Skip to content

Overtime rule change isn’t likely

Zz05MTZiZTBlNjMwNzRhMzI5MWQyZGYzZjMxNzIzMWE1OA== AP

Although it had happened multiple times since the half-measure change to the overtime rules of six years ago, there had been little public push (although we griped about it in 2015) for expanding the rule that prevents first-possession wins to include touchdowns until the aftermath of Saturday night’s win by the Cardinals over the Packers.

But even with a stronger sense that something isn’t right about Green Bay exiting the postseason in back-to-back years by losing the coin toss, kicking off, and having their opponent score a walk-off six-pointer, it’s currently not expected that the overtime rule will be tweaked.

A source with knowledge of the situation explained to PFT that overtime changes always will be on the agenda for the annual league meeting, but that a significant effort to adjust the rules isn’t coming.

Last year, the Bears proposed an adjustment that would guarantee one possession per team. Commissioner Roger Goodell spoke out against the change prior to its formal consideration.

I think our overtime rule is really working well,” Goodell told Peter King in March. “I think it’s got the right balance. It keeps the sudden death nature of the game but . . . you have the opportunity to win the game and not give the other team the ball if you score a touchdown. . . . I think that maintaining the sudden death nature of the game is very important.”

Not surprisingly, the change wasn’t made. Somewhat surprisingly, the Packers voted against the proposal.

That’s where the dynamics become very bizarre among NFL teams. Although players and coaches may be inclined to gripe about the application of an unfair rule in the aftermath of having it work against them, the league has a goofy cultural superstition regarding the notion that it makes sense to keep the unfair rule in place because the team that was screwed by it once will likely benefit from it the next time. While that obviously didn’t happen for the Packers, some in the organization may believe even more strongly that they are due to benefit from the unfair rule, so why should they want it to go away?

The question now becomes whether you want it to go away. Speak your mind on the subject below.

Permalink 164 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Arizona Cardinals, Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
164 Responses to “Overtime rule change isn’t likely”
  1. rollotomasi14 says: Jan 22, 2016 8:38 AM

    How is it unfair? GB had a chance to stop the Cardinals and didn’t. End of story.

  2. cowboy19 says: Jan 22, 2016 8:41 AM

    Make a freakin stop! It wasn’t like the Saints going to the Super Bowl on a first possession FG. The Cards drove 80 yards in 3 plays.

  3. goodellsucks43 says: Jan 22, 2016 8:42 AM

    If they were to make that change, it would give the team that gets the ball second an advantage because they know they have all 4 downs to try and score the tying TD. Just like with the playoff seeding, no system is going to be perfect, so just leave it the way it is.

  4. filmex2000 says: Jan 22, 2016 8:42 AM

    “…that something isn’t right about Green Bay exiting the postseason in back-to-back years by losing the coin toss, kicking off, and having their opponent score a walk-off six-pointer”…

    The only thing “not right” is that the Packers can’t stop anybody.

  5. eaglephan says: Jan 22, 2016 8:42 AM

    Carson Palmer beats Arron Rodgers and now we need new overtime rules, The media so Pathetic! They should re-watch that game and see how the league already gives their favorites, Rodgers & Brady every possible no call (holding etc..) and then over penalizes the d’s these guy play every week. And yet no media outcry…

  6. wfrench00 says: Jan 22, 2016 8:43 AM

    Nor should it be changed.

    I agree that by keeping the rule the way it is you have the best of both worlds. The “sudden death aspect” and the chance for the other team to get the ball.

    The NFL keeps changing these rules and people will start walking away from this game.

    The game has been great for many years. Anything that is changed too much, while it’s on top, will run into one day not being on top.

  7. najacoo22 says: Jan 22, 2016 8:44 AM

    If you don’t want to lose, prevent your opponent from scoring in OT… Or don’t let the game go to OT.

  8. romo2witten says: Jan 22, 2016 8:45 AM

    Playing defense is a big part of the game. If you can’t stop someone from scoring a TD with the game on the line you don’t deserve to win.

  9. jimbo75025 says: Jan 22, 2016 8:45 AM

    …..or maybe Green Bay just needs to shore up their D in order to have a serious chance of playoff advancement.

    Makes more sense than changing a rule that has really only repeatedly impacted one team.

  10. thegeneral7694 says: Jan 22, 2016 8:46 AM

    Right….which is the way that every rule works in every competition. Sometimes it cuts in your favor, and sometimes it doesn’t, depending on the facts and the situation. What Florio calls a “goofy cultural superstition” is what I would call “life”. Once you get past 10 years old, you realize that crying for a rule change anytime the rule benefits anyone else is pretty ridiculous.

  11. tylereifertisunstoppable says: Jan 22, 2016 8:46 AM

    I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but I agree with Goodell (pardon me, I puked in my mouth a little bit there). Keeping the sudden death aspect in there makes it more exciting, if you keep adding extensions, you may as well just add an entire 5th quarter and play it out that way. Keep a team out of the end zone in OT, and you will get a chance to respond. Seems fair to me.

  12. twtom11 says: Jan 22, 2016 8:46 AM

    Teams shouldn’t complain about ‘not getting a chance’ in overtime if they give up a touchdown on the opening score… Each team gets to put 11 players on the field, and defense is as much a part of the game as offense.

  13. johnniemayes says: Jan 22, 2016 8:48 AM

    Just change it to both teams possess the ball once. This way the strengths of both teams will get a shot in OT.

