I am sure this has been brought up before and beat into the ground many times before but I am new to this forum and see no mention of it. I would like to hear ideas for the way overtime should be. Do you like the old rules? Do you like the new rules? If not, how would you change it. I personally believe that overtime in the nfl should be just another 15 minute quarter.
15 minute quarter in playoffs , regulation ties in regular season
I like the new rules better than the old rules, but I’m fine with the suggestion of regular season ties and 15 minute quarters until there’s a winner in playoffs.
I see no reason that a tie is not a valid result in a regular season game.
In the playoffs, I think both teams should have a possession. Following that, sudden death is fine.
Sudden death. Except the team choosing possession starts at their own 5 yard line.
I like it.
I think Football is too exhausting to just play a full fifth quarter, let alone beyond that. Sudden death is also a bad rule. The current rule is better because it ensures both teams get a chance under most circumstances. Honestly I think it should be both teams get at least one possession and then it can go to sudden death (which is pretty close to what we have now but not quite).
ETA: Ties during regular season wouldn’t be the worst thing with the rules above reserved for Playoffs. Yeah I could see that. The league would never do it though because fans would hate it.
Neither do I. And ties do still exist in the NFL, although there’s only been three of them since the new overtime rules (2012 onward). It just seems to me that we Americans don’t like ties. See the NHL, as well, where ties used to be pretty common but moved to various tie-breaking strategies in the past few decades.
The rule is fine as it is today. Special teams are still important, unlike in NCAA overtime rules. But you don’t automatically lose by giving up a field goal.
I’d actually like to see NCAA football apply the NFL overtime rule. NCAA as it is now often results in numerous overtime possessions.
It’s valid, but sudden death is exciting action. The vast majority of fans are disappointed when there’s a tie, only half of them are disappointed after a sudden death victory. But the risk of injury in an extended game should be considered also, and it’s just not a necessity for regular season.
This part I agree with completely, simply changing the field goal rule doesn’t remove the inequity of the system even if it’s better than games won on the first possession with a field goal.
I like today’s rules. Much better than before. But I prefer the NCAA way and would want to see that in the NFL.
I lean towards liking the NCAA OT rules, but would change it to where it was one play per team, back and forth until there is a winner.
I agree that another 15 minute quarter is just too much. As it is, I forget the number, but teams that even just participate in OT, have a statistically significant lower chance of winning the following week. And though I don’t have a big issue with ties, I understand why ties are not wanted, because it just feels unsatisfying. There’s a lot of excitement going into OT, and in many ways, I think it’s less disappointing to see my team lose in overtime (We almost had it!) than to tie (All of that for nothing?). I know that happens in other sports, but it fits that it’s rare in American Football, and it’s usually more of a fluke.
My issue with the old rules is it creates imbalances. If it’s a high scoring game tied up at the last minute, then it puts a lot of value on the coin toss, because the first team to get it is much more likely to win. If it’s a low scoring game, it was more fair, as the first team to get it was less likely to score. With all of the rule changes to favor offense, as higher scoring games tend to be more exciting and draw more fans, it only makes sense to adjust accordingly. From what I can find, the old rules gave the coin toss winner the win 60% of the time.
The college overtime rules have essentially the opposite problem. The team that goes second is given a big advantage. They always know what they have to achieve, so where they might have kicked a field goal of 4th down had they gone first, if the other team scored a touchdown, they go for it on 4th. From what I can see, the team the goes second wins 61.5% of the time, which is considerable, and a hair worse than the old overtime rules.
Based on the numbers I found run in a reddit thread for the current NFL rules, though predicted to drop to 56%, were running at 59% as of last year. The sample size is still small enough that it’s probably not a meaningful result yet compared to the other two, but at least it looks like it’s trending to be more fair.
Yes, ideally, the value of the coin toss should be on par with it’s value at the start of the game. I can’t find any statistics for all NFL games, but just going off of superbowl it was exactly at 50% prior to last year’s superbowl, so it’s at least really close to parity. I’m unsure how much more they can really change the rules without either pushing toward ties or making the OT period too long, both of which are undesirable.
