I don’t understand the rules of Overtime.

[daviswr7]

Forgive all of my ignorance, but here’s a question:

If both teams are allowed the football guaranteed at Overtime, why is there a clock? As I sat there and watched the Green Bay Packers scramble last night to get a play called, I thought to myself what happens if the team that gets the ball first rattles off a nine minute and 55 second Drive????The other team only gets 5 seconds? I don’t get it. Somebody needsto explain it to me. Apologies for my ignorance. There should be no clock in overtime. Each team should get a untimed possession and that is that. Or maybe I’m wrong. Please help.

[daviswr7]

Furthermore what if that team
Rattles off a a full 10
Minute drive and kicks a field goal
With no time remaining? Does the other team get lik a untimed down? What’s the rules here?

[Delta5]

Originally Posted by daviswr7

Forgive all of my ignorance, but here’s a question:

If both teams are allowed the football guaranteed at Overtime, why is there a clock? As I sat there and watched the Green Bay Packers scramble last night to get a play called, I thought to myself what happens if the team that gets the ball first rattles off a nine minute and 55 second Drive????The other team only gets 5 seconds? I don’t get it. Somebody needsto explain it to me. Apologies for my ignorance. There should be no clock in overtime. Each team should get a untimed possession and that is that. Or maybe I’m wrong. Please help.

yes I agree with new format there shouldn't be any clock and each team gets 1 drive. They just didn't want to change too much of the rules

[blackvodka]

The NFL will be tinkering with the OT rule, there's not a doubt in my mind.

Sent from my motorola razr 2024 using Tapatalk

[GOWIFB]

My understanding is that the 2nd team is guaranteed a possession for only the amount of time left. So yes if there are 5 seconds left on the clock that is all the time they get. I believe that if the initial team uses up all 10 minutes and scores then the 2nd team gets no time.

These new rules are absolutely stupid. The most recent version was perfect. If you score a TD you win, anything else and the other team gets a chance. Now with the guaranteed 2nd possession there is a huge advantage to going 2nd. You are essentially playing a 4 down game instead of a 3 down game if you are the 2nd team since you know what you need to do. There is no longer an incentive to go first unless you really think you are going to bleed off the entire 10 min clock which is pretty darn rare. Collinsworth talking last night about how 'unfair' it was that with the old rule if a team gets a TD its over made me want to puke. Nothing unfair about it. If you are good enough to drive for a TD then you deserve to win.

[Scottish Punk]

Originally Posted by GOWIFB

My understanding is that the 2nd team is guaranteed a possession for only the amount of time left. So yes if there are 5 seconds left on the clock that is all the time they get. I believe that if the initial team uses up all 10 minutes and scores then the 2nd team gets no time.

These new rules are absolutely stupid. The most recent version was perfect. If you score a TD you win, anything else and the other team gets a chance. Now with the guaranteed 2nd possession there is a huge advantage to going 2nd. You are essentially playing a 4 down game instead of a 3 down game if you are the 2nd team since you know what you need to do. There is no longer an incentive to go first unless you really think you are going to bleed off the entire 10 min clock which is pretty darn rare. Collinsworth talking last night about how 'unfair' it was that with the old rule if a team gets a TD its over made me want to puke. Nothing unfair about it. If you are good enough to drive for a TD then you deserve to win.

Bold emphasis mine. Tell that to Shanahan in the Super Bowl, ha ha. I did was ok in keeping with the sudden death for overtime. The winner of the coin toss won the game at a 53/54% clip, which is a slight advantage, but doesn't seem like enough to be crazy to me. With the neutering of some of the defensive rules and length of kickers today, I am fine with the compromise of TD wins, FG other team gets a shot.

I don't need to see the dumb college overtime rules come to the NFL.

[Fenway55]

Originally Posted by GOWIFB

My understanding is that the 2nd team is guaranteed a possession for only the amount of time left. So yes if there are 5 seconds left on the clock that is all the time they get. I believe that if the initial team uses up all 10 minutes and scores then the 2nd team gets no time.

