NFL Overtime Rules: Change Them?

[simpsons_fanatic742]

The NFL Overtime Rules have been under alot of controversy the last couple of seasons and it was brought up again after the NFC Champion game between the Vikings and the Saints. The Saints win the toss, go down the field, and hit a field goal. The Saints win without the Vikings getting a chance to match or beat them.

Side one: Many people believe that the first team who scores rule is not a good way to end the game because the other team doesn't even have a chance to respond. They think that the team should be able to get a chance to either match the other team's score or beat it, depending on the situation.

Side Two: Purist believe in tradition and to not change the rule that's been there for awhile now. They believe that the defence should do their job and stop the offence if they want their team to have a chance to win the game.

There are people who have given their solutions to solve the problem, but the NFL has not talked about changing the overtime format.

What are you thoughts on the NFL Overtime Format? Would you keep it or change it and why. Also, if you would change it, how would you change it?

 

[Mr. TM]

I have always thought that the rules are ridicolous. The CFL in my opinion has a much better set of overtime rules. The CFL has the winner of the coin toss start at the 40 yard line. They then get a set of tries to score as many points as they can. Then the other team gets a set of tries to try and either tie it, or better it. If they cannot break the tie, they do so again. In the NFL, its a test of one teams defense against one teams offense once. I don't think a tem that relies on offense should get elimintated if they enver get a chance to put out their offense, and vice versa.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

It seems like the CFL rules are similar to college rules which I don't like at all. If you lose the coin toss and don't have a chance to get the ball back then that's too bad. You can stop them in regulation but you can't stop them in overtime. The only thing I would change about overtime is that they should eliminate ties. Ties actually give teams an advantage at the end of the season and I don't think that should be the case. In the postseason, they don't have ties and I think they shouldn't have it in the regular season.

 

[Mr. TM]

What don't you like about the NCAA/CFL (very similar) rules? They provide both teams the opertunity to play defense and offense. EAch team gets to play esentially one last play each. Taking out the matter of the regular season where games CAN end in a tie. Turnovers shouldn't be to common come playoffs, so it means a team HAS to score.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

It just seems way too gimmicky for me. I have the mindset that if you can stop a team for driving eighty or ninety yards in regulation, then you should be able to do it in overtime. I'm on the fence about letting field goals end overtime as I rather let them score touchdowns but overall I do not have a problem with the overtime system and I don't think its going to change anytime soon.

 

[Mr. TM]

Too gimmicky? All it is is a shorter game inside of a game. The NFL's current overtime is ridiculous. Its not not mar the real game play in an NFL game. I feel the same thing about shootouts to end footy or hockey.

The game goes into overtime. Its not about who has been able to do what at this time, because the game is tied. They each have has as equal plays as posible after 60 minutes. So let them each get one go again. Otherwise, a coin toss can win a game for another team. You win the game on a kicker if they can get it up to within 50 yards. I don't consider that fair for the other team who never gets their offense on the field.

The game is not one of one defense and one offense. Its a game of two defenses and two offenses

 

[Big Sexy]

They definitely need to change. A coin toss should not decide these games. There are two solutions.

1. Have the coin toss like normal, but if the team that gets the ball first scores, then they still kick it off to the second team and that team gets the same opportunity and has one drive to get the same number of points. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score and they end up punting or have a turnover then the other team can win with a score on their first OT possession.

2. Have it similar to College but make both teams start farther away. Make it something like the 50 or even just have them start at their OWN 20 or 25 yard line.

Either way both teams in OT deserve an opportunity to score.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Why am I not surprised that this came up today, one day after New Orleans won the NFC Championship game in overtime and didn't need to play defense... Something tells me this didn't come up when Arizona defeated Green Bay, because the DEFENSE scored a TD.

I am not opposed to the current overtime rules. I don't think the rules should not be changed just because the game was tied after regulation. NCAA (and apparently the CFL) change the rules, and give each team the ball at a designated point and turn off the game clock. The NFL has sudden death, but retains the basic rules of football. Plus, NCAA overtime rules can lead to ridiculous scores due to multiple overtimes.

If the NFL were to change its overtime rules, then what I would do is require a team to score 6 points in order to win. Doing this will allow field goals, but make a team need 2 to win. This also ends the game if a defense cannot keep the ball out of the end zone.

 

[scorpioking1026]

I deff think the NFL needs to change the OT rules. Just look at what happened in that Saints-Vikes game. 1) The Saints drive was able to continue thanks to an early Christmas gift from the refs on that pass interference call. 3rd and 10, Bress is VERY close to being sacked, forced to throw off his back foot, and whoops, overthrows his receiver by ten yards. The game was decided cuz of that call which is damn shame cuz it was such a great game plus it really diminsihes a terrific feat by the Saints of reaching their first Super Bowl (for all the other fans that aren't Saints fans anways.) I have two solutions for this.

