SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com » Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThisOvertime Rule Change Proposal: Last Clear Chance
Following the Colts loss to San Diego, where Manning did not touch the ball in overtime, Peter King wrote that the overtime rule was the "dumbest, stupidest, and most indefensible rule" the NFL has. Now, I don't think it's actually the dumbest rule.
For example, last year I proposed that the league should eliminate the automatic home game for division winner rule and allow wildcard teams with better records to compete for home games. The owners tabled a similar proposal put forth by Roger Goodell and the competition committee last off-season, but I predict that something similar will be in place by the 2011 season if not earlier. The primary reasons I saw from the owners for rejecting it really don't hold water. "It will diminish the value of a division title"--I think that teams that play one of the easiest divisions of all-time and go 3-7 outside of the division do that. "It will hurt teams that play in tough divisions and reward wildcard teams that play in easy ones"--absolutely false based on history, as the strong wildcard teams generally play in tougher divisions and lose out because of being paired with a #1 or #2 seed. If a team wins a division at 9-7 or worse (and thus every other team had 9 or fewer wins), then I submit that the division was in fact, not a tough one. "Tradition: Division winners have always been granted a home game"--again, this is not true, unless tradition goes back to 1990. The NFL has, and I believe will again, changed its playoff structure for the better. Until 1975, for example, division winners with the best record could be forced to go on the road based on a pre-set rotation that assigned home games, without considering a team's record. But I digress.
Like Doug did a couple of years ago,I realized that I've not publicly championed a different overtime system. Like Doug, I also don't have a particular dislike for the overtime system the NFL employs. In fact, it has some nice features-it is simple and fair, oh, and both teams know what the rules are. Prior to the coin flip, both teams have the same chance of getting the ball. Now, Peter King doesn't like it because their is alot of luck tied up in that pre-coin flip fairness. So I've got a solution that solves King's issue (the coin flip) and also, much like Doug's earlier suggestions, should reduce the actual number of overtime games by increasing the incentive to avoid it.
I'm going to completely pervert a legal concept and call my overtime proposal the Last Clear Chance Rule. For jurisdictions that adopted some form of the Last Clear Chance doctrine, even when a plaintiff committed some act of contribututory negligence in causing an accident, the plaintiff would not be barred from recovery if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. Well, twisting that for football, we can say that both teams have "contributed" to causing overtime by their play. However, in most cases, one team had the final chance to avoid the overtime. Here is how my rule would work.
1. Eliminate the coin flip at the start of overtime. The team with the "last clear chance" to avoid overtime must kick off to start the overtime period.
2. If either team has scored in the final five (5) minutes of regulation, and regulation ends in a tie, then the last team to score in regulation was the team with the "last clear chance", unless that team scored the maximum number of points possible on that possession-8 points (resulting from a touchdown and 2-point conversion). In the event the last team to score did score 8 points on the final scoring drive, then the other team kicks off to start overtime.
3. If neither team scored in the final five (5) minutes of regulation, and regulation ends in a tie, then the last team to punt the football was the team with the "last clear chance", and must kickoff to start overtime.
That's it. Three fairly straightforward rules, but they eliminate the coin flip (and alot of the luck) associated with overtime, and add in strategies that may dictate overtime avoidance. Other than changing incentives, though, the game of football remains the same and overtime would proceed as it already does. And unlike the uncertainty of overtime and coin flip (you can't go back and change a decision at the end of regulation based on knowing the result of the flip), with my proposal, coaches would know the potential outcome and could make decisions accordingly.
Let's say that you are down 7 and you score a touchdown. In the current system, most of the time the coach would kick the extra point and take his chance in overtime, since the 2-pt conversion rate is a little less than 50%. However, under my proposal, the 2 point attempt becomes far more attractive, and teams will tend to decide the game in regulation.
Or consider the situation in the San Diego-Indianapolis game last weekend where the Chargers were in comfortable field goal range, had a third and long, and played it safe and ran a draw. They kicked the field goal and went to overtime. Under my proposal, the Chargers would know that they would, in essence, lose the toss and have to kick off if they did so. Don't you think they may have been more aggressive with their playcalling on third down or for that entire set of downs, and tried to win the game outright, if they knew they would be giving the ball to Manning in OT? And the field goal would still be a last resort option (better to go to overtime than lose outright), but it wouldn't be as attractive as it is now.
