NFL 2018 AFC Championship Game - New England at Kansas City

AFC CG Options


  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .

juss

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 23, 2009
17,436
21,917
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
I have no issue with the current rules, My opinion is if you let a team score a TD on the opening drive of OT then you don't deserve a second chance.

Maybe for Championship games and the Super Bowl , both teams can have a chance with the ball.
And if the Chiefs were able to score on their very next opening drive, or if they had received do the Pat's deserve to win any more than they did?
Or were they just the luckier team that got the chance to do so via a coin toss?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

nobbyiscool

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 11, 2006
12,045
12,844
heaven on earth! (Melbourne)
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Raiders/TasTigers/MV/Iggles
It blows me away that people are ok with the current OT rules in a league that is consistently and repeatedly become more and more geared to helping offences. You can barely touch a QB any more (see: the facemask penalty where Brady wasn't touched), you can't land on him if you do sack him, it's harder to put a fair tackle on a WR while he's in the air, you still get the free play if the defence jumps offside when I'm sure we were told before this season that it'd be blown dead.

The current rules are only fair if you believe that offence and defence is created equal in the NFL, and I don't believe anyone can say that.
 

GreyCrow

Hall of Famer
Mar 21, 2016
47,526
68,976
Down South Corvus Tristis
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt, Redskins , White Sox
I'm ambivalent about it. Maybe if the Redskins get screwed I might change my mind but again I felt KC had their chances

But I'm also ok with a change. I still see issues

The ball starts at the 25
Both sides get 1 Offensive and Defensive run
If a team scores on their O run and the opponent does not score on theirs then the game is over. This can be TD or FG
If the score is still even then the next score wins

Interceptions ie Pick 6 still give a team the opportunity to do the same to the other team (makes it harder)
 

juss

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 23, 2009
17,436
21,917
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
I know, that doesn't matter
Look some people are happy for a big advantage to be decided by a coin toss while others prefer a more balanced system where each side has an equal chance. You've picked your side I've picked mine, don't think we are going to agree but I respect your right to opinion, I just don't understand the logic behind this one.
 

Demonic Ascent

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 21, 2006
14,606
10,083
Muckertal
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Eltham Turtles, NY Jets, Celtics
Regulation time is irrelevant at that point, both sides were deadlocked. Neither offence or defence broke this deadlock. However in OT, without the right of reply, one team has an advantage in that their offence gets a chance to win the game immediately. The other doesnt. And that opportunity is decided by a coin toss.

The game doesnt lose anything by adding the right of reply, it just creates a balanced scenario where evenly matched teams get a fairer way to duke it out for the win. This would allow the offence and defence of both sides to have a say in the outcome, not just one or the other.

I cant see any reason that is not a fairer system.

LicoriceAllsorts pjcrows
This is what I meant earlier, why would a fairer system where both sides offence and defences get to contribute not be a fairer way of getting a winner after regulation time? The best side is still going to win because they need to be good on both sides of the ball, not just one.
I can see both sides of the argument. They could make it like a penalty shootout where the teams go drive for drive until someone misses. So Team A gets a TD, Team B gets a right of reply - if Team B fails to get a TD game over, if they do and then Team A fails to score Team B can finish the game with any score. However if Team A gets a FG on their 2nd drive Team B needs a TD to win or FG to tie. If it's a tie it continues til the deadlock breaks.
 

juss

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 23, 2009
17,436
21,917
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
I can see both sides of the argument. They could make it like a penalty shootout where the teams go drive for drive until someone misses. So Team A gets a TD, Team B gets a right of reply - if Team B fails to get a TD game over, if they do and then Team A fails to score Team B can finish the game with any score. However if Team A gets a FG on their 2nd drive Team B needs a TD to win or FG to tie. If it's a tie it continues til the deadlock breaks.
That's my answer too. It's trade for trade until a true, fair winner is decided. Not decided by one team lucky enough to win a coin toss which can effectively eliminate another team's offence entirely. Sure, the D can stop them, but if they don't, the other D and O should get a chance to influence the result too, I don't agree with just ending the game on one drive.
 

rumply

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 11, 2002
19,064
18,623
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Iggles, 76ers
I reckon the NFL rules committee will tweak the OT rules after what happened today. It won't be College system, but they'll have some proviso where if team A scores a TD from their opening possession, team B is allowed a possession to score a TD. After each team has definitely had one possession each, then the current OT rules come into play -- where a Def TD or Defensive Safety or offensive TD ends the game immediately, but if a FG is kicked, the other team is given another possession again.
This is how it should be, yes games will drag on at times but who cares.
 

slashin_velvet

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 5, 2011
6,746
10,762
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, STL Blues
Seems pretty ******* simple to me.