1) The most logical solution is to make OT a whole quarter of football. Think about it. When baseball and basketball goes into OT they play a whole inning or period. This gives each team a fair and equal opportunity to win the game. Mostly by making both teams by both offense and defense. That is how a game should be won. With the NFL's current system, one bad penalty call from the refs could drastically determine the outcome of the game. Which leads me to solution #2.

2) Stay with the sudden death format but tweak it a bit. First thing to do is make it so that you have to score a TD, no FGs to win a game. I don't know about everybody else but I was frustrated that the NFC championship was determined by not only a FG but also the first FG attempted the whole game. The second thing they need to do is drastically limit the influence the refs have over the outcome. Just let them play. Sure some penalites should be called like roughing the passer(legit hits not baby ones like Brady gets calls on), personal fouls, and legit pass interference. However i feel that these penalites should just create an automatic first down and not reward yard gainage. Teams should have to earn every inch, especially in a game that determines who goes to the Super Bowl.

3) Keep the current system but at least get rid of the coin toss. Really how fair is sometimes that a game that is so important can be determined by something as silly as a coin toss, something that involves no skill what so ever and there is only a 50% chance of winning. Why not best 2 out of 3 rock, paper, scissors (or Odds and Evens)? How about the way the XFL did it, put the ball in the middle of the field and have the teams run to the ball and who ever got there first won. Something competitive please.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

I used to think that the NFL overtime rule needed to be changed, and bought into the whole " a coin flip should not decide the outcome of the game" argument. Sure it can seem brutal to go into an overtime, never touch the ball, and lose the game, but as stated already you have 60 minutes of back and fourth action to determine the outcome of the game. Its not like the team that wins the coin toss gets to start all the way down the field, there is still a kick off, you still have to drive the ball the length of the field. Those aspects of the game don't change in overtime, and if the defense is not up to the task, than so be it.

I enjoy the college football overtime system, and I enjoy it for College football. Its nice to have a bit of a difference between college and the NFL. Giving college kids a fair chance for each team to score in overtime is fine, but there is no need for it in the NFL. If anything the NFL overtime system adds for drama and suspense to the games. Its more unfair to just place a team at the 30 yard line and score if you can, that's more like a penalty shot than the current system. College football is built around high powered offense's and high scoring games, and thats why the college overtime rule fits with the NCAA, and not with the NFL.

On a bit of a side note, I did not see anyone complaining about the rule when Arizona beet Green bay a couple weeks ago, Arizona never touched the ball on offense in overtime, and they won the game, that more than anything goes to prove that is dose not matter who gets the ball in overtime first, Its who wants it more.

The only way this rule gets changed is if Manning(or Brady in the future) loses the Super Bowl in overtime without getting to touch the ball. All the Manning shareholders or is it nut-holders?? would throw a fit and I'm sure change would be made, Unfair change at that.

 

[Big Sexy]

On a bit of a side note, I did not see anyone complaining about the rule when Arizona beet Green bay a couple weeks ago, Arizona never touched the ball on offense in overtime, and they won the game, that more than anything goes to prove that is dose not matter who gets the ball in overtime first, Its who wants it more.

That was ONE case where it worked out. And there are many other cases as well where the team to get the ball first either turns it over or is unable to get in range for a score and they have to punt. However, I can also find a ton of other instances where the team that won the coin toss has gotten the ball and scored without the other team having a chance.

I also don't want this bullshit about how it is the defenses job to stop them. That's true, but what about the receiving teams defense? Often times they never have to step foot on the field. Just take the SB for example. This year it is two high powered offensive teams in New Orleans and Indy. Most likely if the game were to go into overtime the team that wins the coin toss will win the game. No game should be decided like that.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

That was ONE case where it worked out. And there are many other cases as well where the team to get the ball first either turns it over or is unable to get in range for a score and they have to punt. However, I can also find a ton of other instances where the team that won the coin toss has gotten the ball and scored without the other team having a chance.

I also don't want this bullshit about how it is the defenses job to stop them. That's true, but what about the receiving teams defense? Often times they never have to step foot on the field. Just take the SB for example. This year it is two high powered offensive teams in New Orleans and Indy. Most likely if the game were to go into overtime the team that wins the coin toss will win the game. No game should be decided like that.

I understand the thought process, and will agree that the overtime rule is not completely fair, but a change to the college OT rules would just not work in the NFL. Starting a team so close to the end zone in the NFL is like letting Shaq shoot his free throws from dunking range, giving Peyton Manning the ball on the opponents 30 yard line to start OT is not fair to the defense or the special teams.

