Really, if they could start the game with a coin flip why not end it with one.I mean, surely they could come up with something to end the game?
Well... yeah***Endless two point conversions is such a better option****
It clearly is a better option.***Endless two point conversions is such a better option****
I don’t buy this narrative. There were 25 plays run in OT of the Packers-Cowboys game last night. 24 plays in the last NFL tie before that.Because they don’t want to play forever & get tired players even more beat up & susceptible to injury. It happens maybe a time or two per year. So what?
It’s more to do with TV.Because they don’t want to play forever & get tired players even more beat up & susceptible to injury. It happens maybe a time or two per year. So what?
But I read on this very forum all the time that "we want more football". Every time I see some shi-tty matchup on tv and say something about it on here everybody runs and screams "doesn't matter who's playing as long as its more football, give it to me blah, blah, blah"I mean, surely they could come up with something to end the game?
But that’s also Network TV vs cable. The networks want everything done timely and on a schedule. That’s why the NFL has their overtime that way so it doesn’t take forever.But I read on this very forum all the time that "we want more football". Every time I see some shi-tty matchup on tv and say something about it on here everybody runs and screams "doesn't matter who's playing as long as its more football, give it to me blah, blah, blah"
I'd much rather watch a tied pro game than Minnesota State vs Saint Little Sister in the Weedeater Bowl or some meaningless crap like that......
I think it's both. The official reason given for shortening OT to 10 minutes was "to improve player safety."It’s more to do with TV.
The Packers could have done more to put themselves in a position to kick a field goal. It’s almost like they were playing for the tie.
I didnt know until watching last night that they changed thr rules again, and now both teams get at least one possession even if the first team scores a TD. So, really, you want to kick off, which is what Green Bay chose to do, so you know what you need out of your offense. The only way you get screwed is if the receiving team eats up all the clock and scores a TD.NFL overtimes should be 12 minutes instead of 10. They used to be 15 minutes but they shortened it to 10. Shortening the period by five minutes as well as creating a rule that means both teams must possess the ball unless the team that receives the kickoff scores a touchdown means there will be more tie games. I would prefer that teams just play an extra 12 minute quarter and whoever is ahead at the end of that quarter wins the game. If it's tied, the game ends in a tie.
I think it should be the visiting team.Hot Take Warning: If a game is tied at the end of overtime, the home team should win.
What does this have to do with settling tied NFL games?But I read on this very forum all the time that "we want more football". Every time I see some shi-tty matchup on tv and say something about it on here everybody runs and screams "doesn't matter who's playing as long as its more football, give it to me blah, blah, blah"
I'd much rather watch a tied pro game than Minnesota State vs Saint Little Sister in the Weedeater Bowl or some meaningless crap like that......
This is how OT should be. Just an extension of the 4th quarter. Any advantage one team will have will be an earned advantage, OT would generally be shorter & more exciting with the sudden death element.So.....why don't they just keep playing at the end of regulation but have it be sudden death? No coin toss, just keep playing. If a team kicked a FG as time ran out, then they get OT, but they have to kickoff. If a team is driving at the end of regulation, just keep playing. If that team scores, they win.
With as long as a possession in the NFL can take, I wonder what happens if the 10 minutes runs out before the 2nd teams possession is over. Does the game end, or do they play out that possession?I was complaining about it before when it decided that the previous two Super Bowls. They made this change. I expect more to come... Slowly.
I agree with you that it is silly the way it is. They made sure to tell us that both teams had a chance with the ball.
From what I understand, from the way it played out last night, when the time is up, the game is over.With as long as a possession in the NFL can take, I wonder what happens if the 10 minutes runs out before the 2nd teams possession is over. Does the game end, or do they play out that possession?
Exactly, that's why the pressure was on Green Bay to score before time expired. The last incomplete pass fell with 1 second left....a second slower and they lose.From what I understand, from the way it played out last night, when the time is up, the game is over.
It's essentially 1 point for a win and 1/2 point for a tie. So a tie is more valuable in football than it is in futball.If you're going to have ties, you need the soccer point system to go with it so it makes sense in the standings. 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss
Game ends. I believe first team could even run out the clock and kick a FG as time expires. It's limited to 10 minutes regardless (in regular season).With as long as a possession in the NFL can take, I wonder what happens if the 10 minutes runs out before the 2nd teams possession is over. Does the game end, or do they play out that possession?
