OT - Scott Van Pelts solution to fix overtime

vincentvega

Active member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
741
Liked Posts:
455
Ok my main issue here is this for years the overtime rules were whoever scored first won. Then they change the rules and say that if there is a field goal the other team gets one possession to either tie or win the game. However if the team who gets the ball scores a TD the game is over. This is a good concession to everyone who was complaining that whoever wins the coin toss basicially wins the game (even though stats showed otherwise). Now all of a sudden Aaron Rodgers doesn't get to take the field again because his defense gets embarrassed :) now people are already suggesting another change to the rules. I honestly wonder what would happen if it were the beloved that got beaten in OT in the exact same way if anyone would be pining for the NFL to make a rule change....what do you all think?

I realize this is similar to the Clay Matthews OT complaint thread so if the mods feel it is too similar please move it.


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/espns-scott-van-pelt-great-163300306.html

Scott Van Pelt thinks the NFL needs to change its overtime rules.

The NFL's overtime rules were once again questioned during the divisional round of the playoffs this weekend.
During the Cardinals' riveting 26-20 overtime win over the Packers on Saturday, the Packers didn't even get a chance to take the field in overtime after the Cardinals scored on the opening driving to win the game.

The finish felt like something of an injustice as Aaron Rodgers led a short-handed Packers team to a wild comeback, culminating in a 55-yard, Hail Mary to tie the game.

Many people felt that Rodgers, the biggest star on the field, should have at least gotten a chance to keep his team alive after the Cardinals scored. Alas, due to the rules, the game, and the Packers' season, were over.

During a SportsCenter segment, ESPN's Scott Van Pelt came up with a simple solution to fix the NFL's overtime rules, arguing this exact point: Rodgers and the Packers should have at least gotten a chance to take the field.

"It also seemed cosmically wrong for Rodgers to not even have the chance to touch the football in overtime," Van Pelt said.

Van Pelt argued that the NFL shouldn't turn to college football's rules, in which teams get the ball on their opponent's 25-yard line, saying getting into the red zone is an achievement. He called college football's rules "entertaining, but "not football."

"Make the process equitable. This isn't at all complicated. Use Saturday night, let's say, as the template," Van Pelt began. "Arizona gets the ball and they score a touchdown. Well done. But why should that end the game? Because it's a touchdown. That's awfully arbitrary — they scored, super. Simple tweak of the rules leads to a kickoff to Green Bay, with the Packers required to answer or the game ends. If they do answer with a score, then the game immediately becomes sudden-death."

Van Pelt continued, saying that if Arizona had failed to score and punted to Green Bay, then the game would have immediately become sudden-death, meaning if Green Bay scored next, the game would be over.

Van Pelt isn't the only person to feel this way. After the game, Packers linebacker Clay Matthews argued that the overtime rules needed tweaking. Matthews, however, is fine with the college rules (via USA Today's Tom Pelissero).

"Let’s go college rules. Just put us on the 25 or whatever it is and let us go at it. But I don’t know. I’m sure it’ll be talked about. It sucks that we don’t have an opportunity.

"But those are the rules right now. We’ve got to play by them. We had an opportunity to stop them on their side of the field and force a punt and kick a field goal to win, and we didn’t do that."

If the right people gripe about it, the NFL will have to take a look at its rules. In recent weeks, the NFL has seen two star players in Rodgers and Tom Brady (during a Week 16 overtime loss to the Jets) fail to see the field because their team didn't get a stop on the opening drive of overtime. The NFL undoubtedly would like to see its top players on the field in the most dramatic action of the game.
 

Scoot26

Administrator
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 25, 2010
Posts:
41,118
Liked Posts:
28,191
"Make the process equitable. This isn't at all complicated. Use Saturday night, let's say, as the template," Van Pelt began. "Arizona gets the ball and they score a touchdown. Well done. But why should that end the game? Because it's a touchdown. That's awfully arbitrary — they scored, super. Simple tweak of the rules leads to a kickoff to Green Bay, with the Packers required to answer or the game ends. If they do answer with a score, then the game immediately becomes sudden-death."

