I don’t think that’s the actual text. It looks like the “Rules Digest” version. There’s an awful lot of square brackets and ambiguity in there. They never define “Opportunity to possess”. Also, they don’t explain what happens if the first possession ends simultaneously with the first overtime period.
A safety is a valuable offensive technique, especially with a rule like this. A team should be allowed to take a safety and play on.
That’s a good point. If your team has a good defense but a lackluster offense, running out of the endzone may be the best tactic at times.
I’m also interested in the thoughts of a dueling field goal contest. It’ll never happen, but think of the possibilities.
Well, that’s why the “win by 4” rule also has a clock. If a team is up by 3 at the end of a 15 minute OT, they win.
Those times are only when you are ahead, trying to preserve a lead, which you’re not during overtime.
Awww… is the league upset that little peyton didn’t get to handle the ball in overtime?
The argument about needing to change overtime has been around for a long time. Many threads have been done on it. I can’t get too upset that the team winning the coin toss wins 70% of the time. Working backwards, that basically means a team has a 50/50 chance of scoring. If they get the coin toss, they win 50% of the time on the opening drive. If they fail to score, the other team will win half of those games. If they in turn, fail to score, the first team will get another shot. Add it all up and it works out approximately to the 70/30 split.
I’m not against the rule change, but I wasn’t bothered by the way it was done previously, either. I think it was part of the strategy that went into handling the last minutes of a regular game. With the new rule, I think the decision is already made. You play for overtime regardless.
I don’t like sudden death overtime, I don’t like this rule change, and I barely tolerate different rules for playoff games. I agree that if the intent of this rule is to keep a single field goal from winning the game, it would be more elegant to just have a “win by 4” rule instead of a very special case “the first possession ending in a field goal doesn’t win the game but subsequent ones have” rule.
What happens if the first team scores a field goal, and the other team gets their chance and fails? Does that first team win?
I agree, and to my understanding of your question…yes?
What I mean is… the first team to gain possession marches down the field and kicks a field goal.
The second team gets the ball, and is unable to move the ball with their first 3 downs. So now it’s 4th and 10. If they punt it here, the game is over, right? So they go for it. They fail to convert. The game ends right there? Seems like a strange way to end a game.
That’s how I understood it as well, and I do believe that the answer is still yes. I agree…its just somehow…wrong.
Thinking about this, I wonder if the team winning the coin toss is now at a disadvantage.
The defending team doesn’t need to stop them cold, they just need to keep them out of the endzone. The team with the first possession will essentially have 3 downs to make a first down. If they fail, they either kick a field goal or punt. The second team now takes possession and if they are down a field goal, will automatically have 4 downs to gain a first down.
Not that much different than a team behind late in the 4th quarter going for it on 4th down and failing. The only difference is no kneel downs afterward.
While I like the new rule, I agree that “win by 4” is an elegant solution.
Well, the team that wins the toss can elect to defend. So it’s more accurate to question whether the first team to play defense has an advantage.
Instead of “win by 4” how about first to score 4?
What’s the difference, since they’re starting out tied?
I like the win by 4 idea. No edge cases to complicate things.
The difference is that “win by 4” could lead to a field goal battle where the score is considerably more than 4 on each side, but neither is every more than 4 ahead at any given time. That’s fine with me. Of course I’d rather just have extra periods until the game was resolved.
Why not just go to the same Texas shootout rules that CFB uses? Each team gets at least one possession from the same spot on the field (doesn’t have to be the 25, make it the 40) and the better team wins. Simple.
This analysis suggests that the 61% win rate for winners of coin flips will be reduced to about 56% using the rule adopted by the NFL. Not all that great a fix, IMO, in exchange for longer games that possibly overlap with the next game of the day.
I prefer the rule that the Vikings owner (whose team was beaten last playoffs under the old OT rules but voted against the new rule change) proposed:
Keep sudden death rules and place the ball at the 20 at the start of OT (where there’s a 50% chance of each team scoring next). Or similarly, just returning the kickoff position back to the 35 for the opening kickoff of OT, where the return/touchback would bring it out to the 20, on average. Either of these is signifcantly more fair than either the old or new rules, without much impact on OT length/structure of the game.
The “better team” might have much worse special teams. Which are part of football.
And the infinite “Win by 4” field goal battle can be resolved, as I suggested before, by having ANY lead at the end of an OT period end the game. “Sudden death by 4” or lead at the end of a period.
I happen to hate this rule change. The only thing the NFL had to do to get back to a 50/50 split (or, really, something like a 48/48/4% chance of a tie split) is to move the kickoffs back to the 35 yard line. That worked perfectly fine for 30 years. Why go to such a silly, complicated system that is guaranteed to have half your audience confused about the rule? Just move the ball up 5 yards - 5 measly yards - and everything’s nice and even again.