  14. scoops1 says: Jan 22, 2016 8:49 AM

    if the league prides themselves on putting the best possible product out there on the field then both teams need an EQUAL chance to have a possession in OT

  15. oldtrix says: Jan 22, 2016 8:50 AM

    I think the college rules would be more interesting, and saw several great collegiate games this season that were very exciting to watch in OT.

    Give each team the ball on the opponent’s 30, or 35 Yd line. 4 downs to score. The other team has a chance to match that score. Continue until one team outscores the other on the turn of possessions. (one kicks a FG and the other scores a TD).

    Visiting team goes first.

    Why is this so hard for the league to figure out?

  16. ike1973 says: Jan 22, 2016 8:51 AM

    The problem with the old rule was you could win on a field goal without the other team touching the ball. They changed the rule to fix that. So now why is it a problem that you can win on a walk off touchdown?

    The whole idea of overtime is that someone must win. Why change the rules to keep it tied? Does not winning the coin toss count for something?

  17. harrisonhits2 says: Jan 22, 2016 8:52 AM

    No, Green Bay did not exit the playoffs because of losing a coin toss. There were knocked out because their defense didn’t play well enough

  18. wattambor says: Jan 22, 2016 8:54 AM

    If you don’t like losing in overtime, win in regulation.

  19. switchwitch59 says: Jan 22, 2016 8:54 AM

    Stop it. The overtime rules are not unfair, there are 3 phases to the game: offense, defense and special teams. Each one has the opportunity to make plays and win the game. Do your job and be the hero or don’t whine about losing.

  20. anonymousnevermindfishdeath says: Jan 22, 2016 8:54 AM

    Maybe take an idea from the NBA and have an additional short period with normal playing rules, if the game is still tied go into the old sudden death rules.

  21. gohawks2015 says: Jan 22, 2016 8:54 AM

    Last we looked DEFENSE was part of the ultimate team game yes?

    If you are on defense first your job is to stop them to get the ball back. To prevent ‘sudden death’ so your offense will then be able to take it’s turn.

    It’s not that hard to understand. And there is nothing unfair about it unless you are someone that doesn’t like defense. Or for that matter a team without a decent one.

  22. largent80 says: Jan 22, 2016 8:55 AM

    Let’s say a game goes to OT, and the first team to get possession marches down the field and scores. Now it’s time for that team to kick off. Then they successfully try an on-side kick. Is the game now over? Technically, the 2nd team never took possession. Would not put it past Belichick to try something like this.

  23. seedubayou says: Jan 22, 2016 8:56 AM

    ” the league has a goofy cultural superstition regarding the notion that it makes sense to keep the unfair rule in place…”
    _____________________________________

    Unfair?! Most people think it is fair and fine the way it is.
    What’s with the biased reporting? Most think they should have left it alone the first time the crybabies started to whine about each team getting the ball.
    STOP trying to ruin ‘sudden death’, which it was meant to be in the first place.
    Oh, that’s right, the PCers say everyone gets a ribbon.

  24. Bob says: Jan 22, 2016 8:57 AM

    There is a problem with the overtime rule. It should go back to sudden death, especially now that most kickoffs are touchbacks. As for the “it’s not fair” argument, you do get to play defense. Stop the other team from scoring.

  25. vikingforlife says: Jan 22, 2016 9:00 AM

    If it changes because of prissy pants, complaining Rodgers and the ever-loving kiss-ass media, my brain will implode!!! Everyone KNOWS it will be addressed QUITE LOUDLY at the meetings this spring due to all the hoopla and poor, poor, Aaron and his “missed opportunity”. So, we know this is NOT OVER!!!!

  26. gtodriver says: Jan 22, 2016 9:00 AM

    Mike

    Nobody was “screwed” by the current rules.

    The game was NOT determined by a coin flip.

    If a team is worried that they cannot stop a team from scoring on an 80 yard touchdown drive, they have the right to attempt an onside kick and kick a field goal to win.

    Some teams have even elected to kickoff instead of receive because of the faith they had in their defense – and won the game on the second possession.

    For decades all that was needed for an overtime win was to kick a FG. That led to the coin flip determining the winner in a vast majority of overtime games.

    I don’t have access to the stats, but I’m sure you can get them. Just what percentage of games are now won after the team that receives the overtime kickoff scores a touchdown.

    I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the percentage one possesion wins is a fraction of what it was before the change.

  27. tonyzendejas says: Jan 22, 2016 9:00 AM

    Leave the rule as is. Packers fans are suddenly acting like scoring a TD for all the marbles in OT is an easy given. It’s not. GB’s defense failed spectacularly in two giant games at the most critical of moments. That’s on them, not the rulebook.

  28. lscottman3 says: Jan 22, 2016 9:02 AM

    need to revamp the competition committee, people like mara and jeff fisher have no business being on the committe

  29. peytonwantsaflag says: Jan 22, 2016 9:03 AM

    just because PFT says it’s unfair doesn’t make it so. How about some stats to back up the claim? How often does the team that wins the toss win the game? Anything greater than say 66% (completely random number that just feels right to me) then I’m on board with the whole “unfairness” argument.

  30. leroyquimby says: Jan 22, 2016 9:04 AM

    But even with a stronger sense that something isn’t right about Green Bay exiting the postseason in back-to-back years by losing the coin toss, kicking off, and having their opponent score a walk-off six-pointer
    ============================

    What is not right is called defense

  31. northernpackfan says: Jan 22, 2016 9:06 AM

    I totally agree with the sentiments shared here so far. The Packers blew it this year, and last year. There’s no need for a rule change. Leave the rules as they are, and make the players accountable.

