Overtime in the NFL

[BaseballMan]

Originally posted by frozenrope9190
The end of the 4th quarter of a tie game is the same way...teams know they only need a field goal to win. Do we disallow field goals in that scenario?

Overtime is just an extension of the 4th quarter, with a stoppage when somebody scores. And I don't believe the winner of the coin toss wins the games disproportionatly. Heck, the Bears won the coin toss against Buffalo and lost that game. Wanna get the ball back? Play some defense. Yes, the offense is tired too. Suck it up!!

Not exactly a team has a whole 4th qrt to win or lose by a field goal.
The opponent cant win in the first drive of the qrt by kicking a 50 yd field goal.

Play defense is easy to say but when a team only needs a field goal it makes it too easy for offense.

Offense is tired? Now how many games do you see the offense being tired? Maybe one player after a long run. Why because they dictate when the ball will be snapped.
The offensive line doesnt run half as much as the defensive line so i doubt if they are has tired as the defense.
Yes its part of strategy to wear a defense down but when the defense has just played the last 7 minutes of the 4th and then have to go straight back out, any defense is gonna have trouble.

Yes they should have stopped them during the 7 minutes and i have no problem with blaming them for losing the win but they
shouldnt have their backs further against the wall.

How many ot games have ended on a 50 yard field goal?
When all you need to do is get to the opponents 30 to win, it changes the game.
In regulation you still have to worry about whether youve ran the time down enough. Whether you should kick the field goal or go for the first to get a td cause if theres more time the opponent
could come back.
In ot if you get the ball first because of a lucky bounce you really dont have to worry about clock manangement.
You usually have good field position.

Would you accept a team winning the opening toss and choosing to receive also getting the ball first at the 2nd half?

If ot is an extension of the 4th shouldnt it be played under the same conditions?

Do teams have the ability in the 4th qrt to win on the first drive by a field goal. Not unless they can control the clock for 14:59
If they can do that then yeah they deserve the win.

Too many ot games are won by the coin toss.
They should either play a whole 15 minute minute qrt and giving both teams a chance or just call it a tie.

When your team starts loses 4 ots in a row and never gets the ball in 3 i doubt if youll be so pleased with ot.

[frozenrope9190]

Originally posted by BaseballMan

When your team starts loses 4 ots in a row and never gets the ball in 3 i doubt if youll be so pleased with ot.

Yes I will. That's my team's problem if they can't stop a team from getting into field goal position. PLAY SOME DEFENSE. DO IT. I don't care if they're tired. I don't care if they've played the last 7 minutes of the 4th quarter. If you played defense in the 4th quarter, maybe you wouldn't need to go to overtime and play some more. PLAY SOME DEFENSE. My goodness!


And, yes, the end of the 4th quarter CAN be won with a field goal. If the game is tied and there's less than 2 minutes to play, do you think that the offensive team is going to attempt to the put the ball in the end zone first? NO!! They're trying to get into field goal range. It's easier. If they score the touchdown, it's bonus. I've seen several teams get into field goal range at the end of the 4th quarter then run conservative plays to wind the clock down and win it with a field goal. How is that SO different than OT that the rules have to change?

I'm sorry your team lost 3 OT coin tosses and subsequently the game. But these things tend to even out in the long run. I wouldn't want to make a rule change because my team got the shaft in 3 games.

[CMH]

I don't understand.

Why is everyone complaining that a team can set up on the 30 yard line and kick a 47 yard field goal and win the game?

Kickers are part of the team and field goals are part of the score.

It's unfair to look at them as just extras and believe they should not be a part of winning.

If it werent for a certain kicker, the St. Louis Rams and SMartz might not have realized how cocky they were.

[BaseballMan]

Originally posted by frozenrope9190
Yes I will. That's my team's problem if they can't stop a team from getting into field goal position. PLAY SOME DEFENSE. DO IT. I don't care if they're tired. I don't care if they've played the last 7 minutes of the 4th quarter. If you played defense in the 4th quarter, maybe you wouldn't need to go to overtime and play some more. PLAY SOME DEFENSE. My goodness!