These new rules are absolutely stupid. The most recent version was perfect. If you score a TD you win, anything else and the other team gets a chance. Now with the guaranteed 2nd possession there is a huge advantage to going 2nd. You are essentially playing a 4 down game instead of a 3 down game if you are the 2nd team since you know what you need to do. There is no longer an incentive to go first unless you really think you are going to bleed off the entire 10 min clock which is pretty darn rare. Collinsworth talking last night about how 'unfair' it was that with the old rule if a team gets a TD its over made me want to puke. Nothing unfair about it. If you are good enough to drive for a TD then you deserve to win.

This is a debate which will never be solved, but going first still has the EXTREME advantage in situations where both teams don't score on their first possession (or score an equal amount of points). You then become the team with first possession in sudden death.

For example, suppose there were 5 minutes left in the game last night when GB tied it at 40. The Cowboys would be receiving the subsequent kickoff, which is a huge advantage.

[BostonNut]

Many a night I’ve laid in bed tossing and turning thinking about OT.

Teams are only allowed to get one possession right? So what happens if the Patriots start with the ball, fumble the ball with their possession, the Jets player scoops it up and starts running towards the end zone but fumbles it himself, and the Patriots recover? That would be the Patriots second possession while the Jets had theirs while their guy was running with it.

What then?? Does the game just end right then and there in a tie???

[Asian62150]

OT rules are difficult because the players are already worn out from playing 60 mins and the NFLPA wants to protect them from additional injury so you don't want to have a drawn out OT period.

Currently, the team that goes second has a big advantage bc they know what they need to do to win/tie and can use 4th down more than the other team. The team going first can only guarantee themselves a tie if they score a TD and complete the 2-pt conversion (unless they use the full 10 minutes).

Maybe they should have 2 untimed possessions. If you choose to receive the ball second, you have to score more than whatever the other team scored on their possession unless both teams score 8 pts on their respective possessions. If that happens, you just go to a kick off. Start at the 35 and keep adding 5 yards until someone misses.

It's not ideal but still better than ending an NFL game in a tie.

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by BostonNut

Many a night I’ve laid in bed tossing and turning thinking about OT.

Teams are only allowed to get one possession right? So what happens if the Patriots start with the ball, fumble the ball with their possession, the Jets player scoops it up and starts running towards the end zone but fumbles it himself, and the Patriots recover? That would be the Patriots second possession while the Jets had theirs while their guy was running with it.

What then?? Does the game just end right then and there in a tie???

Both teams are guaranteed at least one possession unless the 10 min session ends. So both teams could theoretically have multiple possessions.

So in your scenario, the Patriots would just have to kick a FG to win the game.

[Fenway55]

Originally Posted by BostonNut

Teams are only allowed to get one possession right?

Not exactly. They are each guaranteed one possession. However, as others pointed out above, that rule is subject to the almighty clock. If the first team to get the ball drives for 10 minutes and kicks a FG with 0:00 left then the other team doesn't get a chance with the ball.

When the Giants and Cowboys went into OT 2 weeks ago, it went:

Dallas: Punt
NYG: Punt
Dallas: Punt
NYG: Interception
Dallas: FG to win the game

Originally Posted by BostonNut

So what happens if the Patriots start with the ball, fumble the ball with their possession, the Jets player scoops it up and starts running towards the end zone but fumbles it himself, and the Patriots recover? That would be the Patriots second possession while the Jets had theirs while their guy was running with it.

What then?? Does the game just end right then and there in a tie???

No. At that point it becomes sudden death since each team had a possession.

But here's a scenario that will blow your mind: Suppose Dallas starts with the ball and kicks a FG. GB gets the ball. Suppose they throw an interception, Dallas runs the other way and fumbles and it is recovered by Green Bay. At that point, the game is over and Dallas wins by 3. Green Bay used their one guaranteed possession and don't get a second possession if they are losing.

