Overtime Rules

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
The Economist looked at how the overtime rules in football favored the Patriots in the Super Bowl.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/02/overtime-rules-american-football

Now I'd argue that this particular game was likely to lead to one of the highest theoretical differentials between win probabilities depending on who won the coin flip given the nature of Atlanta's offense and defense, and maybe generally the current OT system is fair. Still, there was a lot of discussion of the OT rules and what the ideal OT rule should be in the Celebrating What Is thread, and the topic seems like it deserves a new thread.

In my opinion, OT systems have to balance a few things:
1. Fairness - game shouldn't be overly determined by who wins the coin flip
2. Decisiveness - game shouldn't go on interminably
3. "Football"ness - OT rules shouldn't create a system that changes the nature of the game too much (this I believe is part of what makes penalty kicks a weird decider for the other kind of football)
4. Entertainment - OT systems preferably would keep play exciting

That Economist article, like many OT rule suggestions, suggested that for fairness the NFL implement a modified version of the college rules, which require equal possessions, even as it notes this could affect decisiveness. I believe there is other one major disadvantage of implementing right-of-reply rules for OT, which is that these games often end in more unsatisfying ways from an entertainment point of view than the current rules, Aaron Rodgers Hail Mary attempts aside. Assuming you maintain right of reply throughout, most of the time this mean the game ends in an offensive failure rather than a successful TD/FG. A game ending on a sack or a great defensive stop is one thing, but ending on a 4th-and-3 run that gains 2 yards or a poorly thrown incompletion is generally less fun for the casual viewer than ending on a FG.

So what say people about the NFL OT rules generally? Should they be changed? If so, what to?
 
I'd keep the rules the way they are now with one change. I've always believed that instead of a coin flip, they should use something else to determine who gets the ball first (or chooses to kick). For instance, reward the team that scored the most TDs during the game. If that is a tie, go by most yardage or something else that happened during the game. Maybe the team that led at the half or the team with less turnovers? Just something that happened on the field and not a coin flip.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,020
Oregon
I'd keep the rules the way they are now with one change. I've always that that instead of a coin flip, they should use something else to determine who gets the ball first (or chooses to kick). For instance, reward the team that scored the most TDs during the game. If that is a tie, go by most yardage or something else that happened during the game. Maybe the team that led at the half or the team with less turnovers? Just something that happened on the field and not a coin flip.
Whichever conference wins the Pro Bowl
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
The funny part is that many of the Pro-Bowlers would know exactly who they're playing for - the teams that just beat their own and destroyed their chances of going to the Super Bowl. It might make the Pro Bowl an even greater comedy of errors.
 

Dollar

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2006
11,087
For instance, reward the team that scored the most TDs during the game. If that is a tie, go by most yardage or something else that happened during the game. Maybe the team that led at the half or the team with less turnovers? Just something that happened on the field and not a coin flip.
How about the team that has the ball when the clock hits zero in the fourth quarter gets to choose? Might make for some exciting onside kicks if one team scores the tying touchdown with seconds left.
 
Last edited:

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,020
Oregon
A game ending on a sack or a great defensive stop is one thing, but ending on a 4th-and-3 run that gains 2 yards or a poorly thrown incompletion is generally less fun for the casual viewer than ending on a FG.
I'm not sure about that part ... because the crowd will know that the fourth-down play is decisive and should be into it accordingly.

The more I've thought of it since SB51, the more I've come around to the idea of both teams getting the ball. The only other major team sport that ever had "sudden death" is hockey; but there, both teams likely will have had the puck before someone scores.

I would have liked to see the NE defense "win" the game by stopping the Falcons after the White touchdown. Or, had Atlanta gotten the ball first, stopping them and having Patriots drive for a score ... although at that point, you wonder when/if BB would have gone for a field goal at some stage.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,462
I would favor where you use a modified version of college rules. Both teams get the ball at the 50, instead of opponent's 25, and you are not forced to go for 2 in 3OT. Maybe move back those XPT 5 more yards, too.
 
How about the team that has the ball when the clock hits zero in the fourth quarter? Might make for some exciting onside kicks if one team scores the tying touchdown with seconds left.
Yeah, I like that too because you're using coaching decisions to determine who gets the ball. As long as it relates to the actual four quarters that were just played I'm all for it. Whether its a reward for whoever played "better" (most yards, most TDs, least turnovers, etc) or something that the coaches can try to strategize for, great. It's less random than a coin flip.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
No... you are not guaranteed equal possessions in regulation. Why the sudden need for it in the OT?

I never liked the original OT rules, but the current ones are the closest to what I would like to see.

I always preferred the "first team to 6 points wins" version. It eliminates a single field goal from winning the game, but still penalizes a team for being unable to stop another from getting into the end zone. Defense should still matter.

