New Overtime Rules.....that make sense!

You will have to explain the rules as UK posters can't view that video

 

I'm all for overtime changes, but to me, that sounds too gimmicky. I don't think most football purists would like something as radical as that. I mean that is completely changing everything after 60 minutes when players and coaches are physically and mentally exhausted. If there was a change, I prefer the college method. Otherwise, I would just keep it the way it is, but give both teams the ability to possess the ball even if a TD was scored.

 

I'd have the following rules for OT:

The extra period is 12 minutes.

Team that doesn't get the ball first gets a possession even if they allow a TD. The only exception is if they get a pick 6 or safety on that possession. If this happens, the game is over.

If the team that gets the ball first doesn't score, it becomes sudden death.

 

I would do the college rules without the option of kicking a FG.

 

I mean it seems like the most simplistic rule change would be to give both teams a chance to possess the ball regardless of what happens on the first possession.

I also don't understand why they reduce the time period. It pretty much promotes ties.

From a football purist angle - it'd be said to just win the game in regulation and you have no issue with what the rules are or losing the toss.

 

Why not just play one full quarter?

 

Giving both teams a possession would most likely make it less fair because the team going second would know how many points they need. As it stands now, getting the ball first gives you only a 55% chance of winning.

 

I don’t think there is anything wrong with the rules the way they are now.
Defense/ST is as much a part of the game as offense. If you cannot stop them from scoring a TD
From a drive starting with a Kickoff with you do not deserve the win.

 

Interesting, but I don't think I'd like that format. The team that gets stuck with spot is basically screwed. They either have to take the ball deep in their own territory or the other team will just take the ball. Unless they can drive practically the whole field the choose team has the advantage every single time.

If they're gonna do something that wacky, why not just have a faceoff at the 50 yard line like in hockey, a jump ball like in basketball, or maybe a shootout like in soccer. With the latter, instead of using the kicker, use the QB and offense. Each team would get 4 downs and could conceivable score a TD on each down. Whichever team scored the most would win.

 

There's no disadvantage to being stuck with the spot. For any given spot, you have either better odds, worse odds, or equal odds of winning if you choose to get the ball. So as long as you choose correctly, you actually have an advantage, unless the other team picks the spot where your odds of winning are equal (which is what they should do unless they think you're going to screw it up), in which case it doesn't matter.

 

It’s a No from me.

You can take most of this problem away by dispensing with regular season overtime. A tie after four quarters is a legitimate outcome. Forcing a result in the regular season via overtime creates a disproportionate result. Regular season standings can continue to work on % Win / Tie ratio as now.

Overtime is clearly necessary in play off football. On average play off overtime occurs once every two seasons. The team winning the coin toss succeeds 55% of the time if both teams have a possession (or defensive score). So luck doesn’t play a role despite perception that it might.

 

That sounds like a horribly gimmicky format. Overtime should be played the same way as the rest of the game.

 

How about - No overtime?

If you can't do the job in four quarters then live with the tie.

 

Well-said, major33.

 

Yup.

And in the playoffs, just play a full extra quarter. If still tied at the end of that quarter, just keep playing. Next score wins.

No need for any special rules imo.

 

I disagree. Go back and re-read the article. As the article points out, the team that gets to choose has the overwhelming advantage. They go second and can decide to take the ball if the other team tries to come too far away from their own EZ, and the spot team is forced to have to drive 80-90% of the field to score.

 

It's amazing to me how in the last 20 years the idea of a tie has become so abhorrent to leagues (not just football, hockey is the same way) that they feel the need to desperately find a way to avoid them. It makes no sense to me.

Unfortunately, that mindset then runs right into the TV interests. TV wants a guarantee (as much as possible) that the game will end by a specific time, and that is what has caused the horrors of shootouts and other gimmicks. It's why they won't consider the possibility of an entire extra quarter of football, even in the playoffs, or just guaranteeing that each team gets a shot on offense (which to me is only fair - why does a team with a bad defense and a good offense have such an advantage if they win the toss compared to if they had a good defense and a bad offense?).

Of course, this proposal doesn't have anything to do with that issue, since the timing issues would be the same. There is obviously a starting yard line choice that balances the probabilities of winning and losing (indeed, overall, based on data from last year, I've heard that it would be around the 13 yard line) - that's just math. It just seems to me to be more complicated than it needs to be, when the obvious solution of both teams getting the ball at least once is available. Too bad they won't consider that.

 

Like, what's the big deal, right? If it's not the playoffs, what does it matter, it's a completely legit way for a game to end. It figures in the standings as worse than a win, better than a loss.

In addition, with the new 17-game schedule, it will help to counteract the additional minutes of wear and tear on the athletes' bodies.