OT rules discussion
- Thread starter Rudy's Curve
- Start date
Exactly. Wait until the first OT playoff game where Team A scores a TD, Team B then scores a TD, then Team A kicks a FG for the win.
If Team B thinks they're defense can't stop them then they can go for 2. It introduces new things for us to argue about as fans.
I'm sure there's analytics people on this and crunching numbers but my gut feeling is take it second. Even the worst case, the team scores a TD and 2 point conversion, you have 4 downs all the way down the field to convert. If they score a TD and an XP, same thing. If they kick a FG or don't score, you're in full control of the outcome.
I'm with you on your second point. On your first point, I think 82 games does matter. If you had the same rules in the regular season and postseason, you'd have double, triple, etc. OT games and there would be more injuries, etc. It wouldn't be good for player safety, and it wouldn't be good for the playoff hockey product. In football it's much easier to get to a winner, so I think the rules can be more consistent.
That's true but if it is unfair under the current rules for one team to be able to win without the other team having a chance to possess the ball, I think it is only marginally less unfair for one team to get two possessions and the other team to only get one.
This whole thing is a solution in search of a problem IMO. Defense is an integral and important part of the game. If you lose the coin toss make a stop.
I’m in favor of playing an entire extra period in the playoffs under fourth quarter timing rules, which ain’t happening because of the risk, if quite minimal if you look at the incidence of OT games generally, of a multi-OT game.
I don’t have a strong opinion on this particular change, though it is true that it won’t totally satisfy the people who think the game should continue so long as the teams keep matching TDs.
I don’t have a strong opinion on this particular change, though it is true that it won’t totally satisfy the people who think the game should continue so long as the teams keep matching TDs.
I think second based upon what @NortheasternPJ says. The big advantage is having that 4th down as needed.
Scenarios (going to ignore 2 pt conversions, safeties, etc):
1. Team A scores TD. Team B now has 4 downs to score a TD and tie it (whereas Team A will likely confine itself to 3 downs).
2. Team A scores FG. Team B can score a FG to tie it or a TD will win the game.
3. Team A doesn't score. Team B can kick a FG to win the game.
Feels like a distinct advantage to be Team B.
Just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. The bottom line is there's no good solution to ending tied football games that will be fair in all circumstances. This proposal is no better than what it replaces and likely will have unintended consequences. But the NFL is good at giving solutions to perceived problems and then moving on to fight another day. Oh? 10 of 12 ended one way? Change the rule! Hooray, it will probably take at least 10 years of data for anyone to tell us the problems with this one.
In the end I really don't care, other than that it is an interest sociology experiment. This kind of obsessive desire to pretend a situation that obviously has no good answer must have a good answer and to act as though the only way to deal with that unsolvable problem is by action.
In the end I really don't care, other than that it is an interest sociology experiment. This kind of obsessive desire to pretend a situation that obviously has no good answer must have a good answer and to act as though the only way to deal with that unsolvable problem is by action.
I think considerably, rather than magically, less unfair. The losing defense had 2 chances to get a stop and failed both times. To me that matters.
This feels like overthinking it to me.
Good points... and if you are right... see below
Then in however many years, we will have data showing that the team that gets the ball second wins ~70% of the time (or whatever it is), and there will be another call to change it again.
I think it's pretty clearly better than the current system. What feels more unfair if you're team 2?
Scenario A: Team 1 receives, scores a TD, game over
Scenario B: Team 1 receives, scores, kicks off. Team 2 gets the ball, ties it, and kicks off. Team 1 kicks a field goal, game over
Losing to a field goal sucks, but Team 2 has a lot less to complain about in scenario B imo.
Scenario A: Team 1 receives, scores a TD, game over
Scenario B: Team 1 receives, scores, kicks off. Team 2 gets the ball, ties it, and kicks off. Team 1 kicks a field goal, game over
Losing to a field goal sucks, but Team 2 has a lot less to complain about in scenario B imo.
Which is why the NFL should get rid of the coin toss for the playoffs. Let the home team choose to get the ball or not.
If any team is going to get an advantage then it should be the team that earned it over the course of a season.
In theory, I agree with this. But with the rules, and officiating, so heavily tilted towards offense now, guaranteeing one possession for each team seems like a reasonable approach to the post season. If after that, one wins on a field goal, too bad. I personally don't think there is an unfairness argument to be made after each team has it's possession. No solution is perfect, but of all the ones I've seen floated, this one seems like the simplest, and best one. Lastly, I have no issue with there being a difference between regular season OT, and playoff OT. The quicker a regular season game ends, the better. Somebody upthread floated doing away with regular season OT entirely, and I probably wouldn't object too much to that either.
I don't have an issue with the current system, but I actually don't have a huge problem with the new proposal either. I just guarantee you that the first time someone loses a game by a FG scored with the 2nd possession the crying about how unfair things are will happen again.
Edit: Clarity
Last edited:
But at least that can be shut down with "you had the opportunity to go for 2 and the win". If offense is so easy, then teams should be comfortable going for that. Or if they're too scared to play D.
I was thinking the same thing, but its comparable to extra innings in baseball. The home team always knows how many runs it needs to score to tie or win. Away team needs to score as many as it can which makes it easier for the home team from a strategy perspective.
There's just a mental element that people that run the NFL lack.
There is a 100% chance that someone ....at some point...will miss out ON a playoff spot because they are screwed by the existing rule.