Or in cases where neither team has scored in the final five minutes, consider a team facing a 4th and 2 at the opponent's 40 with a minute left, and only 1 timeout. What would most coaches do in that situation now? They'd probably punt down to the other team's ten and play for overtime. Under my proposal, that decision may mean you have to kick off, if the other team isn't forced to punt themselves with the time remaining.
So, even though our proposals are a little different, I'm going to borrow some thoughts from Doug here:
And I don’t think there is any circumstance where the end of regulation would be less exciting under my system than it is under the current system. Yes, we’d lose the overtime, but overtime is pretty boring anyway. It usually consists of 0, 1, or 2 punts, a 40-yard drive, two kneel-downs in the middle of the field, one timeout to ice the kicker, and then a field goal. I can live without that.
The thought of overtime is pretty exciting--two teams that have battled to a dead even draw, with every thing on the line. The actual witnessing of overtime, though, is not. I could also, frankly, do without overtime if it meant more plays where the game truly was on the line at the end of regulation. My proposal wouldn't outright eliminate overtime, but it would make teams play to win the game in regulation, and create more excitement and require less time.
ADDENDUM: In light of Larry Seltzer's comments about the winning percentage of teams winning the coin flip, here is an article written by Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats. He cites a winning percentage for the coin flip winner of 60%, for the period 2000-2007. I trust a larger sample size to a smaller one. Even if the result was 12-13 this year (which I haven't confirmed) the coin flip winner is likely to win somewhere between 55%-60% of the time.
This entry was posted on Friday, January 9th, 2009 at 7:02 am and is filed under General, Rant, Rule Change Proposals. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Why is there such an outrage over this? The actual record of teams who won the coin toss for overtime is 12-13; in other words, there's no reason to believe it's an advantage.
BTW, if you want an interesting rule change proposal, I heard this one the other day: eliminate the extra point kick. Make them run a play from scrimmage for one point. No two point conversions. I like it a lot; it would make the game far more exciting.
Overtime: Give each team one possession. May increase the risk of a tie, however. After the receiving team gives up possession, then the sudden death kicks in. In the case of ARI-DAL earlier this year the Cardinal obviously didn't need the possession after blocking the Cowboys' punt.
Xtra points. Eliminating the 99% extra point for the 49% 2-point after each TD may increase the value of a FG relativer to a TD. Now slightly more than half of all TDs will be worth exactly 2 FGs. Could lower scoring and increase FG attempts. Not sure the NFL favors rules to reduce scoring.
Overtime: Or, flip the coin at the last TV timeout before the 2-min warning. The coin flip is already determined prior to the end of regulation.
Larry, the team that wins the toss is well over .500 in overtime since the NFL moved the kickoff line from the 35 to the 30. I'm sure someone here has it, but I believe the numbers I've heard are around 30% of the time the receiving team wins on its initial drive and ~55% of the time the receiving team wins. Really, anything other than 50/50 doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'm in favor of just giving the home team the option of having the ball at the 16 or letting the road team have the ball at the 16. That's the break-even point according to Romer, where the offense is equally likely to score as the defense. If you don't like home/road, you could still have a coin flip to decide if you get the ball at the 16 or your opponent does.
Notwithstanding my solution, I think JKL's is interesting and would certainly make the end of regulation more exciting. Current overtime is way more boring than it should be. Another solution would be to narrow the uprights, which is long overdue, anyway.
They were talking about this on Mike Francesca's show a few days ago. He called Elias about it and they gave him the 12 out of 25 number. I haven't counted the games myself and I'm not sure which games this refers to, but it sounds right to me.
All the coin toss-losing team has to do is to stop the toss-winning team from scoring. It rewards good defenses.
That 12 out of 25 number is totally out of context. I'm not sure what the context is, but I'm sure there is one and that we haven't been given it. Without actually looking it up, I'm sure there have been more than 25 OT games in the history of the NFL.
