Overtime rule

[volsunghawk]

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.

None of those games have the level of contact that football does, so playing an extra period isn't the physical challenge that you see in football. If you had said hockey, I could see the argument working better. With that said, I would support a full extra period over any trumped-up system that placed the ball at a specific location on the field or gave equal possessions out of a sense of "fairness."

I absolutely disagree with the view of OT as a "brand new game." You don't get a tie based on the first 4 quarters and then a win on top of it if you come out on top in OT. It's a single game. And for a long time in the NFL, teams tied at the end of regulation just got a tie. That's it. OT was provided to reduce the number of ties and to provide some extra drama in the effort to decide a victor. I believe the sudden death element was included to increase the stakes AND make OT games as short as possible to limit potential injuries that might occur in the extra period.

 

[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?

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.

I think you are confusing the 16% as an advantage over the other team. And not what it really is. When possessing the ball first, SO FAR, teams have won with a single possession 16% of the time. Thats not a 16% advantage over the other team. I mean, say it the other way. On first possesions in overtime, the defense has a 84% chance of giving the ball back to their offense. Does that mean they have an 84% advantage?

 

[Sports Hernia]

Rest assured, this rule will be changed again next offseason, all because of poor wittle Peyton.

It's hysterical how the league bends over backwards to appease this guy and try to line up all the pieces in the perfect row for him to win another ring.

If the Broncos wanted the ball back, they should have stopped Russell Wilson. Period.

Yep, and some wonder why a lot of folks call that Denver team and fanbase soft.

 

[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.

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.

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.

This is a good point, one I hadn't explicitly thought of. Thinking about it now, the closest would be baseball where the offense and defense of the game are quite different (basically 9 defenders vs 1 to 4 on offense).

Anyway, even with this in mind, it makes me think even more that it's more fair for each team to have an "even chance", which means each side gets to have an offensive possession. Again, the closest seeming to be baseball and extra innings.

 

[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.

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.

None of those games have the level of contact that football does, so playing an extra period isn't the physical challenge that you see in football. If you had said hockey, I could see the argument working better. With that said, I would support a full extra period over any trumped-up system that placed the ball at a specific location on the field or gave equal possessions out of a sense of "fairness."

Whether it's fixed period or each team gets a possession or something like that, yes I think somehow the OT period can be improved upon for "fairness"

I absolutely disagree with the view of OT as a "brand new game." You don't get a tie based on the first 4 quarters and then a win on top of it if you come out on top in OT. It's a single game.

Will agree to disagree. I think this is more rooted in opinion and I'll respect yours.

And for a long time in the NFL, teams tied at the end of regulation just got a tie. That's it. OT was provided to reduce the number of ties and to provide some extra drama in the effort to decide a victor. I believe the sudden death element was included to increase the stakes AND make OT games as short as possible to limit potential injuries that might occur in the extra period.

Interesting thought about limiting potential injuries and keeping the game shorter. Something else I hadn't thought of and I see your point. This should be taken into account if there is another OT format change.

 

[hawknation2014]

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.

I think you are confusing the 16% as an advantage over the other team. And not what it really is. When possessing the ball first, SO FAR, teams have won with a single possession 16% of the time. Thats not a 16% advantage over the other team. I mean, say it the other way. On first possesions in overtime, the defense has a 84% chance of giving the ball back to their offense. Does that mean they have an 84% advantage?

Oh, not this again. Through the current season (if the remainder of above poster's data is to be believed), the team that happened to win the coin flip in overtime won 58% of the games. That is in line with the 60% win expectation for coin flip winners before the new rules were enacted. It's a disproportionate advantage that is hammered home by the 16% chance the coin flip winner's own defense will never even have to see the field.

Ideally, the arbitrary coin flip would not effect either team's chances of winning in overtime. And under the current college football overtime rules, the coin flip winner wins only about 52% of the time, which is about as fair as it gets. It also allows both offenses and defenses to compete on the field in overtime, unless there is a defensive score on the first possession.

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

Funny stat.

Under the old overtime rules, the team that won the toss won the game 59% of the time.

Since the rule changed to give both teams an opportunity to possess the ball, the team that won the toss has won the game 66% of the time.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

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

Your soccer goal kick comparison is terrible. We put the ball in the end zone 3 out of 8 times against San Diego. We put the ball in the end zone 3 out of 15 times against Denver. Those are horrible odds, especially when you're considering one of those drives has to be the one to win or lose the game, as compared to juking the goalie out and kicking a ball into the net.

But while your soccer goal kick comparison is terrible, your basketball comparison is even worse. How easy is it to score in basketball compared to football? How easy is it to dribble the ball down the court and shoot it into the net compared to engineering an 80-yard drive for a touchdown? If basketball points were as hard to score as football points, basketball scores would look like hockey or baseball scores.

And no, drives that end with field goals do not count, because the other team would get their chance with the ball in overtime, the whole point of what we're discussing here. Which, incidentally is what happens most of the time anyway with the current rules.

Funny stat.

Under the old overtime rules, the team that won the toss won the game 59% of the time.

Since the rule changed to give the both teams a better opportunity, the team that won the toss has won the game 66% of the time.

Ha! You know why? Because they've also changed the rules to favor the offense over the defense. Not that changing the game that way would ever come back to bite them in the ass, eh?

 

[Cartire]

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?

