New Playoff OT rules in effect

[cravnravn]

We've heard the complaints for years: NFL overtime is won and lost on the coin flip. Well, back in March, the NFL heard your plea and took action. The new overtime will take effect starting this weekend and will be used throughout the playoffs. Most things are going to remain the same. Teams will still do a coin flip and decide whether to kick or receive. Here's a break down of the new rules:

 

• Both teams will have the opportunity to control the ball at least once in the overtime period
• If the first team to control the ball scores, the second team will have a chance to match, or beat, that score.
• If the second team bests the first's team score, they have won
• If the second team matches the first team score, the game will enter classic NFL overtime, in sudden death format.

http://seattle.sbnation.com/seattle-seahawks/2011/1/7/1920496/nfl-playoffs-Seahawks-Saints-Overtime-Rule-Change-Pete-Carrol

 

 

[yagersports]

The NFL should have adopted the college rules completely, not this hybrid. They should go completely to the college rules and use them for every game of the season. It makes for a better played game and more acceptable game when it comes to W's and L's.

[cravnravn]

But it is an upgrade to what we had, at least the other team gets a shot with the ball..

[yagersports]

I agree, it is an upgrade, it just seems like a half@$$ attempt thats all lol.

[thundercleetz]

I thought the second team would only get the ball if the first team kicked a field goal? If the first team scores a touchdown, the game is over I believe. I like the new rules, no more kicking field goals on third down. But then again, should that second team get the ball after a field goal from the first team, it does put them into four down territory.

[dc.]

You're correct, Cleetz. Game only continues on a field goal.

 

I heard a source pretty much say the Commissioner wanted there to be no chance that a Super Bowl or other playoff game was decided on a coin flip.

 

People keep bringing up that a game could 'end on an incomplete pass' or really any other play that doesn't score/get a first down. But, that's a lot like many games already. It's weird to think if you don't get a first down with 10 minutes left the game ends... but that's not much different from not getting a first down with 1:40 left and no time outs. And it's no less exciting, either.

 

Think about that - just like the final moments of a game, every 3rd and 4th down in overtime will be absolutely critical and exciting.

[Spen]

I think the new rules are OK I have no problem with them. I was OK with the former format too.

 

I am glad they didn't go to the college rules. I don't like eliminating 60% of the field for that format. I think it cheapens the game.

[oldno82]

I think the new rules are OK I have no problem with them. I was OK with the former format too.

 

I am glad they didn't go to the college rules. I don't like eliminating 60% of the field for that format. I think it cheapens the game.

 

Agree with that!

[geo]

I think it is bs. And what if that OT Q ended with 3-3 or 0-0, it would be a....coin flip.

 

If it is a tie after 4 Qs, both teams have had plenty of time to end the game! Therefore the first score in the OT should end the game period! Now only a TD or a safety can end the game in the first drive.

[Preacher]

I think it is bs. And what if that OT Q ended with 3-3 or 0-0, it would be a....coin flip.

 

If it is a tie after 4 Qs, both teams have had plenty of time to end the game! Therefore the first score in the OT should end the game period! Now only a TD or a safety can end the game in the first drive.

 

I don't mind the change. However, I think it would have been easier to simply eliminate field goals all together in OT. Of course, that would probably mean more time on the field. Either that, or stop the "Sudden Death" approach and actually play another full 15 minutes.

[yagersports]

The college rules do absolutely nothing to "cheapen" the game. That's nonsense. The college OT rules force each teams offense and defense to square off against one another in the redzone on each possession. Forcing each team to screw it on tight and "make it count". Cheapening the game would be ending a game in FG kicking competition like soccer or hockey ends their games. The shootouts have very little to do with actually playing the game. With the college OT rules both teams execute red zone offense and defense and the team that is the most complete on both sides of the ball typically will come out the victor. That is a fair way of deciding a game. Why do we need to see a team have a drive stalled? Just put em in the redzone and put the pressure on.

[Spen]

The college rules do absolutely nothing to "cheapen" the game. That's nonsense. The college OT rules force each teams offense and defense to square off against one another in the redzone on each possession. Forcing each team to screw it on tight and "make it count". Cheapening the game would be ending a game in FG kicking competition like soccer or hockey ends their games. The shootouts have very little to do with actually playing the game. With the college OT rules both teams execute red zone offense and defense and the team that is the most complete on both sides of the ball typically will come out the victor. That is a fair way of deciding a game. Why do we need to see a team have a drive stalled? Just put em in the redzone and put the pressure on.

 

To you thats fine and good, to me its cheapening the game. I think the college OT rules which ignore 2/3rds of the field and several aspects of the game are every bit as goofy soccer or hockey shootouts. In an NFL game I would prefer to play NFL football to decide the OT, not some goofy 'start on the 25' system.

Sorry if you think thats nonsense.

[yagersports]

So instead it's more exciting to watch a drive falter at their own 30? Or instead watch a FG go up and game over? No, the other team should have an opportunity for rebuttal. Maybe, I could see if it had to be a TD for a win, but a FG just seems far too easy. I love giving both teams the same redzone opportunity to finish the game on both sides of the ball. Offense and defense.

[Spen]

So instead it's more exciting to watch a drive falter at their own 30? Or instead watch a FG go up and game over? No, the other team should have an opportunity for rebuttal. Maybe, I could see if it had to be a TD for a win, but a FG just seems far too easy. I love giving both teams the same redzone opportunity to finish the game on both sides of the ball. Offense and defense.

 

If a drive falters at the 30 it falters at the 30 whether its exciting to you or not. Thats football, some defenses are good. I am fine with both teams getting the same opportunity to finish the game, I see no reason or logic to magically have them start at the 25. I think it disrespects the game, particularly defense.

[yagersports]

In actuality it creates a situation where both sides of the ball have the opportunity to shine or falter in the highest pressure situation possible. Great defenses will step up, it's no disrespect to a defense to start the opponents offense in the Redzone and say, here's your challenge....stop them!

[Spen]

In actuality it creates a situation where both sides of the ball have the opportunity to shine or falter in the highest pressure situation possible. Great defenses will step up, it's no disrespect to a defense to start the opponents offense in the Redzone and say, here's your challenge....stop them!

 

It is to me. To me it overwhelmingly favors and helps the offense and hurts the defense. If a team has to go 25 yards to score instead of 70 is that easier or harder on the offense? If a defense has to stop a team before they go 70 yards or before they go 25 which is easier?

I want to see all sports play overtime as close to regulation play as they can, not some goofy hybrid designed to create an ending faster or for the attention deficient.

 

To me it just cheapens the game and disrespects it and I am really glad the NFL did not go that route. Were just going to continue to disagree.