1. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    Guess what gang?!

    Today I heard discussions revolving around the O/T rules and how it is not fair that the team who loses the toss may not get a chance to get the ball. This all after the COLTS lost an O/T playoff game. I do not think anyone cared about the current rules when the Pats lost to the Jets in O/T, a game that led to their not making the playoffs. Is Polian going to make some moves to have the playoff O/T rules changed so the Colts do not have to suffer the indignity of losing an O/T coin toss and be denied the opportunity to get the ball? Hmmmmm......
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    Actually, Peter King mentioned both in his column this week. He hates the rule apparently.

    I am all for it. The only way I might consider changing it is to give each team at least one possession. Even that to me seems kind of weenie-ish though. Defense is part of the game. If you can't make the stops then you don't win.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    This has been discussed forever. They would need enough owners to buy into it...and they aren't. Polian may whine, but this would be a major rule change. I doubt he'd get the support. About the only fair way would really be to play an extra quarter. But I doubt they would do it as the length of the games are already a concern.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    [Quote]i like Ryan's idea of no field goals in OT.[/Quote]

    With apologies, KC, but I think Ryan's idea is just stupid. Why change the game you have been playing for 60 minutes just to make it seem "fair". Why not just say you only get three downs to get a first or there is no punting? You need to keep the same structure and rules of play.

    Sproles scored on a 22 yard TD run. He would have scored with that run from anywhere on the field. The Colts needed to tackle him but didn't. The Pats could have gotten the ball back with great field position but couldn't stop a 3rd and 15. They had chances. They blew them.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    The overtime rule is fine.

    Play defense, fa' chrissakes.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    agc this has been going on for a long time. Actually I think Peter King's article is what is driving any discussion you hear about it.

    How about taking away special teams. Teams start at their own 20 with the ball, sudden death. First to score wins. If each have a possession without scoring then the punting game is put back in on all ensuing series.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsfaninpa420. Show patsfaninpa420's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    Or maybe if the team having posession first scores(a maximum of 7 points would be allowed for them), the other has to score more points in the same amount of plays or less, otherwise the game automatically ends in a tie regardless of how much time is left
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    Or maybe they could play Rock, Paper, Scissors.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    [Quote]The overtime rule is fine.

    Play defense, fa' chrissakes.[/Quote]

    Prairie.. agree on that one in that each team needs one of their units to perform better than the other on that first possession. For both the Pats and Colts in their O/T losses, their respective D units let 'em down.

    As for a possible rule change, is there merit to the idea to give each team's O a crack at scoring and not just the side that wins the coin toss? The score has to be a TD, not FG and have to try for a two point conversion putting real pressure on the scoring team to WIN since the XP is a gimme most times. The pressure would be equal for both possessions as just getting to FG range may be too easy to accomplish for a pro team. Maybe for pro ball, each O starts at the 35 versus the 25. Would it create more interest?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    [Quote]Or maybe they could play Rock, Paper, Scissors.[/Quote]

    Can you imagine the build up for that type of OT process??!! LOL
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    The rules are fine the way they are, yea it sucks when you lose in the OT but like it has been said before defense is part of the game and if you cant play D in OT then you dont deserve the W it is that simple.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    How about this: Instead of a new coin toss for OT, use the original coin toss of the start of the game and give that toss loser the preferential decsion of kicking or receiving in OT. The whole idea of starting the game on a coin toss is whacky and gives the winner a decided advantage. Why not reverse the advantage for OT?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    You know what - if it is sudden death, then make it sudden death. All refs off the field. Anything goes. First to get to the ball at mid-field and score wins.

    For the play-offs, make it a cage match.

    The first rule of Sudden Death Overtime is no one talks about Sudden Death Overtime.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    I like the idea of sudden death.

    Line up the losing team and lop their heads off.

    That would be a ratings bonanza.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from LifeTimePat. Show LifeTimePat's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    I heard the same discussion on the radio today.. out of all possible scenarios, aside from rock paper scissors ;) that I favor is giving each offense a stab at it.... which immediately implies that EACH defense has a stab at it too.... this way both teams D and O have a collective chance of succeeding or failing.... and the game will have better balance.

    Not sure about starting on the 20 yards line... too flag football for me... if your special teams get you closer to a score.... or in fact score, all the better.

    Obviously since boths O's have a shot, there will be a premium at scoring a TD in order to force the other team to match....
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    The only justification for changing the rules is believing that the rules are set up for offensive football. If so, then it makes sense that both sides get the ball. The King article provided some stats on the frequency of first possession wins in OT.

