Anyone have a problem with the OT rules?

[Jangler]

[Nate Dogg]

It is fine as it is now. The old rules with only a FG were whack, but now they're perfect.

If they change it to where both teams possess the ball... Then we are gonna have a bunch of OTs that go touchdown, touchdown, and then we are right back to the first team getting into FG range winning it.

And then it'll be, "but, but, but, they got the ball twice and we only got it once!"

[Nate Dogg]

The only thing I could get behind would be something like both teams guaranteed to possess starting from their own 20. No clock. No punts. Must go for two on scores.

[Hoenheim]

I think the current rules are perfect. Too easy to get a field goal . But if you can't prevent the other team from gettING a TD that's on you . 

[KSpan]

2 hours ago, Cracka McNasty said:

No, because both teams would have held possession of the ball. That's the big issue. Not every team is guaranteed possession in extra time. They have the ability to gain possession, but generally speaking, offensively is the most likely way to score. 

I think they should go college style rules in the NFL. Not necessarily at the 20 of the opposing defense, but at least have them both start at your own 35 or so. Give both teams a chance to score. If the first team on offense scores, let the other team on the field to score too. If the first team on offense throws a pick 6 or loses a fumble and the defense scores, call the game because both teams were allowed possession of some kind. I don't think it's rocket science, but the current format just isn't fair to all teams involved in the OT setting. 

And I say this as a general complaint about OT in professional football without the slightest hint of longing for the Falcons to get another chance to score, because screw them. If nothing else, I would want the rule to change now after the fact just to rub the salt in the wound more. 

Reasonable, but I like the format because it puts the onus on playing defense. Is the team that doesn't receive the kickoff at a disadvantage? When FGs ended the game they were at a huge disadvantage but now not so much. Stats from last year (not sure how impacted by this year's OT games) show there being an almost 10% difference in win percentage in favor of teams that get the ball first but the only number that really matters in my opinion is the number of times teams score a TD on that first drive, and it's not that high. 

Quote

The opposing team scores a touchdown on the very first possession of overtime 17.8 percent of the time, and 100 percent of the time that happens, they win the game. They could be doing even better: NFL teams score touchdowns on 21.2 percent of possessions, per Football Outsiders. About a fifth of the time you kick off in overtime, you're going to lose before you touch the ball.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/12/29/10682736/nfl-overtime-rules-bill-belichick-patriots-jets-decision-wind-kick-receive

I understand the position that some teams are built for offense and some defense, and teams with worse defenses may be at a greater disadvantage in OT if they aren't getting the ball first. However, I personally like the fact that defense can't be ignored and that teams have to consider that a poor defense may be a major weakness in OT games. Could be in the minority opinion here but sports that only emphasize offense are boring to me (looking at you, NBA) and I like that unique aspect of the NFL's OT rules.

[Manos]

Pretty sure several Falcon fans have a problem with it right now.

But frankly, so do I.

The obvious and most fair solution, as many have mentioned, is to guarantee each team one possession and then send it to sudden death if it's tied after that.

The only way I would be remotely ok with this is if you had to go for 2 if you score a TD, because otherwise you are going to end a lot more games tied because both teams score and then you run out of time. And a second OT unless it's a playoff game is just absurd, too many players will get hurt.

Sent from my XT1254 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

[uncfan888]

I hope they change it because of that game. Let the falcons know that they lost their chance at a super bowl under the old rules.  It will sting just a little bit more

[cardiackat88.]

What about one team gets the ball on the opposing teams one yard line, and run five plays, the intention is to score on each play. No field goals. The other team then gets the ball on the opposing teams one yard line, and they run five plays. Whichever teams score the most times of the five chances wins. If it's even, then five new downs for each team with refreshed count of scores. Maybe a turnover gives the other team the ball for their five plays right away. I have some thoughts.

[heel31ok]

On 2/6/2017 at 3:42 PM, mc52beast said:

Heard people talking about how the OT rules are not fair to the team that loses the coin toss, because if they allow a td the game is over... some want the NFL to adopt the college rules.

Me personally, I think that if you want a chance to get the ball back your defense should actually play defense.

Just play a 6:00 minute OT...

[CoastalCat]

On 2/7/2017 at 9:18 AM, pantherclaw said:

It's no one's fault but the Falcons offense, for the defense being out on the field most of the second half. 

The Falcons also had the ball on the Pats 22 yard line. All they had to do was run 3 times, and kick a fiels goal. This would be a moot point. 

Instead, we have people who can't grasp such simple facts, and want to argue that our OT is wack.

I can grasp it, but you have to agree that there are years where either our offense, or our defense, carries us through the season. When your stronger side of the ball is not allowed a shot at being on the field, it's "whack". 

[pantherphan96]

college football OT is better

[pantherclaw]

1 hour ago, CoastalCat said:

I can grasp it, but you have to agree that there are years where either our offense, or our defense, carries us through the season. When your stronger side of the ball is not allowed a shot at being on the field, it's "whack". 

I'm sorry, but i don't agree with that. Both teams have 60 minutes to win the game. That is fair. 

At the point that regulation time is over, i don't care that people think it's unfair that both teams offense doesn't get on the field. Boo hoo hoo. Seriously. 

[beastson]

I think they should do it similar like how the NBA does. Cut the time like 8 Minutes of playing time and whoever has the most, wins. If not, tie

Only the game should continue if its playoffs and superbowl

[brandon_87]

The way the new rules are is perfect... it keeps a team wanting the 6 instead of settling for a fg, I was completely fine with the old way too, but changing it again is completely retarded, OP must be a millennial