[BostonNut]

Originally Posted by Fenway55

Not exactly. They are each guaranteed one possession. However, as others pointed out above, that rule is subject to the almighty clock. If the first team to get the ball drives for 10 minutes and kicks a FG with 0:00 left then the other team doesn't get a chance with the ball.

When the Giants and Cowboys went into OT, it went:
Dallas: Punt
NYG: Punt
Dallas: Punt
NYG: Interception
Dallas FG to win the game

No. At that point it becomes sudden death since each team had a possession.

Oh thank you for clearing this up for me! For some reason I thought it was one possession each.

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by Fenway55

Not exactly. They are each guaranteed one possession. However, as others pointed out above, that rule is subject to the almighty clock. If the first team to get the ball drives for 10 minutes and kicks a FG with 0:00 left then the other team doesn't get a chance with the ball.

When the Giants and Cowboys went into OT 2 weeks ago, it went:

Dallas: Punt
NYG: Punt
Dallas: Punt
NYG: Interception
Dallas: FG to win the game

No. At that point it becomes sudden death since each team had a possession.

But here's a scenario that will blow your mind: Suppose Dallas starts with the ball and kicks a FG. GB gets the ball. Suppose they throw an interception, Dallas runs the other way and fumbles and it is recovered by Green Bay. At that point, the game is over and Dallas wins by 3. Green Bay used their one guaranteed possession and don't get a second possession if they are losing.

In your scenario, GB could return the Dallas fumble for a TD and win the game. So Dallas should just down the ball after making the INT.

[Fenway55]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

In your scenario, GB could return the Dallas fumble for a TD and win the game. So Dallas should just down the ball after making the INT.

You're absolutely right. The play continues to its conclusion so once Dallas intercepts the ball, the smart thing to do at that point would be to just take a knee.

But, as the Indianapolis Colts reminded us yesterday, players don't always do the smart thing.

[Scottish Punk]

Playing for or worrying about the 3rd possession advantage/disadvantage in overtime means you did overtime wrong. I can see the scenario where both teams go 3 and out or first team makes FG. Second team has a decision to go for FG to tie and maybe don't get the ball back or just go for it. If you are stuck with a long way for first and kick FG to tie, just like the three and out, you had plenty of opportunities to win game and still do, so no excuses. If it is 4th and less than 3, go for it and go for the win. If both teams get a TD, the second team should always go for two and end it.

The more teams that go through these scenarions, the analytics will bear out the best cause of action. My guess is that you should almost always go for the win and not tie if you are the second team since this is the time you have the advantage.

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by Scottish Punk

Playing for or worrying about the 3rd possession advantage/disadvantage in overtime means you did overtime wrong. I can see the scenario where both teams go 3 and out or first team makes FG. Second team has a decision to go for FG to tie and maybe don't get the ball back or just go for it. If you are stuck with a long way for first and kick FG to tie, just like the three and out, you had plenty of opportunities to win game and still do, so no excuses. If it is 4th and less than 3, go for it and go for the win. If both teams get a TD, the second team should always go for two and end it.

The more teams that go through these scenarions, the analytics will bear out the best cause of action. My guess is that you should almost always go for the win and not tie if you are the second team since this is the time you have the advantage.

Exactly. It's almost a no-brainer to go 2nd in OT (unless the first team eats up all the clock). So as it stands, they should put in the caveat that if you go second, you have to go for the win unless the first team scored 8 pts.

If that were the case, do you think most teams would chose to go first or second?

[scotthenrichs]

Originally Posted by GOWIFB

Collinsworth talking last night about how 'unfair' it was that with the old rule if a team gets a TD its over made me want to puke. Nothing unfair about it. If you are good enough to drive for a TD then you deserve to win.

