Overtime rule

[EntiatHawk]

LIke Twilight stated there is pattern here.

If the defense does their job and hold an offense even to a field goal then there is a great chance the opposite offense has an advantage because they know what they have to get to win.

I was actually fine with the overtime rule change. I did not like how a field goal could decide it but a TD is a different story and end of story.

I am a bit tired though of the change the rules to benefit the offense to a point of absurdity and it seems that Manning seems to be one of the greatest benefactors of many of the rule changes.

 

[bmorepunk]

From an academic standpoint, has anybody compiled numbers on the coin toss winner versus game winner since they implemented the new OT system? It would be interesting if we could see the method of winning and distributions on possessions.

The old system wasn't as bad as people made it seem; the coin toss winners won the game roughly 60 percent of the time. Has it moved closer to even with this new system?

After the rule change, 66% of coin toss winners won in overtime during the 2012-13 season (16/24). That's a significant advantage.

http://plus.maths.org/content/toss-overtime

I'm interested to see last year's data as well if anybody knows where it is. If two of those games go the other way it gets under 60% for a small sample size for 2012-2013.

 

[Laloosh]

Had they won the toss and scored a TD, they wouldn't say a thing. Let 'em throw a fit. I'm fine with a rule change and I'm fine with the current rule.

 

[hawknation2014]

LIke Twilight stated there is pattern here.

If the defense does their job and hold an offense even to a field goal then there is a great chance the opposite offense has an advantage because they know what they have to get to win.

I was actually fine with the overtime rule change. I did not like how a field goal could decide it but a TD is a different story and end of story.

I am a bit tired though of the change the rules to benefit the offense to a point of absurdity and it seems that Manning seems to be one of the greatest benefactors of many of the rule changes.

I fail to see how the offense or defense benefits. Under the current rules, the only beneficiary is the coin toss winner with a 66%-34% advantage simply by winning the arbitrary coin toss.

 

[bmorepunk]

Had they won the toss and scored a TD, they wouldn't say a thing. Let 'em throw a fit. I'm fine with a rule change and I'm fine with the current rule.

Yeah, but who is "they" in this case? I found one Denver sportswriter being an idiot about it. From the way some people are talking in this thread I assume I could read anything professionally written relating to the game outside of Seattle and the vast majority of them are advocating for a rule change.

 

[VivaEfrenHerrera]

Wow. To me, the recent-ish change to the OT rules are one of the things the league as gotten RIGHT over the years. The old way too often led to unsatisfying conclusions: Win coin toss-complete two passes-kick a FG-hit the showers. That never felt like enough to me.

But now, it seems just right. Your offense gets a shot if the other guys win the toss and kick a cheesy FG. If the other guys win the toss and cram it all the way up your keister? Seems like you've earned the loss fair and square at that point.

I do not grok any complaining about this rule.

 

[bmorepunk]

If the percentages aren't an improvement in terms of the coin flip being an advantage, it seems like fans are at least happier with the fact that it can be an offense deciding the game and not just a kicker.

 

[Blitzhawk]

They shouldn't keep score and both offenses and defenses should get an even amount of time on the field. Both sides should have to play all the players an even amount of minutes (including the kickers/punters). It's only fair.

Oh, and almost forgot. :sarcasm_off:

The point is there is always going to be advantages in competitions and we have become a society of cry babies whining about "but it's not fair". Should all teams play all games at the exact same neutral site to eliminate home field advantages? No people allowed in the stadium to eliminate crowd noise advantages? Where does it end, really?

 

[Laloosh]

Had they won the toss and scored a TD, they wouldn't say a thing. Let 'em throw a fit. I'm fine with a rule change and I'm fine with the current rule.

Yeah, but who is "they" in this case? I found one Denver sportswriter being an idiot about it. From the way some people are talking in this thread I assume I could read anything professionally written relating to the game outside of Seattle and the vast majority of them are advocating for a rule change.

I guess I'd say it doesn't matter who "they" are. The rule change wouldn't be a bad thing imo. Thing is, "they" wouldn't be talking about it if SEA had lost under the same circumstances.

 

[chrispy]

I think the real question isn't which team won (referencing the 66%). It's how many times the first drive in overtime resulted in a win. If both teams get the ball, it shouldn't count towards the discussion even if the team of first posession ends up being the winner.

 

[hawknation2014]

There's really not a better way to do it from a process standpoint. The only way to do it "fairly" would be to have a full OT system like the NBA; the clock runs out and continued ties means another OT. Having seen a couple of college games go into an insane number of OTs, this seems like a really bad idea.

The college football overtime system that gives each team an opportunity on each side of the ball is more "fair" in the sense that the advantage in winning the coin toss is fairly miniscule. Starting on defense gives the team the same 52% advantage in each overtime.

http://www.footballcommentary.com/ncaaovertime.htm

 

[Trenchbroom]

All of the talking heads yammering on about how we need to go to the college method of OT. They conveniently forget that the reason why the modification of the OT rule 4 years ago (if first team held to FG then other team gets a possession) was so small is because the league NEEDS these games to be only 3 hours long to fit in the TV schedule. They absolutely do not want an OT that would last as long as another quarter, or even longer if it ends up like college OT where both teams just match points time and time again. That breaks the TV schedule and will lead to people watching a game for 3 hours only to have the channel switch games on them while they miss the OT fun.

 

[Shadowhawk]

I went through and looked at every overtime game played under the current system, which was implemented in the postseason for 2010 and 2011 and expanded to the regular season in 2012.

