Then I'd suggest to the NFL to shorten games to two quarters.
NFL Overtime Rule Remains The Stupidest In All Sports
- Thread starter rucker4
- Start date
Bottom line: If you think the current NFL rule for OTs is fair and good, then there's nothing to debate. It's the most pathetic injustice rule in sports that exists to determine winners.
There can still be ties in the NFL. That only applies to the regular season, but didn’t see anything about field goals not being allowed in OT anymore.
The dumbest rule in all of professional sports is without a doubt the automatic runner at 2B in extra innings for major league baseball. This is a purely arbitrary effort to shorten games. I understand the goal, but the method is ridiculous. Teams should have to earn a runner in scoring position.
The dumbest rule in all of organized sports is the "targeting" penalty in college football. Again, I understand the goal. As far as it goes, protecting players is a worthy objective. But this rule is so poorly and arbitrarily enforced in practice that refs are deciding the outcomes of too many games through their inability to apply a consistent standard even with replays.
I understand but if the offense kicks a field goal in their first possession they don’t win and the other team gets a shot. I was just pointing out there’s a way for the defense to win it before their first offensive possession (obviously if they also scored a defensive touchdown they’d win as well).
Yes there can be ties in the regular season. Field goals are allowed, but if the team that possesses first only kicks a field goal then the other team gets a possession. Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re saying.
BTW Sabo one of my all time favorite Reds. Even named a dog after him lol
Never considered the “continued possession” idea but it makes a lot of sense. And agreed, college rules are better.
I also like what someone else posted about one team picking the field position, the other team picking offense or defense. Adds an element of strategy that isn’t there currently. Something else for the talking heads to argue about lol
I know the article title is not yours, so please don't take this personally.
"Fair"ness has nothing to do with it. The rule as it stands is COMPLETELY fair because both teams are bound by it. I like the college OT, but it draws a game out extra long unnecessarily. Great for fans. Hard on players.
If you don't want to leave your NFL game up to a coin toss, win it in regulation, do an onside kick, OR STOP YOUR FREAKING OPPONENT IN OVERTIME! Quit your bitxhin and whinin and get a fkn defense!! Everyone's so fkn soft these days
Hell no.
What I do know is that in baseball and the new extra inning rule is that both teams get an at bat.
Targeting in college football is part of a game where both teams get the ball at some point.
NFL OT rule offers no guarantee of one team even getting the ball.
And for the record, I dont like the runner starting at second base either in baseball.
As I said in another thread:
*Coin toss
*Team A gets one possession (score, punt or turnover)
*Team B gets one possession
If the game is still tied, next score wins.
*Coin toss
*Team A gets one possession (score, punt or turnover)
*Team B gets one possession
If the game is still tied, next score wins.
Drawing the game out at the expense of one team potentially not even getting the chance to score? Sorry, not a trade off I'm willing to make. OT games in sports are usually most thrilling/exciting. And don't take personal offense to the fact I find people who dont want the extra time a simple OT might take not to be sports fan in most instances.
Again, the same rules don't necessarily apply to both teams. I happen to find that an unfair joke. One team is guaranteed the ball. The other team "might" get the ball. Asinine
CRY me a fkn river....
Neither team is guaranteed the ball! Have you EVER PLAYED this game? Lol. You don't have to kick it to em. You can do an onside kick.
Every game has a coin toss. Part of the game. Some have 2. The coin toss is part of OT. Each team has a 50-50 chance of getting the ball first. I'm not making it up... lol
Go cry somewhere else. Wtf is wrong with people today. Lmao
If it’s tied then you play another specified amount of time. A quarter, 10 minutes or whatever. But it doesn’t end with a score but when time runs out.
Lol, bootlicker ...for having a different opinion
I prefer it than getting thr ball at the gd 25 where it's auto field goal...or one mistake/holding penalty basically loses the game.
Everyone is talking about that game but what about a game like the one the night before ...that goes to ot, you think you wanna get the ball first? San Fran sure wouldn't have. I think a touchdown and win is good. Field goal was horrible, they basically had to get 40 yards for a win.
No one seemed to mind it when the number 1 offense in the league didn't get the ball in the super bowl.