Nothing will happen.
A few years later something similar will happen.
Nothing will happen.
Then the third time they will decide....hey...you know that common sensical rule we have for the playoffs? Let's do it for the regular season too!
They are just so ...damn...slow....and ...stubborn.
There is a 100% chance that someone ....at some point...will miss out ON a playoff spot because they are screwed by the existing rule.
Nothing will happen.
A few years later something similar will happen.
Nothing will happen.
Then the third time they will decide....hey...you know that common sensical rule we have for the playoffs? Let's do it for the regular season too!
They are just so ...damn...slow....and ...stubborn.
I don’t think that’s what is happening in this case. I think any reticence to adopt for regular season games any OT rules that are more likely extend the game is borne of concerns over player pushback and/or increased injury/fatigue attrition. I think those concerns are way overblown given how infrequently games go into OT, but I don’t think the Competition Committee is acting arbitrarily or stupidly in distinguishing between the playoffs and regular season here.
I mean, heck, they allow ties in the regular season, and it’s explicable for the same reasons.
We'll see.
I would be willing to place a large wager we are back here in 5 or 6 years.
From the sound of it, you can make the argument that they shouldn't bother with a clock if the drive for the second team can continue past the 15 minute mark as long as they maintain possession, and since they go to sudden death after that.
I haven't gamed everything out but I am pretty sure you want the ball first. The advantage is that if the game is tied after the first two possessions you get the ball when it's true sudden death. I think that outweighs the advantage of having 4 downs to work with.
Only 40% of drives in the regular season end with a score and something like 20% are touchdowns; even the best team (Chiefs) only scored on 48% of drives. Probably more at the end of games when defenses are tired, but I think you'll go into the third possession fairly often.
Only 40% of drives in the regular season end with a score and something like 20% are touchdowns; even the best team (Chiefs) only scored on 48% of drives. Probably more at the end of games when defenses are tired, but I think you'll go into the third possession fairly often.
I think you are underestimating the number of teams that will go for 2 after that second “tying” TD. For instance, Bills/Chiefs, why would the Bills not go for two if they tied it in OT, vs giving Chiefs the chance to win it with a FG
Looking at 2 of the last 3 OT games in the playoffs, Patriots v Chiefs 2019 and Chiefs v Bills this past season, anyone watching those 4th quarters knew the defenses were absolutely gassed. Maybe in college these double/triple/4 OT games aren't as dominant for the offenses because the D only has to cover a quarter of the field to start with.
If either of the aforementioned games were under the new rules, it would have been malpractice to not go for 2 to try and end it as the second team to receive the ball.
If either of the aforementioned games were under the new rules, it would have been malpractice to not go for 2 to try and end it as the second team to receive the ball.
That's probably the optimal play but it's still a coinflip or 60% at best to convert on the 2pt conversion. And in the event that the Ds are gassed and can't stop anyone then the first team to score would likely go for 2 as well, which gives them the same advantage. (NFL coaches may make the wrong call here but that could work both ways...).
The only advantage you get from going second is being able to use all four downs, but you still have to match or beat what the other team did, and if you can only match it you're at a huge disadvantage. I guess you know what you need to score to win but if you go first your goal is going to be to get as many points as you can -- I would expect that teams would make some aggressive 4th down calls instead of kicking a FG unless they felt like their defense was very good.
I suppose it's better to minimize the influence of a coin flip, but this is a league built on lucky outcomes.. A random blatantly missed call can be the final determinant factor in who wins a playoff game. A team can lose a playoff tiebreaker and be done for the season because they beat the Packers but not the Browns instead of the other way around.
Trying to maximize "fairness" in OT rules in the context of everything else that happens in a football game or a football season is at once fine but also kind of goofy..
Trying to maximize "fairness" in OT rules in the context of everything else that happens in a football game or a football season is at once fine but also kind of goofy..
Good question about the clock. I would think if 15 minutes runs out and the team that kicked off needs a td to tie, they switch ends but nothing else changes; which is the same rule as it's always been. Either that or the end of 15 minutes supersedes everything and the game is over.
Something that may or may not be true now, given that no NFL game has gone to a 7th quarter; namely, what happens at the end of Q6? Do they just change ends again or is there another kickoff?
Something that may or may not be true now, given that no NFL game has gone to a 7th quarter; namely, what happens at the end of Q6? Do they just change ends again or is there another kickoff?
The new rule accounts for that scenario. Basically, the game keeps going into a second OT period as if it was a new quarter.
‘ARTICLE 5. OVERTIME IN POSTSEASON. The following shall apply to overtime games in the postseason:
(a) If the score is tied at the end of a 15-minute overtime period, or if the second team’s initial
possession has not ended, another overtime period will begin, and play will continue, regardless of
how many 15-minute periods are necessary.
(…)’
Link: https://nflcommunications.com/Documents/2022 Football Information/2022 Club Playing Rule Changes and Resolution Proposals.pdf
‘ARTICLE 5. OVERTIME IN POSTSEASON. The following shall apply to overtime games in the postseason:
(a) If the score is tied at the end of a 15-minute overtime period, or if the second team’s initial
possession has not ended, another overtime period will begin, and play will continue, regardless of
how many 15-minute periods are necessary.
(…)’
Link: https://nflcommunications.com/Documents/2022 Football Information/2022 Club Playing Rule Changes and Resolution Proposals.pdf