So was this 25 games this year? In the playoffs? In the 21st century? After December 1st? After the kickoff line was moved back (as Chase suggests)?
Why was this subset of games chosen and why is it significant?
It smells like a completely useless stat.
My solution is to base it on the 2-minute drill. The teams would flip a coin for who kicks first:
Put 2:00 on the clock. Team A kicks off, and the teams play out that two minutes. If Team B scores and there's still time on the clock, they kick off to Team A, who can then score as well. There can be turnovers, first downs, etc; it's two minutes of regular football.
When time expires, the teams switch ends, put another 2:00 on the clock, and now Team B kicks off. Same deal; they play out the two minutes.
After TWO two-minute periods, the winner is determined. If it's still tied, they play a pair of 1:00 drills, again alternating who kicks off, and continue doing that until there's a winner.
(BTW, Larry, replacing the PAT kick with a play from scrimmage for 1 point was the rule in the XFL.)
I added an addendum to the post in regard to the coin flip winner. Per Brian Burke, it was 60% for the winner of the coin flip to win overtime between 2000-2007.
Anon (#3): your suggestion is one variation I have seen. It would increase the length of overtime. I have also seen a "first to 6" suggestion, so that one fg on the first possession doesn't win it. This would still favor the initial receiving team, though it should reduce the numbers.
This might not cut down on complaints in the playoffs, but the NFL could try what the NHL does (and for a time the CFL did): Credit teams who lose in overtime with a Tie. That would at least appease some of the teams who lose in overtime without ever touching the ball. (Also, what about the 7-minute opening drives in overtime?)
Ignoring effects on strategy, your 2008 playoff teams:
AFCS: Tennesee (13-3-0)[#1]
AFCN: Pittsburgh (12-4-0)[#2]
AFCE: New England (11-4-1)[#3]
AFCW: San Diego (8-8-0)[#4]
AFCWild: Indianapolis (12-4-0), Baltimore (11-4-1)
Just missed: Miami (11-5-0), Jets (9-6-1)
NFCS: Carolina (12-3-1)[#1]
NFCE: Giants (12-4-0)[#2]
NFCN: Minnesota (10-6-0)[#3]
NFCW: Arizona (9-7-0)[#4]
NFCWild: Atlanta (11-5-0),Tampa Bay(9-6-1)
Four NFC teams would have finished at 9-6-1. Dallas finishes ahead of Philadelphia by division record (3-3-0 to 2-4-0). Tampa Bay finishes ahead of Dallas and Chicago by conference record (8-3-1 to 7-4-1 for both).
Also in the NFC, fourth-place New Orleans finishes above .500 at 8-7-1. The Packers (6-8-2, 5-6-1) finish a tiebreak ahead of or a tiebreak behind San Francisco (7-9-0, 5-7-0) depending on whether wins is ranked ahead of conference record.
The league would have finished at 255-242-13OL-2T in 256 games (512 team games), for a .513 percentage.
The only good overtime proposal I've ever heard is to "extend" the 4th quarter until someone scores or the overtime expires. Suppose the fourth quarter expires with both teams tied, and with Team A having the ball, 2nd down and 7 on Team B's 36 yard line. Overtime would start with Team A having the ball, 2nd down and 7 on Team B's 36 yard line. No coin flip. No kickoff. Just continue to do what was intended to be done in the fourth quarter: break the tie. If the game is tied and someone scores on the last play of the 4th quarter, nobody cries that the other team didn't get another chance to catch back up. No need for anything in overtime other than for the game to continue until the tie is broken.
A genius by the name of Bill M. first came up with this idea!
About extra points, I wish they didn't have a 2-point conversion. I never hated the PAT, but I might be opened to a non-kicking play worth only 1 point. No need for a 2 point bonus. Just my opinion.
JKL, nice article. Let me first say that I don't see why we need to change. A coin flip is even for both teams and if you don't like the coin flip then win in regulation. Sure, this may not always be practical, but if you have to go to OT then stop someone on defense. I mean to lose on the 1st possession you need to lose a 50/50 chance and then allow the other team to move into FG range on you and then make the kick. If you didn't win in regulation and you couldn't stop the events leading to a loss in OT, then maybe you should lose?