I jusr don't see much of an alternative. The only 2 I would propose are this:
If a touchdown wins...a defensive stop also wins. No punts. Make the team that wins toss be strategic.
Or.
Each side gets 5 minute possession. It ends with a td, field goal or 4th down stop. If both teams get same result, if touchdown or field goal whoever scored with most time remaining.. if defensive stand, whoever gained most yards.
I prefer it than getting thr ball at the gd 25 where it's auto field goal...or one mistake/holding penalty basically loses the game.
Everyone is talking about that game but what about a game like the one the night before ...that goes to ot, you think you wanna get the ball first? San Fran sure wouldn't have. I think a touchdown and win is good. Field goal was horrible, they basically had to get 40 yards for a win.
No one seemed to mind it when the number 1 offense in the league didn't get the ball in the super bowl.
I jusr don't see much of an alternative. The only 2 I would propose are this:
If a touchdown wins...a defensive stop also wins. No punts. Make the team that wins toss be strategic.
Or.
Each side gets 5 minute possession. It ends with a td, field goal or 4th down stop. If both teams get same result, if touchdown or field goal whoever scored with most time remaining.. if defensive stand, whoever gained most yards.
Still don’t understand why they didn’t squib kick it. Or why they were so focused on stopping the TD.
Dude, you have anger issues. Take a deep breath and chill. You still have no understanding whatsoever of the point about OT people are making here. Seriously, wtf is wrong with you? You're becoming an embarrassment to this board.
Teams that have lost the coin toss in OT have only won 41% of the time. That’s a flawed rule. The loser of the coin toss to start the game doesn’t lose 60% of the time.
No one is arguing the Bills didn’t choke letting them score in 13 seconds. People are just pointing out the OT format is flawed. It’s fair because everyone plays by the same rules, it’s flawed.
Good luck trying to get that guy to understand any of what you said.
I’m okay with the rule as is for the regular season. Football is a brutal game, especially at the pro level. Regular season ties or first possession OT wins are preferred so that teams can move on to the next regular season game.
In the playoffs, I’d like to see the OT rules changed to the following: a safety or defensive TD wins the game immediately. If neither of those things happen, both teams get at least one offensive possession before “sudden death, next score wins.” I also think in the playoffs that after you score a TD, you must always go for two - no extra point kicks.
In the playoffs, I’d like to see the OT rules changed to the following: a safety or defensive TD wins the game immediately. If neither of those things happen, both teams get at least one offensive possession before “sudden death, next score wins.” I also think in the playoffs that after you score a TD, you must always go for two - no extra point kicks.
Last edited:
I've never been angry on this entire topic. Been laughing at the comments the entire time. Hold on... let me just agree with everyone so I'm not "an embarrassment" to the weak-minded still crying that "it's not fair"
Project all you want. It's not embarrassing to be ok with a rule I don't like, and yet understand its application is fair.
Those are the stats of which I'm well aware.
It's a rule that neither of us like. Doesn't make it flawed. Makes it a deterrent against OT, or at least it should be.
It's still a coin toss.
Thank you! Yes. It IS fair. Don't try telling that to the people on this thread that think it isn't fair. They've been throwing ridiculous arguments at that fact for days.
If people were just pointing out that it was something they didn't like and left it at that, I'd have given them a little bit of a hard time and let it go. If you read my initial response to rucker, you'd see that. I've said flat out that I like the college rules better, but that the rule was fair as is.
If they thought it was fair but just didn't like it, I would've "liked" their post and moved on.
I think it's an unfair way to decide a game like everyone else does. I have no idea why it's the rule, but maybe as mentioned it keeps the games shorter which gets the endorsement of the player's union. No idea if that is why just something to think about. All the regular season games it has little effect, but in the playoff it's a season ending deal.
No OT. If score equal at end, team who scored last loses. I.e., other team was more scoring efficient by getting to the equal points total in less time. Many possessions throughout the game so no one can complain about who got the ball first. Think anybody would play for a tie after about midway through 3Q? That would add excitement. Think trailing team would milk the clock for a tie for OT? It would be balls to the wall football throughout - as it should be imo. Also saves wear & tear on the players by not having extra plays.
