PDA

View Full Version : Re: The NEW Overtime Rules


FanSince72
01-09-2012, 10:41 AM
The new overtime rules were supposedly designed to prevent one team from getting lucky on one or two plays and then kicking a field goal without the other team having a chance to answer.

But why wasn't something like what happened to us considered as well?

The way it was explained is that the other team gets a chance to answer but only if one team kicks a field goal, but if that team scores a TD, the game ends.

Presumably, the rule was set up this way because it was assumed that it takes a considerable amount of effort to go all the way down the field and score a TD while a FG could be the result of connecting on one or two long passes.

But what about one pass and a missed tackle?

Isn't that the same thing as "getting lucky" and then kicking a FG?

I know that if a game goes to overtime it means that neither team got it done when they should have and I suppose that if one team gets lucky in OT then that's the chance you take by not taking care of business during regulation time. But if changing the OT rule was designed to allow for luck and to introduce more in the way of fairness, then why not just say that if a team scores in OT the other team gets one chance to answer back REGARDLESS of whether it's a TD or a FG?

After Nantz went to all the trouble of explaining why the rule was changed and that it was all about eliminating a lucky break, it sure seemed stupid after watching Denver go off to the races because of a stiff-arm.

Quasar
01-09-2012, 10:42 AM
I don't think we got burned by luck in OT.

SteeleReign
01-09-2012, 10:45 AM
The new overtime rules were supposedly designed to prevent one team from getting lucky on one or two plays and then kicking a field goal without the other team having a chance to answer.

But why wasn't something like what happened to us considered as well?

The way it was explained is that the other team gets a chance to answer but only if one team kicks a field goal, but if that team scores a TD, the game ends.

Presumably, the rule was set up this way because it was assumed that it takes a considerable amount of effort to go all the way down the field and score a TD while a FG could be the result of connecting on one or two long passes.

But what about one pass and a missed tackle?

Isn't that the same thing as "getting lucky" and then kicking a FG?

I know that if a game goes to overtime it means that neither team got it done when they should have and I suppose that if one team gets lucky in OT then that's the chance you take by not taking care of business during regulation time. But if changing the OT rule was designed to allow for luck and to introduce more in the way of fairness, then why not just say that if a team scores in OT the other team gets one chance to answer back REGARDLESS of whether it's a TD or a FG?

After Nantz went to all the trouble of explaining why the rule was changed and that it was all about eliminating a lucky break, it sure seemed stupid after watching Denver go off to the races because of a stiff-arm.

Gotta disagree. I think the new rule is fine. And, I certainly wasn't concerned with the rule after the winning TD.

NoFieldFive
01-09-2012, 11:02 AM
I said to my wife when Denver won the coin toss. they should go deep and try to end this. they haven't been stopped all game. Steelers coaches get paid a lot of money to see what should have been obvious.

Steelers were lucky the game even got to OT.

plenewken
01-09-2012, 11:02 AM
I agree with you and my opinion would be the same if we'd won the game in OT. The point is, BOTH teams should have the ball, regardless of who scores what first.
I don't see Denver's OT TD as a lucky break. It was a perfectly executed play that we didn't see coming, but we should have been given the ball to try to score a TD too..

DoctorCAD
01-09-2012, 11:14 AM
I agree with you and my opinion would be the same if we'd won the game in OT. The point is, BOTH teams should have the ball, regardless of who scores what first.
I don't see Denver's OT TD as a lucky break. It was a perfectly executed play that we didn't see coming, but we should have been given the ball to try to score a TD too..

Maybe YOU didn't see it coming, but hundreds of thousands of us disgusted fans sure did. After all, we couldn't stop that play all game long, so why NOT use it in overtime.

FanSince72
01-09-2012, 11:15 AM
I agree with you and my opinion would be the same if we'd won the game in OT. The point is, BOTH teams should have the ball, regardless of who scores what first.
I don't see Denver's OT TD as a lucky break. It was a perfectly executed play that we didn't see coming, but we should have been given the ball to try to score a TD too..

You said it better than I did.

If fairness is what it's supposed to be about, then each team should get a touch.

SteeleReign
01-09-2012, 11:39 AM
You said it better than I did.

If fairness is what it's supposed to be about, then each team should get a touch.