44 overtime games have been played during that span. Out of those 44 games, only SEVEN times did the team winning the coin toss drive down and score a game-winning TD without the other team touching the ball:

Broncos 29, Steelers 23 1/8/12
Colts 19, Titans 13 10/28/12
Bucs 27, Panthers 21 11/18/12
Seahawks 23, Bears 17 12/2/12
Texans 30, Titans 24 9/15/13
Redskins 30, Chargers 24 11/3/13
Seahawks 26, Broncos 20 9/21/14

Teams that won the coin toss drove down and scored a game-winning touchdown on their first drive only 16% of the time. In the other 37 overtime games, both teams had possession at least once, even if the team that won the coin toss ultimately won the game. So in 84% of overtime games under the current system, both teams have gotten at least one possession.

NFL overtime rules are fine. The only reason this is an issue today is because Peyton Manning lost.

 

[hawknation2014]

I went through and looked at every overtime game played under the current system, which was implemented in the postseason for 2010 and 2011 and expanded to the regular season in 2012.

44 overtime games have been played during that span. Out of those 44 games, only SEVEN times did the team winning the coin toss drive down and score a game-winning TD without the other team touching the ball:

Broncos 29, Steelers 23 1/8/12
Colts 19, Titans 13 10/28/12
Bucs 27, Panthers 21 11/18/12
Seahawks 23, Bears 17 12/2/12
Houston 30, Tennessee 24 9/15/13
Redskins 30, Chargers 24 11/3/13
Seahawks 26, Broncos 20 9/21/14

Teams that won the coin toss drove down and scored a game-winning touchdown on their first drive only 16% of the time. In the other 37 overtime games, both teams had possession at least once, even if the team that won the coin toss ultimately won the game.

NFL overtime rules are fine. The only reason this is an issue today is because Peyton Manning lost.

66% overall advantage, and a 16% chance to win the overtime without ever giving the other team an opportunity to touch the ball, shows the inequity right there.

Compare that to the college football system, where the coin flip winner has a mere 2% advantage by starting on defense.

 

[TwilightError]

So, During the new rule era, a team has won by scoring a TD in the first possession seven times. Seven crummy times! And now that it was not everyones favourite teddybear-peyton, who by the way pretty much never wins overtimes, this is "so unfair" for many that it sounds like a teenager crying over not getting the latest version of iPad at the day of release.

 

[hawknation2014]

During the new rule era, a team has won by scoring a TD in the first possession three times. Three crummy times! And now that it was not everyones favourite teddybear-peyton, who by the way pretty much never wins overtimes, this is "so unfair" for many that it sounds like a teenager crying over not getting the latest version of iPad at the day of release.

They said that (3 times) in NFL AM, but can it be correct? Because I can name three times right away. Hawks@Bears 2012, Broncos@Hawks 2014 and Broncos vs. Steelers in that playoff game. Has it really not happened any other times? Sounds unbelievable, maybe I understood wrong?

Above shows it happening seven times or 16%.

 

[TwilightError]

During the new rule era, a team has won by scoring a TD in the first possession three times. Three crummy times! And now that it was not everyones favourite teddybear-peyton, who by the way pretty much never wins overtimes, this is "so unfair" for many that it sounds like a teenager crying over not getting the latest version of iPad at the day of release.

They said that (3 times) in NFL AM, but can it be correct? Because I can name three times right away. Hawks@Bears 2012, Broncos@Hawks 2014 and Broncos vs. Steelers in that playoff game. Has it really not happened any other times? Sounds unbelievable, maybe I understood wrong?

Above shows it happening seven times or 16%.

Noted, and edited.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

From an academic standpoint, has anybody compiled numbers on the coin toss winner versus game winner since they implemented the new OT system? It would be interesting if we could see the method of winning and distributions on possessions.

The old system wasn't as bad as people made it seem; the coin toss winners won the game roughly 60 percent of the time. Has it moved closer to even with this new system?

After the rule change, 66% of coin toss winners won in overtime during the 2012-13 season (16/24). That's a significant advantage.

http://plus.maths.org/content/toss-overtime

So the loser of the coin flip has a chance?
And the game doesn't have to end in a tie? Go figure.

 

[taco40]

I just love this discussion.

-The Seahawks demolish Broncos in Super Bowl -> change the PI rules.
-The Seahawks win Broncos in overtime -> change overtime rules.

Anyone recognize a pattern?

You forgot:

-Wes Welker gets suspended for four games -> change NFL drug policy to cut Welker's suspension to two games so he can play against Seattle.

Sometimes there are unintended results. I watched with pleasure as while Kam was intercepting that pass in the waning moments of the fourth quarter, Earl Thomas just plain laid out the previously suspended player with both guns a'blazin. I just with the camera angle had been a bit wider to see how long it took Welker to pop up in hopes of popping some more little blue pills.

 

[nepahawk]

I wouldn't mind seeing a rule change. I prefer the college way in which the 2nd team has a chance to match or exceed the other. If we had lost a coin flip and Manning had scored a TD, wouldn't you want to see Russell Wilson given the opportunity to match that?

No...the Seahawks would be represented by the Defense. If the defense can't stop a team from marching down the field for a TD, then the team deserves to lose

I just wish we could have seen the defense represented in overtime. I think they would have cracked Manning and won the game if given the opportunity. As it stands, only two units ultimately decide the game-- the offense of the team that wins the coin flip and the defense of the team that loses. The other offense and defense are irrelevant under the current overtime rules.

Both offenses and defenses had the previous 4 quarters to decide the game.
Denver's offense would have gotten a shot if Seattle was held to a fg.
In OT it's time to put up or shut up!