Overtime rule

[Sgt. Largent]

The one question I have, is, why didn't the Broncos choose to have their offense get the ball first? I thought their offense was "The most prolific offense in NFL history"...

They don't get to just pick whatever they want. That's why it's a coin flip. That's why it's fair.

I think he's talking about the start of the game. The Broncos won the flip and deferred.

I think it was Fox trying to make a statement to get back at the Hawks for doing the same thing in the SB........and it worked cause we went three and out.

 

[coach78]

I like the OT rule currently in place. As a coach of a strong defensive team I might consider kicking off to start the OT period. You then would be able to possibly gain field position and only have to be concerned about getting into field goal range.

I see the statistics are that 16% of teams that won the coin flip won the game on their first drive. Since I'm too lazy - can someone research how many teams that lost the coin flip won the game on their first drive? Would be an interesting comparison.

 

[Chapow]

Peyton's defense let him down, not the rule. The Denver D had to protect an end zone 80 yards away, and they couldn't do it. You're telling me that isn't a fair shot?

In my view, what's "fair" would depend on whether our defense could stop their offense from matching our TD in overtime. Otherwise, the coin flip is deciding it.

The coin flip is deciding the game huh?

Our offense had to drive 80 yards and score a TD to end the game.

Their defense had every opportunity to take the ball away or get a stop and force a punt or FG attempt.

Even though every OT game ever in the NFL has ended as soon as one team scores a TD, all of a sudden now it's not fair.
:roll:

 

[Zebulon Dak]

The one question I have, is, why didn't the Broncos choose to have their offense get the ball first? I thought their offense was "The most prolific offense in NFL history"...

They don't get to just pick whatever they want. That's why it's a coin flip. That's why it's fair.

I think he's talking about the start of the game. The Broncos won the flip and deferred.

I think it was Fox trying to make a statement to get back at the Hawks for doing the same thing in the SB........and it worked cause we went three and out.

Ahhhh that makes sense. I think the whole who gets the ball first thing is kind of overrated. Sure, it can help to set a tone or establish momentum but either way each team is gonna end up with just about as many opportunities as the other. Gotta play good football. Can't rely on a coin toss.

 

[Hawks46]

I noticd the ESPN announcers talking about how Manning didn't get he ball in overtime. Deion Sanders also on NFL Network. Seems like they are lobbying for both teams getting a shot

It's funny how former players often change their tune when the become media analysts. Sanders was a defensive player, you would think his attitude would be "if we wanted the ball, we should've made a stop". smh

 

[fenderbender123]

Seattle scored TDs on 2 of their possessions during regulation. But after the game everyone is talking like it's an automatic TD for the team that gets the ball first in OT. I like the NFL's version of OT over college because it places an emphasis on defense and special teams to come away with a victory.

Also, there's no way Denver would have been able to match the TD after Seattle scored. Denver couldn't score without getting the ball in the red zone after a turnover or Seattle playing prevent defense.

Also, why is everyone NOW suddenly complaining about the OT rules? I remember SOME complaining about the rules prior to changing the rule from allowing a FG to win it on the opening possessions, but now it's like people are complaining even more. It's ridiculous.

 

[Our Man in Chicago]

So the NFL OT rules were fine until 2012, when they weren't. And then they were fine until now, when they aren't. Got it.

Since no one seems to like an NFL tie, why not just give both teams a win? I mean, they both tried super hard. Roger Goodell can also come out on the field to hand out OT lollipops after the game. The fans should get free tacos with commemorative "NFL OT" wrapping paper, to boot.

Clearly, I should be running this league.

 

[byau]

I don't like the OT rule either. To be fair, both teams should have a shot

That being said, that's the current rule, Broncos knew they needed to stop the TD. Hawks earn the win.

 

[volsunghawk]

I absolutely hate the college football overtime system.

Maybe it's because I am a fan of football.

I'm also a huge college football fan, so there's that.

:th2thumbs:

I'm a huge college football fan, too. I still hate the college OT. It's a bastardization of actual football.