An acceptable solution to the NFL overtime situation would be to just play the OT quarter all the way through, for the full fifteen minutes. It seems to be the fairest way to do things. Nobody could really complain about that, the only argument that would come of it would be game fatigue if we started to get into multiple overtimes, in turn this makes players even more vulnerable to injuries than they already are. To this, maybe it could be made where after OT in the regular season if the game is a tie than so be it ( As much as I hate ties), and in the playoffs its as many OT's as it takes.

Imo, that is the only acceptable OT change for the NFL, other wise just keep it as is.

 

[Big Sexy]

I understand the thought process, and will agree that the overtime rule is not completely fair, but a change to the college OT rules would just not work in the NFL. Starting a team so close to the end zone in the NFL is like letting Shaq shoot his free throws from dunking range, giving Peyton Manning the ball on the opponents 30 yard line to start OT is not fair to the defense or the special teams.

An acceptable solution to the NFL overtime situation would be to just play the OT quarter all the way through, for the full fifteen minutes. It seems to be the fairest way to do things. Nobody could really complain about that, the only argument that would come of it would be game fatigue if we started to get into multiple overtimes, in turn this makes players even more vulnerable to injuries than they already are. To this, maybe it could be made where after OT in the regular season if the game is a tie than so be it ( As much as I hate ties), and in the playoffs its as many OT's as it takes.

Imo, that is the only acceptable OT change for the NFL, other wise just keep it as is.

I don't think anyone should argue that it should be just like the college rule because like you said the games would go on forever. I also agree that playing a full 15 minutes is too long.

This is probably the best option: Have the coin toss like normal, but if the team that gets the ball first scores, then they still kick it off to the second team and that team gets the same opportunity and has one drive to get the same number of points. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score and they end up punting or have a turnover then the other team can win with a score on their first OT possession.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

I don't think anyone should argue that it should be just like the college rule because like you said the games would go on forever. I also agree that playing a full 15 minutes is too long.

This is probably the best option: Have the coin toss like normal, but if the team that gets the ball first scores, then they still kick it off to the second team and that team gets the same opportunity and has one drive to get the same number of points. If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score and they end up punting or have a turnover then the other team can win with a score on their first OT possession.

Agreed, I like this idea. Fair for both teams, and its not going to drag out to long, unless teams just keep exchanging touch downs. This is where they could take the college 2 point rule, and make it so you have to go for the 2 point conversion in OT.

Only problem is I just don't see the NFL making the change, a bunch of grump old purists they are.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I used to believe in letting both teams get a chance to win by enforcing college rules. Sure it's more fun that way to watch teams trade shots until one of them finally can't score anymore.

However, the reason why NFL defenses exist is to prevent the other team from scoring. If a team loses the coin toss, then it's the defense's job to stop the other team from scoring. Players on all facets of a football team, the offense, defense, and special teams need to be held accountable for their performance on the field. They also need to be evaluated, and players are truly evaluated by how much they come through when it matters most. If the defense can't consistently stop the offense from scoring, then changes need to be made. The other team shouldn't get a chance to score in overtime if the team that wins the coin toss scores. The defense didn't do their job when it counted the most, and they should face the consequences.

Sure, it sucks when your favorite team loses in overtime without getting a chance to score, but it's part of the game. Perhaps the defense should have stopped the other team from scoring first. Perhaps the offense should have done more during the game in order to put themselves in a position where overtime should have never happened. Perhaps the defense should have made key stops in order to prevent the other team's offense from scoring during the game.

It's football. A team needs to have an good enough offense and defense in order to win. You can't blame losing on the coin toss.

 

[Slyfox696]

The trick is to find a way to get the game over as soon as quickly as possible, while still retaining the same basic form of the game. Really, the only way to do that is to just play another quarter. It may not be quick, and may stretch games out too long, but it's the only reasonable solution. Perhaps you can shorten the quarter to 8 minutes or something.

If you do go college rules, you couldn't start at the 25 yard line. You'd have to start the offense at the 50 yard line or something. Then it would be a test of both offensive and defensive prowess, not just one or the other.

 

[jmt225]

I wish I could take credit for this idea, but I heard it from Mike Greenberg on Mike & Mike in the Morning. Here's what he said he would do if he could change the NFL rules of Overtime:

The first team who scores six points (either a touchdown or two field goals), wins the game.

To me, that's the best route to go. Get rid of this field goal wins the game shit in Overtime. It's useless. However, if a team scores a touchdown, or is able to get two field goals in a row, well then... they truly have earned the victory then, IMO.

All that said, the NFL Overtime rules won't change anytime soon. There's just not enough evidence against it. These New Orleans/Minnesota type games only happen every once in a while. It's not like the team who wins the coin toss usually wins the game; quite the contrary actually.

 

[Agent_Bond34]

jmt, your sig is amazing. I could stare at that thing all day.

Anyway, I agree with playing out an OT period, however, a full 15 would be a little much, given the nature of the game. I think if they were to play out an OT period, why not do what the NBA does with their OT periods and shorten it?