Instead, I’d rather see them find a way to encourage teams to break ties in regulation. That is, if they could encourage a team that might kick the PAT to tie to, instead, go for two, or encourage the team kicking a field goal to tie rather than going for the TD for the win, I think that’s preferable to making OT rules too complicated. How could they go about that? Maybe give some kind of small disadvantage in OT to a team forcing a tie like that? Especially considering that late in the game they’re probably going for it on 4th down under the clock where they wouldn’t any other time of the game. Maybe that disadvantage could be as simple as,with the current rules, saying a team forcing a tie in the last 2 minutes automatically “loses” the coin toss, making those sorts of decisions more interesting. Hell, as it is, I’m of the opinion that it’s generally better to go for 2 for the win than 1 for the tie anyway; try to carry that momentum to the win now rather than risk losing it from a break and a coin toss and kick off and possibly losing possession to the other team. That’s just off the top of my head, I’m sure there’s other ways to discourage forcing ties in regulation.
The coin toss is an issue in itself. The coin toss at the beginning of the game should determine who kicks and receives in OT. Otherwise there really is just a coin toss advantage given to one side.
One team has to receive the ball first in OT. If you know who it’s going to be, the endgame in the fourth quarter is changed significantly - one team is more likely to play for a tie and the other more likely to try for the win. That seems less fair to me than deciding independently after regulation expires. If the kicking and receiving teams aren’t determined until OT begins, then both coaches are operating on the same level.
I think (the old) sudden death was fine, and I don’t think it should have been changed. Both teams already had 60 minutes of alternating possessions to win the game, and defense and special teams are just as much a part of football as offense is. That being said, I wouldn’t mind ties in the regular season either.
I just look at from the other direction, they should use a strategy that’s based on the known result, and something they have to incorporate into their initial kickoff decision. I can see your side also though.
My preference is, first team that scores wins, period, except that a team cannot kick a field goal until the other team has run at least one offensive play from scrimmage in the overtime. I wonder how many teams that win the OT coin toss would choose to kick off in this case?
I’d like a full additional quarter. If they’re still tied after that in the regular season, end the game with a tie. If they’re still tied after a fifth quarter in the playoffs, keep adding quarters until one of them ends with a team having a higher score.
I was just reading about the current overtime rules and I want to be sure I understand the details.
So let’s say two teams, the Atoms and the Mongols, are playing in the NFL and the score is tied at the end of regulation. The Atoms win the coin toss and receive the ball. They move down the field but can’t reach the end zone. But they kick a field goal and have a three point lead. The game continues and the Mongols now receive the ball.
Scenario #1: The Atoms go for an onside kick and are successful. Do they automatically win the game? Or does the game continue because the Mongols still haven’t had a possession yet?
Scenario #2: A continuation of the above. The Atoms move down the field and score a second field goal? Do they win the game now or do the Mongols still get a possession and a chance at making a touchdown?
Scenario #3: An unlikely one but suppose the Atoms make another successful onside kick and score a third field goal. They now have a nine point lead. Do the Mongols still get a possession when there’s no possibility of them taking the lead?
Scenario #4: Going back to the Atoms scoring that first field goal. This time they kicked off normally to the Mongols. The Mongols fail to advance the ball far enough and don’t score a touchdown or a field goal. They have to punt the ball to the Atoms. Do the Atoms automatically win the game as soon as they catch the punt? Do they have to run one more play as the offense (presumably a spike) in order to make it official?
Scenario #5: Same as above but this time the Mongols go for an onside kick. If they succeed does the game continue? Or do the Mongols only get one possession to score?
Scenario #1 is an automatic win for the Atoms, #2 and #3 cannot happen. Scenario #4 would never happen because the Mongols would not punt, because that would end the game. The Mongols go for it on 4th down. If successful, play continues. If unsuccessful, the game ends. If the Mongols score a field goal, play continues, next score wins. If the Mongols score a touchdown, game is over, Mongols win.
Also, under scenario #1 I don’t think anyone would be crazy enough to try an onsides kick, because if unsuccessful the other team has a very short field to score.