I still don't know how these rules are still used. How can you sleep knowing that the rules favor the winner of a lucky coin toss. It is such a cheap win and you know this because if you do win, you will have no qualms. But if you are impartial or your team loses, you will definitely lose your mind over the rules. Why can't the other team get a chance to score? It still gives a slight advantage to the first team since they have first ball but at least give the other teams offense a chance.
Why is this in its own thread? Also, if you have trouble sleeping at night because of a sports event, I hope it's just because you stayed up late.
It's a perfectly valid thread, not all NFL discussion needs to be confined to the NFL thread (which will inevitably move on). Let me guess...Packers fan? lol. There isn't a good way to end a game that needs to have a winner ASAP.
To be fair, after a particularly intense sporting event when my team loses I'm sometimes unable to to go sleep right away, not because of anger (per se) but simply because of adrenaline coming down and my brain needing time to shut down.. Sunday night and Monday night football games are particularly bad at this on occasion... It sometimes also happens with a ridiculously entertaining ending, like this one would have been if I'd wanted to go to sleep when it ended...
Eagles fan, but over the years I have developed a deep hatred for the rules of overtime. I could never understand why they made the rule the way it is. Would rather have another quarter than first to score.
Well, that's not what the rule was for like the first 45+ years of football, so you've had time to adjust... it used to be plain sudden death...
I think they vastly improved the rules with the change, actually. Yes there's still an element of chance, but a good NFL defense stands a good chance of preventing a TD on a single drive. Certainly the team that wins the toss has an advantage but there are all sorts of advantages in the NFL (home crowds, the Broncos playing at altitude, the Packers playing in the freezing cold). You won't ever be able to eliminate them entirely. The problem with doing it the college way is NFL teams would take it to the must-score-a-td round every time. And would be exhausted by then. The problem with playing a whole extra 15 minute quarter is NFL games are gruellingly punishing, and if you make them play this long there will be injuries, the play will be sloppy and depend heavily on luck, and both teams will be at an enormous disadvantage the next week due to punishing their bodies far too much in OT. So what alternative method would you propose? I'm open to suggestions. At least it's not as horrible as taking a major elimination game to penalties, as in the other football.
The first idea that popped into my head is a bit "different" but I actully saw the same idea implemented in a mobile game. Each team gets one try at a touchdown drive. If no one scores, furthest down the field wins. If they both score, quickest time wins. And of course if one scores, and the other doesn't, you have your winner.
Oh my God. I didn't know about this but I just watched that press conference clip, and that is amazing. I mean, you'd think at least his coach would have informed him of the importance of scoring in ti- Oh. Oh, now I see the problem.
Hi there Beardwalker. I have this gripe as well. Considering how much these players put into the first four quarters, an abrupt ending that's influenced by a coin toss just doesn't work. Winning in this fashion does seem a bit cheap. Yes, a defense has to step up, but there's no denying the existence of an advantage for the coin toss winner. Speaking of the Packers game, did you see that coin NOT flip? Perhaps it was a sign. Anyway, even with all the opposition, I still believe playing a full fifth quarter is the perfect solution. The grueling punishment has already taken place for an hour already. I still don't buy the 'massive increase in injuries' theory. Doesn't OT sometimes go long as it is? If anything, I'd propose shortening the fifth quarter to 10 minutes, as long as it's still played in full. This way, the outcome doesn't depend upon luck AND playing time is shortened.
And we've seen yet another demonstration today of Reid's legendary clock management skills. A 10 minute OT is still going to wear everyone out tremendously. Seriously, I think teams that go to OT already tend to do poorly the next week. If it were guaranteed to always be that long, that would have a huge impact. Would the current rule work better if they made this change: no matter what the first team does on their drive, the other team still gets the ball and a shot? This way scoring a TD is still the preferable option for the first team (since it forces the other team to answer in kind), but there's no sudden death element on the opening drive? I feel like that would be the easiest way to make it as fair as possible. Basically, if anyone scores on those first two drives, the team that scores more wins. And if neither team scores on their first possessions, it goes to sudden death. There would still be a slight advantage to the winner of the coin flip of course, since if it's tied after those opening two possessions (either by no one scoring or both teams scoring the same), the coin flip winner gets the first crack at the sudden death score. But you have to accept this element of luck to avoid playing for eternity.
Although I preferred/miss the old NFL OT rules (1st to score wins), there's enough enjoyable chaos in the current setup for me to enjoy.
Heck yes... atrocious clock management. And where was KC's sense of urgency? I understand the brutal punishment these guys experience. As for 'a monumental rise in the number of injuries' (an argument I've read over and over), I don't see it. Regardless, I can appreciate your point about performing the next week. Exhaustion can have a long-lasting impact on players. No, I don't think the current rule can be fixed. I'd absolutely prefer your idea though. Give the other team a shot, even after a TD. That's better than what we have now. Realistically, I still believe a finite amount of time is the only answer in terms of fairness and strategy. It eliminates the slight advantage of the toss. We NEED an extra quarter. And the legitimate concern about protecting players can be addressed. If need be, make OT somewhere between 5-10 minutes.
Sure, but how do you decide how much time is enough to give both teams a shot (if it's 5 minutes, the first team may burn out the whole clock) and how much time is too much (and will overly exhaust the players)? The NFL also has an interest in an overtime that is fast and exciting rather than having it drag on so long it just becomes a war of attrition (who will break down first, make a key mistake, etc). The latter winds up deciding the game mostly on endurance rather than real skill, and I'm not sure that's how professional football should be.
I even read an idea that some engineer came up. The basis of the idea what the team who was willingly to sacrifice the most yards at the start would go first. So how close are you willing to be to the goal line.
Growing up, I always hated when my TV shows were pre-empted by football running overtime. As I got older, I learned this was because of the Heidi game. Still, it always ticked me off. Some of us were promised a TV show, not a football game running long, dammit!
