Simplified OT rules: First to lead by 4 wins.

[RedRamage]

A new season and an old push for my simplified OT rules.

Now, in my personally opinion the best OT rules would be to simply play a full "5th" quarter and the game it over when that qtr is done. But, I get that the NFL doesn't want that. I'm not sure if it's because of concerns with players health or wanting the excitement of sudden death or some combo of both, but here is (yet again) my proposal for simplified OT rules that:

• Keep the excitement of sudden death
• Easier to understand for teams/fans
• Stays close to the NFL's current rules
• Stays close to "real" football (ie, don't reward changing philosophy like just trying to get a safe FG like the old OT rules did.)

The proposed rules are this: A 5th qtr is played and a coin flip is used just like current rules are. Play stops at the end of the qtr OR if at any point one team leads by 4 or more points.

[Motown Bombers]

How is this really any different than the current rules?

[RedRamage]

Easier to understand for one. Is a team winning by more than 4 points? If yes, game over. If no, keep playing.

Nothing about: If the first time gets a TD, then they win, otherwise the other team gets a shot. If the second team gets a TD they win. If the first team didn't score at all, then a FG wins it for the second team, but if the first time got a FG and the second team gets a FG then the first team gets another shot and they win if they get any points.

You also eliminate situations which I think are "cheap wins" like the teams trade FGs then the first team gets a sudden death win on a FG. Or if the defense gets a safety the offense still needs to go down put up some points to win it.

[ben9753]

It should be sudden death, but both teams have a chance to have their offense on the field at least once. Simple.

Also, adds to the drama. For example, in last nights game, after the Lions score, they have to decide if they want to go for 2 to make it harder for LA to answer. 

Edited September 9 by ben9753

[RedRamage]

13 minutes ago, ben9753 said:

It should be sudden death, but both teams have a chance to have their offense on the field at least once. Simple.

Also, adds to the drama. For example, in last nights game, after the Lions score, they have to decide if they want to go for 2 to make it harder for LA to answer. 

But if both teams have a chance to have their offense on the field, then it's not sudden death. I think what you're saying is that both teams should get a shot and if one team is ahead after that, that team wins. I don't necessarily hate that idea honestly. It keeps it as close to regular football as possible and actually provides some incentive to NOT take the ball if you win the toss.

But, what do you do if the teams are tied after they've both had possession once? Does it go sudden death then or does each team get a guaranteed offensive chance again? If the idea of guaranteeing each team gets their offense on the field in OT is to be more fair, why wouldn't we do the same if they tied after the first attempt?

[ben9753]

Yeah, I guess its not sudden death, but how often do teams match each other point for point for more than a couple of drives?

[4hzglory]

1 hour ago, RedRamage said:

But if both teams have a chance to have their offense on the field, then it's not sudden death. I think what you're saying is that both teams should get a shot and if one team is ahead after that, that team wins. I don't necessarily hate that idea honestly. It keeps it as close to regular football as possible and actually provides some incentive to NOT take the ball if you win the toss.

But, what do you do if the teams are tied after they've both had possession once? Does it go sudden death then or does each team get a guaranteed offensive chance again? If the idea of guaranteeing each team gets their offense on the field in OT is to be more fair, why wouldn't we do the same if they tied after the first attempt?

If both teams score, or don’t score after the first possession, then yes, it should be sudden death.  Just like if one team has 1 extra possession in the game and kicks a last second field goal to win by 1.  The other team doesn’t get another possession to make it equal.

[RedRamage]

But why sudden death after they both get a shot? Why not sudden death before they both get a shot? What's different? In both cases you're saying after an arbitrary point whoever scores next wins. 

The last second field goal is different because that's ruled by the clock. The game is over when the clock is done. In that situation they're not saying: "Okay, you're tied... next score wins no matter how much time there is or isn't on the clock."

To put it another way, let's look at baseball. If after 9 innings the score is tied both teams get an equal chance to score until a full inning is over and one team has more points.

The NFL rules used to be (in baseball terms): We flip a coin to see who starts batting, and then the first team to score a run in extra innings wins the game. Doesn't matter if it's the home or away team... first score wins.

The current NFL rules are: We flip a coin to see who starts batting, then if that team scores (for example) 5 runs in their inning they win. If they score fewer than 5 runs, the other team gets a chance to bat. If they're still tied after that then next score wins. But also if the first team doesn't get a hit, walk, or even one ball (only strikes thrown) then the other team wins.

Ben's plan essentially is: We flip a coin... both teams get one inning to bat. If the score is still tied, then next score wins.

My plan is: We flip a coin... Play three more innings, but if at any point one team is up on the other by x-number of runs that's a "Mercy Rule" and that team wins.

In my humble opinion I'd prefer a setup where both teams play 3 more innings and then if one is leading that team wins, otherwise it just ends in a tie. But the NFL doesn't seem to want this, so my plan is to try to accommodate a way to finish OT early while still trying to be semi-fair in terms of giving teams a shot.

[Sports_Freak]

They could always do what they do in college.

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, Sports_Freak said:

They could always do what they do in college.

Really don't like the college setup. I'll take the current NFL scheme any time. Sudden death after each team has had the ball once makes sense to me and if you get steam rolled for a TD on the opening drive, that's a decent justification to lose as well.

[Sports_Freak]

19 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Really don't like the college setup. I'll take the current NFL scheme any time. Sudden death after each team has had the ball once makes sense to me and if you get steam rolled for a TD on the opening drive, that's a decent justification to lose as well.

Yeah, college rules are too much like hockey shootouts,  like unnatural. I really don't like either. Chris has some good ideas, my only request is a way to eliminate the possibility of ever having a tie. There's nothing I dislike more than NFL ties.