They could also just make it a ten minute period and let it play out just like a full fourth quarter game. The team who is leading after ten minutes win. I’m ok if they want to modify the rules and all but I’m pretty tired of the relentless whining every time a team loses in overtime. The Bills could’ve just prevented all of this by stopping the Chiefs several times in regulation. The Chiefs were the beneficiary of the OT rules this time and were on the losing side of the rules in 2018 against the Pats.
The OT rules are fine. A team has four quarters to win the game and didn’t get it done. Defense is part of the game too and if their defense can’t get a stop in OT they don’t deserve to win; they aren’t entitled to an offensive possession in OT.
The entire point of playing the game is to find out who the better team is. If you finish the game in a way where that question isn’t answered because you stopped the game before you found out, that’s a failure of the rules imo. We don’t know who the better team is because the nfl gave up after the chiefs got the ball in overtime. What would’ve happened if the bills got their chance? Who would have scored last? Who was the better team? We still don’t know, we just decided enough is enough. To me, this a multi billion dollar industry, you ought to be able to figure out a way to find out who the better team is. One and done is not the way
No, the point of the game isn’t to find out who the better team is, it is simply to conclude a competition with a winner. Some times the better team doesn’t win a game. and the game didn’t simply stop, it ended because the Bills defense couldn’t stop the Chiefs from scoring. By the conceptual framework of your argument any time a team loses by one score but had one less possession, the game was simply stopped because they didn’t have equal opportunities to score. Nothing about the game requires equal possessions or opportunities in a game between the teams. Not having an offensive possession in OT is not the Bills not being given equal opportunity to match the Chiefs.
RE: OT The Bills had 2 opportunities to stop the Chiefs and win the game. The last 13 seconds of regulation, but the Bills D failed. In OT, but the Bills D failed. The whining takes away from their well played game.
This is my yeoman's recollection, and please somebody correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm probably wrong at least half of it). Reg season one 10 min period if nobody scores or if the score is tied, it's a tie. No more sudden death FGs (that's been gone for a while). In the POs if the team that wins the coin toss gets a TD game over. If it's scoreless or tied 3-3, they go into another OT, but no coin toss. Whoever scores a TD first, game over, but you can elect to receive or defer. Not sure what happens if there's a 3rd OT and if a Safety wins it if its 3-3 = Sudden Death. If it goes into a 4th OT there's another coin toss and any score wins. 2 TOs per team per Q, 2:00 rest between 15 min OT periods. EDIT: I could very well be shooting blanks all over the place but I'm too lazy to look it up.
@Jonathan_Vilma , I'm not averse to letting PO teams duke it out and whoever has the higher score regardless of how may OT periods is declared the winner.
The league has slanted all its rules, equipment and players toward the offense. The league has moved toward, and desired it to be a QB driven league, with lots of passing, superstars and high scoring which keeps the game entertaining for fans and generate major revenue through fantasy sports, etc. The league is no longer fair for defense, as evident by offenses continuing to break records and be the greatest we've seen, and defensive play and numbers trending downward. I'm not mad about that, but to then have a sudden death period where one team gets to be on offense with everything slanted their way, and the other has to be on defense with everything slanted against them, is neither objective, sensical, or aligned with their goals. The process needs to evolve just like everything else has evolved.
That’s fine but the crux of your position was that the Bills were not given an equal offensive opportunity to win and thus the outcome was unfairly stopped. nothing about the outcome of any game, regardless of whether it goes into OT, is dependent on whether both teams have an equal amount of offensive possessions.
That’s because most people are idiots who are slaves of the moment emotionally and lack the ability to disconnect from that emotion and consider reality pragmatically.
Agreed. If the Bills were better coached they probably win the game anyway. Making the right decisions under duress is a big part of being a good coach. If Belichick was the Bills coach is there any chance they kick it into the endzone with 13 seconds left or let the Chiefs get within easy FG range in two plays? I don't think so. I'm also not totally clear on the rule around grabbing receivers for an intentional penalty but it seems the Bills might have been able to get away with tackling either Kelce or Hill for one play and running some more time off the clock. Great coaches know those rules inside and out so they aren't paralyzed by analysis in the moment.
Good call with taking penalties. You don’t get the time back and you prevent YAC. Ultimately the Bills played not to lose rather than playing to win, simply trying to avoid getting burned deep. Didn’t work.
I give Josh Allen credit, he's not bitching about the overtime rules like the Bills' sorry fanbase is. His only response was that if it was the other way around they'd be the ones celebrating. Classy response and a true statement
If Belichick was the Bills coach that game woulda been played in Buffalo. They would not have been 0-6 in one possession games, a sign of bad coaching. The roster is stacked, they'd had homefield advantage throughout the playoffs with a good coach
I didn't see anyone mention this as a potential outcome . . . Buffalo's storied (??) playoff history also features this little play, which started with an intentional pooch kick: . . . once ranked as the No 3 playoff finish of all time.