  32. tedmurph says: Jan 22, 2016 9:08 AM

    Hockey has it right. If you want to have different overtime rules in the regular season, so you don’t have games going all night, fine. In the playoffs, why play overtime under different rules. Play timed quarters under normal rules. How hard is that? If the games go long, so be it. That way, there’s a better chance the best team wins. Which I think is what everybody wants.

  33. johngaltwho says: Jan 22, 2016 9:08 AM

    The decision should be based on the data, if the coin flip still weighs heavily on the result (ie > 60% win percentage for the team winning the coin flip), then change is worth considering. As a Packer fan, I think we shoulda gone for two. With a depleted receiving corps, in a hostile environment, with momentum on our side, shoulda put it in Aaron’s hands – win or lose. But we didnt and then had terribly broken coverage on a near sack play. Is what it is. I like our chances next year. GPG.

  34. lance227 says: Jan 22, 2016 9:09 AM

    Very simple. If the Packers wanted to avoid the randomness of a sort of kind of coin flip, all they had to do was go for the jugular and go for 2. They had the Cards back on their heels and should’ve just gone for the kill shot. Instead they played it the conservative scaredy cat way and they lost. When you convert a 4th and 20 from your 3 and a 60 yard prayer on the last play of regulation you’re essentially playing with house money. If McCarthy had shown some coJones they’d be packing their bags for Charlotte right now

  35. willycents says: Jan 22, 2016 9:10 AM

    Leave the rule alone. If you cannot stop the other team when you are on defense in overtime, get a better defense. If your defense gives up 80 yards and a td in two plays, you deserve to lose.
    Maybe to be “fair” the teams should split the game .750 -.250 on their won loss record. Then, give the losing team a “participation” trophy for taking it to overtime.

  36. linji45thgen says: Jan 22, 2016 9:10 AM

    How is it fair if a team scores first, then the other team gets to approach the possession knowing that they will always have four downs to make a first down? The team with the first possession only has three downs to make a first down, as they are likely to punt if they don’t get a first down. There’s never going to be a completely fair solution. The reason the rule was tweaked was to prevent cheap field goal wins, and the rule has accomplished that. Shame on the Packers for allowing touchdowns. Why should they be rewarded with four down possessions to give them the chance to tie?

  37. packerjansen12 says: Jan 22, 2016 9:11 AM

    I say just put 8-10 minutes on the clock and go play football. if its still tied, take a 10 minute break and go again. If its still tied it can go to sudden death.

  38. johngaltwho says: Jan 22, 2016 9:12 AM

    eaglephan says:
    Jan 22, 2016 8:42 AM
    Carson Palmer beats Arron Rodgers and now we need new overtime rules

    —————————————————————–

    Thats the funniest post Ive seen in a while. On so many levels. Switch quarterbacks in that game and the Packers win 48-9.

    I really thought Aaron had great coverage on Larry Fitzgerald in overtime and then well, he missed the tackle several times. If only Aaron had executed Dom Capers scheme better…

  39. vikesfan320 says: Jan 22, 2016 9:15 AM

    Know what I’d like to see? Winner of the coin toss chooses offense or defense. You choose offense, you have to go score a TD to win, or else you lose. You choose defense, you have to stop them from scoring a TD, or else you lose. One possession, as sudden death as it can get. Wouldn’t it have been great to see if the Cardinals thought they could get a stop better than they could score given how out-of-sync their offense was? Wouldn’t have quite the prolonged drama, but it’d still be pretty entertaining in that short burst.

    Tough thing would be deciding on scoring. If Team B gets a stop to win, you can’t say “Team B wins, 20-20.” Does a defensive stop in overtime count as a TD then? I don’t know. That could make for some fantasy football swings, though, which would be kinda cool.

  40. axesbluestar says: Jan 22, 2016 9:21 AM

    How is it unfair? GB had a chance to stop the Cardinals and didn’t. End of story.
    =====
    Why didn’t the Cards have to stop GB? Oh, because of the whim of a coin flip.

    15-minute extra OT period.

  41. axesbluestar says: Jan 22, 2016 9:23 AM

    Last we looked DEFENSE was part of the ultimate team game yes?

    If you are on defense first your job is to stop them to get the ball back. To prevent ‘sudden death’ so your offense will then be able to take it’s turn.
    =====
    And yet AZ didn’t have to play defense because (wait for it) of the whim of a coin flip.

  42. cshearing says: Jan 22, 2016 9:23 AM

    The current rule is fine. I did dislike it when all you needed was a FG to win it automatically; sometimes you only need a couple of 1st downs for that. But I like the current rule.

  43. peytonwantsaflag says: Jan 22, 2016 9:23 AM

    a coin toss is random, I’ll give you that, but no more random than the bouncing of a fumble or the flight of a tipped pass. Should we change the rules for those also?

  44. iamkillerfin says: Jan 22, 2016 9:26 AM

    If the receiving team gets the ball & marches down the field to score then the defense should have played better to stop it!!! Therefore the winning team scores the TD they deserve the win!!! NOT UNFAIR AT ALL, PLAY BETTER!!!

  45. dwarftosser says: Jan 22, 2016 9:30 AM

    I’m a Packer game who would like to go back to pure sudden death. Nothing in sports is more exciting to watch then sudden death NFL. College OT is just plain stupid and should not be considered.

