OT rules discussion
- Thread starter Rudy's Curve
- Start date
Yesterday was a good example of why it looks like a good system when it works - you get the stop, you get the enormous reward of only needing a field goal. I still think it should be changed, though. It just seems so easy to tweak it to the point where it feels more fair without horribly extending the games.
Well this is interesting. Would be pretty awesome if the NFL instituted this for OT (they are going to use Spot & Choose instead of kickoffs in the Pro Bowl, in case you can't see the Tweet)
If they were to go to this method, I think they could go back to immediate sudden death. Another bonus.
View: https://twitter.com/NFLFootballOps/status/1488976645809577985
If they were to go to this method, I think they could go back to immediate sudden death. Another bonus.
View: https://twitter.com/NFLFootballOps/status/1488976645809577985
Seems like this is just going to ensure that the same debate happens again in 2 years.
Either change it so both teams force both units to play, or dont bother.
My proposal.
- Flip a coin. Winner chooses ball or kick.
- Each teams get the ball at the 35.
- The first team with the ball can do whatever it wants. Except go for 2 after a TD.
- The second team can do what it wants as long as that means going for the win. So, that may mean FG, TD+1, or TD+2 depending on what team 1 does.
I could see some scenarios....tough defensive battle, weather, i dunno...where you may want to set the mark and let the other try to beat it.
What happens in your proposal if neither team scores on first possession in the playoffs? Can't have ties. Another round of the same rules?
Also, in your proposal, are you saying team 2 won't have the option to kick a tying FG? They have to go for the win? In that case, there are definite benefits to going first.
That's correct. Team, 2 cannot go for a tying play.
It the playoffs, you would do the same thing again, but team order would reverse
i think Monson is right here...
If you have the lead and offensive possession.... you win.
View: https://twitter.com/PFF_Sam/status/1504083534922887175
If you have the lead and offensive possession.... you win.
View: https://twitter.com/PFF_Sam/status/1504083534922887175
Isn’t the Monson proposal basically each team gets a possession? Or is it the truly zany idea that if team 1 doesn’t score and team 2 does, the game isn’t over until team 2 gets another stop?
I think both proposals being voted on are good. I like the Titans one because I like current overtime format but think that scoring a TD alone is just a little too easy once you get playoff teams involved. Up the degree of difficulty for the receiving team a bit and it’s an excellent system for guaranteeing an exciting finish without extending the game to a ridiculous degree.
I think both proposals being voted on are good. I like the Titans one because I like current overtime format but think that scoring a TD alone is just a little too easy once you get playoff teams involved. Up the degree of difficulty for the receiving team a bit and it’s an excellent system for guaranteeing an exciting finish without extending the game to a ridiculous degree.
Last edited:
or the clock runs out with team 2 in the lead. Unless we consider the kickoff team 2 having possession and lead?
I guess I like the Titans’ proposal, or would at least like to see how it would work in practice.
The analytics will say always go for 2. Google says the 2-pt conversion rate is around 49% and roughly 25% of drives end in a touchdown (though that looks to have been trending upward). So if you score a TD on the opening drive and go for 2, you should win about 87% of the time. The team that gives up the opening TD will still have some slim chance at winning, without extending the game by more than one extra possession.
The analytics will say always go for 2. Google says the 2-pt conversion rate is around 49% and roughly 25% of drives end in a touchdown (though that looks to have been trending upward). So if you score a TD on the opening drive and go for 2, you should win about 87% of the time. The team that gives up the opening TD will still have some slim chance at winning, without extending the game by more than one extra possession.
I interpret Monson's proposal is that once a team gains possession with a lead, game is over. Gaining possession would mean a turnover, a missed FG try, or a recovery of a free kick/kickoff. So if Team A scored a TD followed by a 2 point conversion, and Team B scored a TD but missed the conversion attempt, Team B would still kick off. If Team A recovers the expected onsides kick, they win. If Team B recovers, then they get another shot.
Yeah, this is the problem with that proposal. Big advantage to get the ball first. 2nd team prevents first team from scoring or holds them to a FG and then team 2 scores a TD and takes a lead. Team 1 then has a chance to tie or take a lead (excluding time running out). The team that gets the ball first essentially always have an extra chance.
Lead + possession is great if you ignore the league's desire to lessen the number of plays guys are out there when they are fatigued.
Spot & choose would be my choice. Next would be the college system.
I would take a tie over the idiotic college rules. I personally think the current format is fine. Not my problem if teams cannot defend their goal.
I like Colts/Eagles. Each team gets at least one possession, regardless of score. The only thing that changes compared with the current rules is that the 2 teams could trade TDs before it becomes sudden death.
"Innings" (college-style, but real football that starts with a kickoff) is the fairest method and would definitely be my choice for the playoffs. It's impractical to have regular season games that could take forever, so I'd propose that but with the game being over after 10 minutes regardless (and it could end before if A scores + stops or B stops + scores).
Will it seem fair when the Chiefs get a TD, the Bills get a TD, and then Chiefs get a FG without a chance for Buffalo to respond? It’s still the same problem everyone hates, getting the ball first is an advantage.
Except the Bills would at least have a chance to go for two and win it in this scenario. It's still not my favorite, but it's better than not touching the ball.
Agree with this. If you lose a game on the first OT possession, that you means you (a) did not win the game in regulation and (b) gave up an immediate TD drive. That means you really just didn't play that well, and in that scenario, I'm not going to feel bad for you.