Your idea is interesting, but there are some details to work out. What if the final possession is a 4th down play and they only need to kill 2 seconds so they hike the ball and run around so they don't have to punt? Would they receive the kick?
BTW, this is another reason why football should be played outdoors; direction matters more outdoors.
The only other idea that makes some sense is for the winner of the toss to either take the ball on the 20 or take a direction.
What about this:
Start OT the way it is now. "Team A" wins the coin toss and takes the kickoff to their own 30 yard-line.
Play from there.
If Team A scores, then Team B gets the ball on their own 30 (just like team A) but without the kickoff.
Both teams get the ball on the same spot of the field.
If Team A gets a touchdown, team B must also get a TD to continue.
If the first two scores are equal, then team A gets the kickoff and we start all over...
Bill M, That is an interesting idea regarding if the score is tied and time runs out then you continue from that spot with sudden death. It does eliminate the taking off the time as to not leave the other team a chance though. Different approach, not sure better, but something to consider.
Switching gears back to JKL; the idea that the team that scored 8 on the final "clear cut chance" would get the kickoff is not a good idea in my opinion. the other team should get the choice
I think the CFL did this for a while, but just play 2 5-minute halves with each team kicking off, most points at the end wins. If still tied then do sudden death. Perhaps only use this for the playoffs, in the regular season just do sudden-death or allow ties.
Also, I have not checked data, but it seems if they eliminated 2-pt conversions there would be less ties because 2 tds would always beat a td and 2 fgs.
Under the current overtime system the team losing the coin toss must have a successful defensive drive followed by a successful offensive drive. The team winning the toss only has to be successful on one offensive drive. Not really a fair system. Each team should be given at least one chance to score. I also like Bill's idea of just continuing the game where it left off.
Cliff, that is not correct. The team needs to win a 50/50 chance and then have a successful drive.
Dave,
The problem with each team starting at the same yard line is that it gives a much larger advantage to the team going 2nd, in fact teams would always kick off first in that scenario.
OR, just get rid of "sudden death"! Make OT a 10 minute period. Give each team 1 time out and have a 2 minute warning and play the game as usual. This seems to me to be the most uncomplex and normal way to continue a game after the 4th quarter has expired and the game is still tied. Anything else is not football.
Why is it that while the purpose of overtime is to break a tie, 95% of people think elaborate schemes need to be used to assure "fairness"? YOU DO NOT NEED MULTIPLE SCORES IN OVERTIME.
I summarily reject any overtime idea that has the potential for more than one scoring play in overtime.
(sorry... i'll quit forcing my opinion on everybody.... please forgive me)
The NFL overtime rules are fine. If Indy didn't commit three penalties (one of which was questionable) we would not be having this discussion as SD would have had to punt on the incomplete pass that was called for defensive holding. If your defense can't do its job then you should lose. That's why football is a TEAM sport.
Where the rule needs changing is on the college level. 7 OT periods and 64-61 scores are ridiculous.
The NFL rule is not an abomination (like the college shootout which is just junk--I always turn off the game at that point), but given the kickoff from the 30 and other rules enacted to aid the offense, I think it's clear that the rule can be improved.
I don't care about each team getting a chance with the ball. I like putting it on the defense, but in that case I would go with disregarding the kick-off and spotting the ball for the "receiving" team. I always thought the 20 or 25 yard line would be fair, but going by Chase it would be the 16.
Playing an extra ten or fifteen minute period is great in theory, but really can't be done because there's too much of a chance there'll still be a tie when it's over.
JKL: I like your idea a lot. I'm putting it ahead of Chase's idea and Michael David Smith's choose the kickoff yard line idea.
BILL M: I like your idea a lot. I might put it just ahead of JKL's idea.
I like Lance's idea, except I'd prefer 5 minutes rather than 10 minutes.
In addition, continue the game from the current spot. No coin flips. Just an extra 5 minute 5th 'quarter'. No sudden death, that's not football.
