The Indianapolis Colts will be presenting a proposal to the NFL to change the overtime rule.
The rule change, per the report, would guarantee that each team gets at least one possession in overtime both during the regular season and in the playoffs.
I’m ok with each team getting a possession. That seems more equitable than the current rule.
I’m more ambivalent about playing until there’s a win in the regular season. They’re already playing a 17 game season and some players look thrashed at the end of the season. With that kind of rule, we’re eventually going to see a team play a long overtime Sunday only to have to play a Thursday night game and show up absolutely gassed. Not to mention the risk of injury, which is bad enough with the extended season and expanded playoffs. I’d be more amenable to it if there were no Thursday games and we had not extended the season.
I guess I wouldn’t object to playing until a team wins but I wouldn’t be thrilled with it, either.
I agree with each team getting a possession. I disagree with playing until a team wins – football is a brutal sport.
Maybe they should do what hockey does – reduce the number of players on the field by 1/3 in OT – that should open the game up nicely. Whatever they do, let’s not do soccer-style penalties done by the field goal kickers.
This Wikipedia article notes that ties, while uncommon in the absolute, have become somewhat more common over the past decade, due to the rule changes for overtime (the first team with the ball in OT can no longer win the game simply by kicking a field goal, and OT was reduced to ten minutes). The league is now averaging one tied game per season, whereas a tie was happening roughly once every other season from 1974 (when regular-season OT was instituted) through 2011.
I agree with both teams get a possession, not just for fairness but consistency between regular and playoffs, but really fairness, we don’t want the coin flip to count that much.
As for play till you drop, No I wouldn’t like that, as that really does not represent the playability of the teams and such games can also get too long.
In the absence of any other considerations or costs, I’m sure everybody would agree with this
But there are other considerations. Mainly the injuries and fatigue associated with additional playing time.
Even in college, this is a factor. Overtimes started getting longer, so there have been several changes made. Now, beginning in the 2nd OT period, teams have to go for 2 after TDs. And at the 3rd OT, instead of regular possessions, teams now alternate 2 point conversion plays - essentially 1 play drives.
If teams are going to be forced to play until a win rather than the possibility of a tie at the end of the OT period (even at the reduced 10 minutes they have now), I’d rather go to that sort of system than regular scoring drives.
I think any type of OT is going to be awkward and contrived except simply playing another period, possibly a shortened one. No sudden death, no fancy rules, just go with the score at the end of the extended time. But then you’re still not guaranteed a winner.
I concocted an idea on the spur of the moment just now, so I haven’t thought it through, and yes, it’s probably stupid, but here it is. In the event of a tie, add a half point to the final score of the team that gained the most yardage in regulation time, because they had a more potent offense that day. Or go the other way and add a half point to the team with fewer yards, because they were able to make more efficient use of their offense. Whatever.
But then again, I’m the guy who’d kinda like to see the player in the on-deck circle be allowed to try to steal first base if the batter puts the ball in play and then goes for second.
Is there anything intrinsically wrong with, if the scores are level at the end of normal play in regular season, just you know calling it a draw and sharing the points?
The NFL added overtime in 1974 because there were, in their opinion, too many tie games. This site states that since overtime was added, there have been 26 games that ended in a tie. But 574 games were decided in overtime. If my math is correct, that’s over 12 ties per year.
I’m not for regular season play OT until we have a winner. A tie isn’t great but it beats the alternative of games lasting into 2OT and 3OT or more.
For playoffs and the Super Bowl, absolutely we must have a winner. Play ‘til you drop until one team wins. Like Kellen Winslow after that classic Miami game.
Too often now a simple choice between ‘heads and tails’ can decide overtime before it’s really begun. To have a team not have to worry about defence, and just go out and score a touchdown to win in overtime, compared to a team who have to play defence and hope they can get a chance on offence creates a very unlevel playing field. Many in the NFL have called for a change to the league’s unfair overtime rules, and perhaps the fix lies in three-down football.
The current Canadian Football League overtime rules have been in place since 2010. Both teams are guaranteed a possession that starts on the 35-yard line. Only after both teams have played an equal number of possessions on offence, and a team comes out ahead with more points is a winner decided. There is no game clock, and the game (in the regular season) is settled as a tie if the teams can’t be separated after three possessions each. If a team does score a touchdown in overtime, they must also attempt a two-point conversion, rather than have the option to kick one extra point.
Noted.
But when they made that decision, what was their beef about tied games that made them undesirable?
Of those 600 games with scores level at end of normal time, how often was the team behind towards the end of normal time strategy trying to tie the score and take the game to OT rather than trying for the win in normal time?
I think fans were fed up with ties. In the last season before overtime was introduced, there were 7 tie games. In a 14 game season, that’s one tie every other week.
Tie games also made for convoluted standings as playoff time approached.
Every team tries to win the game first before settling for a tie.
The idea that a TD doesn’t immediately end OT is the exact proposal I suggested to make OT fair (and more interesting IMO), so I heartily agree with the Colts proposal.
Instead of playing overtime periods, why not give each team a 1st and Goal on the 10-yard line? No kicking the extra point after a touchdown. No time outs. Repeat as needed.
According to this, the team that receives the kickoff has a slight advantage (winning 52 percent of the time, while the kicking team wins 42 percent of the time), so while the current system is asymmetrical, it’s not absurdly unfair. The current system has the advantage of ending the game quickly in most cases.