  46. nard100 says: Jan 22, 2016 9:30 AM

    What is unfair is making us think that GB has a shot to get to the SB and watching them fold up like a cheap lawn chair during crunch time. I’m sorry, but after that fiasco last year, I flt like they had their chance and now it’s someone else’s turn. I think the world of Rodgers, but c’mon man, the defense is junk and wr’s act like the ball has cooties or something. A 50-50 ball is pretty much any one that is thrown to them.

  47. crownofthehelmet says: Jan 22, 2016 9:31 AM

    This is a non issue. It’ll be decades before the pack sniffs the playoffs again.

  48. 2ruefan says: Jan 22, 2016 9:32 AM

    Here’s My Take:

    – The original rule was changed because it was deemed that the ability to win a game by winning the coin toss, and getting a field goal was a little too easy.

    – Rule is changed so that field goal on opening possession does not win it, but any other type of score does.

    I think one simple change would make it achieve the “fairness” desired, but still have “sudden death.”

    That would be to simply make the rule that each team has a possession, period. So, a touchdown on original drive does not win it either. Other team gets a possession too. If they score a TD too, now it’s sudden death. If they don’t, they lose.

    Don’t think it changes it very much, and sudden death is still achieved.

  49. igglesfan83 says: Jan 22, 2016 9:38 AM

    Green Bay had 4 quarters to win. They didn’t. They had to make a stop…not to keep them from FG range, but just out of the end zone, they didn’t. They lost. That’s how that works.

  50. pacstud says: Jan 22, 2016 9:41 AM

    All those who think one possession each is “fair” all full of Florio.

    They will then simply say it is “unfair” that after two excellent drives resulting in a touchdown each that Team A lost to a field goal, only able to look on and watch😦

    Cripes.

  51. myopinionisrighterthanyours says: Jan 22, 2016 9:42 AM

    I have no problem with the overtime rule. It did the two things it was intended to do. A) It prevents a game form being decided on a 50 yard FG drive and B) it prevents offenses from shutting it down when they get to the 20. Instead of complaining about how unfair it is, Mike, why don’t you put up some stats to back you up, like how many games since the rule change HAVE been ended by a walk off TD, or the percentage of games won by the team that wins the flip. Even in the garbage rule days, the team winning the flip only won 70% of the time. I imagine know it is much closer to 50-50.

  52. switchwitch59 says: Jan 22, 2016 9:46 AM

    People love to trot out the saying “offense wins games, defense wins championships”, evidently GB doesn’t have a championship-caliber defense, they’ve proven that 2 years in a row. Besides, GB didn’t lose last year due to the coin flip, they lost because Bostic was more interested in being a hero than in doing his job.

  53. vikinghooper says: Jan 22, 2016 9:46 AM

    Argue what you want, but the NFL is OK making it unfair.
    It’s obvious in a playoff game, all of us want our team to win.
    If you lose the flip, kick off, and give up a TD, it feels wrong.
    If you win the flip, get a TD, it feels good but you know you’re happy your team won the flip.
    My solution:
    All teams vote whether they want TD wins in OT, or both teams get possession. If you vote TD wins, any OT game you play you kick off.
    If you vote both get a possession, then there is a coin flip. Solved, your welcome.

  54. rollotomasi14 says: Jan 22, 2016 9:46 AM

    All I here is how a football win/loss is a team accomplishment (mostly from Manning fans trying to defend him), so defense is part of the team concept, can’t have it both ways

  55. suhmonster90 says: Jan 22, 2016 9:48 AM

    The rule is fair as is Larry Fitzgerald is just a beast.

  56. rpkllc says: Jan 22, 2016 9:48 AM

    If you win the toss, all you have to do is score a TD. If you lose the toss, you have to both stop them AND score yourself.

  57. Blindsquirrelsfindnuts says: Jan 22, 2016 9:48 AM

    eaglephan says:
    Jan 22, 2016 8:42 AM
    Carson Palmer beats Arron Rodgers and now we need new overtime rules, The media so Pathetic! They should re-watch that game and see how the league already gives their favorites, Rodgers & Brady every possible no call (holding etc..) and then over penalizes the d’s these guy play every week. And yet no media outcry…

    15 9
    Report comment
    ————————————-

    There’s no out cry because it’s not true. Just because YOU say something doesn’t make it true.

  58. TeeHeeLOLatPatsHaters says: Jan 22, 2016 9:51 AM

    If you can’t win in 60 minutes then you deserve taking your chances with the luck of overtime.

  59. eezyxyz says: Jan 22, 2016 9:53 AM

    Just go to a system of sudden death 2-point conversions. Fair, dramatic, and gets you a result relatively quickly.

  60. In Teddy We Trust says: Jan 22, 2016 9:59 AM

    Why don’t we just change the rule to say that the Packers always get the ball to start overtime? That seems to be the outcome you’re looking for.

  61. beernap says: Jan 22, 2016 10:00 AM

    anonymousnevermindfishdeath says:
    Jan 22, 2016 8:54 AM

    Maybe take an idea from the NBA and have an additional short period with normal playing rules, if the game is still tied go into the old sudden death rules.

    ———

    Never, under any circumstances, take cues from the NBA!

  62. shlort says: Jan 22, 2016 10:07 AM

    Green Bay needed to make the stop in overtime. No change needed. If your team is unlucky enough to never win the toss in overtime, oh well. I’d have preferred a Packers win. I am a fan. The Packers outplayed the Cardinals most of the game. Same with Seattle last year. Problems they had is they couldn’t finish. Neither game should have come down to overtime. The Packers need to learn to keep the gas pedal mashed to the floor every game for 60 minutes. If the did that, no one takes them to overtime. Too much talent on the Packers to not be bringing home Lombardi trophies. For a team with Rodgers at the helm, they should have at least two super bowl wins and a couple more appearances.

