Overtime in the NFL

[4and12to12and4]

To add to my post just above, if who gets the ball first doesn't really matter based on percentages, then why do they have the rule set up that whoever starts on offense in the fisrt half, the other team gets it in the second half. I mean, if it doesn't really matter, they could just say that the home team gets it both halves, or something like that. The NFL, by it's own rules, admits that it matters. So, why then, does it suddenly not matter in OT?

Maybe the new Commish will have this on his agenda. But I doubt it.

[MJZiggy]

To add to my post just above, if who gets the ball first doesn't really matter based on percentages, then why do they have the rule set up that whoever starts on offense in the fisrt half, the other team gets it in the second half. I mean, if it doesn't really matter, they could just say that the home team gets it both halves, or something like that. The NFL, by it's own rules, admits that it matters. So, why then, does it suddenly not matter in OT?

But according to NFL rules, the team that wins the toss doesn't automatically get the ball. They get their choice of the ball or the end zone they want to defend. They usually choose the ball, but they have the option of defending a goal if the sun or wind's in a bad way or they know it will be later in the game. In overtime, they also don't get the ball automatically--remember Matt's line? "We want the ball 'cause we're gonna score!" That worked out well for him.

[4and12to12and4]

To add to my post just above, if who gets the ball first doesn't really matter based on percentages, then why do they have the rule set up that whoever starts on offense in the fisrt half, the other team gets it in the second half. I mean, if it doesn't really matter, they could just say that the home team gets it both halves, or something like that. The NFL, by it's own rules, admits that it matters. So, why then, does it suddenly not matter in OT?

But according to NFL rules, the team that wins the toss doesn't automatically get the ball. They get their choice of the ball or the end zone they want to defend. They usually choose the ball, but they have the option of defending a goal if the sun or wind's in a bad way or they know it will be later in the game. In overtime, they also don't get the ball automatically--remember Matt's line? "We want the ball 'cause we're gonna score!" That worked out well for him.

The point is however, that whoever takes the ball in the first half DOESN'T get it in the second, which is the NFL admitting that it matters.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The point is however, that whoever takes the ball in the first half DOESN'T get it in the second, which is the NFL admitting that it matters.

Actually, they could. That's her point. One team could choose to receive in the first half, and the other team could choose to defend an end zone in the second half. A team could, in fact, receive the ball first in both halfs. It rarely happens because if you defend an end zone in one quarter, the next quarter is the opposite--which negates the advantage.

The NFL rules on the coin toss:

Coin Toss

1. The toss of coin will take place within three minutes of kickoff in center of field. The toss will be called by the visiting captain before the coin is flipped. The winner may choose one of two privileges and the loser gets the other:

(a) Receive or kick

(b) Goal his team will defend

2. Immediately prior to the start of the second half, the captains of both teams must inform the officials of their respective choices. The loser of the original coin toss gets first choice.

[Bretsky]

Where are the fact busters ? What % of teams drive for the winning score right off the coin flip ?

If memory serves me right it's somewhere below 40%. But that % will sway my view as to how good it is working.

B

[CyclonePackFan]

Where are the fact busters ? What % of teams drive for the winning score right off the coin flip ?

If memory serves me right it's somewhere below 40%. But that % will sway my view as to how good it is working.

B

As of 2004, you are correct (most recent stats I can find). historically, 40% of first drives end in a score in NFL overtime. In 2003, it was around 30%.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2004-...s-nfl-ot_x.htm

HOWEVER, this was before the NFL got offensive-happy and started calling pass interferecne all the time. I'm curious as to how the percentage has changed since the rule tightening.

[4and12to12and4]

Once again, regardless of whether its 40%, 30%, or 10%, the bottom line is, common sense tells us it still is an unfair way to resolve a game. To make my point, I used the challenge rule to back my position. Most of the challenge calls are NOT overturned. Probably much less than 40%. So, does that mean that the NFL should get rid of instant replay based on the fact of the low percentage of times it changes the outcome of a play? It is still crucial, even if only one play per year gets overturned. Because that one play helps that team change it's fate in that one game. So, in turn, even if ONE team a year scores on that first possession, that is ONE game that, IMO, was decided unfairly, because the other team didn't get their fair chance to score. This is why I feel that regardless of how low the percentage is, it is a moot point, because the OT rule, by nature, doesn't even the playing field. Whether or not a team scores at a high percantage or not means nothing to me. They still are given the OPPORTUNITY to score in an unfair setting. So, given that, the NFL should change it's OT rules.

