Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    Guess what gang?!

    Today I heard discussions revolving around the O/T rules and how it is not fair that the team who loses the toss may not get a chance to get the ball. This all after the COLTS lost an O/T playoff game. I do not think anyone cared about the current rules when the Pats lost to the Jets in O/T, a game that led to their not making the playoffs. Is Polian going to make some moves to have the playoff O/T rules changed so the Colts do not have to suffer the indignity of losing an O/T coin toss and be denied the opportunity to get the ball? Hmmmmm......
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    Actually, Peter King mentioned both in his column this week. He hates the rule apparently.

    I am all for it. The only way I might consider changing it is to give each team at least one possession. Even that to me seems kind of weenie-ish though. Defense is part of the game. If you can't make the stops then you don't win.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    This has been discussed forever. They would need enough owners to buy into it...and they aren't. Polian may whine, but this would be a major rule change. I doubt he'd get the support. About the only fair way would really be to play an extra quarter. But I doubt they would do it as the length of the games are already a concern.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    [Quote]i like Ryan's idea of no field goals in OT.[/Quote]

    With apologies, KC, but I think Ryan's idea is just stupid. Why change the game you have been playing for 60 minutes just to make it seem "fair". Why not just say you only get three downs to get a first or there is no punting? You need to keep the same structure and rules of play.

    Sproles scored on a 22 yard TD run. He would have scored with that run from anywhere on the field. The Colts needed to tackle him but didn't. The Pats could have gotten the ball back with great field position but couldn't stop a 3rd and 15. They had chances. They blew them.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    The overtime rule is fine.

    Play defense, fa' chrissakes.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    agc this has been going on for a long time. Actually I think Peter King's article is what is driving any discussion you hear about it.

    How about taking away special teams. Teams start at their own 20 with the ball, sudden death. First to score wins. If each have a possession without scoring then the punting game is put back in on all ensuing series.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsfaninpa420. Show patsfaninpa420's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    Or maybe if the team having posession first scores(a maximum of 7 points would be allowed for them), the other has to score more points in the same amount of plays or less, otherwise the game automatically ends in a tie regardless of how much time is left
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    Or maybe they could play Rock, Paper, Scissors.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    [Quote]The overtime rule is fine.

    Play defense, fa' chrissakes.[/Quote]

    Prairie.. agree on that one in that each team needs one of their units to perform better than the other on that first possession. For both the Pats and Colts in their O/T losses, their respective D units let 'em down.

    As for a possible rule change, is there merit to the idea to give each team's O a crack at scoring and not just the side that wins the coin toss? The score has to be a TD, not FG and have to try for a two point conversion putting real pressure on the scoring team to WIN since the XP is a gimme most times. The pressure would be equal for both possessions as just getting to FG range may be too easy to accomplish for a pro team. Maybe for pro ball, each O starts at the 35 versus the 25. Would it create more interest?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    [Quote]Or maybe they could play Rock, Paper, Scissors.[/Quote]

    Can you imagine the build up for that type of OT process??!! LOL
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    The rules are fine the way they are, yea it sucks when you lose in the OT but like it has been said before defense is part of the game and if you cant play D in OT then you dont deserve the W it is that simple.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    How about this: Instead of a new coin toss for OT, use the original coin toss of the start of the game and give that toss loser the preferential decsion of kicking or receiving in OT. The whole idea of starting the game on a coin toss is whacky and gives the winner a decided advantage. Why not reverse the advantage for OT?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    You know what - if it is sudden death, then make it sudden death. All refs off the field. Anything goes. First to get to the ball at mid-field and score wins.

    For the play-offs, make it a cage match.

    The first rule of Sudden Death Overtime is no one talks about Sudden Death Overtime.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    I like the idea of sudden death.

    Line up the losing team and lop their heads off.

    That would be a ratings bonanza.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from LifeTimePat. Show LifeTimePat's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    I heard the same discussion on the radio today.. out of all possible scenarios, aside from rock paper scissors ;) that I favor is giving each offense a stab at it.... which immediately implies that EACH defense has a stab at it too.... this way both teams D and O have a collective chance of succeeding or failing.... and the game will have better balance.

    Not sure about starting on the 20 yards line... too flag football for me... if your special teams get you closer to a score.... or in fact score, all the better.

    Obviously since boths O's have a shot, there will be a premium at scoring a TD in order to force the other team to match....
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    The only justification for changing the rules is believing that the rules are set up for offensive football. If so, then it makes sense that both sides get the ball. The King article provided some stats on the frequency of first possession wins in OT.

