The NFL needs to change the OT rules again(Rule Changed)

[kdslittlebro]

That’s the truth. Chiefs actually wanted both teams to have the ball. Wasn’t a problem when the entire rest of the league shut it down, but today it’s a problem.

I’m finally seeing nikkas really not fw the Chiefs finally made it

 

[Gus Money]

Where was the outcry in 2019? I don't remember people calling for it to change when Mahomes was the one who didn't get to touch the ball.

Yes they did lol. It was the first subject on First Take, Undisputed, all of those shows. Stephen A. in particular, and of course Nick Wright, were heavy crying about it.

There will be no rule change in 2019 because of the AFC title game between the Patriots and Chiefs

The irony

I knew I wasn’t tripping, there was literally the same amount of blowback about the rules that we’re seeing now. This happens every time a QB doesn’t see the field in OT.

Last night someone mentioned that both teams should get the ball but you can’t settle for matching your opponent, you’ve gotta beat what they put up (first team scores a FG, second team has to score a TD or it’s over; first team scores a TD, second team needs a TD and a 2-point conversion or it’s over; first team punts during first possession then it’s pure sudden death).

 

[8WON6]

I’m finally seeing nikkas really not fw the Chiefs finally made it

i think said something like this earlier in the year. when we were 3-4 and nikkas was talking about end of an era.

 

[kdslittlebro]

i think said something like this earlier in the year. when we were 3-4 and nikkas was talking about end of an era.

I tried to stall it out like bruh a few great yrs and one ring is all it took. Became the villain overnight nikkas were on the grave

 

[ghostwriterx]

I knew I wasn’t tripping, there was literally the same amount of blowback about the rules that we’re seeing now. This happens every time a QB doesn’t see the field in OT.

Last night someone mentioned that both teams should get the ball but you can’t settle for matching your opponent, you’ve gotta beat what they put up (first team scores a FG, second team has to score a TD or it’s over; first team scores a TD, second team needs a TD and a 2-point conversion or it’s over; first team punts during first possession then it’s pure sudden death).

This is actually a pretty great idea and probably the most fair way to do it outside of college rules.

 

[ghostwriterx]

I think these rules are fine. If you can't stop a team from walking down the field and scoring a TD on you then you deserve to lose.

The Chiefs didn't do that either....

 

[Amare's Right Hook]

Play until the Bills go ahead then reset the clock to 3 seconds.

 

[NZA]

if honey badger was there, it wouldnt even have made it to OT

 

[Miggs]

Sounds nice in theory til it plays out and Mahomes scores a 2nd TD (or worse, a FG). Then everyone will just want the other QB to get another shot.

Basically the naysayers don't want the game to end as a result of the defense being ass.

I think everyone would be content if both teams got the ball at least once on offense....at least the non biased bystanders would be.

 

[Reggie]

A game ends tied. The first team to score a TD wins in OT. How is what you're suggesting any different? Both teams had 4 quarters to score and it ended in a tie.

The reality is after the two drives when you say next score wins you are effectively at the same place as the beginning of OT now minus the coin toss. When you say next score wins you are placing the same burden on the defense the loser of the coin toss gets anyway because at that point if the defense doesn't get a stop they lose. All you're doing is prolonging the game out of an sense of obligation to have more drives.

Cause the offense of the opoosing team would have a chance to match the TD. And obviously if they did the next score wins. Of course it wouldn't be a tie in the playoffs. They would have to just play until it's a winner. May be prolonging the game and I know football is a physical sport but again it's a defense of the field too.

 

[Reggie]

I’ll ask you, since the OP ducked the question: If KC scores a TD then Buffalo score a TD then KC scores a TD and wins, how is that any more fair than what we saw yesterday? Winning the coin flip still gives KC the same advantage if the defenses are just going give up TDs like that.

There’s simply no good reason to play out those two initial drives in OT; being tied at the end of regulation already showed they were equal that day.

Cause to me if the defense can't stop them the second time then the rest of the team should not be rewarded with the ball again. Might not be fair but the current rules aren't any better.

 

[Reggie]

Why do you think that is more simple than-stop the other team from scoring a TD?

It's really not but at least it gives the offense one chance to match scores. No less fair then the rules now.

 

[concise]

I think everyone would be content if both teams got the ball at least once on offense....at least the non biased bystanders would be.

I doubt it.

A lot of people won't be satisfied unless they get something that sets both teams to get the ball an equal number of times.
If they went to OT, traded TDs, then KC scores a 3rd TD, same complaints gonna pop up again.

 

[Diddly Drogba]

No they don't. Y'all want that college bullshyt.

 

[Jparker]

they should just stop using a coin flip

put the ball in the middle of the field. have each team pick a player and stand one the 10 yard line. team of the player who is fastest in a 40 yd dash to getting the ball is the one who gets it first. that with the current rules is perfect in my opinion. coin flip is wack

its basically a jump ball and would be one of the most exciting things in sports

Boy what the hell kinda PE dodgeball shyt is this