[Fosco33]

To add to my post just above, if who gets the ball first doesn't really matter based on percentages, then why do they have the rule set up that whoever starts on offense in the fisrt half, the other team gets it in the second half. I mean, if it doesn't really matter, they could just say that the home team gets it both halves, or something like that. The NFL, by it's own rules, admits that it matters. So, why then, does it suddenly not matter in OT?

But according to NFL rules, the team that wins the toss doesn't automatically get the ball. They get their choice of the ball or the end zone they want to defend. They usually choose the ball, but they have the option of defending a goal if the sun or wind's in a bad way or they know it will be later in the game. In overtime, they also don't get the ball automatically--remember Matt's line? "We want the ball 'cause we're gonna score!" That worked out well for him.

Remember the Bears deferred to defense and lost on the first possession a few years ago - can't recall who they played but it was a big deal.

The more I read these posts and search for info I'm changing my stance on OT in the NFL.

We always want to change things when we feel our team 'gets robbed' - recall the instant replay debacle from the 49ers playoff loss (the day TO said he was born as a superstar despite an obvious fumble).

The NFL owners and coaches don't want to change the rules - until a really big game is affected (mainly the Superbowl) - nothing will change. When the Steelers lost in OT on a first possession Cowher called for changes - when they showed up to discuss this w/ the competition committee people were unexpectedly silent.

With sudden death, teams are striving in the 4th quarter to win - at any cost. The risk of losing in OT on a first possession forces this. Regardless, you have to play strong D in OT if you want a shot to win. The historic stats I posted on the previous page show that it works. The fluke season back in '02 is not the catalyst of change.

Lengthening the game could cause additional injuries and inflated scores/records. Keep the rule the same and get the job done before it becomes an issue.

[4and12to12and4]

To add to my post just above, if who gets the ball first doesn't really matter based on percentages, then why do they have the rule set up that whoever starts on offense in the fisrt half, the other team gets it in the second half. I mean, if it doesn't really matter, they could just say that the home team gets it both halves, or something like that. The NFL, by it's own rules, admits that it matters. So, why then, does it suddenly not matter in OT?

But according to NFL rules, the team that wins the toss doesn't automatically get the ball. They get their choice of the ball or the end zone they want to defend. They usually choose the ball, but they have the option of defending a goal if the sun or wind's in a bad way or they know it will be later in the game. In overtime, they also don't get the ball automatically--remember Matt's line? "We want the ball 'cause we're gonna score!" That worked out well for him.

Remember the Bears deferred to defense and lost on the first possession a few years ago - can't recall who they played but it was a big deal.

The more I read these posts and search for info I'm changing my stance on OT in the NFL.

We always want to change things when we feel our team 'gets robbed' - recall the instant replay debacle from the 49ers playoff loss (the day TO said he was born as a superstar despite an obvious fumble).

The NFL owners and coaches don't want to change the rules - until a really big game is affected (mainly the Superbowl) - nothing will change. When the Steelers lost in OT on a first possession Cowher called for changes - when they showed up to discuss this w/ the competition committee people were unexpectedly silent.

With sudden death, teams are striving in the 4th quarter to win - at any cost. The risk of losing in OT on a first possession forces this. Regardless, you have to play strong D in OT if you want a shot to win. The historic stats I posted on the previous page show that it works. The fluke season back in '02 is not the catalyst of change.

Lengthening the game could cause additional injuries and inflated scores/records. Keep the rule the same and get the job done before it becomes an issue.

Ziggy, you have used past games to help decide your decision on this issue-- why does it even matter what history of OT decisions show us?