I'll start off by saying that ties don't bother me. Indeed, my attitude is that if a team cannot clearly beat the other in regulation, why do we need to give them extra time to do so? However, if we ARE going to give teams the opportunity to resolve a draw, my gut feeling is that we should do so in a format that is as close as possible to the game as it is played during regulation. You should resolve a football tie by continuing to play football, not pseudo-football. That's why I don't like the college football "shoot-out" style, and why I don't like the current "sudden death" system in the NFL.
The drawback, as BlueStarDude noted, is that there's the chance of a tie remaining after an extra 5 or 10 minute (or whatever) quarter is played. But how much of a drawback is that? Not much. In a regular season, you can simply call such games a tie. And in a play-off, you simply have another OT period. After all, that's what would happen under the current rules.
Slacker00, I think 5 minutes is too short, simply because it's not too difficult to put together a 5 or 6 minute drive, which means that we're back to the one-possession OT that so many people object to.
I was going to object to your "continue the game from the current spot" idea, but we sort of do that after the 1st and 3rd quarters now. So I could be convinced that it's better to do that for OT, though perhaps changing field direction as you do after the 1st and 3rd.
I'm not sure why Bill M. objects to an OT "that has the potential for more than one scoring play." My objection to the current OT isn't because it lacks "fairness" per se. It's simply that "sudden death" is not how football is played in regulation, and if we're going to resolve a game, we should do so using as much as possible the rules of the game as we see them in regulation.
Here's a thought: In 2008, 99.5% of all extra point attempts were good (only 6 missed out of 1,176). The extra point doesn't add any value to the game, since there is almost no uncertainty. Make the extra-point attempt a true test, putting it somewhere around the 20-yard line, say. This does two things. Not all extra points will be automatically "good", reducing the likelihood of a regular-time tie, and, at the same time, increasing the likelihood that teams will go for 2 points (as the trade-off will appear more attractive), creating even more uncertainty in outcome. I believe, Pete Palmer and his colleagues introduced the idea of moving the extra-point back several yards 20 years ago. Back then the 2-point conversion wasn't applicable in the NFL.
I also suggest (similar to one of the ideas in an earlier comment), that the team winning the toss, can either take the ball at their own 15-yard line, or have the other team start at their 15. I believe David Romer's study indicated that to be the "zero-point" line (i.e. no advantage to either team). The reason there is a bias today, is that, on average, the receiving team starts much further out than the 15 (and, each 10 yards out is worth about a point, and in an overtime game, that is a significant advantage).
Cheers,
Kiran
I have already stated my opinion that I have no problems with ties during the regular season and I believe it was Lance that said, why do we feel the need to award a win to a team that was tied after 60 minutes? In the postseason you need to declare a winner so 2 6 minutes halves or one 10 minute period is fine for me. You could also just continue from the spot as that works for me. But, the part where I think football should be changed is to eliminate special teams altogether. Some may call this blasphemy, but I never liked a 125 pound kicker coming into games to decide the winner between 300 pound guys kicking the junk out of each other. Just let each team start from their own 20-25 yard line and let them play football. There many different ways to do it, but you score a TD you get 7 points, if you drive to inside the teams 20 yard line, you can always take 3 point (automatically) and when you punt you always get a 40 yard net, or less so that the ball is on the 1 yard line (this would lead to more safeties). I want more offense and defense and no special teams. Sorry for the tangent.
Lance, in response to your point wondering why I don't favor multiple scoring plays in overtime, and to the fact that sudden death is not consistent with play within regulation time, I offer the following thoughts, which are 100% off the cuff....
First, what is the purpose of overtime? I would argue it is an instrument that is in place because certain people (whomever they may be and for whatever reason) would rather see games end in wins and losses instead of ties. If this assumption has any validity, then overtime's job is complete the first chance there is to no longer have a tie. One score will do that.
I like overtime to be as seamless from regulation as possible. Just because a game is tied at the end of regulation, that is not, by my way of thinking, justification to make wholesale changes to the rest of the game, such as adding big blocks of time, adding a bunch of additional scoring opportunity exchanges, etc. If wholesale ties are unacceptable and overtime is to avoid that, that should be all that matters.
