Suggested NFL overtime rule change

[DawgInThe256]

I thought about this after the Monday Night game when Tampa Bay tied the game at the end of regulation only to lose when KC and Mahomes won the coin toss.

What I'd like to see happen:

1. Rules go back to old sudden death format, first score of any kind wins.
2. Instead of the coin toss, the team that loses the opening coin toss is automatically considered the "winner" of the OT coin toss.

Besides simplicity, the beauty of this is that it adds more strategy to the end of regulation. If TB knew that Mahomes would get the ball first, they probably would have gone for 2.

 

[ronpolk]

They should have gone for 2 anyway. If you have a great defense or maybe you’re not facing the best QB in the NFL, maybe you play for OT. But Tampa does not have a good defense and they were facing Mahomes. The best chance for Tampa to win was a 2 point conversion.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

No. You are penalizing the team that tied the game. I haven't given it much thought, but you should have a situation in which both teams have a chance. It is broken right now after I watched Kansas City go down the field last year against Buffalo and then do it again against Tampa Bay the other night. They're very talented but shouldn't have that kind of advantage.

 

[aTotal360]

Only a coin toss. No actual game play.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

I thought about this after the Monday Night game when Tampa Bay tied the game at the end of regulation only to lose when KC and Mahomes won the coin toss.

What I'd like to see happen:

1. Rules go back to old sudden death format, first score of any kind wins.
2. Instead of the coin toss, the team that loses the opening coin toss is automatically considered the "winner" of the OT coin toss.

Besides simplicity, the beauty of this is that it adds more strategy to the end of regulation. If TB knew that Mahomes would get the ball first, they probably would have gone for 2.

Leave the rules like they are.

Like others have said Tampa should have gone for 2 for the win because you can’t stop KC in a must score scenario.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

Leave the rules like they are.

Like others have said Tampa should have gone for 2 for the win because you can’t stop KC in a must score scenario.

So, instead of running several plays and having an equal opportunity to drive the ball, you should be able to run only one play to win or lose.

Makes sense to me. Please sign me up for that.

 

[HotMop]

Only a coin toss. No actual game play.

That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.














Rock, paper, scissors for the win!

 

[Xenomorph]

Only a coin toss. No actual game play.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

Doesn't the defense need to stop them? They managed to do it on the 4th quarter when they punted and gave KC the ball with 2:49 to go down 7? They stopped them with a 3 and out then scored a TD to tie the game. They also stopped them with 30 seconds to go and 3 timeouts. On the Manning Cast Peyton even said losing the toss might be good for them because all they needed to do was stop them again and kick a FG to win.
We always want to change rules when it doesn't workout how you want it to .

 

[StateCollege]

On the Manning Cast Peyton even said losing the toss might be good for them because all they needed to do was stop them again and kick a FG to win.

I don't follow the logic there. 3 points a stop wins it regardless of the order in which it happens?
But if you get the ball first, you can score a TD and end it.