  63. bullcharger says: Jan 22, 2016 10:08 AM

    Move the coin flip for OT to the start of the game right after the initial coin flip.

    That way everybody knows for the whole game which team will have the choice of possession at the start of OT. If you think you can’t stop the team that will likely take possession, then you try to win in regulation instead of playing for OT.

  64. In Teddy We Trust says: Jan 22, 2016 10:09 AM

    You can’t take unfairness out of this situation even if you make it so both teams get a possession.

    If both teams score a touchdown, then the first team scores a field goal to win, that team had two possessions and the other team only had one.

    If the team that doesn’t win the flip is down by a touchdown, they’re going to go for it on fourth down as they try to tie it. That’s a huge advantage.

    Right now, if the first team kicks a field goal, the second team is going to go for it on fourth down so they can score. Giving the first team the opportunity to win right away with a touchdown actually evens it out so it is more fair.

  65. Mo Pro Babble says: Jan 22, 2016 10:12 AM

    Here’s what I’d like to see changed,

    teams down by 2 scores or more, no DPI on hail marys.

    Sick of teams that suck for 58 minutes then throw it up and let the refs win it for them.

    OT should be a full time period. Make it 15 or 10 minutes but no sudden death. Play until someone wins in playoffs.
    In regular season, it ends as a tie. I’d prefer no OT in regular season. What’s wrong with a tie? Is there a rule that one team be happy at the end of a game? That’s kinda “participation trophy” stuff.

  66. wiscobear says: Jan 22, 2016 10:13 AM

    Love it how it is. I couldn’t find the current stat but within the past year I saw a stat that the receiving team won just 51% of OT games since the 2012 change so it doesn’t seem like success depends largely on the coin flip. If you change it as proposed there will just be new pros/cons to kicking or receiving, and you won’t get any better than the nearly 50-50 split you have now of overtime success/failure based on coin flip. If you change the rules as proposed there will be a lot of OT games that end on failed 4th down conversions which isn’t as fun as ending on TDs or FGs.

  67. stellarperformance says: Jan 22, 2016 10:15 AM

    A game with two teams that played very well should not come down to a coin flip. The offense will pull out all the stops with whatever trick plays they can pull out of the bag. The Cardinals had never run the winning goal line play ever before. Any defense would be unfairly challenged under those circumstances.

    “Make the defense stop them.” OK. Make both defenses stop them. Allow both offenses to get creative.

    How did each team get here? Did they field just an offense? Did they field just a defense? NO!! It was a team effort.

    Overtime should be no different.

  68. bullcharger says: Jan 22, 2016 10:16 AM

    Another way to solve OT is to just play another quarter like it’s a mini game with two halves and keep doing it until the game ends

    That could be a playoff only rule and leave the current rule for the regular season. The NHL has different OT rules for the playoffs, and it works well.

    It’s the best way to ensure that the game is preserved. It brings clock management and 2 min drills into OT and no one could really complain about the outcome of the game. It could cause problems with games running long, but so what. Those games would be really exciting. It also could cause problems with a team being more beat up due to a longer game, but that would just be a natural disadvantage of not winning in regulation.

  69. cs-lewis says: Jan 22, 2016 10:16 AM

    how is the rule unfair? Did the packers not have 4 quarters in which to beat the cardinals? Or did the packers not have a chance to stop the cardinals offense from scoring a touchdown? how it can be argued as unfair is absurd

  70. sarahmc24 says: Jan 22, 2016 10:16 AM

    How about you play some defense and stop crying? Clay Matthews looked like he was jogging with Fitz, not trying to make a stop. You didn’t lose because of a coin flip, you lost because your defense did nothing.

  71. cs-lewis says: Jan 22, 2016 10:20 AM

    how about we just get rid of winners and losers all together. Everyone gets a participation trophy so nobody has to feel bad…

  72. selfpromotingqb says: Jan 22, 2016 10:22 AM

    The NFL should investigate how the Packers get into the playoffs.
    Schedulmaker and referees

  73. thebigkuhuna says: Jan 22, 2016 10:23 AM

    The Vikings gave the ball to the Bears because they trusted there defense to stop them and get good field position. The rule is fine, leave it as it is.

  74. rollotomasi14 says: Jan 22, 2016 10:25 AM

    How about not leaving one of the best WRs wide open. Also, learn how to tackle.

  75. bubbahotepp says: Jan 22, 2016 10:25 AM

    Maybe a shootout….

  76. bordner says: Jan 22, 2016 10:26 AM

    Leave it as is.

    You could look at any game and apply the “that’s the way the ball bounces” view to it. Weird things happen during a game. Hopefully, things even out over the course of time.

    More than likely, without the blown coverage 75-yd catch and run to Fitzgerald, the Packers would have held the Cardinals to, at the very most, a field goal, and probably would have even forced them to punt the ball. Everyone above crowing that the Packers defense isn’t “championship caliber” fail to point out that the Packers completely shut down the Cardinals running game, and held the #2 passing attack in the league under their season average for 4 quarters – I’m not sure you can ask for or expect more out of a defense in the playoffs.

    There are a lot of things you can point to that would have swung the game in either team’s favor. The coin toss was just one of them.

  77. jets4thewin says: Jan 22, 2016 10:28 AM

    Florio’s next proposal….Everyone gets participation trophy at the end of the season and team lunch at pizza hut. He would have Irsay’s support.