I find this is where we get into the argument of where does it end?

First it use to be first come first serve.. You score first in OT in any matter, you win the game. Game over. Now you need a TD or safety to win the game.

I feel like we'll have a game where Arizona scores a TD first, GB responds with a TD, then Arizona scores again and wins, and then people will bitch that GB didn't get a second chance to respond. So it will never end. Sometimes you just need to ignore the people.

The only real true solution to ensure "fairness" in this regard is to do what other sports do and play a full OT. Maybe not 15 minutes, but 10 minutes of game time. Whomever is winning at the end wins, if its a tie, 2nd OT.
 

Teddy KGB

Cultural Icon
Joined:
Apr 25, 2011
Posts:
7,801
Liked Posts:
4,641
Honestly, I find a lot of the people crying about injustice are closet Rodgers fans of varying degrees.

Not Green Bay fans, but you know the media types, who are not happy unless they are hugging some superstar QB's nuts.

If they wanted fair, then Green Bay needs to win that game in regulation.
 

BearDen

High Ranking Member
Joined:
May 18, 2014
Posts:
5,730
Liked Posts:
4,259
Scott Van Pelt should stick to golf.
 

mcbear34

Here for the Wins
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
1,855
Liked Posts:
617
Location:
Houston
Leave it alone, OT is sudden death. Both teams have 4 quarters to win the game. Period. Oh and fuck Green Bay!
 

Gustavus Adolphus

?‍♂️?
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
45,638
Liked Posts:
34,939
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nebraska Cornhuskers
  2. Villanova Wildcats
Listen, I love SVP, but if his main complaint is that it 'seems cosmically wrong Rodgers didn't touch the field,' then this is the grown up equivalent of a t-ball game where everyone is safe. I can think of a variety of other factors that could have kept Rodgers off the field:
- sack-fumble returned for 6
- pick 6
- fumble anywhere that resulted in a recovery for 6
- GB wins the toss and they take the kickoff for 6

Or had Arians (desbro's 2nd choice) managed the clock better in the 4th quarter, one need not have to worry about overtime at all. Go back to the old way, sudden death.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
18,865
Liked Posts:
4,659
Honestly, I find a lot of the people crying about injustice are closet Rodgers fans of varying degrees.

Not Green Bay fans, but you know the media types, who are not happy unless they are hugging some superstar QB's nuts.

If they wanted fair, then Green Bay needs to win that game in regulation.

Precisely

GB knew the rules going in, when they scored a TD they had the option of going for 2 points and winning the game. Instead they choose to tie the game and send it into OT. Now they are crying that the OT rules are not fair. Give it a rest.
Am I to understand that the GB idiots somehow think their chances were better to drive the length of the field in OT to tie the game once again in OT (had the rules been as the OP suggests) then to score from the 2yd line?

the game couldn't end in a tie, why not go for the two points?

There doesn't need to be a rules change, there needs to be a coaching philosophy change.
 

RiDLer80

First time, long time.
Joined:
Feb 16, 2014
Posts:
3,964
Liked Posts:
3,556
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Miami Hurricanes
  2. Northern Illinois Huskies
People act like teams don't have 60 minutes before OT to win the game.

I hate that they act like the entire game came down to one possession when in reality you had an entire game to win, but couldn't.
 