I understand your point, but it's not about fairness. It's about football, it's about playing defense, it's about playing Steelers defense & not allowing one of the worst regular season QB in NFL history to beat you on the first play from scrimmage.

plenewken
01-09-2012, 12:01 PM
Maybe YOU didn't see it coming, but hundreds of thousands of us disgusted fans sure did. After all, we couldn't stop that play all game long, so why NOT use it in overtime.

"WE" was the Steelers, not "WE watching TV". The Steelers stuffed the front line, thinking that the Broncos would run on 1st down, as they did most of the time during the game. Obviously, they changed their strategy and it paid off.
This doesn't change the fact that both teams should get the ball in OT regardless of who scores what first. That's all I'm saying.

plenewken
01-09-2012, 12:07 PM
I understand your point, but it's not about fairness. It's about football, it's about playing defense, it's about playing Steelers defense & not allowing one of the worst regular season QB in NFL history to beat you on the first play from scrimmage.

This new OT rule is not about fairness and not about football either. It's about TV schedules and audience. There is no other reason to explain it. If it was about football, then it'd be an extra 10mn of play. But this doesn't fit well with TV schedules. They prefer less football and more commercials as it's the case during the first 60mn of play........ lasting 150 to 180mn because of all the interruptions.
This new rule is marginally better than the old one but it doesn't cut it either, at least not for me.

SteeleReign
01-09-2012, 12:13 PM
This new OT rule is not about fairness and not about football either. It's about TV schedules and audience. There is no other reason to explain it. If it was about football, then it'd be an extra 10mn of play. But this doesn't fit well with TV schedules. They prefer less football and more commercials as it's the case during the first 60mn of play........ lasting 150 to 180mn because of all the interruptions.
This new rule is marginally better than the old one but it doesn't cut it either, at least not for me.

That may be true, and while I agree, football would cease to exist as we know it without the networks & their TV schedules & audience. So, I guess we take the bad with the good.

I'd prefer to see the Steelers force the Broncos to kick a FG or punt & then we go down and score a TD....pretty simple really.

iknowmorethanyou
01-09-2012, 07:51 PM
From another thread. As right as it gets.

No we were given a full 60 minute regulation game to win the game. Can't do that? Then sudden death it is. Also we were given a chance... who gets the ball first is decided in the fairest way possible.... a coin toss. Even so, they have the ball first, so what... its still fair in that we get 11 men to line up accross from their offense. It's called a defense. They get paid a ton of money because they specialize in stopping the offense. Still fair.

Sorry the sudden death rule made perfect sense and when ever people whine about it drives me crazy. So much that I had to register and post this. The new rule really bothers me.

But like the guy before me said..l just don't give up the 80 yard play on the first place.

Another poster from same thread...

I disagree with just having another quarter or a shortened quarter. They already give you 60 minutes of that if you can't when there then rules change in OT. Cuz then if its a tie game late in the forth, the urgency goes away knowing you can take it into OT and play another quarter.

Although my thoughts are changing on it. Maybe eliminate field goals... Either punt or go for it... Sudden death where on tds count

bornaSteelersfan
01-09-2012, 08:28 PM
I like the new rule. Score a TD and win. This eliminates having that kicker who can boot it 50 or 60 yards win the game. Steelers choked and let them get by us. BTW who the heck calls tails on a coin flip?! HEADS, ALWAYS HEADS!!!

RavenManiac
01-09-2012, 08:53 PM
From another thread. As right as it gets.

No we were given a full 60 minute regulation game to win the game. Can't do that? Then sudden death it is. Also we were given a chance... who gets the ball first is decided in the fairest way possible.... a coin toss. Even so, they have the ball first, so what... its still fair in that we get 11 men to line up accross from their offense. It's called a defense. They get paid a ton of money because they specialize in stopping the offense. Still fair.

Sorry the sudden death rule made perfect sense and when ever people whine about it drives me crazy. So much that I had to register and post this. The new rule really bothers me.

But like the guy before me said..l just don't give up the 80 yard play on the first place.

Another poster from same thread...

I disagree with just having another quarter or a shortened quarter. They already give you 60 minutes of that if you can't when there then rules change in OT. Cuz then if its a tie game late in the forth, the urgency goes away knowing you can take it into OT and play another quarter.

Although my thoughts are changing on it. Maybe eliminate field goals... Either punt or go for it... Sudden death where on tds count


They changed the rule because the winner of the coin toss was starting to win a disproportionate number of OT games. It made sense since the league keeps making it easier and easier to move the ball and harder and harder to play defense. Add to that the fact that FG kickers are getting stronger and more accurate from longer ranges.

