Overtime rule

[mikeak]

It also allows both offenses and defenses to compete on the field in overtime, unless there is a defensive score on the first possession.

But by your same logic, this wouldnt be fair to our defense if they didnt get a chance to score on defense, right?

.

Not right. It isn't about defense and offense both holding the ball. It is about both teams getting to have the ball. If the defense causes a turnover and scores then both teams had the ball - game over.

I agree with you on the whole - let both teams score then you start over at the same you point argument - but on this one I think you took it to far

 

[hawknation2014]

One middle ground between the current rule and the college football overtime system might be to allow the opposing team to answer the first possession, even if a TD is scored by the offense. This would allow both offenses and defenses to compete on the field in OT, unless a defensive TD occurs on the first possession.

But if the defense scores a TD, then its not fair to our defense to not get that chance, per your logic. And no, thats not a strawman.

If both teams score a TD, then the next possession is, technically, unfair. Because if the offense scores, the win. But they got it 1 extra time then the other team. This is where your logic just starts to fall.

If you want to campaign for a full quarter, or equal possessions (like baseball), thats fine. I dont agree with it. But at least this sticks with your "fair chance" fight. But what you say up there just moves the debate to the next possession eventually.

Yes, it is a straw man and the suggestion is completely absurd. Under that scenario, an offense would have to take the field in overtime despite already being up by a touchdown. All the offense would have to do at that point would be to take a knee four times for the victory. Other than making absolutely no sense, it would also violate the possession rules of football if the offense came to the field after their defense just scored a touchdown.

Do you see now why there is a simple distinction between these two ideas-- allowing a defensive score to end a game (because the alternative is nonsensical) while at the same time giving the opposing offense a chance to match an offensive score on the first possession?

 

[Cartire]

One middle ground between the current rule and the college football overtime system might be to allow the opposing team to answer the first possession, even if a TD is scored by the offense. This would allow both offenses and defenses to compete on the field in OT, unless a defensive TD occurs on the first possession.

But if the defense scores a TD, then its not fair to our defense to not get that chance, per your logic. And no, thats not a strawman.

If both teams score a TD, then the next possession is, technically, unfair. Because if the offense scores, the win. But they got it 1 extra time then the other team. This is where your logic just starts to fall.

If you want to campaign for a full quarter, or equal possessions (like baseball), thats fine. I dont agree with it. But at least this sticks with your "fair chance" fight. But what you say up there just moves the debate to the next possession eventually.

Yes, it is a straw man and the suggestion is completely absurd. Under that scenario, an offense would have to take the field in overtime despite already being up by a touchdown. All the offense would have to do at that point would be to take a knee four times for the victory. Other than making absolutely no sense, it would also violate the possession rules of football if the offense came to the field after their defense just scored a touchdown.

Do you see now why there is a simple distinction between these two ideas-- allowing a defensive score to end a game (because the alternative is nonsensical) while at the same time giving the opposing offense a chance to match an offensive score on the first possession?

Drop the defensive point. It was more just showing the both teams allowed on the field argument. I obviously dont think we should have the other team come on.

Get back to my original point that I wrote about. Allowing the offense to match the TD, just to turn around and start from the beginning again if they do. You stated that at this point, sudden death could occur. But your point of fairness hasnt changed at that point. Even though both teams saw the field, and scored TD's, the first team now has the sudden death advantage.

So, our point is, if we do sudden death, just start it right away. With the exception of a FG which can be obtained to easily in comparison to a TD.

 

[AbsolutNET]

EVERYONE NEEDS TO FEEL SORRY FOR PEYTON MANNING! DO IT! FEEL SORRY FOR HIM!!

 

[hawknation2014]

One middle ground between the current rule and the college football overtime system might be to allow the opposing team to answer the first possession, even if a TD is scored by the offense. This would allow both offenses and defenses to compete on the field in OT, unless a defensive TD occurs on the first possession.

But if the defense scores a TD, then its not fair to our defense to not get that chance, per your logic. And no, thats not a strawman.