  78. sdelmonte says: Jan 22, 2016 10:30 AM

    I liked it the way it was. Sudden death is more interesting.

    And I would even go so far as to say that there shouldn’t be overtime in the regular season. Knowing you have to win in regulation or risk an ugly tie would make the ends of games more interesting too.

  79. gsr1191 says: Jan 22, 2016 10:30 AM

    Cowherd made a good point on his radio show on Monday. The only time you hear calls to have this rule changed is when a top QB is the one not getting the chance. I guarantee if this happened to guys like Dalton, A Smith, or Bridgewater, it wouldn’t have been brought up

  80. mogogo1 says: Jan 22, 2016 10:46 AM

    If they did change it teams would instantly move from wanting the ball first to wanting it second, just like they do in college. It’d be an advantage knowing you needed a TD so you could call plays already knowing it was 4 down situation for the entire drive.

  81. switchwitch59 says: Jan 22, 2016 10:48 AM

    Not that anyone else will ever see this comment but I’m going to say it anyway, it’ll make me feel better. All you he-men heroes constantly compare other men to “whining little girls” or women or what-have-you. 50+ years as a sports fan has taught me that if you combined all the whining from all the children and women who ever existed in the world it would not equal the whining that takes place on this site annually. Example: 14 years later you people are still whining about the Tuck Rule game, FOURTEEN YEARS LATER!!! Raiders fans and Patriots bashers need to get over it already! Unless the NFL had a crystal ball that told them one day they would need that rule on the books so they could give a win to a guy named Brady and screw over the Raiders, that never happened. The rule had been on the books for several years and had even been called before so get over it. The incessant whining on the site is incredibly annoying, your parents should be ashamed of raising a bunch of crybabies.

  82. whodatnhollywood says: Jan 22, 2016 10:48 AM

    I wish they still had “SUDDEN DEATH” OT where the first team that scores, wins. Just because my Saints beat the Vikings, they changed the rules! You can’t keep changing the rules just to appease certain QBs.

    As much as I like Aaron Rodgers as a QB, if it weren’t for two, crazy, desperate plays at the end of regulation against the Cardinals, they wouldn’t have even had a chance to go to OT. So, that was more of a fluke than them not getting the ball. It was poetic justice the way that game ended: with the Cards winning.

    BOTTOMLINE: Handle your business during regulation time so you don’t have to worry about OT rules. And this notion of going to college rules is SICK! College shouldn’t have it.

    In fact, if they continue in that manner, college teams should either kick off the ball or receive it at thrown 40. No more of this “little league” getting the ball at the 25 for grown men~even in college. Then, they go to 5 OTs starting at their 25.

    LEAVE THE RULES ALONE.

  83. zswittman says: Jan 22, 2016 10:54 AM

    75% of the time in the playoffs under the new rules the team that wins the toss goes down the field for a touchdown the rules need to be changed

  84. jbraider says: Jan 22, 2016 10:55 AM

    If you can’t win the game in regulation, you have no right to an expectation of “fair”, whatever that is. Personally, I would be content with a coin flip to decide the game at that time. Also, everything proposed to make OT more “fair” just means more plays in which players can get hurt

  85. artic19 says: Jan 22, 2016 11:00 AM

    Look, all Aaron Rodgers had to do was walk over to the ref and say ” I meant to call heads instead of tails” and then the Packers would have won the toss.

  86. artic19 says: Jan 22, 2016 11:06 AM

    whodatnhollywood says:
    Jan 22, 2016 10:48 AM
    I wish they still had “SUDDEN DEATH” OT where the first team that scores, wins. Just because my Saints beat the Vikings, they changed the rules! You can’t keep changing the rules just to appease certain QBs.

    As much as I like Aaron Rodgers as a QB, if it weren’t for two, crazy, desperate plays at the end of regulation against the Cardinals, they wouldn’t have even had a chance to go to OT. So, that was more of a fluke than them not getting the ball. It was poetic justice the way that game ended: with the Cards winning.

    BOTTOMLINE: Handle your business during regulation time so you don’t have to worry about OT rules. And this notion of going to college rules is SICK! College shouldn’t have it.

    In fact, if they continue in that manner, college teams should either kick off the ball or receive it at thrown 40. No more of this “little league” getting the ball at the 25 for grown men~even in college. Then, they go to 5 OTs starting at their 25.

    LEAVE THE RULES ALONE.
    ———————————————-
    Your Saints beat the Vikings by a fieldgoal with three blown calls in OT.
    1. 4th down run -reviewed – runner lost possession and was awarded a first down.
    2. Phantom pass interference on Greenway when your TE fell down on his own.
    3. Catch reviewed – ball hit the ground and incorrectly called a catch.

  87. packerstexansfan says: Jan 22, 2016 11:08 AM

    Quit with this stupid agenda. The overtime rules are fine as they are. Yes it sucked Packers lost the coin toss, but they left Larry freaking Fitzgerald wide open! Winning by a TD instead of a FG was a good compromise. If you’re gonna change the OT rules, might as well make it a 8-10 minute period and let them battle it out. Because this “let everyone get the ball” is just crap.

    If a coach doesn’t think his defense can make a stop should they lose the coin toss, then go for 2 and let your offense decide the outcome.

  88. superpicker says: Jan 22, 2016 11:09 AM

    I’m a Packer fan and have no problem with the overtime rule,however if the NFL decides to change it,I would favor that each team gets a possession,touchdown or no touchdown,after two possessions anything wins the game,then there’s no whining about the coin flip or not getting a chance!