Since a coin toss is entirely luck and has nothing to do with merit/skill, the league (and many fans) didn't like the idea of luck deciding games. So they looked for ways to eliminate it. For a few years I have been saying that a good and easy 'first step' to mitigating the cointoss luck would be to have OT kickoffs from the 35 yard line, since average starting field position was greatly improved after they moved kickoffs back to the 30 in 1994. But they implemented this rule for all kickoffs anyway in addition to changing the OT rules.

The argument that each team pays defensive players, etc, doesn't change the fact that receiving the ball under the old rules was becoming a huge advantage. And this advantage was gained by pure luck. I have no problem with the league trying to minimize the effect of pure luck in determining outcomes.

iknowmorethanyou
01-10-2012, 12:17 AM
They changed the rule because the winner of the coin toss was starting to win a disproportionate number of OT games. It made sense since the league keeps making it easier and easier to move the ball and harder and harder to play defense. Add to that the fact that FG kickers are getting stronger and more accurate from longer ranges.

Since a coin toss is entirely luck and has nothing to do with merit/skill, the league (and many fans) didn't like the idea of luck deciding games. So they looked for ways to eliminate it. For a few years I have been saying that a good and easy 'first step' to mitigating the cointoss luck would be to have OT kickoffs from the 35 yard line, since average starting field position was greatly improved after they moved kickoffs back to the 30 in 1994. But they implemented this rule for all kickoffs anyway in addition to changing the OT rules.

The argument that each team pays defensive players, etc, doesn't change the fact that receiving the ball under the old rules was becoming a huge advantage. And this advantage was gained by pure luck. I have no problem with the league trying to minimize the effect of pure luck in determining outcomes.

Your incorrect in saying that its luck. It's 50/50 odds... Which is 100% fair.
It should not be awarded by ''merit/skill'' as the whole point of overtime is that the game resulted in an even score. ''merit/skill'' could not be decided.

Yes field goals are easier to come, balls easier to move, etc, etc... That's why field goals should be eliminated from play on OT. Go for it or punt on 4th down. Sudden death with tds only.

Once a td is scored... Game over.

No need to argue possesion and taking turns. We already had 60 minutes of that.

RavenManiac
01-10-2012, 02:19 PM
Your incorrect in saying that its luck. It's 50/50 odds... Which is 100% fair.
It should not be awarded by ''merit/skill'' as the whole point of overtime is that the game resulted in an even score. ''merit/skill'' could not be decided.

Yes field goals are easier to come, balls easier to move, etc, etc... That's why field goals should be eliminated from play on OT. Go for it or punt on 4th down. Sudden death with tds only.

Once a td is scored... Game over.

No need to argue possesion and taking turns. We already had 60 minutes of that.

A coinflip is absolutely about luck. They are flipping the coin once. Telling me that over infinite flips you will win half the time, doesn't change the fact that for a single flip you either get lucky or not. There certainly is no skill involved, so if you claim there is no luck involved, then how do you explain the fact that a 'winner' is decided? Not luck, you say. Not skill, you say. Then what?

It should obviously be decided by merit/skill because that is what the games are for, determining who is better at the game of football. As for the fact that 60 minutes couldn't determine a winner, that is entirely irrelevant. You are still left with an undecided result, you still need to determine a result, and between luck and some test of skill you should choose the latter as much as possible.

Eliminating FGs from OT changes the game more than the current rules. It could possibly benefit one team more than another and it is completely arbitrary. It also would almost certainly lead to longer games (which is part of the issue with how the rules are are setup, otherwise they could keep playing full or partial quarters with no sudden death).

There is a total need to argue possessions and taking turns because that is what football is about. Essentially saying "we already played 60 minutes of football and ended without a winner therefore let's play a drastically different game to decide who wins" doesn't make much sense to me.

There really was no need to change the old rules except for the fact the game changed over the years resulting in the winner of the cointoss winning more games than they otherwise would. The current rule change mitigated (and possibly eliminated) that advantage. Your TD-only rule would also mitigate that advantage, but it is also a much bigger change to the basic game of football.

plenewken
01-10-2012, 03:07 PM
Here is my solution.

IMO, there is too much disproportion between the number of games in the regular season and the number of games in the playoffs. 16 reg and only 2 (or 3) in the playoffs doesn't make much sense to me. The League wants to add games? Yeah, let's add games, but not in the regular season, in the playoffs. So .........here is what I propose.