If both teams score a TD, then the next possession is, technically, unfair. Because if the offense scores, the win. But they got it 1 extra time then the other team. This is where your logic just starts to fall.

If you want to campaign for a full quarter, or equal possessions (like baseball), thats fine. I dont agree with it. But at least this sticks with your "fair chance" fight. But what you say up there just moves the debate to the next possession eventually.

Yes, it is a straw man and the suggestion is completely absurd. Under that scenario, an offense would have to take the field in overtime despite already being up by a touchdown. All the offense would have to do at that point would be to take a knee four times for the victory. Other than making absolutely no sense, it would also violate the possession rules of football if the offense came to the field after their defense just scored a touchdown.

Do you see now why there is a simple distinction between these two ideas-- allowing a defensive score to end a game (because the alternative is nonsensical) while at the same time giving the opposing offense a chance to match an offensive score on the first possession?

Drop the defensive point. It was more just showing the both teams allowed on the field argument. I obviously dont think we should have the other team come on.

Get back to my original point that I wrote about. Allowing the offense to match the TD, just to turn around and start from the beginning again if they do. You stated that at this point, sudden death could occur. But your point of fairness hasnt changed at that point. Even though both teams saw the field, and scored TD's, the first team now has the sudden death advantage.

So, our point is, if we do sudden death, just start it right away. With the exception of a FG which can be obtained to easily in comparison to a TD.

The college football overtime rules would still be superior. However, I think it would be an improvement because it would give both teams an opportunity to score, allowing both offenses and defenses to compete on the field.

Also, I would argue that scoring a TD on the first possession perhaps earns that team a sudden death opportunity on their next possession. Teams would have to be more strategic about choosing whether to start on offense or defense. If they start on defense, they have the advantage of knowing how many points they need to match or exceed, which is the advantage now in college football. But the first offense would maintain a huge advantage if they score a TD on the first possession; then they would only have to either prevent a TD or score on their second possession. Therefore, the benefits and downsides would be better distributed to both sides.

 

[StenoHawk]

No need to change the rule. Talk about taking the "sudden death" out of sudden death.

 

[Scottemojo]

Really? Denver fans are whining about "fixing" overtime rules yet again because their beloved Peyton Manning didn't win the game? Again? The overtime rules were already fixed to allow Peyton Manning to get a chance at the ball if the other team scored a field goal. Used to be you could get just past mid-field and kick a long field goal to end it.

The stench of their sense of entitlement is an awful smell.

How many Denver fans are whining about changing the rules?

There seems to be a lot of mileage out of this based on Deion Sanders and one sportswriter in Denver on the forum. I wonder how it actually reflects reality.

This is the third or fourth post where you have been dismissive of the topic. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to more NFL sources. It has been a topic today on Sirius NFL radio, and was a main story on NFL AM this morning.

It's more than a Denver columnist and Sanders.

Carry on.

 

[byau]

BTW, Mike and Mike Hour 3 Today had this discussion with Chris Carter. You can listen on the ESPN smartphone app. It may have made it to the "Best of Mike and Mike" podcast here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/pod ... id=2445552

Mike Greeney (the non-football player) is more in line with my thinking, that it seems unsatisfying and he used the baseball extra innings analogy. (Coincidence that I played more baseball than football in school?)

The two ex-football players, Mike Golic and Chris Carter, both think the OT rules are fine. The points went something like:

* They should not change

* Football is a team sport and why should each offense get a try?

* The defense is part of the team and should have done their part and allowed a field goal at best to get their offensive team on the field.

* Chris Carter also just started a point (but didn't finish it) that there are only so many players on a team (implying the physicality of a game and OT).

 

[Aristotle22]

Eric Davis in NFL AM seems to be the only one to understand that Denver got their chance. Their defense did, and that means the team did.[/

Even though he does niner broadcasts, he seems to not have a real bias towards them.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Equal possessions are not equal. The team with the ball first is playing 3 down football and has to decide whether to go for it on 4th down or kick the FG. The team who gets the ball second knows they are playing 4 down football.

