Overtime rules

[dolphins4life]

Lots of talk about changing them after the Chiefs' victory.

We could

1) Give every team one possession regardless of the score, and THEN go to next score wins

2) Give every team one possession until a score is not matched

3) Just play 10 minutes.

What do you think is best?

What other oprions could we do?

[EDGECRUSHER]

I know it's gimmicky, but a version of the College rules would work best. I like the 10 minute idea, but even then if you win thge coin flip and drain 8 minutes with a scoring drive, you still got a massive advantage from guessing heads or tails. Defenses tire faster than offenses so in the 5th quarter, they're shot.

Maybe just start each team at their own 25 and take it from there. You can go for it on 4th down if you want but you turn the ball over if you don't convert.

[Pappy13]

Fun fact. After the Chiefs lost to New England in 2018 in the AFC championship in overtime when they never touched the ball they proposed an overtime rules change and Buffalo would have voted against it if they did vote but they didn't because it was clear there was little support for the idea. The rules are fine. Buffalo had 3 chances to make a stop in the last 3 minutes of regulation and in overtime and couldn't do it. Even if Buffalo would have been given a chance to score a TD and they did, they surely would have given up the game winning score on the next possession. They didn't deserve to win that game.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/chiefs/2022/01/24/chiefs-tried-to-change-ot-rules-beat-bills/6634070001/

[masterfins]

I think the current rules are fine.  They took away the old sudden death where all you had to do was kick a FG and you won, which really was decided by who won the coin flip.

Now if they want to make it goofy, just have a FG contest, ala hockey.  Start at the 25 yard line and have each team kick FG's. Move back 5 yrds after each tie, if both miss stay at that spot until a kicker makes it.  D4L would love this = kicking and you can't blame it on the ref.

[CF DolFan]

The current rules are fine and we all knew wht they were long before that game. You have 60 minutes to win a game and then you either have to stop a team or score on them. Wasn't an issue for most of us until non football fans saw it and started whinning.

[Phishfan]

We've had discussions before about how we don't care for the NFL overtime. I like the shootouts of college football. I would like the NFL to utilize a modified version.

[Spider-Dan]

I have a crazy idea:

Why not just play overtime, which has a time limit, and then when the clock hits 0:00, whoever is winning... wins?
If you're in the regular season, and no one is winning at the end of overtime, it's a tie.
If you're in the playoffs, you play another overtime period until there's a winner at 0:00.

[dolphins4life]

I think the current rules are fine.  They took away the old sudden death where all you had to do was kick a FG and you won, which really was decided by who won the coin flip.

Now if they want to make it goofy, just have a FG contest, ala hockey.  Start at the 25 yard line and have each team kick FG's. Move back 5 yrds after each tie, if both miss stay at that spot until a kicker makes it.  D4L would love this = kicking and you can't blame it on the ref.

That would give too much advantage to whichever team has Justin Tucker

[Downunder Dolphan]

I have a crazy idea:

Why not just play overtime, which has a time limit, and then when the clock hits 0:00, whoever is winning... wins?
If you're in the regular season, and no one is winning at the end of overtime, it's a tie.
If you're in the playoffs, you play another overtime period until there's a winner at 0:00.

I also thought of this idea, and I like it - it would have to be the fairest situation if the NFL really wants to ensure genuine equality in OT. Then again, it may result in games potentially going another couple of hours, and I'm not sure they're too keen for that.

Other than that, each team is guaranteed at least one possession - if the team with the first possession scored a FG, the second can only continue with a FG, or they can win it with a TD. If the first team scored a TD, the second must score a TD to continue on. If both teams are tied after each has had one drive, from then on it's sudden death. So basically what we have now, but with the rules for a team scoring a FG in the first overtime drive also applying to scoring a TD on the first drive.