This "improve player safety" excuse is just crap. If they cared about player safety, they wouldn't have added a 17th regular season game, and want to potentially add an 18th game. They wouldn't have Thursday night games where teams only have four days of rest between games. Everything the NFL does is to make money and appease the TV networks.I think it's both. The official reason given for shortening OT to 10 minutes was "to improve player safety."
TV is probably the biggest reason. It's also partly that the NFLPA has a say. The players being forced to play more which increases their chance of injury and also not receive any additional compensation is something they have the power to negotiate. So it makes sense to limit any overtime since they aren't getting time and a half. What they do is physically hard.This "improve player safety" excuse is just crap. If they cared about player safety, they wouldn't have added a 17th regular season game, and want to potentially add an 18th game. They wouldn't have Thursday night games where teams only have four days of rest between games. Everything the NFL does is to make money and appease the TV networks.
I like the idea of just continuing play as you end regulation, and making it sudden death. I’d add the caveat that the sudden death should still require a TD in overtime. If you have first down on the 35 yard line with 0:02 left, and can kick the game winning field goal, but you let it go to OT just so you can gain 10-15 more yards for the game winning field goal attempt, that would be crap. There has to be some incentive to end the game in regulation.I didnt know until watching last night that they changed thr rules again, and now both teams get at least one possession even if the first team scores a TD. So, really, you want to kick off, which is what Green Bay chose to do, so you know what you need out of your offense. The only way you get screwed is if the receiving team eats up all the clock and scores a TD.
If the game is still tied after 2 possessions, and there is still time on the clock, it becomes sudden death.
So.....why don't they just keep playing at the end of regulation but have it be sudden death? No coin toss, just keep playing. If a team kicked a FG as time ran out, then they get OT, but they have to kickoff. If a team is driving at the end of regulation, just keep playing. If that team scores, they win.
Maybe start with field goals from the 30 (40 yards), then move out 5 yards at a time until one team misses.Really, if they could start the game with a coin flip why not end it with one.
I agree. If the World Cup can be decided in a ludicrous fashion then we can do something similar in the NFLMaybe start with field goals from the 30 (40 yards), then move out 5 yards at a time until one team misses.
@champdawg.sixpack says you definitely receive!So, really, you want to kick off, which is what Green Bay chose to do, so you know what you need out of your offense. The only way you get screwed is if the receiving team eats up all the clock and scores a TD.
But what if they both miss from same distance? You just keep going?Maybe start with field goals from the 30 (40 yards), then move out 5 yards at a time until one team misses.
Yeah, one thing wrong with the "keep playing" approach is, if the game is tied, you miss out on the drama of a team trying to score before time runs out. That's good TV.I like the idea of just continuing play as you end regulation, and making it sudden death. I’d add the caveat that the sudden death should still require a TD in overtime. If you have first down on the 35 yard line with 0:02 left, and can kick the game winning field goal, but you let it go to OT just so you can gain 10-15 more yards for the game winning field goal attempt, that would be crap. There has to be some incentive to end the game in regulation.
Another option is to keep things as they are, but bring back the ability to win with a TD on the first OT possession. The only change from previous is you have to score a TD and get a 2-point conversion. This will encourage more aggressive play in the first OT possession.
3rd option - keep everything the same as now, but shorten the play-clock to 25 seconds for all plays, not just administrative breaks in action for penalities, change of possession, etc. This would also encourage more action towards a resolution. The Dallas / Green Bay game where they spent the entire 10 minutes of OT on two field goal drives was atrocious. No excuse whatsoever in today’s modern passing offenses for there to be only 2 possessions in a 10 minute OT period.
On the other hand, in that situation tv gets the commercial time out at the end of regulation every time & not just if the offense fails.Yeah, one thing wrong with the "keep playing" approach is, if the game is tied, you miss out on the drama of a team trying to score before time runs out. That's good TV.
In my suggestion, if the game is tied late, and one team has the ball in decent field position, there is no incentive for them to play "beat the clock". Just play conservatively, roll over to OT, and then try to score and win. I have no problem with that, but TV might object.