Common sense tells us, no matter what sport it is, that each team deserves at least A CHANCE. It seems so simple, give each team a sporting chance to equal what your opponent has done. That, to me, is why the system is so unfair and ridiculous. I mean, my god, give each team a sporting chance to score. Regardless of stats, the NFL needs to come to grip with the fact that in the current system, the team who gets the ball first, whether they score or not, has the potential for an unfair advantage. It doesn't take a genius to see this. Come on, fans, if you see things in the light of giving each team a sporting chance, we need to see a system where each team can huddle up and try to equal what their opponent has done. Why is this even debatable. (that spelling seems erroneous to me ) Anyknock, come on, is anyone in my camp here, for the love of knock knock, it is SO simple, one team wins a friggin' coin toss, gets to run the ball to maybe the 32 yard line (big deal) and can win. It sucks. Period. I don't care if only one team out of 50 wins, that one team won in an unfair way. You HAVE TO let each team have a shot. Jeez. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this. I friggin' hate the OT rules, and I will never change my mind because it is obviously unfair. I don't know how else I can spell it out. If those who choose to respond in advocasy of the current system, tell me how on earth you can think that the system is even remotely fair, not based on previous outcomes, but rather, based on common sense. That's all I'm asking. Good night and good luck.

[MJZiggy]

4and12, I wasn't arguing that the OT rule is as it should be. I was pointing out that the teams don't necessarily switch, rather they get a choice of what they want. Personally, I think that in OT Team A should kick off from the 20 and if they don't score, punt, but if they do score, kick off from the 20 and give the offense the same drive that they got. If they score, repeat process until someone has possession but it is no longer a tie.


*and as a side note, you had debatable spelled just fine.

[4and12to12and4]

4and12, I wasn't arguing that the OT rule is as it should be. I was pointing out that the teams don't necessarily switch, rather they get a choice of what they want. Personally, I think that in OT Team A should kick off from the 20 and if they don't score, punt, but if they do score, kick off from the 20 and give the offense the same drive that they got. If they score, repeat process until someone has possession but it is no longer a tie.


*and as a side note, you had debatable spelled just fine.

Now this I can agree with Zig, at least it gives a fair chance for either team. Although I'd rather see the kicking team out of it, like the college rules implement, at least what you suggest, it gives each team a fair shot.

[MJZiggy]

Actually, I'd like to leave the kicking team in. They are a part of the game as well and if Team B kicks a FG and Team A gets a TD, Team A still wins. I would end up in a kicking shootout no more than regulation time because they still have to return the kickoff and drive into FG range. If they can't do that, then game over. What do we do if they both go 3-and-out? Then is it sudden death as they've both had an opportunity to handle the ball?

[4and12to12and4]

I can agree with that. What your suggesting is a complete simulation of a regular game, yet giving each team a fair chance. Which is what I'd like to see. The only difference from my suggestion and your's is that special teams has less to do with the outcome based on original starting point. I quess, your suggestion keeps the game more like the way the game is designed, that is, starting position based on where the special teams end up placing the ball. I just think that at the stage of the game where both teams are exhausted, the special teams should be taken out the scenario as much as possible and let the true position specialists play it out. That way, a tired defensive special teams unit doesn't give away 50+ yards to determine the outcome, rather than an offensive unit having to EARN it's points. Either way, at least each team has a fair chance.

I like the way you think, Ziggy, it seems as though we both agree that Team A and Team B should have, at that stage of the war, earned it's right to score without bias of Heads or Tails!!


As far as both teams going 3andout, an earlier post of mine suggested that each team would drive by drive get the ball ten yards closer to the oppositions goal to eventually resolve the game. But, one way or the other, your viewpiont or mine, at least both teams should DEFINITELY have the opportunity to handle the ball on offense!!

[BooHoo]

I don't like the current system. I like the idea of both teams getting a chance to score. Either kick off to both teams or go the college route.

Alternative method: Only allow both teams to hand the ball off to the 140 pound soccer wimps (as one posted) from the 5 yard line. See if he can score after four attempts.

[4and12to12and4]

I don't like the current system. I like the idea of both teams getting a chance to score. Either kick off to both teams or go the college route.

Alternative method: Only allow both teams to hand the ball off to the 140 pound soccer wimps (as one posted) from the 5 yard line. See if he can score after four attempts.

As hilarious as that sounds, that would be awesome to watch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heck, we might even see a headbutt or two.