    If no rules change, I think Chris has a good point, because if you are facing overtime and know that you are not going to have the ball first, it may cause you to play differently.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ufcchamp. Show ufcchamp's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    Mike and Mike mentioned something from USA Today where an e-mailer suggested that it should be the first to 6 pts. This eliminates a FG from winning the game instantly. If it is a 1 possession OT then it would have to be a TD...not bad. The current format is UNFAIR and those that say PLAY D don't seem to be understanding the magnitude of the burden of having to play D in sudden death OT based solely on the descent of a small, metal disc.
    These are the same people that say one bad call can't lose a game. When clearly if you have two equal teams, or one team that has no business being in a game but is, then one call sure as h*ll can cost the lesser team a win.
    You fight and fight for 60 minutes only to have a flawed system award the first opportunity to win based on sheer luck.
    Like Peter King said, if it's not that important then why do fans scream and players hoot and hollar after winning the OT toss?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    They should at least play an extra quarter before sudden death.

    There are a ton of things about the sport that need changing.

    Sudden death is one of them. It is an antiquated rule for a game of football that is no longer played. Thanks to the "hyper sensitive" officiating, and rule structuring and emphasis, offenses are far more likely to score now than then.

    Stats bear this out.

    I also read about a "cut and slice" sudden death method of tiebreaking that was offered in an article several years back. The coach that wins the coin toss can decide where the ball is kicked from on the field, and the other coach decides if he is kicking or receiving.

    This is great for a 6th quarter sudden death because it makes the coach's decision actually have an impact on the game.

    A team with a great offense like Arizona could win the toss, and elect to kick from somewhere inside the 50 yard line in a free kick where the odds of pinning the other team down within the ten or five are very good. Then the other team is essentially forced to choose between accepting the ball first or accepting potentially horrible field position.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    Dogg,

    I would be emphatically against any O/T setup that takes special teams out of the equation.

    It would inherently favor teams that perennially underdevelop that phase of their game.

    Special teams mean something,jsut ask the 1995 Pats who lost in large part because of Desmond Howard.

    If a playoff game between the Titans and Steelers, who are at opposite ends of the special teams segment, went to overtime without a kick, you are giving Pitt an advantage by removing a Titan's strength.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from NOISE. Show NOISE's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    I'm glad this has already been mentioned about the OT rule and NOW that it happened to the COLTS!
    There is no doubt that since the Colts are out of playoffs due to the fact that Mr Manning didn't get the ball in OT - and they LOST - this RULE will now change Due to it happening to the COLTS.
    ****
    Like someone mentioned earlier in this thread, if this happened to the Pats in OT - the rule wouldn't be changed. Now this has happened to the COLTS - now it will -
    RULES get changed when Polian cries - I'm sure this will be another one that will change for them.
    ****
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    First to six isn't bad either. Then it takes two FGs or a TD.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    Noise - it did happen to the pats. THIS YEAR. And it was mentioned when it happened to the pats. The rules were also mentioned in General when McNabb didn't know the rules. OT has been discussed this year.

    So you are saying you prefer not having the pats in the playoffs, because if the rules were different, your outcome in the Jets loss may have been different?

    Again - Peter King is the one who brought it up, and he has a pretty loud national media voice, not Bill Polian.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    No need to make a joke out of it.

    To be honest, I wouldn't lose much sleep if they didn't change it. However, it IS a rule made for a different era.

    We kick off ten or fifteen yards farther back then we did when they made it.

    Pass interference has become an absolute joke, and I have see games decided by the brush of a hand giving one team first and goal. If that happens in OT, it doesn't even need to be severa a ticky-tacky call giving twenty yards is enough.

    I think the absolute simplest solution would be to simply move the kick-off up compared to regulation. If the NFL wants more scoring that is fine, but in OT they need to ensure that it isn't too easy on the receiving team.

    I read one clumn that suggested the 50 yard line, then with a free kick you could (if you had the skill) pin the opponent deep. Relying on a standard kickoff squad to do something like that is essentially relying on luck, because an average kick returner is able to scoot up to at least the twenty from the five and a touchback brings it out to the twenty. From there it is essentially three to five first downs (depending on how you get em) between you and a high percentage three.

    Either that or make it first to six.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from LifeTimePat. Show LifeTimePat's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    The major problem I see with the current format is the short field the offense have to deal with. Statistics support that.

    In regulation, teams strive to score a TD and if the D limits them to a field goal, it's considered a mini-triumph. The inconsistency is that in OT this mini-triumph translates into losing the game.

    I say either go with a TD rule, but better yet give both O's a chance.... as I said earlier, it'll give the game more balance.....

    If after each O possession it's a tie, then sudden death goes in effect.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from cryochiller. Show cryochiller's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    I think the rules should be changed so that the winner of the superbowl must win by more than three points.

    I'm calling B.S. EEI spent two days talking about OT rules when the Pats lost to the Jets in OT Hmmmmmm....
     

Share