Also why strip special teams out of the game in OT (college rules)? They are part of building a competent football team. Big kick off returns are fun to watch.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
My favored system which will never happen, is that both teams propose a yard line at which they'll take the ball. Whichever team proposed the worse yard line gets it. (e.g., New England says we'll take it at the 15, Atlanta says they'll take it at the 10, so Atlanta gets the ball, needing to drive 90 yards).

I love safeties.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,020
Oregon
No... you are not guaranteed equal possessions in regulation. Why the sudden need for it in the OT?
Because in OT, you are fundamentally changing the rules of the game. In regulation, both teams get the opportunity for possessions. Sudden-death takes away that provision. It's not about "equal" possessions, it's about maintaining adherence to the fundamentals of gameplay.

And I detest any version of the tricked-out college rules. It's too gimmicky.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
No... you are not guaranteed equal possessions in regulation. Why the sudden need for it in the OT?

I never liked the original OT rules, but the current ones are the closest to what I would like to see.

I always preferred the "first team to 6 points wins" version. It eliminates a single field goal from winning the game, but still penalizes a team for being unable to stop another from getting into the end zone. Defense should still matter.

Also why strip special teams out of the game in OT (college rules)? They are part of building a competent football team. Big kick off returns are fun to watch.
The problem with first to 6 points is that if you kick a field goal and then get a stop, I think you deserve to win the game.

I have zero problem with the current OT rule. The Pats lost to the Jets last year because they couldn't get a stop. Tough patooties.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
No... you are not guaranteed equal possessions in regulation. Why the sudden need for it in the OT?

I never liked the original OT rules, but the current ones are the closest to what I would like to see.

I always preferred the "first team to 6 points wins" version. It eliminates a single field goal from winning the game, but still penalizes a team for being unable to stop another from getting into the end zone. Defense should still matter.

Also why strip special teams out of the game in OT (college rules)? They are part of building a competent football team. Big kick off returns are fun to watch.
I agree with this. Defense, offense and special teams combine to create a football team and overtime should incorporate all three.

There's always going to be some unfairness. If the defense holds the opposing offense to a FG, then that team's offense will now get to drive knowing they can use all 4 downs to get to at least FG range. That's a big advantage.

IDK if it's better or worse than the ability to win the game on a TD (I suspect it's a bit worse), but it's an advantage that the other team won't have. Seems reasonably equitable and haven't yet seen any better idea.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,920
Nashua, NH
I agree with DourDoerr, there are two advantages, and I think they balance each other out fairly well.

First team has the advantage of being able to end the game without the other team touching the ball.

If they fail in that regard, the second team has a big advantage in knowing exactly what they need to do to win or continue the game.

For example:

- If the Patriots had punted or turned the ball over, the Falcons can win the game with only a FG. A luxury the Patriots did not have.
- If the Patriots had kicked a FG, the Falcons get to play with 4 downs instead of 3, all the way into FG range. It just got 33% easier for the Falcons to score than it was for the Patriots.

If you give equal possession regardless of a TD, you eliminate the first team's advantage while leaving the second team's advantage in place. Maybe even making it bigger, because the Falcons would have 4 downs the entire length of the field.

If they went to that system, a coach should be shot for taking the ball first. The advantage for the second team would be enormous.
 

Pandemonium67

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
5,575
Lesterland
I'm fine with the current system, but if I proposed a change it would be to give team B a chance to respond even if team A scores a TD on its first possession. If team B gets a TD to tie the game, the game becomes sudden death.

This gives team B the very real advantage of knowing what it needs. Team A, though, has the advantage of being able to win with a field goal if it's still tied after each has had a possession.

I would be against any format that eliminates special teams, the way college does.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,670
So Bill Belichick is on record as supporting playing actual football in the OT. I am really not sure why it's a problem to take his suggestion to put ten minutes on the clock and play. Sure if it ended 7-7 we wouldn't have a resolution when under current rules we would have had the one TD winner, but this would be fairer. If we are tied after 10 maybe switch to sudden death or current rules with the opposite team getting the ball first.

I pointed out that in the other thread that the last couple of teams to go to double OT in the playoffs won the following week (including the 2012 Ravens in Foxboro) so I'll dispute the assertion that the players are delicate flowers who will fall apart from extra football.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,283
AZ
My favored system which will never happen, is that both teams propose a yard line at which they'll take the ball. Whichever team proposed the worse yard line gets it. (e.g., New England says we'll take it at the 15, Atlanta says they'll take it at the 10, so Atlanta gets the ball, needing to drive 90 yards).

I love safeties.
I like a variation on this -- one team gets to propose the yardline at which the first team to have the ball will start. The other team can either take the ball there, or make the proposing team take it there.