Didn't they change this in part due to the Packers/Cardinals playoff game where it was like...42-42 or something, and Cardinals won the toss and promptly threw an 80 yard TD to Fitzgerald and Rodgers never saw the field in OT.

[mfisher27]

Originally Posted by scotthenrichs

Didn't they change this in part due to the Packers/Cardinals playoff game where it was like...42-42 or something, and Cardinals won the toss and promptly threw an 80 yard TD to Fitzgerald and Rodgers never saw the field in OT.

More likely the change was from the Vikings / Saints NFC Championship game the same year.

The rule change after that season wouldn't have prevented Packers/Cardinals since Arizona scored a TD and the new rules were TD ends it, FG gives the other team a chance.

I remember a lot of whining that Brett Favre didn't get a chance in OT because the Saints just kicked a field goal.

[majestik101]

Originally Posted by mfisher27

More likely the change was from the Vikings / Saints NFC Championship game the same year.

The rule change after that season wouldn't have prevented Packers/Cardinals since Arizona scored a TD and the new rules were TD ends it, FG gives the other team a chance.

I remember a lot of whining that Brett Favre didn't get a chance in OT because the Saints just kicked a field goal.

A more recent example. I remember watching the game and thinking to myself, yep this overtime rule needs some fiddling.

https://www.tiktok.com/@espn/video/7433645801970191659

[Scottish Punk]

You guys do realize all the complaining about overtime rules is a little silly when you think about it. The team had 60 minutes of football to get the win and not put themselves at the mercy of a coin flip or weird overtime rules. Coaches can just go for the win in regulation more often.

[majestik101]

Originally Posted by Scottish Punk

You guys do realize all the complaining about overtime rules is a little silly when you think about it. The team had 60 minutes of football to get the win and not put themselves at the mercy of a coin flip or weird overtime rules.

Coaches can just go for the win in regulation more often.

^^^^^^^

[ssbledsoe]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

OT rules are difficult because the players are already worn out from playing 60 mins and the NFLPA wants to protect them from additional injury so you don't want to have a drawn out OT period.

Currently, the team that goes second has a big advantage bc they know what they need to do to win/tie and can use 4th down more than the other team. The team going first can only guarantee themselves a tie if they score a TD and complete the 2-pt conversion (unless they use the full 10 minutes).

Maybe they should have 2 untimed possessions. If you choose to receive the ball second, you have to score more than whatever the other team scored on their possession unless both teams score 8 pts on their respective possessions. If that happens, you just go to a kick off. Start at the 35 and keep adding 5 yards until someone misses.

It's not ideal but still better than ending an NFL game in a tie.

The bolded is flat out wrong. There's way more win equity in having the 1st and 3rd possessions over the 2nd possession in a 10 minute overtime.

[ssbledsoe]

Originally Posted by ssbledsoe

The bolded is flat out wrong. There's way more win equity in having the 1st and 3rd possessions over the 2nd possession in a 10 minute overtime.

*taps the sign*

[Scottish Punk]

Seemed like going second in overtime was an advantage last night. McVay had the choice to tie it up and give the ball back to the 49ers. Chance of winning the game is very low, so either a tie or a loss. By going for it, he had a chance to win the game. Either way, the game was going to be decided by him. It is what you want as a coach.

I agreed with going for it. This decision is one that I think will be the standard. There won't be many 3rd possessions in overtime if you can avoid it.

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by Scottish Punk

Seemed like going second in overtime was an advantage last night. McVay had the choice to tie it up and give the ball back to the 49ers. Chance of winning the game is very low, so either a tie or a loss. By going for it, he had a chance to win the game. Either way, the game was going to be decided by him. It is what you want as a coach.

I agreed with going for it. This decision is one that I think will be the standard. There won't be many 3rd possessions in overtime if you can avoid it.

For sure.

The information advantage is huge. The only reason a coach would choose to receive first is because the defense really needs a breather.