Overtime rule proposal

[racepug]

Whaddya think about this? https://www.yahoo.com/sports/spot-and-c ... 25104.html

[RichardBak]

I dunno. I kinda like how they used to do it in the 1790s NFL---dueling pistols at midfield, losing team buys the barrel of ale, winning team goes home with the tavern wenches. There's a fascinating write-up in Ben Franklin's Ye Olde Foot-Ball Guide, a long-lost publication mentioned on another thread.

[RyanChristiansen]

I see no problem with changing overtime rules so long as its considered to be fair for both teams. I also see no problem with eliminating overtime altogether for regular season games. I say eliminate overtime for regular season games but bring in the rouge scoring play from the CFL and teach players how to drop-kick. That would be hella fun.

[JuggernautJ]

We never had ties on the sandlot because of our rule (which was my suggestion) on how the games were won.
We played to three touchdowns (no Field Goals and the ultra-rare Safety was 1/2 a TD) but you had to win by two scores.

If the teams were unbalanced that could result in a damn quick 3-0 game and we re-picked better teams.
But there were some games that went to 9-9 (or more) and, as twilight "dawned" we decided the next score won... huh... I guess that was "sudden death" after all...

[Throwin_Samoan]

That is interesting.

I never liked the switch to "both teams get possession (except for a touchdown)." I remember hearing that nonsense when the Chargers ended the Dolphins' run at a perfect season in 1984.

You have a defense. You want the ball? Get the ball back by stopping the other team.

[racepug]

That is interesting.

I never liked the switch to "both teams get possession (except for a touchdown)." I remember hearing that nonsense when the Chargers ended the Dolphins' run at a perfect season in 1984.

You have a defense. You want the ball? Get the ball back by stopping the other team.

I never liked that attitude. It always seemed like the attitude of a bully, to me. Personally, I liked it when the N.F.L. changed its overtime rules. I think this proposal by the Ravens would be interesting if implemented, though. (maybe they could try it during a pre-season phase to see how it goes. As they did with "experimenting" with making XPs longer)

[Jay Z]

The rule would have the effect of making the coin flip meaningless. I don't expect a lot of variation in the choices. Everyone has data now. The coin flip is still a benefit, 52.4% or something like that, which is less than the way it was trending before the rule change mandating one possession each after a FG. So the choosing team would pick something inside the 20, and the other team would still take the ball. Good news if you want to deemphasize the coin flip.

[74_75_78_79_]

Not long ago at all, my attitude was that both teams should have possession of the ball at least once. And if the score is tied after each team's initial OT possession (albeit 7-7, 3-3, 6-6, 8-8...), then it goes sudden-death from there! Now a days, I feel it should simply go back to sudden-death from the opening OT whistle instead! "Sudden Death" simply had a ring to it, easy for any spectator - no matter how casual a fan - to understand.

It's not as if the game is decided as soon as someone scores. No. Four full quarters/60 minutes are played (plenty of time to score as much as you can) and if the game is still tied after that, then why not have it 'next' team that scores wins the game? Even if its the first team to get the ball driving into FG-range and kicking the game-winning FG.

BRING BACK Sudden-Death Overtime!!

[Throwin_Samoan]

I never liked that attitude. It always seemed like the attitude of a bully, to me.

How, exactly?

All I ever hear from "football guys" is that it's about "who wants it more" and "we weren't respected, well who's laughing now?" and all that macho swagger b.s.

How, exactly, is saying that if I get the ball first, it's your job to stop me, bullying? (Which, BTW, is the exact point of defense in the first 60 minutes.)

It's football. If football guys are going to insist that no one gets participation trophies and you have to earn everything you get and it should be decided on the field and all the other word-shaped air that football coaches and players have created over the decades...what, exactly, is wrong with saying that no one is going to hand you another chance if you let someone score on you?

Now, considering how field goal percentages have climbed steadily over time (from 63% when regular-season overtime was instituted to 85% in 2018), I totally get the idea that an offense doesn't have to do a whole lot to get into range for a kicker to end it in the first few minutes. So that's the caveat, I get that and it makes sense and the rule addresses that.

I'm just saying that the argument that the other team had to get a possession as well never made sense to me from the standpoint of how much rhetoric coaches and players have spewed over the years about how the game is as much about will as skill.

[racepug]

Okay, let me put it to you another way, then: name another sport where one team or individual is given a possession in overtime and if they score with that possession it's considered perfectly "okay" to NOT then give the other team/individual an opportunity to respond. Heck, even in other levels of football or leagues (such as the CFL) each team is guaranteed at least one chance to score on offense in overtime! In short: I just think it's wrong - indeed, I would even go so far as to say it's cowardly - for a team to gain possession of the ball, go and score, and then NOT give the other team a chance to do the same to them. That's my opinion on the matter and I'm sticking with it.