Owners approve postseason overtime rule ensuring both teams get a possession

[Billy86]

I agree with the rule in principal, but it's dumb to only use it in the postseason and is only going to lead to similar backlash when teams lose in the regular season under similar circumstances, which will lead to it being brought in for them too. They should have just done all in the one go. 

[Kip Smithers]

16 hours ago, Forge said:

Why is so much emphasis being placed on future malcontents in this thread? That's so weird. There should be fewer people that support a future move than supported this first move,  especially when you consider what @Broncofan said earlier about the strategy that will be involved in trading TDs on the first two possession. People complain.  I mean, this thread is littered by people  who are seriously complaining about the future complaining of people who will be unsatisfied with this rule change. If that's the reason not to change the rule (future complaints), that's absurd. 

Because there was no clear and obvious way to improve upon the previous rules. That’s why it’s necessary to point out people will find someway to complain. It’s just very reactionary. Like you said, don’t fix what isn’t broken. This rule is in place because a bunch of people were loud about Josh Allen not getting a chance because of the back and forth we saw at end of the game. This doesn’t seem to be well thought out by the league. 

[Forge]

8 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

Because there was no clear and obvious way to improve upon the previous rules. That’s why it’s necessary to point out people will find someway to complain. It’s just very reactionary. Like you said, don’t fix what isn’t broken. This rule is in place because a bunch of people were loud about Josh Allen not getting a chance because of the back and forth we saw at end of the game. This doesn’t seem to be well thought out by the league. 

so we are complaining about people who will complain even though people are already complaining? We are reaching some pretty Abbott & Costello levels of absurdity there. Which all goes back to my point that people just like to complain. That shouldn't factor in to anything with regards to a decision. 

I mean, this isn't the first time. People are saying this is reactionary and it's not. This happened in 2018 and it was turned down by the league. Having multiple years pass before approving it seems the opposite of reactionary? 

[Forge]

10 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

The thing is, after that Chiefs-Bills game, no one was clamoring to see the Chiefs defense take the field. No one was pounding the table to see Kansas City take the field against Josh Allen, they wanted to see an offensive rebuttal. This is a rule change for more offense, not for more defense.

I definitely think this lessens the important of defense, certainly more so than it does the opposite. In traditional OT, if the defense effs up - it’s over. If the offense effs up? Still got a chance (barring a pick six). This gives your defense a one free screw up card. 

Look, I’m in the minority around here and push for college OT pretty frequently. I’m not going to sit here and pretend that there’s no excitement in a good back-and-forth. But what the NFL brings to the table is excitement that the game can end at any moment (in overtime). Yeah, that can still happen on a defensive TD or something to that effect, but I think it’s safe to say that this change takes away from the “sudden death” part that the NFL was unique in. For me, that’s a net negative in terms of excitement. 

This is a good post. I don't agree with all of it, but at least I finally get where someone is coming from.

I think possession for possession is the "most fair" set up, though as I mentioned before, I wouldn't start on the opponents side of the field. I don't know if we will ever get to that point and it makes sense that the NFL would want to make more incremental changes. 

[Kip Smithers]

1 hour ago, Forge said:

so we are complaining about people who will complain even though people are already complaining? We are reaching some pretty Abbott & Costello levels of absurdity there. Which all goes back to my point that people just like to complain. That shouldn't factor in to anything with regards to a decision. 

I mean, this isn't the first time. People are saying this is reactionary and it's not. This happened in 2018 and it was turned down by the league. Having multiple years pass before approving it seems the opposite of reactionary? 

Lol wth. My statement was directed at the people who after the chiefs-bills game were crying of some sort of injustice. Those people who wanted this are gonna be left unsatisfied again. It’s not about the general concept of complaining. 
 

2018? So that’s 3 full seasons? my goodness . How many games in that span have taken place for that issue not be brought up? That’s a lot of time. If you’re gonna change the rule, which we all know is imperfect, it better be an upgrade on what it was. The fact we can’t even comfortably say that is case is alarming. 

[Piquel]

My idea for a "final" overtime rule.....with this new rule in mind

Kickoffs alternate for opening kickoff, halftime, and each overtime.

Regular Season - Each team gets 1 possession.  If score is still tied, game ends in a tie.

Post Season - Each team gets 1 possession.  If its still tied repeat.   

[Xenos]

@N4Lstealing this because it’s a great read. Hope you don’t mind.