That's a significant advantage to the second team.

There simply is only ONE way that's fair to each team: just extend the 4th quarter instead of ending it. Wherever the teams are at on the field, whoever has the ball, whatever down it is, the clock hits zero, but the teams keep on playing until one team scores.

 

[NorCalSeahawkFan]

I read this in the comments on Profootballtalk
gashmr says:
Sep 22, 2014 5:20 PM


Now the debate tuns to changing the rules in OT? Again…

If te Seahawks force anymore rule changes the game is going to be unrecognizable.Why is it that with this win in OT the rules of OT need to be examined? Fantasy football????

Seattle really is on the cutting edge….if they win a second Superbowl they will probably just shut the league down…lol

 

[Cartire]

Equal possessions are not equal. The team with the ball first is playing 3 down football and has to decide whether to go for it on 4th down or kick the FG. The team who gets the ball second knows they are playing 4 down football.

That's a significant advantage to the second team.

There simply is only ONE way that's fair to each team: just extend the 4th quarter instead of ending it. Wherever the teams are at on the field, whoever has the ball, whatever down it is, the clock hits zero, but the teams keep on playing until one team scores.

but in a tie situation, doesnt that completely void the 2 minute drill?

 

[Cartire]

HAHA, I just read a comment from a pft article on this...

"T Jacks is a 99 on coin toss you just can’t beat that."

Now thats funny.

 

[mikeak]

HAHA, I just read a comment from a pft article on this...

"T Jacks is a 99 on coin toss you just can’t beat that."

Now thats funny.

I found it interesting that all the Denver captains were out there for the coin-toss

Meanwhile Seattle sent a backup so that our captains (assumption here) could huddle up and prepare for playing after the coin toss.....

I know which I prefer

 

[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

I don't mind the discussion about OT rules, but some in Denver are taking it a step too far, calling it "pure dumb luck" that we won. If he wants to talk about "pure dumb luck", I suggest he check and see how many times over the past 3 years Steven Hauska has missed a FG attempt from inside 50 and reflect on how lucky they were to even be in the position to tie the game.

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_265 ... cos-ending

Yea, we have Denver players saying they felt they were the better team. You have Denver media whining about OT rules and people saying it was "dumb luck" we won. THis is one of the reasons I wanted the Seahawks to just step on their neck when they were down at half and crush their wills.

 

[byau]

HAHA, I just read a comment from a pft article on this...

"T Jacks is a 99 on coin toss you just can’t beat that."

Now thats funny.

I found it interesting that all the Denver captains were out there for the coin-toss

Meanwhile Seattle sent a backup so that our captains (assumption here) could huddle up and prepare for playing after the coin toss.....

I know which I prefer

Noticed this too. I thought it was amusing. And TJ won it too

 

[Uffda]

Didn't seem to bug them when Tebow tossed one up to a wr to win a playoff game against the Steelers, was the first play in OT.

Actually, it was the first overtime win under these new Overtime rules.

 

[canfan]

Since Peyton Manning joined the Broncos, he is 0-3 in overtime games. How many rules are they going to have to change to fix that? Maybe the new OT rule should just consist of continuing the game until Peyton has the lead. At that time play will be suspended and a "winner" declared. Interestingly enough, Tebow was 4-0 in overtime for Denver during his short career. Obviously the rule is fine. They just kept the wrong QB! :sarcasm_on:

 

[Reaneypark]

They should treat overtime like a continuation of where they left off when the game ended. Same field position, same possession, same down and they just keep playing the fourth quarter until someone scores and the game ends.

No coin toss.

That would eliminate a lot of great, end-of-game action. I'd say no to that.

 

[Reaneypark]

I suppose it would be extremely unfair if Harvin ran back the OT kickoff, because then only some special- teams scrubs decided the game. The only reason anyone gives two craps about this is because Peyton lost.