 

[Mr. TM]

I wish I could take credit for this idea, but I heard it from Mike Greenberg on Mike & Mike in the Morning. Here's what he said he would do if he could change the NFL rules of Overtime:

The first team who scores six points (either a touchdown or two field goals), wins the game.

To me, that's the best route to go. Get rid of this field goal wins the game shit in Overtime. It's useless. However, if a team scores a touchdown, or is able to get two field goals in a row, well then... they truly have earned the victory then, IMO.

All that said, the NFL Overtime rules won't change anytime soon. There's just not enough evidence against it. These New Orleans/Minnesota type games only happen every once in a while. It's not like the team who wins the coin toss usually wins the game; quite the contrary actually.

I think its a neat idea JMT, but there is a problem with that. To me, that is asying that a fieldgoal isn't a valid forum of scoring. Yes a field goal is only half of an unconverted touchdown, but it is still a form of scoring. I really think that if a team gets a field goal, they should be able to win on that in overtime, if its better than what the opposition could do. A field goal wins a game with 3 seconds left, it should win a game in overtime with 3 seconds left.

 

[gd]

The trick is to find a way to get the game over as soon as quickly as possible, while still retaining the same basic form of the game. Really, the only way to do that is to just play another quarter. It may not be quick, and may stretch games out too long, but it's the only reasonable solution. Perhaps you can shorten the quarter to 8 minutes or something.

I like this idea a lot. Simply adding something like 10 minutes or so to the game would make a lot of sense to me.

The first team who scores six points (either a touchdown or two field goals), wins the game.

I like this one as well. OT is always so anticlimactic when a team gets down inside the 20 and you know they are just settling for a FG. The NFL is about scoring TDs. This would not only make OT much more interesting, but would better simulate an actual game.

I don't support the college OT for the NFL at all though. It inflates stats and really boils the whole game down to play in the redzone. Special teams, which is 1/3 of the game, is completely taken out of the equation.

 

[simpsons_fanatic742]

I might as well give my opinion on this since it is my thread.

I support the idea of one upping, if you will, the other team. I'll explain for those who are confused:

-you do the coin toss as usual
-the team who wins goes down the field and does their thing, whether it be a field goal or touchdown
-the team that just played defence now gets a chance to one up the team or equal them
-they get a kickoff like usual after a team scores
-they drive the field and if the other team kicked a field goal, the team on offence second can either kick a field goal and keep overtime going, or if they manage to get a touchdown they win the game
-if they are tied after one possession each, keep going until one team one ups the other

I think this is the best way to do it. Each team has a chance to play both offence and defence and also gives more reward for getting a touchdown. It makes it so that getting a field goal won't necessarily win you the game.

The rules right now aren't good for football. Football is not a kind of sport that suits first team to score wins, at least in my opinion. People may say it's the defence's responsibility to stop the offence, but what about the other team's defence that is sitting on the sideline. The coin toss becomes too important in a situation like this and that's the part that bugs me the most. The coin toss shouldn't be the focal point going into overtime, football should.

 

[TheProdigy]

I used to want the rules to change, but that was usually after my team, or the team I wanted to win would lose without getting the ball. Like someone else has already said...the team that gets the ball first doesn't score most of the time on the first possession.

I'm completely in agreement of the current overtime rules. Simply put, the players, the coaches, management, etc. don't want a longer game. It's physical and violent enough as it is. I do, however, agree with the sentiment of NOT having ties. Perhaps tie in the hockey form in some way. Have a "kick-off" by the field goal units, or even have a high school style of 4 plays from the 10 yard line until someone has more than the other team with a FORCED 2-point conversion.

I just think the system works and it keeps it different from every set of football around. The CFL does it differently from College Football, and College Football different from High School football, etc. etc. It gives each level of football an identity.

 

[Rated_R_4_Royal_Rumble]

It just seems way too gimmicky for me. I have the mindset that if you can stop a team for driving eighty or ninety yards in regulation, then you should be able to do it in overtime. I'm on the fence about letting field goals end overtime as I rather let them score touchdowns but overall I do not have a problem with the overtime system and I don't think its going to change anytime soon.

But you don't always have to stop the team from driving eighty or ninety yards in regulation. Sometimes more often than not its less than that. Also you have to take into account that both teams are way more tired by the time overtime would kick in and putting it on the defense to stop the offense from scoring and thats it end of game isn't exactly fair. It's a team game and a game of an offense and a defense vs an offense and a defense. Some teams may be superior than the other team based off of their offense alone but that team may have a poor defense. If what makes that team better is their offense they should get a chance to put it out there. The college rules aren't gimmicky they should just be tweaked a bit for the NFL. Make it a longer field like make them start at the 20. Just make sure both offenses and defenses get a chance to take the field.