I Forgot About This. No More Sudden Death In Overtime For The Playoffs

[Stinger]

So long, sudden death: Playoffs offer new overtime approach

Atlanta Falcons coach Mike Smith is glad his top-seeded NFC team got a first-round playoff bye -- and not for the usual reasons of players getting healthy, getting more time to game plan, etc.

The added few days allow Smith, and every other team with a bye, to prepare for new overtime rules that were implemented this offseason but not put into effect until the playoffs. The eight teams involved in this weekend's wild-card games have to cram in order to be ready for the chance they get to overtime.

"This can influence decision making, especially how you play the last couple minutes of a ball game, in terms of playing for the tie or win in regulation," Smith said. "There are a lot of situations that you have to coach differently in overtime."

Beginning Saturday, sudden-death as we know it, is history -- until next regular season.

Unlike regular-season overtime rules that have been in place for years, both teams could have the chance to score in overtime, even if the first team with the ball kicks a field goal. Normally, the team to score first, regardless of how, wins. Not necessarily in the postseason.

If a field goal is made by the team in the first possession in overtime, the other team gains possession. If that team scores a touchdown, game over. If it kicks a field goal to tie, then the next team to score wins. The only way the game ends on the first possession is if that team scores a touchdown or if the defense forces a safety or returns a turnover for a score.

The changes didn't sit well with coaches, especially since the first time they could encounter them could be with a Super Bowl berth on the line. Teams now have to add another layer of preparation to their practices, in the film room and on the field because of the variety of uncharted scenarios that could present themselves.

The possibilities have had coaches trying to sort out every circumstance possible -- and there are plenty. For example ...
The kicking game

» If a kickoff is booted deep into the end zone, a player could be coached to take the touchback rather than try and bring it out and risk a fumble or a penalty that could give them awful field position and result in a punt close to or from the end zone. Both could give the opposition ideal field position.

» If the team has to punt on its first possession, does the return team double team the gunners? By having additional bodies blocking near where the ball could land, it could increase the risk of the ball touching a player on the return team. If that were to happen, the punting team would regain possession in good field position and possibly win with a field goal since the turnover is considered a possession.

Look for teams to stack the box with eight or nine defenders to force max protection and reduce traffic coming off the edges near the return man, a league source said.
On defense

» Players could be coached that if they intercept the ball in the end zone on the first possession to take the touchback. Should they return it and fumble in the process, it could give the opposing team possession in field goal range. The fumble of an interception would mean that each team has had a possession and now a field goal wins the game.
On offense

» Teams who get the ball first could be more aggressive trying to score touchdowns (one of the reasons the rule change was applied) so the other team won't get the ball back.

» If you trail by a field goal and are getting the ball with a chance to tie or win, every possession is a four-down possession, so play-calling on both sides of the ball could be different.

http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/story/0...approach-to-ot


Mark Humphrey / Associated Press
The Saints' victory in the NFC Championship last season was just one of three playoff games that ended with a field goal on the opening possession of overtime. The winners of two of those games went on to claim the Super Bowl title.

OT playoff games won with FG on first possession:

2009 NFC Championship
Saints 31, Vikings 28

2002 AFC Divisional playoff
Titans 34, Steelers 31

2001 AFC Divisional playoff
Patriots 16, Raiders 13

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

If you were playing a Marty-esque coached team, would you onside knowing there is a good likelihood he will just try 2 yards and a cloud of dust and automatically settle for the FG, giving you the ball back where you can go for the win?

No.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

If you were playing a Marty-esque coached team, would you onside knowing there is a good likelihood he will just try 2 yards and a cloud of dust and automatically settle for the FG, giving you the ball back where you can go for the win?

I wouldn't do an onsides, but per my post early in this thread I would definitely want to kick off to start overtime. I have no problem with these changes, but think I'd rather be the second team with the ball than the first team (assuming that my defense hasn't given up 5 TDs that day).

[baitism]

Why not just change the rule to the first team to score a TD in OT wins? I think most people just don't like the fact that a team can drive 30 yards or so and kick a ~55 yard FG to win.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by VAChief

I like giving each side a chance, especially in a playoff situation. Can you imagine a Final Four or NBA finals game going to OT and telling the team that wins the toss, ok first one to score wins...Tough noogies to you if you don't play defense good enough to stop them you had your chance the first 40 or 48 minutes. Or baseball going to first one to score.

Totally stupid comparison in much different scenarios. Basketball is a short-field game where you can score in one second. Baseball is already designed to give each team a chance on offense. Football is football. **** it, then, maybe they should eliminate turnovers, huh, 'cause it's not fair that the other team doesn't get the ball on offense as much. Each side DOES "have a chance": to score, or to stop them. It's complicating a situation that doesn't need to be complicated. Aww, poor coaches and teams, complaining because "all" the other team has to do is get within FG range. Last time I checked, FG range means you need to get AT LEAST to the opponent's 35-yard line (to make it a 52-yard try). It's not the winning teams' fault that your kicker sucks balls and/or your kickoff coverage does as well.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by baitism

Why not just change the rule to the first team to score a TD in OT wins? I think most people just don't like the fact that a team can drive 30 yards or so and kick a ~55 yard FG to win.

As I just posted, if they only have to go 30 yards then your special teams suck balls and you don't deserve to win anyway.