1) No OT during the regular season. the top 6 teams in each Conf make the playoffs.
2) No OT during the playoffs either, instead, each team plays against the 5 other opponents in his conference and the 2 teams with the highest % meet in the Superbowl.

No need for pre-season either. That's useless anyway so the season can start 1 month earlier.

Fire back.

RavenManiac
01-10-2012, 03:39 PM
I think there are some drawbacks to that proposal (and obviously some benefits).

First, it seems to eliminate competition for seeding. I don't see how being the best team in a conference is any more valuable than the 6th best. If this is the case then you can have teams that theoretically could have nothing to play for for the last month or more of the 'regular' season.

Second, how would you determine home/away for the 15 postseason games in each Conference? Or would they all be on neutral fields?

Third, there would very likely be tied winning percentages after the 5 posteason games in each Conference. Could even have 3-way ties. Not sure how one could break those tiebreakers 'fairly.'

Fourth, you lose a lot of the drama in 'loser goes home' games. You also could have the SB entrant 'clinch' the SB before the 5-game postseason is over (creating some meaningless and relatively unmarketable games).

It is an interesting proposal though, that could work with some tweaks.

iknowmorethanyou
01-10-2012, 08:35 PM
A coinflip is absolutely about luck. They are flipping the coin once. Telling me that over infinite flips you will win half the time, doesn't change the fact that for a single flip you either get lucky or not. There certainly is no skill involved, so if you claim there is no luck involved, then how do you explain the fact that a 'winner' is decided? Not luck, you say. Not skill, you say. Then what?

It should obviously be decided by merit/skill because that is what the games are for, determining who is better at the game of football. As for the fact that 60 minutes couldn't determine a winner, that is entirely irrelevant. You are still left with an undecided result, you still need to determine a result, and between luck and some test of skill you should choose the latter as much as possible.

Eliminating FGs from OT changes the game more than the current rules. It could possibly benefit one team more than another and it is completely arbitrary. It also would almost certainly lead to longer games (which is part of the issue with how the rules are are setup, otherwise they could keep playing full or partial quarters with no sudden death).

There is a total need to argue possessions and taking turns because that is what football is about. Essentially saying "we already played 60 minutes of football and ended without a winner therefore let's play a drastically different game to decide who wins" doesn't make much sense to me.

There really was no need to change the old rules except for the fact the game changed over the years resulting in the winner of the cointoss winning more games than they otherwise would. The current rule change mitigated (and possibly eliminated) that advantage. Your TD-only rule would also mitigate that advantage, but it is also a much bigger change to the basic game of football.

you are flat out wrong. Call it lot call at whatever it doesn't change the fact that a coin toss us a 100 percent fair to decide possession .I think you need to not only read my post but think it through as well and see how logical it is. the game of football and its fundamental rules have already been played . that means it's time for a change of rules. anyway I don't really like arguing much on forums because it's hard to get a point across so if you reply to this I will not read it but I will carried you to think it through think about it throughout the day until you realize that you are wrong

RavenManiac
01-10-2012, 10:20 PM
you are flat out wrong. Call it lot call at whatever it doesn't change the fact that a coin toss us a 100 percent fair to decide possession .I think you need to not only read my post but think it through as well and see how logical it is. the game of football and its fundamental rules have already been played . that means it's time for a change of rules. anyway I don't really like arguing much on forums because it's hard to get a point across so if you reply to this I will not read it but I will carried you to think it through think about it throughout the day until you realize that you are wrong

Nah, I am not even close to wrong. Your points were thoroughly addressed. And you haven't added anything other than bleating worthlessly "you're wrong."

I understand why you don't like arguing on forums, you aren't very good at it. :wave:

tony hipchest
01-10-2012, 11:38 PM
i love the new rules (needs to be implimented for ALL games next season) and was stoked the steelers got to be part of history as one of the 1st teams to test them out.

heads or tails i thought we had the game in the bag.

i was certain the steelers would atleast hold the broncos to nothing more than a fg and they would go on to win the game outright or tie it up and win on the next possession.

im still stunned it ended the way it did, but the new rule had no bearing on that whatsoever.

with that being said, i know for certain that "tails never fails" dates back to atleast chuck noll and rod woodson.

we almost always have exclusively called tails ever since (i can only think of 1 time we didnt).

lately tails has been failing.