Could not disagree more. Giving the winner of a coin flip an 8-16% advantage is a bastardization of football.

The back and forth of a college football overtime is pure awesome.

Giving a team the ball on the 25 is ludicrous. It drastically changes the flow of a game to create manufactured scenarios and vastly devalues defense and makes special teams almost pointless. At least in the NFL, teams actually have to field a kickoff and drive the field instead of being given the ball on the 25 like they're 7-year olds attending a birthday party who have to get goody bags at the end so no one feels left out of the gift giving.

I said it back before they shifted the NFL OT to be more "fair" by tweaking it to give both teams offensive possessions when FGs are involved, and I'll say it again now... if you don't want to be subject to sudden death rules, win the damn game in the first 4 quarters. And if you're concerned about your team not getting a possession in OT, then you need to embrace this concept that is becoming more and more alien to the NFL. It's called DEFENSE. You lost the coin toss? Force a three and out.

Here is a list of the things that impacted this game more than the OT coin flip:

1. Russell Wilson
2. Kam Chancellor
3. Richard Sherman
4. Bobby Wagner
5. Ricardo Lockette
6. Marshawn Freakin' Lynch
7. Do I need to go on?

 

[hawknation2014]

I don't like the OT rule either. To be fair, both teams should have a shot

That being said, that's the current rule, Broncos knew they needed to stop the TD. Hawks earn the win.

+1

 

[Cartire]

Rules are fine. Why do both sides need a chance if there is a TD? To make it fair?

Ok, heres a thought. With the current system, Team A can march down the field and get a FG. Team B then has a chance. Team B marches down the field and gets a FG. After that, its sudden death, first score wins. So then Team A marches down the field and scores a FG. They win. Using the logic by those complaining about the OT rules, this would remain to be unfair. Because Team A got the ball twice on offense, and Team B didnt.

So lets modify the rule to what those proposing want changed. Both sides can get the ball no matter what. Team A marches down the field and gets a TD. Team B then marches down the field and gets a TD. Now, Team A marches down the field again, and they score. Should Team B get to try again? When does Sudden death finally kick in? When are defenses held accountable for their part on the team?

This game is not offense vs offense. Its Team A vs Team B.

If Team A gets a TD. Game over. It works, and is leaps and bounds better then winning first drive with a FG. Ive not heard once, since this new rule was implemented, complaints about OT until Manning didnt get the ball. Can we stop with the debates whenever Manning is involved. Manning is the most catered too athlete in all of professional sports (with the exception of maybe Lebron {and even he gets some bias against by some officials}). Of all players to ever play, Manning is the last one who should need the extra help.

 

[twisted_steel2]

I don't like the OT rule either. To be fair, both teams should have a shot

That being said, that's the current rule, Broncos knew they needed to stop the TD. Hawks earn the win.

Both teams had a shot for 60 minutes.

In OT, Denver's special teams had a chance to pin the Seahawks back at the goal line, or their special teams had a chance to get a turnover. Fail.

Denver's defense had 80 yards to force a turnover or a punt or a FG. Fail.

After all Denver's failures in OT, and regulation..... now they should have the unearned privilege of trotting out their offense to try to tie it?? :34853_doh:

Just not buying it folks.

 

[hawknation2014]

Rules are fine. Why do both sides need a chance if there is a TD? To make it fair?

Ok, heres a thought. With the current system, Team A can march down the field and get a FG. Team B then has a chance. Team B marches down the field and gets a FG. After that, its sudden death, first score wins. So then Team A marches down the field and scores a FG. They win. Using the logic by those complaining about the OT rules, this would remain to be unfair. Because Team A got the ball twice on offense, and Team B didnt.

No one is claiming that teams need to have the same number of possessions; that's a straw man.

What we are saying is the current rules allow for a team to win in overtime without the other offense or defense taking the field . . . and what determines that it is a coin. That gives a disproportionate advantage to the team that happens to win the coin flip.

If hypothetically, both teams were equally likely to score a TD on the first possession if they had won the coin flip, then it's not a fair system. That wasn't the case here as I think our defense would have shut them down if afforded the opportunity.

