OT - Scott Van Pelts solution to fix overtime

[didshereallysaythat]

It limits yard stats and a safety is still certainly... possible, on some insane fluke int/fumble return then fumbling on the goalline and all that type of jazz.

I like the college system for college football.

The concept that there should be fair offensive possession in OT for the NFL doesn't make sense. And people who want that fairness just pressume it's like, yeah that should exist... but there is not often even a case made to justify it.

Why is it not fair that if one team can not stop the other team, the game is over? In baseball, there would be a legitimate point if after 9 innings, they had a coin flip and whoever won had the option of batting and if they scored it would be over. But not football because how you defend directly correlates to your scoring opportunity.

What about when teams eat up all the clock and run twice as many plays as their opponent? Is it not fair that one team only got the ball for 20 minutes and ran half as many plays?

 

[jc456]

Yes, but you're ignoring my point of this is what the MEDIA wants.. not necessarily the NFL teams themselves.

I get that, but the teams voted, not the media.

 

[jc456]

Why not just play another quarter of football and keep playing until one team wins? To me the more changes that they make the worse it gets. I do not like the college rules either because it takes the safety and the kick-off out of the picture. It also pads the stats.

they do that today, it's called sudden death overtime. Neither team scores, they go to another qtr of sudden death.

 

[Madden]

I think the game should end in a tie, both teams advance, and everyone that makes the playoffs gets a super bowl trophy as we all hold hands and sing.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

There is one thing that does make sense that they could do. If the game is tied after regulation, then whoever has possession at that moment of time, keeps it. So if it is 3rd and 10 from their own 35 yard line when time runs out in the 4th, then it is 3rd and 10 from their own 35 yard line as OT starts. There is no game clock in OT. 1st score wins.

This way, the natural flow of the game is not changed.

 

[nc0gnet0]

There is one thing that does make sense that they could do. If the game is tied after regulation, then whoever has possession at that moment of time, keeps it. So if it is 3rd and 10 from their own 35 yard line when time runs out in the 4th, then it is 3rd and 10 from their own 35 yard line as OT starts. There is no game clock in OT. 1st score wins.

This way, the natural flow of the game is not changed.

Huh?

What if a team just scored a TD s time expired? The only thing you have done is to take the coin lip out of the equation?

 

[Packer Fan]

There is one thing that does make sense that they could do. If the game is tied after regulation, then whoever has possession at that moment of time, keeps it. So if it is 3rd and 10 from their own 35 yard line when time runs out in the 4th, then it is 3rd and 10 from their own 35 yard line as OT starts. There is no game clock in OT. 1st score wins.

This way, the natural flow of the game is not changed.

It doesn't make sense because if you were driving at the end of a tie game you wouldn't want to take the lead with any time left on the clock. Since you could kill all of the time, start overtime, kick the game winning FG.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

It doesn't make sense because if you were driving at the end of a tie game you wouldn't want to take the lead with any time left on the clock. Since you could kill all of the time, start overtime, kick the game winning FG.

If you took the lead, then there would be no overtime.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

Huh?

What if a team just scored a TD s time expired? The only thing you have done is to take the coin lip out of the equation?

Yes. And that is fair because they would naturally be the next team to touch the ball.

 

[jc456]

Yes. And that is fair because they would naturally be the next team to touch the ball.

no, they would kick off, that would be the next logical play correct?

 

[didshereallysaythat]

no, they would kick off, that would be the next logical play correct?

So if you scored a FG to tie as time expired, yes you would be kicking off to start OT. If you scored a FG to tie with 7 seconds left you would kick off. The other team might run 1 play before time expires. They would then keep their possession as OT started.

 

[jc456]

So if you scored a FG to tie as time expired, yes you would be kicking off to start OT. If you scored a FG to tie with 7 seconds left you would kick off. The other team might run 1 play before time expires. They would then keep their possession as OT started.

exactly. The example is that time never runs out on a tie, the game goes to the next logical play in a new qtr.

 

[ClydeLee]

If you took the lead, then there would be no overtime.

There is no RUSH to take the lead there.. you've eliminated the clock as a relevant factor if the game is tied and you're trying to score to win the game. You don't need to rush against the clock and spike the ball or run no huddle plays. It's just random and it conflicts with the setup of how the Halfs work. If you did that for OT you'd may as well just have to do it for the 1st half as well.

There is no also relation to baseball. Timed sports are different than "innings/out" sports like baseball or cricket that go on in that formula. It's just more like soccer and hockey in it's ruling and it's fine to be so.

Why not just make the sport like FIFA has soccer and the refs can decide on some loose time to let the team down get a chance to win at the end of the game before whistling dead when it feels like the momentum is no longer their way.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

There is no RUSH to take the lead there.. you've eliminated the clock as a relevant factor if the game is tied and you're trying to score to win the game. You don't need to rush against the clock and spike the ball or run no huddle plays. It's just random and it conflicts with the setup of how the Halfs work. If you did that for OT you'd may as well just have to do it for the 1st half as well.

There is no also relation to baseball. Timed sports are different than "innings/out" sports like baseball or cricket that go on in that formula. It's just more like soccer and hockey in it's ruling and it's fine to be so.

Why not just make the sport like FIFA has soccer and the refs can decide on some loose time to let the team down get a chance to win at the end of the game before whistling dead when it feels like the momentum is no longer their way.

They could get rid of the half as well if that floats your boat. Why should you have to rush if the game is already tied anyway? You do have to rush if you are losing though,

 

[ClydeLee]

They could get rid of the half as well if that floats your boat. Why should you have to rush if the game is already tied anyway? You do have to rush if you are losing though,

It's a sport where you're facing the clock too, which is part of it mattering.

What benefit do these alterations stand to gain?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[vincentvega]

I found this article from 2008 there are a couple of interesting suggestions

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2008/10/how-important-is-coin-flip-in-ot.html

"Although I like the NCAA format, I'd make a couple changes. First, no field goals. This has two effects. First, it eliminates the advantage of the team to go second. Both teams simply need a touchdown, period. Second, it puts the game solely in the hands of the offenses and defenses, and not in those of an individual place kicker.

Because removing field goals might prolong the game excessively, I'd add another requirement. Only 2-point conversions would be allowed. In the NCAA, teams are forced to go for 2-pt conversions if no team has won by the 3rd round. But I'd institute that rule beginning with the 1st round, maybe the second."

and I know this is really a strange thought but I find it interesting (also in article)...

"Perhaps the silliest but most original idea is the field position bid. Both teams would submit a secret bid of how far back they'd be willing to start with the ball. The team that bids the deepest in its own territory would get the ball there. A football version of Name That Tune, I suppose."

what do you guys think of the name that tune idea? it is really taking a gamble on your own team. I wonder where most teams be willing to start under this pretense?

 

[Packer Fan]

I like the silliest idea the best.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

It's a sport where you're facing the clock too, which is part of it mattering.

What benefit do these alterations stand to gain?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

The benefit would be preventing the same team from going on offense on back to back possessions. But I still like the way the rules are now the best.

 

[vincentvega]

I like the silliest idea the best.

I agree. Think it is a really interesting concept. You want your elite qb to have his chance on the field, ok how much faith do you have in him. Love it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Packer Fan]

I agree. Think it is a really interesting concept. You want your elite qb to have his chance on the field, ok how much faith do you have in him. Love it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course it is silly. Then again, is it any more silly than coaches having to throw flags for bad calls?