Edit: the Chiefs-Bills game is a perfect example. The Bills defense gave up a 64-yard touchdown and then, after the Bills retook the lead, gave up 44 yards in 13 seconds. Then they immediately gave up another TD. Even against an offense as good as the Chiefs, that's a horrific late-game performance.
Last edited:
Yes it will be fair (not perfectly but an improvement over status quo), and, no, it is not the same. Under your scenario, Buffalo had 2 chances to get a stop and failed both times. And they did get a chance on offense. That gives them a much better chance to win than under current rules, even if it isn't perfectly fair.
If KC goes for 2 and converts it is impossible for Buffalo to win the game with just one chance on offense. If you don't link the current system, this is the same thing with a slight decrease in the advantage of going first.
First off, I don’t think there should be a special 2 point conversion rule. Second, I don’t think the advantage to going first is eliminated by my proposal, but it is meaningfully reduced. That’s enough for me.
I wasn't suggesting there should be a special 2 pt rule (or saying that you were). And I don't even mind it the way it is. But the first time a meaningful game is decided by TD/TD/FG, the same arguments will pop up, and they will be just as valid. So maybe the solution is to eliminate the advantage of going first altogether. I like spot and choose, and while I hate the first part of the college system, when it gets to alternating plays from the 2 yard line -- that was surprisingly exciting. I'd be OK with either.
At least with college, it alternates who goes first.
Regardless of what the NFL chooses, they really should get rid of the coin toss for playoffs games. That should be in every one of these proposals. If you are going to give a team advantage, let it be the team that earned it over the course of the season. Seems like an absolute no brainer to me.
Regardless of what the NFL chooses, they really should get rid of the coin toss for playoffs games. That should be in every one of these proposals. If you are going to give a team advantage, let it be the team that earned it over the course of the season. Seems like an absolute no brainer to me.
The Chiefs will lose in OT and Nantz will start the uprising to have the rules changed.
Or at least make it known prior to the start of the game. I am ambivalent about the exact method - home, away, pre game toss, etc. - but if both teams know who won the toss prior to the game going to OT, they can adjust their end of regulation strategy as appropriate, if they do choose.
What does this mean? How do you suggest the possession be determined?
I think having it known before a potential OT makes sense. If you're not going to receive first and you don't think your defense can stop a team in OT then you can go for 2 at the end of regulation.
Sorry, home team gets to choose. They've earned it. Of course when you are talking Super Bowl, things can get a little tricky.
How about the loser of the opening coin toss automatically wins the OT toss? If there is an advantage to winning the opening toss then you even that out by letting the other team choose in OT.
I disagree. First of all, this change only affects the subset of games decided by a first score TD under current rules. Among such games, many will be decided by something other than TD to toe than score to win on the next 2 drives. So there will be fewer controversial games. And the winning team will have had to do more to win than under the current system, and the losing team will have had more opportunity to stop them. Not perfect, but better enough for me. It won’t feel the same when a team loses despite scoring a TD on their only possession.
Having said that - spot and choose is intriguing.
Monson's idea sounds really close to the spirit of the innings idea. I think innings are the best way to go, but the concern about over taxing players is fair.
I think I'd like this: no OT in the regular season, which would put a premium on going for it at the end of regular season games, where a half game back in the standings can be as bad as a loss.
Playoffs: Do the innings where HFA applies or do the Monson idea meaning that you have to not just get the lead, but survive a possession on defense with the lead.
I think I'd like this: no OT in the regular season, which would put a premium on going for it at the end of regular season games, where a half game back in the standings can be as bad as a loss.
Playoffs: Do the innings where HFA applies or do the Monson idea meaning that you have to not just get the lead, but survive a possession on defense with the lead.
Yeah, this is a fair point. Maybe an exception to the rule would be in order: defensive scores to take the lead end the game.
You start OT with a field goal bid off instead of a coin flip. Both teams meet at the 50 yard line with mic'd up refs for a name-that-tune style bid process.
Steelers: "We can make a 45 yarder"
Pats: "We can make a 50 yarder"
Steelers: "We can make a 58 yarder"
Pats: "Make that kick, going that way." (into the wind, most likely)
Winning bidder attempts a regular 11v11 field goal at the distance they bid. If they make it, they win the ball (no points). If not, the other team does. Sudden death from there.
Steelers: "We can make a 45 yarder"
Pats: "We can make a 50 yarder"
Steelers: "We can make a 58 yarder"
Pats: "Make that kick, going that way." (into the wind, most likely)
Winning bidder attempts a regular 11v11 field goal at the distance they bid. If they make it, they win the ball (no points). If not, the other team does. Sudden death from there.
Last edited:
Am I missing something or is the Monson idea a massive disadvantage for the kicking team? It's pretty damn hard to get consecutive stops in today's NFL in a do or die situation, and you have to score in between. It's also a huge advantage for the receiving team to go for two if they score a TD, since worst case they'll still get the ball back.
I don’t like this from multiple perspectives. 1) different regular season rules vs playoffs and 2) what happens if still tied?
#1 kind of already exists though, in that regular season rules allow for a tie and playoffs don't
Why not? Hockey does it with different OT rules for regular season and postseason.
View: https://twitter.com/ArmandoSalguero/status/1508851671270666242
Hockey plays 82 regular season games, it's far different IMO. I'd have been fine if the NFL just cancelled OT in the regular season to be honest.
Also perhaps most importantly, Hockey does not count OT wins and losses the same as they treat regulation.
I don't think the number of games are an issue. It's still different OT rules in the regular season and playoffs IMO. FWIW, I don't see why they even have to change the rules. Just play defense. It's caving to the complainers.