If sudden death overtime is a problem, why not freeze the game clock after 14:59 has expired in the fourth quarter if the game is tied, and play until someone wins (maybe with a 2nd clock limiting this, if the fear of an eternal game is a consideration). This would prevent sudden death overtime, as all games would be decided in the 4th quarter.
(It may sound funny, but I'm only half joking. It would be similar to "stoppage time" in soccer, in which all goals scored are considered to have been scored in the 45th or 90th minutes.)
As to the nature of "sudden death", even within regulation play, there are varying degrees of sudden death. If you're trailing by 6 and score as time runs out, your PAT kick is, in effect, the epitome of sudden death. The other team would not be afforded another chance to score or do anything about it. When you get under 2:00 in the game with the other team having no timeouts and you're ahead, one more first down is, effectively, sudden death.
Maybe sudden death is too great a penalty for a team good enough to force a game into overtime. If so, I would rather see ties be allowed than a circus atmosphere in overtime.
My biggest concern is that I'd like to see coin flips and kickoffs (unless the game was tied as regulation expired - no coin flip in OT ever) not happen in overtime, and have the flow of the transition be uneventful. Also, I don't want new rules injected into the game once overtime starts.
College football's overtime might be fun and exciting and all that (I don't think so, but that's the argument), but it is a joke. You don't need 50 points in overtime to settle a tie.
Bill M, your logic actually makes sense. That is, if the point of OT is to break a tie, then it doesn't make sense to have (or it's at least hard to justify having) a system that allows for the potential of yet more tied results.
As a counter to that-- and I admit that it's not based on logic-- I can offer the examples of baseball and basketball where their tie-breaking systems are not sudden death and do, obviously, allow for more ties. This because their tie-breaking systems are essentially extensions of regulation.
So I suppose that I would take your explanation of the function of OT-- to break a tie-- by adding that it is to break a tie by still playing as close to regulation rules as possible. Within this definition, then, is the implicit ability to have yet more ties.
And I suppose that's the biggest drawback to my system. It's not hard to imagine that with a 10 minute OT that you could have lots of 3-3 periods: Team A gets it, mounts a long 6 minute drive but it stalls out and they kick a FG; Team B gets it, drives quickly but also stalls out and gets a FG with 1:00 left. Team A gets it back, but can't get past midfield and time expires.
OK, while that's easy to imagine, I actually have no idea if that will be a common result or not.
Dunno. Just throwing that out there.
No kicking in overtime. No punts and no field goals. The team winning the coin toss can either take an end of the field or choose whether or not to take or give the ball on their on 40 yard line.
Best idea I've heard is one I saw mentioned at Football Outsiders a few years back. Make each coach submit a bid for what point on the field they'd be willing to let the other team kickoff from. The team submitting the yardline closest to their own endzone (i.e. giving themselves the worst potential field position) gets to receive the kickoff from that position. So Team A submits the opponents' 45 yard line, Team B submits midfield; thus Team A kicks off from midfield.
This preserves the game of football intact (except for kicking off from a strange location, which is no different than the possible result of a penalty at other times). Unlike simply placing the offense at their own 15 or 16, it fully preserves the role of special teams play. And it neutralizes the advantage of receiving the kickoff by giving the kicking team great field position to try to pin the other team back. The yardline bids should generally converge towards the 50-50 point (I'm guessing that would be somewhere just shy of midfield?), though of course bids might vary according to each coach's estimates of the relative strengths of their offense, defense, kickoff return and coverage teams.
Similar to Carl's proposal, here's one I think I read here:
The team that wins the OT coin toss decides the yard line that the ball will be kicked off from. The team that loses the toss decides who receives the ball. Everything else stays the same.
Not many people have really commented on the article and gave a lot of good thoughts on their own ideas but wanted to put some thoughts out there as well. But I really like this idea. It would add excitement to regulation and the game in general by hopefully allowing teams to be more aggressive in regulation. Also it is pretty straightforward, especially compared to alot of the other rules the NFL has and allows a team to control the outcome of the game more. Good job JKL!
53 percent of the time, the team that wins the coin toss in overtime wins the game. That's it. 53 percent.