I maintain the Bills had plenty of chances to win....most especially an ESPN calculated 90.5% win-probability when they took the lead with 0:13 to go in the 4th before hitting the defensive snooze button for KC's improbable drive to tie the game and send the teams to OT.
I think everyone is overly excited about this game because it was a playoff offensive slug-fest. However, that is pretty rare. Two other games this week were scores of 19-16 and 13-10. Few would argue that being on offense in OT in these particular games would be some kind of unfair advantage. Rather, dominant defenses could keep the field position in their favor.
in short, we're letting the anomaly (a rare, high-scoring shootout with two great QBs) discount the preponderance (more frequent, closer scoring games with defenses that can more often stop offenses).
Leave the NFL OT process the way it is....let Buffalo stew on that critical 13 seconds at the end of regulation. They earned it!
GBB!
GO BENGALS!
I think everyone is overly excited about this game because it was a playoff offensive slug-fest. However, that is pretty rare. Two other games this week were scores of 19-16 and 13-10. Few would argue that being on offense in OT in these particular games would be some kind of unfair advantage. Rather, dominant defenses could keep the field position in their favor.
in short, we're letting the anomaly (a rare, high-scoring shootout with two great QBs) discount the preponderance (more frequent, closer scoring games with defenses that can more often stop offenses).
Leave the NFL OT process the way it is....let Buffalo stew on that critical 13 seconds at the end of regulation. They earned it!
GBB!
GO BENGALS!
And if the Bengals lose in OT this weekend after never getting the ball and a chance to score and cost them a trip to the Super Bowl, you'll likely be the first in line here screaming how unfair the rule was.
If the Bengals give up a game tying drive starting at their opponent's 25 with only 0:13 to go in the 4th, I wouldn't have the temerity to complain about "fairness."
NFL has already adjusted their OT to counter the "first possession FG for the win" model. The process is fine. Even the Bills are saying they had every chance to win and blew it. The only unfair aspect to the KC/Bills game is Buffalo quit thirteen seconds too soon in regulation.
GBB!
GO BENGALS!
Astounding how so many fanatics have the inability to not tie together the end of regulation (poor Bills defense) with the OT. The two have nothing to do with one another.
No, the process isn't fine. One team never got a chance to score.
Again, same stuff happens to Cincinnati this weekend you won't be found anywhere on these boards but will scream to all your friends how unfair the rule was.
Sure both teams have a chance to score. If you lose the coin flip, you have to stop the opponent's offense to get the ball. Pretty simple.
Let's leave the "everybody needs a chance" for Pop Warner/participation trophy FB. NFL is an adult/professional sport--feelings don't matter. Bills understand they had their chance in regulation and OT and they didn't get it done. Fans are not so well accustomed to this reality.
As for Cincinnati, if they win I'll be happy. If they don't, I won't. But I can assure you I won't be borrowing one of the many crying towels soaked with the tears of fans complaining about OT rules for the Chiefs/Bills.
Examining the Ravens' overtime proposal: Fair game or ice-cold calculation?
PFF data scientist Timo Riske dives into the intricacies of the Ravens' spot-and-choose proposal, explaining how and why it works as well as taking a deeper dive into the game theory behind it.
www.pff.com
2019 AFC championship game. Chiefs v Pats. Went to OT. Pats win the toss and Brady throws to Gronk on first drive. That offseason the Chiefs tried to get the OT rule changed and IIRC it didn’t even get to a vote( if it did, it obviously didn’t get voted thru). Three years later we know what happened. I am a Chiefs fan so I don’t feel any sorrow for the Bills. With that being said I think there should be a rule change
I would say one 10 minute OT quarter with the team winning at the end of it wins the game works the best. If it is tied after 10 minutes, next score wins in sudden death.
I've always hated the NFL OT rule. The team that wins the toss wins the game abut 60% of the time so how can this be fair?
If they want the rule to put another quarter on the clock, fine, but play the entire quarter!
If they want the rule to put another quarter on the clock, fine, but play the entire quarter!
Last edited:
Is that single (first) possession winning drives, or does it include coin toss winners where multiple possessions occurred before arriving at a winner?
Similar threads
