NFL 2018 AFC Championship Game - New England at Kansas City

[LicoriceAllsorts]

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 defence 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.

Because it's not about each part of the team getting equal opportunity to contribute. It's about stepping up to the plate when it's your turn to do so and the Chiefs D couldn't do that

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

It doesn't sit well with me that a team can allow the opposition to drive straight down for a TD on the first possession in OT and still be allowed a chance to win the game.

Team sports are not about each player/group having equal opportuniry to contribute, they're about a player or group doing their job when it's their turn to do so and if your D can't get one single stop when the game/season is on the line, then tough t***ies

It matters enough that the rules ensure that each team has possession at the start off each half. So I really can’t see the logic in not extending that to OT.

 

[slashin_velvet]

I've never liked the OT rules. Bit of a deflating end to the game.

 

[revo333]

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.

 

[juss]

Because it's not about each part of the team getting equal opportunity to contribute. It's about stepping up to the plate when it's your turn to do so and the Chiefs D couldn't do that

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.

 

[juss]

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?

 

[nobbyiscool]

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.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

And the Pat's defence didnt have to.... because of a coin toss.

I know, that doesn't matter

 

[GreyCrow]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Unknown Identity]

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.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

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

 

[rumply]

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]

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.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

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]

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

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yeah but but they have a sorry defense so we have to give them another chance becoz the patriots are too good

Plus what were Kansas doing in the first half... 32 yards is pathetic. If I were them look there as to where the game was lost not OT.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Plus what were Kansas doing in the first half... 32 yards is pathetic. If I were them look there as to where the game was lost not OT.

Obviously keeping themselves fresh for the second half

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Obviously keeping themselves fresh for the second half

That worked well lol

Maybe if they did something in the first half might have won the game!

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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)?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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

 

[Demonic Ascent]

This is how it should be, yes games will drag on at times but who cares.

TV networks

 

[imadodgyumpire]

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.