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.

 

[HumpDawgy]

I believe Vegas should declare the winner in OT.

 

[DawgInThe256]

I probably should have reversed the order of my suggestions. Even if you keep the OT rules, I would still argue that knowing who gets the ball first (based on the opening coin toss) would add some strategy to the end of regulation.

 

[patdog]

Bottom line is there’s just no way to structure OT to give each team a 50% chance. It just can’t be done. I wouldn’t even try. Just let it be an extension of the 4th quarter. If one team is in a better position to win, they’re in that position because they earned it on the field in the 4th quarter.

 

[Villagedawg]

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.

Do it like a hockey shoot out. Every starter on offense and defense has to kick successive field goals starting from the 10 yard line and move back 5 yards every time you go through the lineup. **

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

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.

It's easier to kick a FG than score a TD. That's why there is a point differential. So if you stop the initial receiving teams drive all you need to do is make a FG to win.

Also by getting the ball second in OT when the initial team scores a FG, you have 4 downs in every possession since you can't kick.

 

[ronpolk]

It's easier to kick a FG than score a TD. That's why there is a point differential. So if you stop the initial receiving teams drive all you need to do is make a FG to win.

But what he’s saying is it does not matter the order the order the FG and then the stop happens in, so Manning’s statement about it being good for Tampa to be on defense first does not make sense. If Tampa wins the toss, fails to get a TD and then stops KC that is the same as Tampa losing the toss, stopping KC and then kicking a FG.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Why don't they just record ties? If OT is unsatisfying to the fans and a player safety issue, then end them.

Or, if ties are problematic to the standings. Then copy the NHL and give credit for ties and OT wins.

 

[The Peeper]

NO FIELD GOALS, you have to score a TD and each team gets the same number of chances

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

But what he’s saying is it does not matter the order the order the FG and then the stop happens in, so Manning’s statement about it being good for Tampa to be on defense first does not make sense. If Tampa wins the toss, fails to get a TD and then stops KC that is the same as Tampa losing the toss, stopping KC and then kicking a FG.

I agree in the regular season OT the smart move is to get get it first if you can. However when you get it first you play regular football and basically are forced to go for a TD to win and maybe settle for a FG then must stop the other team. The second team getting it gets to play different. If you stopped a score, then you only need a FG to win. If they scored a FG, then you know you need a TD to win and FG to tie and also know you have 4 downs to make a first down for every set of downs.

In playoff OT, I think there could be a good argument to take it second if you win the toss.

 

[bolddogge]

I've never understood why they just don't they play OT the same as college? More fair and exciting IMO.