  89. binarymath says: Jan 22, 2016 11:09 AM

    Had the Packers gone for a 2-pt conversion, there would have been no issue. The game would have been decided on the outcome of a football play, not a coin flip.

    It wasn’t exactly a state secret that Green Bay’s defense was not the strength of their team. McCarthy had the chance to put the outcome of the game in the hands of the best player on his team’s best unit, and chose not to do so.

    The OT rule was not the problem. If McCarthy is as good a play caller as he would have us believe, and if Rodgers is as “clutch” a passer as he and the media would have us believe, then gaining 2 yards at the end of the game when they had the AZ defense on its heels should have been the play.

    If they make that 2 yards, they are legends.

    Hopefully, this game marks a turning point for future decisions on whether to go for a win or for OT. Can’t wait to hear some coach say the reason they went for 2 was to win the game, not to leave it up to chance in OT.

  90. ratsagain says: Jan 22, 2016 11:09 AM

    tedmurph says:
    Jan 22, 2016 9:08 AM
    Hockey has it right……Play timed quarters under normal rules. How hard is that? If the games go long, so be it. That way, there’s a better chance the best team wins. Which I think is what everybody wants.

    Hockey playoff ot is played in timed periods under normal rules, but it is still sudden death…first goal wins.

  91. conormacleodisloosebutthole says: Jan 22, 2016 11:11 AM

    eaglephan says:
    Jan 22, 2016 8:42 AM
    Carson Palmer beats Arron Rodgers and now we need new overtime rules, The media so Pathetic! They should re-watch that game and see how the league already gives their favorites, Rodgers & Brady every possible no call (holding etc..) and then over penalizes the d’s these guy play every week. And yet no media outcry…
    _________________________
    So this is why your team sucks? If anyone has a right to complain about officiating it is GREEN BAY. Real fans do not complain about that however. Green Bay expects bad calls every damn week. But they expect to overcome those calls with better play. Now back to the point of the article before this whiny little B went off topic.

    Keep the OT rules the same or go back to sudden death. I don’t remember reading anywhere that everything has to be fair. Welcome to big boy world where anyone and everyone is trying to screw you.

  92. roadtrip3500 says: Jan 22, 2016 11:12 AM

    Are your defenders getting a paycheck too? Stop the team who won the toss. No different than a team up by 4 and the opponent has the ball with 2 minutes left in the 4th – you want to win? Stop them from getting that TD. Rules don’t win games – scoring does.

  93. truetrue85 says: Jan 22, 2016 11:12 AM

    Guarantee you if the Pats/Broncos game goes to OT and Patriots win without Peyton getting his hands on the ball the rule will be changed by next season. It was the golden boy who got it changed the first time, it’ll be him who does it again.

  94. In Teddy We Trust says: Jan 22, 2016 11:13 AM

    scoops1 says:
    Jan 22, 2016 8:49 AM

    if the league prides themselves on putting the best possible product out there on the field then both teams need an EQUAL chance to have a possession in OT
    _______

    Each team does have an equal chance to have a possession in OT. They each have a 50% chance of winning the coin flip, regardless of what Aaron Rodgers might tell you.

  95. bjwbrown2011 says: Jan 22, 2016 11:13 AM

    Football OT is never going to be fair.

    If you let both teams get the ball no matter what then the second team has an advantage in that they know what they need to score to extend/win the game. This means that a team would go for it on a long 4th down if the other team scored, while if they they had got the ball first they wouldn’t have done it.

    If we make this change and the team that got the ball on the first possession scores on the third possession then we will complain again.

    This system is a lot better from the old one and has benefits and drawbacks for getting the ball first or second.

    Get the ball first – score a TD and win.
    Get the ball second – win with a FG if you get a stop, get the ball back knowing you need to score to win (TD) or tie (FG) if the other team kicks a field goal.

  96. curmudgeon13 says: Jan 22, 2016 11:13 AM

    When Belichek and Brady lose a playoff OT coin flip and the other team scores a TD, the rule will be changed……

  97. conormacleodisloosebutthole says: Jan 22, 2016 11:14 AM

    Of course not you idiot. None of those guys make the playoffs better and more entertaining by being in them!

    Keep the rules the same or better yet go back to sudden death.

  98. 6thsense10 says: Jan 22, 2016 11:17 AM

    If the Packers were that concern about the over time rules they should have gone for two during after last touchdown in regulation instead of taking their chances on a coin flip. Even then they had 80 yards between them and the Cardinals to prevent a TD. No excuse.

  99. thegame2love says: Jan 22, 2016 11:20 AM

    Leave the rule alone.

    Green Bay had their chance. Green Bay could have gone for 2 at the end of regulation; they could have made a play on special teams to start the OT; and moreover the defense had a chance to hold the Cardinals to a FG or less to allow the offense a shot.

    Give up a TD in OT and you deserve to lose, end of story. Special teams and defense are important parts of the game, it is not just about Aaron Rogers.

  100. In Teddy We Trust says: Jan 22, 2016 11:26 AM

    stellarperformance says:
    Jan 22, 2016 10:15 AM

    A game with two teams that played very well should not come down to a coin flip. The offense will pull out all the stops with whatever trick plays they can pull out of the bag. The Cardinals had never run the winning goal line play ever before. Any defense would be unfairly challenged under those circumstances.
    ______

    Ladies and gentlemen, you have now been introduced to Packer fan logic. This guy is actually saying that it’s unfair for an offense to run a play the defense hasn’t seen them run before.

    No team is going to run “trick plays” in overtime just so they can get a touchdown. They’re going to play solid, fundamental football while trying to score and not take a chance on making a big mistake that will instantly lose the game.