 

[Cartire]

Rules are fine. Why do both sides need a chance if there is a TD? To make it fair?

Ok, heres a thought. With the current system, Team A can march down the field and get a FG. Team B then has a chance. Team B marches down the field and gets a FG. After that, its sudden death, first score wins. So then Team A marches down the field and scores a FG. They win. Using the logic by those complaining about the OT rules, this would remain to be unfair. Because Team A got the ball twice on offense, and Team B didnt.

No one is claiming that teams need to have the same number of possessions; that's a straw man.

What we are saying is the current rules allow for a team to win in overtime without the other offense or defense taking the field . . . and what determines that it is a coin. That gives a disproportionate advantage to the team that happens to win the coin flip.

If hypothetically, both teams were equally likely to score a TD on the first possession if they had won the coin flip, then it's not a fair system. That wasn't the case here as I think our defense would have shut them down if afforded the opportunity.

Uhhhhhh.... What? Straw-Man? You are arguing that both teams need the same number of possessions. Because We got one, and they didnt get one. You dont like that. You think they should get one. You are literally arguing that both teams should get equal possessions. Do you know what you are arguing anymore?

 

[volsunghawk]

What we are saying is the current rules allow for a team to win in overtime without the other offense or defense taking the field . . . and what determines that it is a coin. That gives a disproportionate advantage to the team that happens to win the coin flip.

This is fundamentally UNTRUE.

The coin only determines who has possession first, not who wins. The actions of the players on the field 100% determine the win/loss result. The receiving team can muff the kickoff. The receiving team could throw a pick, or lose a fumble, or - dare I say - not manage to get a first down. Not one of those things is determined by a coin flip.

Denver had just as much chance to win the game in OT as Seattle did. All they had to do was stop Seattle on 3rd down ONCE. All they had to do was prevent Lynch from getting in the end zone. They failed. They lost. Fairness reigns.

 

[byau]

I don't like the OT rule either. To be fair, both teams should have a shot

That being said, that's the current rule, Broncos knew they needed to stop the TD. Hawks earn the win.

Both teams had a shot for 60 minutes.

Just not buying it folks.

I'm shortening the quote on your post since this summarizes it well. Hope you don't mind

This is a good point. However, for me, in the spirit of fair competitive play, I like the idea that the overtime period is like a new game and each team will get at least one shot.

In your way of thinking, you are saying since both teams had a fair shot in regulation, when it comes to overtime you should flip a coin to see who goes first and first team to score wins.

No other sport I can think of off the top of my head does this. If there is one, it's in the minority. The few sports I can think of quickly off the top of my head gives each team a fair shot once a post-regulation period starts (aka overtime)

Whether it is a fixed period like basketball, fixed period and goal kicks like Soccer, or extra innings like Baseball.

Imagine basketball OT: flip a coin to see who gets the ball first and first bucket wins
Imagine Soccer goal kicks: flip a coin to see which team kicks first, first goal wins

At this point it may be just difference in opinion: your opinion is that each team had its shot in regulation, now let's up the stakes and make it first team to score and start it by luck with a coin flip. My opinion: I like seeing overtime as a brand new game, and each team somehow gets a shot.

 

[Cartire]

What we are saying is the current rules allow for a team to win in overtime without the other offense or defense taking the field . . . and what determines that it is a coin. That gives a disproportionate advantage to the team that happens to win the coin flip.

This is fundamentally UNTRUE.

The coin only determines who has possession first, not who wins. The actions of the players on the field 100% determine the win/loss result. The receiving team can muff the kickoff. The receiving team could throw a pick, or lose a fumble, or - dare I say - not manage to get a first down. Not one of those things is determined by a coin flip.

Denver had just as much chance to win the game in OT as Seattle did. All they had to do was stop Seattle on 3rd down ONCE. All they had to do was prevent Lynch from getting in the end zone. They failed. They lost. Fairness reigns.