    If no rules change, I think Chris has a good point, because if you are facing overtime and know that you are not going to have the ball first, it may cause you to play differently.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ufcchamp. Show ufcchamp's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    Mike and Mike mentioned something from USA Today where an e-mailer suggested that it should be the first to 6 pts. This eliminates a FG from winning the game instantly. If it is a 1 possession OT then it would have to be a TD...not bad. The current format is UNFAIR and those that say PLAY D don't seem to be understanding the magnitude of the burden of having to play D in sudden death OT based solely on the descent of a small, metal disc.
    These are the same people that say one bad call can't lose a game. When clearly if you have two equal teams, or one team that has no business being in a game but is, then one call sure as h*ll can cost the lesser team a win.
    You fight and fight for 60 minutes only to have a flawed system award the first opportunity to win based on sheer luck.
    Like Peter King said, if it's not that important then why do fans scream and players hoot and hollar after winning the OT toss?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from NOISE. Show NOISE's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    I'm glad this has already been mentioned about the OT rule and NOW that it happened to the COLTS!
    There is no doubt that since the Colts are out of playoffs due to the fact that Mr Manning didn't get the ball in OT - and they LOST - this RULE will now change Due to it happening to the COLTS.
    ****
    Like someone mentioned earlier in this thread, if this happened to the Pats in OT - the rule wouldn't be changed. Now this has happened to the COLTS - now it will -
    RULES get changed when Polian cries - I'm sure this will be another one that will change for them.
    ****
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    Noise - it did happen to the pats. THIS YEAR. And it was mentioned when it happened to the pats. The rules were also mentioned in General when McNabb didn't know the rules. OT has been discussed this year.

    So you are saying you prefer not having the pats in the playoffs, because if the rules were different, your outcome in the Jets loss may have been different?

    Again - Peter King is the one who brought it up, and he has a pretty loud national media voice, not Bill Polian.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from LifeTimePat. Show LifeTimePat's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    The major problem I see with the current format is the short field the offense have to deal with. Statistics support that.

    In regulation, teams strive to score a TD and if the D limits them to a field goal, it's considered a mini-triumph. The inconsistency is that in OT this mini-triumph translates into losing the game.

    I say either go with a TD rule, but better yet give both O's a chance.... as I said earlier, it'll give the game more balance.....

    If after each O possession it's a tie, then sudden death goes in effect.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from cryochiller. Show cryochiller's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    I think the rules should be changed so that the winner of the superbowl must win by more than three points.

    I'm calling B.S. EEI spent two days talking about OT rules when the Pats lost to the Jets in OT Hmmmmmm....
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ufcchamp. Show ufcchamp's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    The argument about a full extra quarter is for the networks and the time slots and length. The league should figure out, on average, how long it takes for 2 possessions to occur in a game and then play an OT of that length. If it's 7 minutes then go with that. Now, if the team that wins the toss is able to eat up 7 minutes on a drive and the other team doesn't get the ball then at least they'll have earned it by sustaining a long drive. If it ends in a tie.....so be it, the Eagles survived one this year and it's better than losing the flip and never seeing the ball.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccsjl. Show ccsjl's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    Simply eliminate OT in the regular season and call it a tie. Playoff games need a winner and have to go to OT, but a way to eliminate tie scores during the first 60 mins of play is to eliminate the PAT which is basically automatic, and make teams go for 2 after TD. As its only about 40% successful every year its been in effect, this would eliminate a lot of tied games at the end of regulation. Another option is just change field goal scoring, 20 yards and in 1 point, 30-45 yards 2 points, and 45 and over 3 points...
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from NOISE. Show NOISE's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    Hey Underdogg....
    i know this happened to the pats this year (jet game) - I understand it was talked about then as well. Of course, I prefer the pats in the playoffs versus not in playoffs.
    The point I was trying to make was that since it now happened to the Colts (esp in the playoffs) I feel now there will be a bigger push to change the OT rule now.
    Peter King has a big voice, yes, but Polian is on the Rule Committee - I would say Polian has a much louder voice than king does. King just reports what he hears.
    For example, the year the pats beat the colts (when ty law had 3 picks) - the colts cried and cried - the next year - - the nfl refs where going to enforce the pass interference rule.
    Go Pats.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from rxmsg. Show rxmsg's posts

    New O/T rules discussions?

    I get the notion of "hey play defense". However, some teams have a better offense than defense and vice versa. The fate of a coin flip to a good offensive team leaves that advantage too much to chance via a coin flip. For 60 minutes both D' and both O's battled it out. Why in OT do we basically
    restrict it to one or the other? I agree with giving both O's and both D's at least equal chances. As stated before this would encourage teams to score TD's rather than FG's. I think each team needs to touch the ball on O at least once each...even if it comes from a turnover...whatever the case may be.
    After each team has had the ball at least one time then I think I'm ok with the next score wins.
    Or... play 10 min quarters until someone wins... no ties.
    Coin Toss Sucks !!!

     
Sections
Shortcuts