[CF DolFan]

I have a crazy idea:

Why not just play overtime, which has a time limit, and then when the clock hits 0:00, whoever is winning... wins?
If you're in the regular season, and no one is winning at the end of overtime, it's a tie.
If you're in the playoffs, you play another overtime period until there's a winner at 0:00.

Because these guys have to play next week. It's tough to recover from one game so keep adding quarters and it suddenly becomes a freaking marathon. This game was a perfect example because you don't have to look too hard to see that both defenses were exhausted already so scoring wasn't going to stop. There is a reason that defensive players get paid and that's becuase defense actually matters. Fans complaining about "fairness" are disrepsecting the game by saying defenses don't matter.  Like I said you either score or stop them from scoring.

[ArtieChokePhin]

I think the current rules are fine.  They took away the old sudden death where all you had to do was kick a FG and you won, which really was decided by who won the coin flip.

Now if they want to make it goofy, just have a FG contest, ala hockey.  Start at the 25 yard line and have each team kick FG's. Move back 5 yrds after each tie, if both miss stay at that spot until a kicker makes it.  D4L would love this = kicking and you can't blame it on the ref.

I like the college rules better.   Kansas Tiebreaker style but let's modify it to fit the NFL.   Start at the 30 yard line and play normal rules with each team getting a chance to score.   No PAT's allowed after a TD.  Only two point conversions.  Each team gets one timeout for each OT period and challenges can only be initiated by the booth upstairs.

[Spider-Dan]

Because these guys have to play next week.

Or, phrased differently: you get an entire week to recover!
It's not like you might be playing on Thursday like in the regular season.

In every other sport, teams in the playoffs play however many extra periods are necessary to decide the game, and then immediately have to get ready to play another game in one or two days.

But I will say this: I don't think kicking extra points should be allowed in OT.  It should be 2-point attempts only.

[EDGECRUSHER]

I have a crazy idea:

Why not just play overtime, which has a time limit, and then when the clock hits 0:00, whoever is winning... wins?
If you're in the regular season, and no one is winning at the end of overtime, it's a tie.
If you're in the playoffs, you play another overtime period until there's a winner at 0:00.

Probably the fairest idea. I know that the NFL and all sports love that sudden death drama, but it's not like the first few minutes of OT won't be exciting if it isn't sudden death.

[pondwater]

I have a crazy idea:

Why not just play overtime, which has a time limit, and then when the clock hits 0:00, whoever is winning... wins?
If you're in the regular season, and no one is winning at the end of overtime, it's a tie.
If you're in the playoffs, you play another overtime period until there's a winner at 0:00.

I've thought of this also, but I think it's a game length issue on the NFLs end. Each 15 minute OT would add about 45 minutes to the game. I've read a few times that they don't want games to be longer for whatever reason.

Because these guys have to play next week. It's tough to recover from one game so keep adding quarters and it suddenly becomes a freaking marathon. This game was a perfect example because you don't have to look too hard to see that both defenses were exhausted already so scoring wasn't going to stop. There is a reason that defensive players get paid and that's becuase defense actually matters. Fans complaining about "fairness" are disrepsecting the game by saying defenses don't matter.  Like I said you either score or stop them from scoring.

Then you sub in a 2nd or 3rd string player if your 1st string can't play. I mean it's not really a disadvantage since both teams are facing the same issue. As far as having to play next week and recovery, just go out and beat the other team by the end of the 4th quarter. Otherwise it's your own fault.

[EDGECRUSHER]

I've thought of this also, but I think it's a game length issue on the NFLs end. Each 15 minute OT would add about 45 minutes to the game. I've read a few times that they don't want games to be longer for whatever reason.

Then you sub in a 2nd or 3rd string player if your 1st string can't play. I mean it's not really a disadvantage since both teams are facing the same issue. As far as having to play next week and recovery, just go out and beat the other team by the end of the 4th quarter. Otherwise it's your own fault.

OT in football isn't too common. Probably 1 game every 2-3 weeks and it's exciting so it really isn't a big deal.