Look, I get you want both teams on the field, but at some point, sudden death has to be implemented, or more ties are in the future and that would suck way more. At any point, once sudden death is implemented, the team on offense has the first chance to win the game. This is either at the start of OT, or if both sides get it no matter what, it still will happen after 2 possessions. So it doesnt matter.

60 minutes was the fairness, now were into sudden death (with the added bonus of a FG not determining it right off the bat). A coin flip is the most unbias means of determining the first possession.

Like I said previously, even if both teams were allowed the ball, and then both teams scored a TD, the ensuing possession would be sudden death and thusly, be an "advantage" to the team that got the ball first anyway. So its got to happen sooner or later.

Just let it be what it is. Something that has never been controversial until Golden Boy was effected by it.

 

[volsunghawk]

I absolutely disagree with the view of OT as a "brand new game." You don't get a tie based on the first 4 quarters and then a win on top of it if you come out on top in OT. It's a single game.

Will agree to disagree. I think this is more rooted in opinion and I'll respect yours.

Not to belabor the point, but I don't see how this is really opinion.

It's the same opponent on the same day. Any player who had to come out of the game in the first 4 quarters and was declared out for the rest of the game can't come back in in OT. Players who were declared inactive can't suddenly play. It's a continuation of the existing game since the result wasn't determined in the regulation 4 quarters, and the end result is either one win, one loss, or one tie. It's one game.

And this is what I absolutely loathe about the college rules. It's like they said, "Okay, so we couldn't determine the better team on the field in the first 60 minutes, so now we're going to switch to an entirely different kind of game to see who was actually better."

 

[kearly]

Overtime would be more fair if both teams had a guaranteed possession. But even if they did, I'm guessing the coinflip winner would probably still win more than 50%.

I think the college system is very smart and certainly fair, but l agree with Volsung that the college version of OT isn't really football. That 80 yard drive Wilson led to beat the Bronco's in OT? That's football.

 

[byau]

I absolutely disagree with the view of OT as a "brand new game." You don't get a tie based on the first 4 quarters and then a win on top of it if you come out on top in OT. It's a single game.

Will agree to disagree. I think this is more rooted in opinion and I'll respect yours.

Not to belabor the point, but I don't see how this is really opinion.

Let's use the NBA as an example:

If you've ever heard the adage that in a 7 game series (like the NBA), if a series goes 7 games, a lot of people say "It's now just a 1 game series". Sure we know it's a 7 game series, what we're saying is after all that business we just went through, it's really just 1 game that will matter now

That's just my feel for games and competitions.

Extrapolate that to NBA overtime. After all that business of 48 minutes running up and down the floor, it comes down to a 5 minute overtime period. It's a 5 minute game.

Or in baseball: after all that business of 9 innings, it is just a 1 inning game.

To me that's my feel for competitions and games, and when it comes to my "feel for the game", that really means it's an entirely subjective feeling on my own part. And when something is entirely subjective on my own part, I call it opinion. So from my point of view, that's why I call it that. Does that make sense?

 

[scutterhawk]

This rematch game only proves one damned thing, and it's that the SNIVELING Denver PEYTON MANNING'S FANS, are some of the sorest losers in the U.S. of A.
They just refuse to believe that they aren't the best of the best.

 

[253hawk]

The coin flip doesn't mean squat. Belichick won the OT toss last year vs Denver and elected to kick because of the wind. They played the field position game for a few possessions and then Denver muffed a punt to set up the game winning kick.

New OT is way better than the old OT in any case. All you had to do before was drive about 35-40 yards (often with the help of a bogus penalty or two) after the kickoff, hit the FG and go home. Sometimes for the season. Regardless of the teams playing, I always thought that was the dumbest way for a game to end, given the climbing distance accuracy by kickers.

And I don't remember any Bears fans whining about 2012...

 

[scutterhawk]

This rematch game only proves one damned thing, and it's that the Denver PEYTON MANNING'S FANS, are some of the sorest losers in the U.S. of A.
They just refuse to believe that they just aren't the best of the best.
Yesterday, the Seahawks PROVED to be "The Best Of The Best"
My advise for the Denver Snivelers?, just get over it.

 

[Cartire]

And I don't remember any Bears fans whining about 2012...

Ding Ding Ding Ding.

Its a weird thing to say. Bears fans losing with class.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[mikeak]

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.

True but we would be complaining about it.......

I don't like the OT rule - never have. Each team should get the shot with the ball equal number of times more like College football. Each team should get the ball once. If both team scores the same number of points then you go again. That is what I think the rule should be.


I think a shoot-out system would be the most fun.

You get the ball on the 10 yard line. You get it five times and you cannot kick for 3pts. Each play stands on its own first team a goes then team b. Whoever scores the most TD's win the game

But that won't happen and shouldn't. It would definately be more fun but not in the spirit of the game.

 

[Chapow]

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?

Look, I get you want both teams on the field, but at some point, sudden death has to be implemented, or more ties are in the future and that would suck way more. At any point, once sudden death is implemented, the team on offense has the first chance to win the game. This is either at the start of OT, or if both sides get it no matter what, it still will happen after 2 possessions. So it doesnt matter.

60 minutes was the fairness, now were into sudden death (with the added bonus of a FG not determining it right off the bat). A coin flip is the most unbias means of determining the first possession.

Like I said previously, even if both teams were allowed the ball, and then both teams scored a TD, the ensuing possession would be sudden death and thusly, be an "advantage" to the team that got the ball first anyway. So its got to happen sooner or later.

Just let it be what it is. Something that has never been controversial until Golden Boy was effected by it.

Great post.