Exactly. This all-of-a-sudden attitude, that the defense is no longer an integral part of the game during OT, is just, well weird. Especially coming from a fan of a team that prides itself in its defensive identity. When OT begins, there are still 2 teams on the field. 1 team did what it needed to do. The other team didnt.

 

[hawknation2014]

Rules are fine. Why do both sides need a chance if there is a TD? To make it fair?

Ok, heres a thought. With the current system, Team A can march down the field and get a FG. Team B then has a chance. Team B marches down the field and gets a FG. After that, its sudden death, first score wins. So then Team A marches down the field and scores a FG. They win. Using the logic by those complaining about the OT rules, this would remain to be unfair. Because Team A got the ball twice on offense, and Team B didnt.

No one is claiming that teams need to have the same number of possessions; that's a straw man.

What we are saying is the current rules allow for a team to win in overtime without the other offense or defense taking the field . . . and what determines that it is a coin. That gives a disproportionate advantage to the team that happens to win the coin flip.

If hypothetically, both teams were equally likely to score a TD on the first possession if they had won the coin flip, then it's not a fair system. That wasn't the case here as I think our defense would have shut them down if afforded the opportunity.

Uhhhhhh.... What? Straw-Man? You are arguing that both teams need the same number of possessions. Because We got one, and they didnt get one. You dont like that. You think they should get one. You are literally arguing that both teams should get equal possessions. Do you know what you are arguing anymore?

I am merely pointing out a weakness in the current system that allows for the possibility of only one offense and defense to see the field in overtime, and this is determined in an arbitrary way, giving the coin flip winner a 8-16% advantage.

There are different ways to remedy this inequity without having to require exactly the same number of possessions. Under the college football overtime system that I am advocating, for example, a defensive score still ends the game, so there are not necessarily an equal number of possessions.

You see, it's not the number of possessions that is the issue but rather the disproportionate advantage for the team that happens to win the coin toss.

 

[Cartire]

I don't like the OT rule either. To be fair, both teams should have a shot

That being said, that's the current rule, Broncos knew they needed to stop the TD. Hawks earn the win.

Both teams had a shot for 60 minutes.

Just not buying it folks.

I'm shortening the quote on your post since this summarizes it well. Hope you don't mind

This is a good point. However, for me, in the spirit of fair competitive play, I like the idea that the overtime period is like a new game and each team will get at least one shot.

In your way of thinking, you are saying since both teams had a fair shot in regulation, when it comes to overtime you should flip a coin to see who goes first and first team to score wins.

No other sport I can think of off the top of my head does this. If there is one, it's in the minority. The few sports I can think of quickly off the top of my head gives each team a fair shot once a post-regulation period starts (aka overtime)

Whether it is a fixed period like basketball, fixed period and goal kicks like Soccer, or extra innings like Baseball.

Imagine basketball OT: flip a coin to see who gets the ball first and first bucket wins
Imagine Soccer goal kicks: flip a coin to see which team kicks first, first goal wins

At this point it may be just difference in opinion: your opinion is that each team had its shot in regulation, now let's up the stakes and make it first team to score and start it by luck with a coin flip. My opinion: I like seeing overtime as a brand new game, and each team somehow gets a shot.

Heres the difference between football and every other sport. In other sports, the same people are on the court/field while either playing offense or defense. In football, its not that way. Its changes the complexity of OT versus other games.

 

[twisted_steel2]

Rules are fine. Why do both sides need a chance if there is a TD? To make it fair?

Ok, heres a thought. With the current system, Team A can march down the field and get a FG. Team B then has a chance. Team B marches down the field and gets a FG. After that, its sudden death, first score wins. So then Team A marches down the field and scores a FG. They win. Using the logic by those complaining about the OT rules, this would remain to be unfair. Because Team A got the ball twice on offense, and Team B didnt.

No one is claiming that teams need to have the same number of possessions; that's a straw man.

What we are saying is the current rules allow for a team to win in overtime without the other offense or defense taking the field . . . and what determines that it is a coin.

Incorrect.

What determines that is the other teams special teams or defense not getting the ball back to their offense.