Coin flip called by visitors. Team that wins the flip gets to decide whether it will propose the starting yard line or whether the other team must do so.

I also think another interesting proposal is simply to play an extra ten minutes but not to start with a kickoff. The game just continues from wherever it was in the fourth quarter if tied.
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
3,434
I think for regular season, just stick with what we have now. For playoffs, play a whole overtime quarter, and if it's still tied, go to sudden death.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
The problem with first to 6 points is that if you kick a field goal and then get a stop, I think you deserve to win the game.

I have zero problem with the current OT rule. The Pats lost to the Jets last year because they couldn't get a stop. Tough patooties.
I'm surprised this is even a conversation. The old rules were not fair and sucked. If your defense can't stop a 75+ yard drive (or less if your special teams blows it), then you don't deserve to win. I love the current iteration of it and that's not just because the Patriots won. The current rule adds a bunch of scenarios to the end of the game and all are legitimate football decisions.

I really don't like the college rules. It's much too much of a "shoot out" in hockey to me.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
Existing rules. We just played an entire game. There was your fair chance. Now don't give up a touchdown or you lose. There should be no overtime rule that has the teams in regulation doing anything but trying to win.

The cfl uses to just play another quarter. Maybe in the playoffs they could do that.

I get that in extra time with Tom Brady and you get the ball it seems over, but in baseball if it is an extra inning game and you have Mo Rivera, you have a big advantage.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,893
Alexandria, VA
So Bill Belichick is on record as supporting playing actual football in the OT. I am really not sure why it's a problem to take his suggestion to put ten minutes on the clock and play.
In Bill we trust. Play more of the same game, don't suddenly shift the rules in OT--that means don't "send the kickers to the showers", don't eliminate special teams, don't make it offense-only shootouts, and don't let a coin flip potentially determine who plays O and who plays D (only) for this OT. Put more time on the clock and play football.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
My favored system which will never happen, is that both teams propose a yard line at which they'll take the ball. Whichever team proposed the worse yard line gets it. (e.g., New England says we'll take it at the 15, Atlanta says they'll take it at the 10, so Atlanta gets the ball, needing to drive 90 yards).

I love safeties.
Ah, the old "Name That Tune" model. You have to let. New England come back with the 5, though. Or, we could make it number of plays..."I can score a touchdown in 8 plays. I can score a touchdown in 7 plays. I can score a touchdown in 6 plays. Score that touchdown, New England."
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
I mentioned it above but it bears repeating: the Pats lost to the Jets in the Meadowlands late in the 2015 season because they couldn't get a stop in OT (and I believe the Pats CHOSE to kick off). That loss contributed to losing home field, which in turn contributed to not winning the Super Bowl. The current rules have led BB - the GOAT - to chose to kick off MULTIPLE TIMES in overtimes (the other was the Denver game where they muffed the punt at the end of OT and the Pats won). If the rules don't lead to automatically taking the ball by the best coach ever, then why do they need changing?
 

steeplechase3k

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
2,979
Portland, OR
I'm sure there is some reason that this is a bad idea that I'm not thinking of, but I'd like to see a short OT period of ~6-7 minutes. The entire period is played without any strange rules or changes, it's just shorter.

If the first team thinks they can sustain a long slow drive and take up almost all that time and kick a FG with under minute left then they can, but if the second team has a chance to sprint down the field and win with a TD. Alternatively the first team to get the ball could go into hurry up and try to score and leave lots of time left hoping they'd get the ball a second time.

This might also lead to more times where a defense lets a player score on purpose. If a team got a quick FG and the other team was driving they could let them score so the first team would have a longer 2nd possession.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
Amend the current rule like this:

If team A scores a TD it can go for one or two extra points.

If team A doesn't score an extra point, it kicks off to team B which gets one drive to score a TD and an extra point wins the game for team B.

If team A scores one extra point, it kicks off to team B which gets one drive to score a TD, but then must go for two to win. If it fails the two-point try, Team A wins.

If Team A scores and successfully goes for two extra points, team A wins and team B does not get a chance to answer.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,878
San Andreas Fault
Amend the current rule like this:

If team A scores a TD it can go for one or two extra points.

If team A doesn't score an extra point, it kicks off to team B which gets one drive to score a TD and an extra point wins the game for team B.

If team A scores one extra point, it kicks off to team B which gets one drive to score a TD, but then must go for two to win. If it fails the two-point try, Team A wins.

If Team A scores and successfully goes for two extra points, team A wins and team B does not get a chance to answer.
Nobody would remember all of that. Next.

Really, the average fan, even if he doesn't know the overtime rule, needs to be able to remember what it is after it has been explained by the head ref at the start of OT. Most fans would either not be paying close enough attention, or would forget.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
It's actually simpler than it looks. 99 percent of the time the team that scores a TD first, will kick a 1-point XP. Then, the other team gets the ball and if it scores too, it has to go for two to win. It can't kick an XP for a tie.