It does NOT come down to the coin flip. You want the ball in overtime? Tell your defense to get it back.
This just in: if you score in the bottom of the ninth or an extra inning to take the lead, the visiting team gets another half-inning to try and tie it up.
See how stupid that is?
Almost as stupid as Peter King.
(As for your suggestions about "last clear chance," good luck. Making things more complicated is not a good basis for a rule.)
no coin toss. give each team a down to make 2 points (as if it were a conversion after a t.d. )
no kicking either.
the game ends when one team leads after each team gets the same numbers of tries.
44 players deciding the outcome in the shortest amount of time.
hate seeing a 48 yard f.g. deciding the game
People sure have lots of creative ideas on these topics.
I know I'm late on this one but I thought I should chime in. The problem with most overtime proposals is that they are almost always more complicated than the current sudden death system. My personal favorite keeps everything as it is now except you can't win with a field goal. If your defense gives up an opening drive TD in OT, as a fan you can't really feel like you got robbed like you can when the opposing teams kicks an opening drive 45 yard field goal.
Second to that I am in favor of simple extending the game a designated number on minutes (5, 10, 15?); NBA style OT. Although this will tend to cause multiple overtimes or ties.
The NFL "coin flip" rule that is used to award possession of the ball at the start of overtime is unfair. The most equitable solution is also the simplest:
Skip the flip. Just keep playing. First team to score wins.
There are six reasons why this method is an improvement over the current rule:
1) More exciting games. For example, a team trailing 38-31 scores a touchdown on the last play of regulation. Under the current rules, they will kick the extra point to force overtime. The new rules will encourage them to try for two and end the game, since they will kick off if the game goes to overtime.
2) No more "playing for overtime". Assume that a team is pinned at their own 2-yard line with 1:17 remaining in the 4th quarter, and the other team has one timeout. They currently can take a knee for two or three plays to force OT. That could not occur under the new rule.
3) The defense would not need to be on the field for two consecutive possessions.
4) The players and coaches maintain control of the game. The flow of the game is not interrupted by starting over and arbitrarily giving the ball to one team.
5) The receiving team typically starts at their own 20 or 30-yard line after the kickoff under the coin flip rule. With the new rules, the team with the ball could be anywhere on the field (at midfield, on average) when overtime starts, and the game should end sooner.
6) Under current rules, the teams switch sides of the field at the end of the 5th, 6th or any subsequent quarters. Since there is no coin flip at the end of the 6th quarter, why is there one at the end of the 4th quarter?
When the overtime period starts, teams will switch sides and start with two timeouts, as they do now. "Sudden death" is the best way to play overtime – this new method is a sensible and fair way to get there.
I just had this idea while watching an overtime in the NHL playoffs. During regular season NHL overtime, teams lose a player (with a very rare exception). What would be the NFL equivalent? Playing 10-on-10 would not work. So maybe...in overtime, eliminate 4th down entirely. If a team does not gain 10 yards on 3 downs, they turn the ball over.
the purpose of sports is to accurately measure the two teams skill level. Final score ties do that just fine and ought to be allowed.
Overtime rule change: which ever team wins the coin toss should have a chance to score a field goal or a touchdown. If a touchdown is scored, the game is over. If a field goal is scored, the other team should have a chance to score a touchdown to win the game, but is not allowed to kick a field goal to tie. If that team can not score a touchdown, then they lose and the game is over. If a touchdown is scored, they win. If neither team scores a touchdown or a field goal on their first drive, then the first team to score after that wins. If a defense or special team scores a touchdown at any point in overtime, then the game is over.
I hate all these complicated OT rules, and I can't belief that we are going to have one in the playoffs.
Here are my proposals:
Proposal #1: No OT coin flip. Whichever team won the coin toss at the beginning of the game, gets to choose at the beginning of OT. This way both teams will know what happens if the game ends in a tie, and can play accordingly.
Proposal #2: If regulation ends in a tie, switch ends (just like at the end of the third quarter) and keep playing.
It is sad that the NFL chose to go with something so much more complicated for the playoffs: something that makes playoff coaching decisions fundamentally different from regular season coaching decisions.