Gustavus Adolphus

?‍♂️?
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
45,638
Liked Posts:
34,939
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nebraska Cornhuskers
  2. Villanova Wildcats
I would only make the following changes:
- sudden death
- 7:30 clock
- :35 second play clock
- offense has to allow the defense to substitute
 

Scoot26

Administrator
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 25, 2010
Posts:
41,118
Liked Posts:
28,191
Listen, I love SVP, but if his main complaint is that it 'seems cosmically wrong Rodgers didn't touch the field,' then this is the grown up equivalent of a t-ball game where everyone is safe. I can think of a variety of other factors that could have kept Rodgers off the field:
- sack-fumble returned for 6
- pick 6
- fumble anywhere that resulted in a recovery for 6
- GB wins the toss and they take the kickoff for 6

Or had Arians (desbro's 2nd choice) managed the clock better in the 4th quarter, one need not have to worry about overtime at all. Go back to the old way, sudden death.
The narrative seems to more so turn into the ELITE QB did not touch the ball and that's the problem. We heard it before this season when the Patriots screwed up the coin toss and the Jets won and there was outcry that Brady did not touch the field in OT. I don't think we'd see the outcry if the Packers won the toss, got a TD and won the game. The media wouldn't be driving home the fact Carson Palmer didn't touch the field nearly as much as they do when Rodgers, Brady, Manning do not.
 

PrideisBears

Jordan Sigler’s editor
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Jun 20, 2010
Posts:
39,199
Liked Posts:
28,835
Location:
In the mod forum planning your ban
My solution is that the opposing defense stops the offense instead of letting a 30+ WR stiff arm them 70 yards down the field, but that is just my opinion.

I'm with Vash on this. People crying about this have to be packer fans. Rodgers had plenty of chances to put the game away but didn't and had to rely on another prayer to get to OT. It was even worse last year where the defense made Wilson look terrible but Rodgers again couldn't get the job done and put points on the board despite great field position off of several turnovers.

Leave the rules alone and tell Rodgers to shut up
 
Last edited:

vincentvega

Active member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
741
Liked Posts:
455
The narrative seems to more so turn into the ELITE QB did not touch the ball and that's the problem. We heard it before this season when the Patriots screwed up the coin toss and the Jets won and there was outcry that Brady did not touch the field in OT. I don't think we'd see the outcry if the Packers won the toss, got a TD and won the game. The media wouldn't be driving home the fact Carson Palmer didn't touch the field nearly as much as they do when Rodgers, Brady, Manning do not.

This exactly....
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
43,301
Liked Posts:
23,551
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
The narrative seems to more so turn into the ELITE QB did not touch the ball and that's the problem. We heard it before this season when the Patriots screwed up the coin toss and the Jets won and there was outcry that Brady did not touch the field in OT. I don't think we'd see the outcry if the Packers won the toss, got a TD and won the game. The media wouldn't be driving home the fact Carson Palmer didn't touch the field nearly as much as they do when Rodgers, Brady, Manning do not.

And AZ got rewarded for keeping it out of his hands. All is as it should be. If you want to get picky about fair and equitable, maybe there should be a Hail Mary rule.
 

BearDen

High Ranking Member
Joined:
May 18, 2014
Posts:
5,730
Liked Posts:
4,259
And AZ got be rewarded for keeping it out of his hands. All is as it should be. If you want to get picky about fair and equitable, maybe there should be a Hail Mary rule.

Or how about a rule against the "free play" where Rodgers throws TDs after flags are thrown and the play is all but dead?
 

rawdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
8,013
Liked Posts:
6,460
They were lucky to get to OT and had all the momentum. And they voted against changing it to both teams assured of getting the ball. Screw them. I wasn't a big fan of the original rule change, but I do like it now that I've seen it in play. Seems fair.

But yeah, like has been said, this wouldn't be an issue if Alex Smith was the opposing QB and it would still be an issue if Arizona got the ball twice vs. once and won in OT after both teams scored. The rules are fine.
 

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,624
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
What a bunch of crybaby stuff. The OT rules are just fine. Green Bay needs to blame their defense for not holding AZ to a FG. It's as simple as that. Teams take on the personal of the Head Coach. Instead of placing blame where it lies, they would rather cry about the rules. How about the NFL change the rules where Green Bay's offense actually get called for holding penalties. What a bunch of losers.
 

Top