And, yes, the end of the 4th quarter CAN be won with a field goal. If the game is tied and there's less than 2 minutes to play, do you think that the offensive team is going to attempt to the put the ball in the end zone first? NO!! They're trying to get into field goal range. It's easier. If they score the touchdown, it's bonus. I've seen several teams get into field goal range at the end of the 4th quarter then run conservative plays to wind the clock down and win it with a field goal. How is that SO different than OT that the rules have to change?

I'm sorry your team lost 3 OT coin tosses and subsequently the game. But these things tend to even out in the long run. I wouldn't want to make a rule change because my team got the shaft in 3 games.

Its not just my team its happens way too much.
Ok so why not just let a team play defense the whole game?
Or better yet how bout the team that wins the coin toss
can go down the field and kick a field goal and win.
Thats pretty much the same as a ot with only one team going on offense.
So why even bother playing a hard fought game.
Just let the first team to score win.
The last 2 minutes of a half isnt the same as an ot.
Do you have to worry about the clock? NO.
You said it your self wind the clock down.

You dont have to worry about an opponent answering your score.
Moving to your opponents 30 isnt as hard as doing it and controlling the clock, having to decide between the FG or TD.
And i agree that a team should play defense but both teams should play defense. If you win in the last 2 minutes of the 4th its fair cause their defense stopped you and your defense didnt stop them.
But both defenses were forced to play and not just one cause a lucky bounce.

And since you talk about defense, why should one team be made
to play defense? Shouldnt both teams be made to? Do they just
let one team play offense a whole qrt?
Even with your 2 minute scenario both teams probably had the ball at least once that qrt.
According to what your saying it would be the same as baseball
saying the team that scores in the top of the tenth wins without letting the other team hit. Or basketball saying the first
team to score a basket in ot wins.
These sports do this for a reason. After a hard fought contest
it is a fair way to determine a winner. Teams can play to a win and not a tie but at the same time a team is not punished because of a lucky coin toss.
No matter how you defend it, the nfl ot is not a fair and just system. I personally would prefer they just leave it as a tie then use this bogus determination.

[Rizon]

A game should not be decided on the luck of a coin toss.

My suggestions:

1) Team with the best record gets the ball first in OT. 1st team to score wins.

2) First team to have one of its players kill Joe Thiesman and/or Paul McGwire wins.

3) Play an extra, but shortened, quarter.

[BaseballMan]

Originally posted by Rizon
A game should not be decided on the luck of a coin toss.

My suggestions:

1) Team with the best record gets the ball first in OT. 1st team to score wins.

2) First team to have one of its players kill Joe Thiesman and/or Paul McGwire wins.

3) Play an extra, but shortened, quarter.

Id agree with 2 & 3 if you can throw in Sean Salisbury.

[frozenrope9190]

Originally posted by BaseballMan
Its not just my team its happens way too much.
Ok so why not just let a team play defense the whole game?
Or better yet how bout the team that wins the coin toss
can go down the field and kick a field goal and win.
Thats pretty much the same as a ot with only one team going on offense.
So why even bother playing a hard fought game.
Just let the first team to score win.
The last 2 minutes of a half isnt the same as an ot.
Do you have to worry about the clock? NO.
You said it your self wind the clock down.

You dont have to worry about an opponent answering your score.
Moving to your opponents 30 isnt as hard as doing it and controlling the clock, having to decide between the FG or TD.
And i agree that a team should play defense but both teams should play defense. If you win in the last 2 minutes of the 4th its fair cause their defense stopped you and your defense didnt stop them.
But both defenses were forced to play and not just one cause a lucky bounce.

