In fact, it would make zero sense for the coin toss winner to want the ball first!

That's NOT a good thing - the goal should be for the coin toss to matter as little as possible, with pros and cons for kicking off AND receiving first. So without any benefit for receiving the ball first, the coin toss winner has a much bigger advantage, and therefore the coin toss matters more than ever - let's kick off and see how our defense does, and no matter what happens on the opening possession, we'll have a shot to win once we get the ball!

Thanks for reading, if you made it this far!

This doesn't make sense.

You say to make OT fair there has to be pros and cons to getting the ball first, and to receiving the kick first, and that the coin toss should matter as little as possible.

Then you argue that the regular season rules are more fair, when in fact, under that format there are no pros to kicking, no cons to receiving first, and coin toss makes a massive difference.

UNDER REGULAR SEASON RULES,
* There is no pro to kicking first because it gives the opponent the chance to win without your team ever getting the ball
* There is no con to receiving first because it gives your team the chance to win without ever having to stop the opponent's offense
* In other words, the kicking team can win only if both their offense and defense performs. The receiving team only needs its offense to perform.
* It's like if in extra innings in baseball the visiting team scored and the home team was denied their turn at bat.

UNDER PLAYOFF RULES
* BOTH offense and defense have to perform for BOTH teams in order to win.
* The coin toss doesn't give one team the chance to win without it's defense having to perform
* The team that wins the coin toss still has to weigh the pros and cons of kicking or receiving first just like the winner of the coin toss does at the beginning of every game.
* This format the format that fits your own criteria.

 

[Kingofholland]

I forgot about this rule change. You're definitely right about getting the ball first in many instances not being an advantage.

I suppose maybe if you have a tired defense that just gave up the game tying td it could make sense if you win the coin toss to receive. Or if you're the opposing team and don't want to give your opponent a chance to regroup.

 

[Boysdaboys]

I liked it the way it was.

Team with first possession needs a TD to win. A FG means the other team can tie or win the game.

If your defense can't stop a TD, too bad. You had 60 minutes to get the job done.

Now it has been prolonged because a team couldn't stop the other team from tying the game with 13 seconds left in regulation. In the postseason.

Sudden death should mean something.