If you get right of reply for a field goal, you should get right of reply for a TD.

Both teams get to play offence, both teams get to play defense.
It's a deadset no brainer.
Agree - I'd even understand if they wanted no changes in the regular season so that the networks can manage game overlap - but in playoffs, its a bridge too far for mine. A whole season potentially ended on a coin toss.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

LukeParkerno1

Post-Human
Sep 23, 2005
100,778
37,745
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
They had 3 opportunities to stop NE at 3rd and 10....how about they do their job rather than missing tackles.

OT rules will suck regardless of what alternative you want. In fact a full replay is probably the fairest
 

LicoriceAllsorts

Hall of Famer
Feb 25, 2013
44,531
48,126
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
They had 3 opportunities to stop NE at 3rd and 10....how about they do their job rather than missing tackles.

OT rules will suck regardless of what alternative you want. In fact a full replay is probably the fairest
Yeah but but they have a sorry defense so we have to give them another chance becoz the patriots are too good :'(:mad::mad:
 

Demonic Ascent

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 21, 2006
14,606
10,083
Muckertal
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Eltham Turtles, NY Jets, Celtics
And the Pat's defence didnt have to.... because of a coin toss.
Again cant see why a fair and balanced OT is a bad thing, and you havent actually said why it would be less fair than the current system.
What happens if the game is outdoors, howling wind favouring one end. Should they have 2x OT periods so each team gets an equal chance with the wind (as in AFL)?
 
Last edited:

Demonic Ascent

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 21, 2006
14,606
10,083
Muckertal
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Eltham Turtles, NY Jets, Celtics
That's my answer too. It's trade for trade until a true, fair winner is decided. Not decided by one team lucky enough to win a coin toss which can effectively eliminate another team's offence entirely. Sure, the D can stop them, but if they don't, the other D and O should get a chance to influence the result too, I don't agree with just ending the game on one drive.
Would a defensive score (ie pick 6 or safety) end the game on the 1st drive? I assume yes but is that fair if both teams are defensive powerhouses?

Not arguing for the current rules as such just playing devils advocate
 

imadodgyumpire

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 10, 2011
18,369
13,325
AFL Club
Carlton
That worked well lol

Maybe if they did something in the first half might have won the game!
You're only just pin pointing a aspect of KC performance because it suits your argument.

Had KC played better in the first half and scored more, they might not have played so well in the second half.

NE would've otherwise seen what was working for KC and adjusted their defence in the second.

If this pattern of the team with the first possession in OT continues to win the game with their first possession, the NFL which eventually make a rule change.
 

juss

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 23, 2009
17,436
21,917
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
Would a defensive score (ie pick 6 or safety) end the game on the 1st drive? I assume yes but is that fair if both teams are defensive powerhouses?

Not arguing for the current rules as such just playing devils advocate
With the right of reply rule, yes a defensive pick 6 would end the game, because the first team has had the opportunity to possess the ball, and they have turned it over, thus the next team's offence is defunct because they have already scored, all they would need to do is kneel it out as they already have the lead. It's an interesting point though, but I think common sense prevails, the right of reply is dictated by scoring, if you turn it over and opposition scores, that's their right of reply.

What happens if the game is outdoors, howling wind favouring one end. Should they have 2x OT periods so each team gets an equal chance with the wind (as in AFL)?
This is just random conditions, completely different to a pre-set written rule. Also, this isn't a golden point scenario, this is an extra time scenario, that is also an option that could be explored. Instead of 1 possession each, just play 2 x 6 minute halves, not my preferred method but could be explored as this is still fair as long as both teams get to receive in one of the halves.
 

Southerntakeover

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 21, 2006
27,967
17,135
At vB temple...
AFL Club
Adelaide
No need to reward teams who can't play defense, already doing that enough in the league

Besides, teams who get the ball first only win 50% of the time
It does reward teams that can't play defence, far more than playing both ways does.

Currently a team can win without defending at all. They couldnt if they played both ways. I.e. a team with a terrible defence has a chance to win that they wouldnt have if they played both ways.
 

juss

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 23, 2009
17,436
21,917
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
It does reward teams that can't play defence, far more than playing both ways does.

Currently a team can win without defending at all. They couldnt if they played both ways. I.e. a team with a terrible defence has a chance to win that they wouldnt have if they played both ways.
This. Great point.
How some people can criticise a team for losing because if they can't defend one drive they don't deserve to win, yet one defence doesn't even need to defend at all? Doesn't add up to me.
 

Top Bottom