[gblowfish]

All these rules! Please, somebody explain this "foosball" game to me:

[baitism]

Originally Posted by JD10367

As I just posted, if they only have to go 30 yards then your special teams suck balls and you don't deserve to win anyway.

Maybe, but a TD just kinda makes it so no one can complain; it gives it a finality. Also, I think it adds more strategy to OT, such as field position battles, etc. For the record, though, I had no big beef with the normal rules.

[VAChief]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Totally stupid comparison in much different scenarios. Basketball is a short-field game where you can score in one second. Baseball is already designed to give each team a chance on offense. Football is football. **** it, then, maybe they should eliminate turnovers, huh, 'cause it's not fair that the other team doesn't get the ball on offense as much. Each side DOES "have a chance": to score, or to stop them. It's complicating a situation that doesn't need to be complicated. Aww, poor coaches and teams, complaining because "all" the other team has to do is get within FG range. Last time I checked, FG range means you need to get AT LEAST to the opponent's 35-yard line (to make it a 52-yard try). It's not the winning teams' fault that your kicker sucks balls and/or your kickoff coverage does as well.

Of course it is a different scenario, but stupid? Don't get your panties in a bunch because someone has a different opinion. I never said anything about poor coaches or teams.

If you prefer that the game can be decided in one possession of a championship game as opposed to letting both sides having an equal chance as in other major sports you can have that opinion. The only change I am asking is that if one team scores on the first possession, the other team gets a chance to equal them. More than 50% of the time we aren't going to need that possibility. However in a championship game why not have that option?

[VAChief]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Totally stupid comparison in much different scenarios. Baseball is already designed to give each team a chance on offense. Football is football.

Baseball is the perfect example of what I am talking about. They carry over the same basic format to "extra" play as for the regular game. What I am suggesting is similar. Right now when one team scores (either a TD or FG) they kick off to the other team and they get the ball. Overtime should give each team at least one possession. We don't have to extend it to "equal" possessions like college or change the field position. Just don't let it end up being a coin flip, a score and that's it. Let both team's offense, defense, and special teams be tested in overtime as in regular play.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by VAChief

Of course it is a different scenario, but stupid? Don't get your panties in a bunch because someone has a different opinion.

My panties are fine and unbunched. Don't get YOURS all bunched because you said something stupid. Let me requote:

"Can you imagine a Final Four or NBA finals game going to OT and telling the team that wins the toss, ok first one to score wins...Tough noogies to you if you don't play defense good enough to stop them you had your chance the first 40 or 48 minutes."

That was plain stupid. Pointless, non-comparably stupid, with absolutely no bearing to the scoring system of the NFL, the field size of the NFL, or the game play of the NFL.

[007]

they are over complicating this. Good grief. Just play YOUR game.

[Farzin]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

What if you have two offensive juggernauts with terrible defenses? Then a huge part of it comes down to chance.

My point is the whole "you already had 60 minutes" argument doesn't really negate perceived unfairness in the overtime scenario. If fans leave the stadium feeling cheated because their team never touched the ball in OT, that's not the best thing for the game.

I see where you are coming from. To answer your question: too bad. Defenses need to step it up. If a coach doesn't have faith in his defense in OT if he thinks he'll lose the coin toss, then go for two, or go for the onside kick.

Teams had their chances to score before the OT regulation. I got annoyed, even from Chiefs fans (Chiefs vs Broncos, week 2, 2006) saying Denver won the cheap way. Maybe if LJ didn't fumble in that game, we'd win..

[VAChief]

Originally Posted by JD10367

M Pointless, non-comparably stupid, with absolutely no bearing to the scoring system of the NFL, the field size of the NFL, or the game play of the NFL.

Over react much? Yes, the court is different sized in basketball, they score differently (not sure what that has to do with anything, but whatever) and it is a different f***ing game! I get that...but you are still letting the first team that scores win...the comparison was made to highlight the absurdity of the rule. You don't like the basketball example take the baseball one. Are you saying that it would be fair to let only one team bat if they score in extra innings?

I know this is FOOTBALL...which is why I say make both teams prove themselves in overtime, just like in the regular game. Sudden death runs counter to the culture of the game. Sudden death is for pussies.

[Bearcat]

I like the change. I don't exactly get the argument that "you should have done something different in regulation" or "all you have to do is force a punt if you don't win the coin toss," because it just comes back to the coin toss.

Why should a team have to go for 2 in regulation so they can avoid losing a coin toss? Why let a coin toss get in the way of your coaching decisions?

And to say a team should be able to force a punt seems logical enough, but it still goes back to the coin toss. Had the Chiefs/Colts game in January 2004 gone into OT, the winner of the coin toss would have won the game.

38-38, Colts win the toss in OT, win the game. Someone says "the Chiefs didn't make one f***ing stop, they don't deserve to win!".... but, the Colts, who also didn't make one stop, deserve to win?

I'd rather they simplify it to guaranteeing one offensive play for each team, but I think this change is at least better than how it was before.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by baitism

Why not just change the rule to the first team to score a TD in OT wins? I think most people just don't like the fact that a team can drive 30 yards or so and kick a ~55 yard FG to win.

I like this. Takes the kickers off the field for the final play of overtime. Leads to dramatic decisions on fourth down.