And since you talk about defense, why should one team be made
to play defense? Shouldnt both teams be made to? Do they just
let one team play offense a whole qrt?
Even with your 2 minute scenario both teams probably had the ball at least once that qrt.
According to what your saying it would be the same as baseball
saying the team that scores in the top of the tenth wins without letting the other team hit. Or basketball saying the first
team to score a basket in ot wins.
These sports do this for a reason. After a hard fought contest
it is a fair way to determine a winner. Teams can play to a win and not a tie but at the same time a team is not punished because of a lucky coin toss.
No matter how you defend it, the nfl ot is not a fair and just system. I personally would prefer they just leave it as a tie then use this bogus determination.

I think we're going to agree to disagree on this topic.

I simply don't feel that losing the coin toss punishes a team that severely. The first opportunity for a team to score is given to the team that wins the coin toss, yes. You are correct. But I think that football is a sport that the offense has to do so many things correct to put themselves in a position to score, that awarding a team the first opportunity to score isn't that much of an advantage.

Case in point:

I lose the coin toss and kick the ball. Ball is down at the opponents 15 yard line.

1st down: sack 8 yard loss.
2nd down: incomplete
3rd down: incomplete

Now THEY'RE punting the ball and I have a HUGE advantage in field position that they didn't have because my defense held them. Yes, that's an extreme case. But 3 and outs happen all the time. 6 and outs happen all the time. Throw in the wind advantage which always goes to the team that lost the coin toss (Morningweig's team excluded. ) and the advantage is not so severe that it completely screws the team that lost the coin toss.

I think you have some good points regarding the arbirtrary coin toss. I guess where we differ is the amount of advantage the coin toss winner actually gets. You say a lot. I say not that much. Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by BaseballMan
Id agree with 2 & 3 if you can throw in Sean Salisbury.

I am in emphatic agreement with this.

I can't watch Sunday night football anymore - Theismann and McGuire are simply horrible (and worse than that, they are repetitious in their horribleness).

And Salisbury is 9,000,000 times worse than them.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by USBL Commish 24
I think you meant the NBA, that has 5 minute Overtimes...

no - I was actually thinking of a real sport.

[BaseballMan]

well i dont disagree about playing defense.
But i just think a baseball type scenario would be better and actually more exciting as both teams would have the oppurtunity to go on offense and the whole team has to win in ot not mainly offense.
Oh well hopefully my team can avoid ot by playing twice as good as its oppenent in regulation.

[VT Os fan]

There should be no OT. The game should remain tied, just like in hockey.

[Le Grande Orange]

Actually, the NHL does play a 5 minute OT period in the regular season. They've been doing that for a number of years now. The last change they made with regard to that was adding the 1 point for an OT loss instead of getting 0 points for the OT loss. The team winning the game still picks up 2 points for the win.

As to the NFL, I'd say play a 10 minute OT, if it's still tied, then a tie it stays.

For comparison, the CFL uses this method: two 5 minute OT periods. The team ahead after the extra 10 minutes wins, and if it's still a tie, then a tie it remains. What's interesting here is that each 5 minute period is self-contained, with a kick-off to start each, etc. In other words, it's like playing a 5 minute half instead of the normal 30 minute half.

[Jason Moyer]

Hm, I wouldn't mind a variation of the system used in college football. Have a normal coin toss, then kickoff like at the beginning of OT now. The first team gets one drive. If they turn the ball over on downs, they kickoff to the other team and they get one drive to score. It continues to go back and forth like this as long as neither team scores.

Once a team scores, the other team has one drive to produce the same number of points. This would basically eliminate the general "whomever receives the kickoff wins" situation that happens now, would guarantee no tie games, and would in most circumstances end the game much sooner than a full 15 minute period.

The college rule is incredibly odd by the way. In NCAA 2k3 I just had a 21-21 game at the end of regulation vs Michigan (as Penn State) end up being 58-56 when I stuffed the CPU's 2-point conversion at the end. That was my first introduction to the college tiebreaker system, and it was pretty confusing to say the least.

Jason