They do allow ties in the regular season, but you can’t do that in the playoffs.
I don’t see your point. If you have two teams that are complete opposites, let’s say the Ravens and the Cards on OT, you’re guaranteed to see one team’s strength against the other team’s strength. Whomever prevails wins. It takes away what you say is a league that encourages offense. By today’s rules, it seems the Cards would have the advantage because that can basically score at will. If they went 3 and out, they would punt, hold a lousy Ravens offense and get the ball back to try again. By my rules, the Ravens do their job and hold the Cards, they win. If not and the Cards drive on their defense, they win.
Any idea anybody comes up with can be argued, let’s be honest.
With a rule that each team get at least one possession, the advantage for the team going second is offset by the fact that the winner of the coin toss could opt to kick off knowing they would get a possession. Not perfect but at least each team would get the ball for at least on offensive play. I’d call receiving a kick/punt an offensive play to cover the exception events there: fumble, return for score, on-side kick.
How so?
I don’t think there’s any way to ever make sudden death an equitable overtime solution in football.
If you want something truly equitable, there needs to be something like a shootout in hockey. It could work as follows:
Each team must attempt a field goal from their opponents’ (x) yard line, and each team must attempt a four-down touchdown from that yard line. If the score continues to be tied - if both teams made both attempts, move the line back 10 yards and try again. If the teams equally did not make both attempts, try again from the same line. This continues until one team does better at the same yardage.
This method guarantees equality of opportunity, and does not particularly favor teams with one or another portion of their team better (in contrast to, say, a simple field-goal-kicking contest, which would improperly favor a team with a great kicker but lousy anything else).
Really, the biggest problem with most of the OT systems being proposed is that the OT is not the same game. One of the biggest problems I have with soccer is that ties are settled with shootouts; it’s not the same game. With some sort of guaranteed possession system where the second team consistent gains an advantage for doing something they wouldn’t do in regulation (like knowing their opponent scored, so they will always go on fourth down and never consider punting) you’re playing a fundamentally different game.
This said, I fully agree with storyteller’s post that there is a fundamental unfairness in the coin flip but, sadly, it is more fair than most systems that would have you, more or less, playing the same game (like the college system), and I’m opposed to any sort of rules changes like guaranteed possessions, or a one shot possession because it completely alters the game.
That’s why, if there’s any changes, I’d much prefer it to be based on a time that’s long enough to ensure a reasonable chance that each team gets a possession, but also has to take into consideration things like field position, which is huge in regulation, but worthless in any sort of possession guarantee system.
So, that all said, I’m fine with the 7 1/2 minute system. It may be changed a little bit with the caveat that if it’s still tied at 7 1/2 minutes, they go ahead and play the whole quarter out before calling it a tie. Or, perhaps do the full 15 minutes, but with a “win by two” or “mercy” rule, that would be if you’re ever up by enough that your opponent needs 2 scores to tie or take the lead, then you end it there (ie, 15 minutes or 9 points).
I’ve got a more evil option: If there’s a tie after regulation, the home team loses. Blunt that home-field advantage.
In order to keep it truly even handed, what I think you need is 2 overtime periods, each played to completion. Say 5 or 7.5 minutes per period, each team gets to receive a kickoff, each offense gets time to drive the field, each defense gets time to force a change of possession and let their offense try to score. As Blaster Master wants, it’s pretty much the same gameplay as regular time only less of it.
The biggest problem with this plan is that it necessarily takes more time than a sudden death overtime, but at least that time is somewhat structured, rather than being uncertain.
I was adding your idea to MOIDALIZE’s, but maybe that wasn’t what you had in mind.
The simplest fixes are to move the kickoff position up for the start of OT (the cite you provided stated that there was no significant advantage for the coin toss winner prior to 1994–of course your point about kicker accuracy remains to be addressed) or mandate a starting position for the offense at the beginning of OT. Other than possibly making OT slightly longer, I don’t see any reason why this wouldn’t work.
I don’t think we have the same idea. If the first team gets a TD they win. If the first team get anything less than a TD the other team gets a chance. If the second team outscores the first team (TD vs FG or FG vs nothing), game over. If they tie (FG vs FG, nothing vs. nothng) then the game continues normally and sudden death rules apply. If they score less (nothing vs. FG) they lose.
Agreed (see post #28). A lot of what you would see during regulation now goes out the window in OT. I can see why soccer (and regular season NHL) has shootouts tho, because it could take another 40-60-80 game minutes to decide things. In the postseason, I’d rather see them play 4-on-4 in the NHL, which would also have the benefit of keeping players a bit more rested.
Yeah, my sport rugby league, introduced sudden death OT a few years ago, which mystified many as there’s nothing wrong with drawn games. The usual way of breaking the deadlock is via field goal - except the FG is a fairly uncommon avenue of scoring in normal time (it’s only a point, whilst a try …“touchdown”… and goal is 6 pts)
So overtime almost always consists of a mad scramble of teams trying to kick field goals with little actual game experience of doing so. Terrible stuff.
I don’t watch that many games but it seems, to me anyway, that the punter is just some guy who’s supposed to kick the ball down the field now and then as hard as he can. The “Coffin corners” have been deemphasized because they can’t do it anymore not because it’s a bad thing. If I was a special teams coach, I’d love a punter who could put it inside the five on a consistent basis. Peyton manning and other quarterbacks don’t have a problem, on the run often, hitting their targets so why can’t punters put it inside the five a good number of the time? Or at least give it a good fighting chance without it just sailing into the end zone for a touchback. I’m not talking about doing this from your own 5, of course.
I take back what I said about the “crappiness” of the punters. Obviously they’re under-appreciated but it’s not like they have anything else to do all week but practice a little more precision.
You obviously didn’t see the show Mike Scifres put on against the Colts in San Diego.
I’ve always felt like the punters try to be too precise and the ball winds up bouncing into the end zone. I’m not even looking for the coffin corner, just angle it towards the sideline. Nothing but good things happen when the punt goes towards the sideline. It either goes out and the ball is dead, or the returner has a lot less room to run.
In soccer’s defense, those bastard penalty kick shootouts are reserved for only those games that need a definite winner, i.e. knockout tournaments. As most leagues around the world are simple double round robins, shootouts are a very small presence in the game overall. (Of course, everything was better when ties after 120 minutes were resolved by replaying the game, but with television calling all the shots nowadays, there’s no way to go back)
Oh, and NFL? Offense, defense, and special teams, they are all part of the game. Don’t change the rules of the game just because its OT. Instead of first to one point (sudden death), first to six points! Simple, everyone would understand it in a second, and it actually is football, unlike the NCAA approach.
Listen- in order for a football team to win: Your defense must stop the opposing team from scoring. Your offense must score.
The same is true in overtime. If you want to win in overtime- and you don’t win the coin flip. You must stop the opposing team from scoring.
This argument is not “so played out” as has been implied. It is HOW YOU WIN FOOTBALL GAMES. To go to the game that seems to have started all the hubbub. San Diego ABSOLUTELY HAD TO GET a defensive stop against Peyton on their last offensive drive. A first down and the game was over. SD’s defense stepped up and got the stop!
Stop crying and play some football. Force a turnover, Sack the quarterback, cover the receivers! You need to look at yourself in the mirror when you lose in OT. Not look at the unfairness of the rules.
What is the point of this website if not to come up with simple ways to make the unfair fair?