Edit: the simplest way to explain it is: in OT, no ties.

If 1st team scores a FG, 2nd team must score a TD to win.

If 1st team scores a TD+0, 2nd team needs a TD+1.

If 1st team scores a TD+1, 2nd team needs a TD+2.

If 1st team scores a TD+2, game over.
 
Last edited:

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,893
Alexandria, VA
I mentioned it above but it bears repeating: the Pats lost to the Jets in the Meadowlands late in the 2015 season because they couldn't get a stop in OT (and I believe the Pats CHOSE to kick off). That loss contributed to losing home field, which in turn contributed to not winning the Super Bowl. The current rules have led BB - the GOAT - to chose to kick off MULTIPLE TIMES in overtimes (the other was the Denver game where they muffed the punt at the end of OT and the Pats won). If the rules don't lead to automatically taking the ball by the best coach ever, then why do they need changing?
Because it's not good football. BB's decisions speak to the expected win percentage of kicking vs. receiving, nothing more.

Flipping a coin to determine the winner in OT would be unbiased and give even odds of winning to both teams. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
Because it's not good football. BB's decisions speak to the expected win percentage of kicking vs. receiving, nothing more.

Flipping a coin to determine the winner in OT would be unbiased and give even odds of winning to both teams. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
If there is a higher expected winning percentage when kicking off, then why is the coin toss a problem? The point is that it can be debatable which option is better which means that winning the toss isn't crazy important
 
Last edited:

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,893
Alexandria, VA
If there is a higher expected winning percentage when kicking off, then why is the coin toss a problem?
Because people want to watch players play football, not see random coin flips? There's a reason the NFL has huge ratings on Sunday and not craps. Something being 50/50 at determining a winner doesn't make it good for football.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
How is it not football? Does anyone have the stats on what % of OT games end on the first drive under the new format?
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,632
Springfield, VA
The only thing I'd change is to drop the coin flip and have it known in advance who would be kicking off in OT. That way we get to see a little different end-of-regulation strategy from teams that know they'd be kicking off in OT vs. receiving.

You could just say that whoever won the opening coin flip would automatically kickoff, or whatever, but add a little bit of strategy instead of another totally random outcome.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
I think you misread my post (not the last one, the one before-- #39) and we're talking past each other now.
I guess so. My point was that if it doesn't matter whether you start on offense or defense in terms of how that affects your chances at winning, then I don't see why a coinflip is a problem.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,893
Alexandria, VA
I guess so. My point was that if it doesn't matter whether you start on offense or defense in terms of how that affects your chances at winning, then I don't see why a coinflip is a problem.
And my response was that if you just straight up flipped a coin (or rolled dice or whatever) to see who wins the game, it'd be even odds. But obviously terrible football. There's more to a good system than offering an even chance at winning to either side.
 

the1andonly3003

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,371
Chicago
I like a variation on this -- one team gets to propose the yardline at which the first team to have the ball will start. The other team can either take the ball there, or make the proposing team take it there.

Coin flip called by visitors. Team that wins the flip gets to decide whether it will propose the starting yard line or whether the other team must do so.

I also think another interesting proposal is simply to play an extra ten minutes but not to start with a kickoff. The game just continues from wherever it was in the fourth quarter if tied.
yeah, this is like time bidding in Armageddon chess to determine a championship
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
And my response was that if you just straight up flipped a coin (or rolled dice or whatever) to see who wins the game, it'd be even odds. But obviously terrible football. There's more to a good system than offering an even chance at winning to either side.
Got it, fair enough. But it does incorporate special teams and one of offense or defense, and in many cases - not sure the % - all 3 phases
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
And my response was that if you just straight up flipped a coin (or rolled dice or whatever) to see who wins the game, it'd be even odds. But obviously terrible football. There's more to a good system than offering an even chance at winning to either side.
Your comment made me realize that in setting out my criteria for a good OT system above I should have separated fairness into "close to 50-50 odds" and "non-arbitrary favoritism". A coin flip to determine the winner gives an even, but arbitrary chance.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
(I hate when people only skim the thread and then make strong statements, like I'm about to do, but I hate even more threads like this.)

First possession in OT should be determined by a game of speed (we need this to be over ASAP!) chess between the two special teams captains. The winner decides what sport the two teams play to decide the winner.

Or, maybe, just maybe - and I know this sounds crazy - they just keep playing football?

Seriously, people: bidding for field position, alternating possessions starting at the 25-yard lines, etc., etc.?

Regular season OT: nothing - it's a tie.

Playoffs OT: play another quarter.