The Overtime Rule.

Royal Seahawk

Well its up for voting at the next owners meeting.
They want to decide if the two offences should get a chance of possession.
I'd agree with the new ruling.(just to avoid another 'we want the ball and we're going to score' incident:o)

Any thoughts?

eagle eye

Yeah I much prefer the college system for overtime. I think its fair and a toss of a coin really is not a fair way to decide a game which it does do a lot.

Rented Mule

Leave it as it is.

At no other point in the game do they alternate possesion in the way proposed. I absolutelty hate the way the NCAA finishes tied games.

SantryRed

No, leave it.

It's up to the defence to make a stop if you lose the toss.

juvenal

Give each team a possession. The current system is madness and leaves too much up to the toss of a coin.

While I see the argument that teams can elect to defend if they favour their defence over their offence, I'd say that the majority of teams would elect to start their offence if they won the toss.

I'd be interested to see if there are statistics on what the winners of a coin-toss decide to do in overtime. I'd be surprised if it was not a clear majority deciding to go with offence.

Karlusss

Leave it.

Like Dungy said, three teams can win: offense, defense or special teams.

Football depends on good play in all three, and if a team has an insane O but a defense that can stop nobody... that's their problem. Keep it.

eagle eye

Karlusss wrote: »

Leave it.

Like Dungy said, three teams can win: offense, defense or special teams.

Football depends on good play in all three, and if a team has an insane O but a defense that can stop nobody... that's their problem. Keep it.

This is why I don't like the coin toss, if a team has a great offense and no defense, they win the toss and its game over more often than not.

Rented Mule

eagle eye wrote: »

This is why I don't like the coin toss, if a team has a great offense and no defense, they win the toss and its game over more often than not.

That's what makes it interesting.

The 'two possession' plan is less exciting and can drag the game out indefinitely. It is like watching paint dry.

Sea Devils

Looks like there won't be any changes to OT after all

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3993657

Rented Mule

Sea Devils wrote: »

Looks like there won't be any changes to OT after all

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3993657

best post in the thread

Hazys

Id leave it as first to score wins but I'd have double overtime if nobady has scored in the 1st overtime.

I dont agree with the reasoning against this saying that its too physically demanding mybe it is but a draw only happens once every 6 years on average

SimComSports

Offense wins Games
Defense wins Leagues

I have to agree with Dungy - 3 teams in it. And for him to say that after his own team lost in overtime without his QB, the leagues MVP, getting on the park..

death1234567

It won't be changed anyway because if both offense's were allowed the ball the OT would last too long for the TV coverage. When NBC or whoever are showing a double header, if the first game went to OT you could miss the whole first quarter of the second game. Under the current rule you usually just miss 2-5 mins.

Chanandler Bong

aint broke, dont fix it