    Your team lost because its entire defense collapsed on the first play of overtime. They lost last year because they blew a 12-point lead with five minutes left. There are no rules changes that can make the Packers stop choking in the playoffs.

  101. fartweasel says: Jan 22, 2016 11:26 AM

    If Green Bay had won, they’d not be interested in changing the rules. No bigger bunch of whiners anywhere in pro sports.

  102. In Teddy We Trust says: Jan 22, 2016 11:28 AM

    thebigkuhuna says:
    Jan 22, 2016 10:23 AM

    The Vikings gave the ball to the Bears because they trusted there defense to stop them and get good field position. The rule is fine, leave it as it is.
    _____

    It was the Rams, but whatever. The wind conditions and the absence of their starting quarterback went into that decision, too. But your point is correct, defense is just as important in overtime as offense is.

  103. purpleguy says: Jan 22, 2016 11:39 AM

    I wasn’t exactly crying in my beer that the Pack lost in OT yet again, but to truly be fair, you’d think the NFL could just go with an 8 minute additional quarter or something, so each team has a viable shot on offense. To address the OT issue of players wearing down/getting injured in the extra OT frame, jut shorten the new quarter to half of a regular period or something.

  104. nanner12wojo says: Jan 22, 2016 11:40 AM

    Holding someone to a field goal shouldn’t be that difficult.

    If it is then focus your draft on fixing your defense.

    I HATED the old rule.
    I LOVE the current rule.

    NO CHANGE needed. Every time I read PFT suggesting it change I cringe.

    Yes it’s a QB league, but this is one rule that puts an emphasis on defense.

  105. nanner12wojo says: Jan 22, 2016 11:45 AM

    It was Leber, not Greenway that got the BS PI call in 2009.

    Sadly the TE that fell down was Dave Thomas the Founder of Freaking Wendy’s too…

    That was an awful call that cost the Vikings.

  106. switchwitch59 says: Jan 22, 2016 11:48 AM

    artic19 says:
    Jan 22, 2016 11:00 AM

    Look, all Aaron Rodgers had to do was walk over to the ref and say ” I meant to call heads instead of tails” and then the Packers would have won the toss.

    Must be new to football, I guess. I think it was Bettis who couldn’t get the word “tails” out and lost the coin flip because the ref heard him say “heads”, at any rate, regardless who it was, it happened and no amount of explaining to the ref changed it.

  107. awdlmd says: Jan 22, 2016 11:48 AM

    Two minute overtime periods with no sudden death. Make it like the end of a regular game.

  108. dexterismyhero says: Jan 22, 2016 11:51 AM

    @switchwitch59 says:
    Jan 22, 2016 10:48 AM: Example: 14 years later you people are still whining about the Tuck Rule game, FOURTEEN YEARS LATER!!!
    =================================
    Really, who is whining now. Go shovel some snow.

  109. fwippel says: Jan 22, 2016 11:52 AM

    That is because no change is needed. Those who complained about the old rule AND the new rule won’t be satisfied until all forms of sudden death overtime are abolished. If they get this rule changed, they will start griping about the first team that wins by scoring on its second overtime possession (after both teams score TDs on their first OT possession) because that team won the coin toss.

    No change is needed. Let it go already.

  110. Wisconsin's Favorite Son Jeffrey Be Dahmed says: Jan 22, 2016 11:52 AM

    Like all rules, they should be changed on the fly in our favor all the time.

  111. crownofthehelmet says: Jan 22, 2016 11:56 AM

    stellarperformance says:
    The Cardinals had never run the winning goal line play ever before. Any defense would be unfairly challenged under those circumstances.
    ———————————————
    “Hey, you guys can’t run that play, we’ve never seen it before. That’s not fair!”

  112. george4136 says: Jan 22, 2016 11:58 AM

    GB fan here…

    2 years in a row Packers give up Touchdowns on 3 or 4 play drives in OT.

    Nobody’s fault but their own D. Sure losing a coin toss is a 50% chance. But 80 yards in 3 plays?

    Clay Matthews has only himself to blame for whiffing on Larry

  113. conormacleodisloosebutthole says: Jan 22, 2016 11:59 AM

    gsr1191 says:
    Jan 22, 2016 10:30 AM
    Cowherd made a good point on his radio show on Monday. The only time you hear calls to have this rule changed is when a top QB is the one not getting the chance. I guarantee if this happened to guys like Dalton, A Smith, or Bridgewater, it wouldn’t have been brought up
    _________________________
    If Cowherd really said this than he is a moron! Of course no one cares about those guys. None of them make the playoffs better or more interesting by being the playoffs. Especially Bridgewater as that guy sucks. He has become johny check down.

  114. switchwitch59 says: Jan 22, 2016 12:02 PM

    Can’t, where I live in North Carolina we don’t have any and won’t be getting any anytime soon. Maybe next month, CB.

  115. stellarperformance says: Jan 22, 2016 12:03 PM

    In Teddy We Trust says:
    Jan 22, 2016 11:26 AM
    Your team lost because its entire defense collapsed on the first play of overtime
    ////////////////////////////////////////

    I don’t care about my team. I didn’t even mention my team. I’m supporting the proposal put forth by the Bears. I support a system similar to what high schools and colleges use, or a variation of them.

    In other words….a correct system. You should focus on how your team can kick a chip shot and let me focus on my concerns.

  116. iowahbr says: Jan 22, 2016 12:04 PM

    It could be worse. Just imagine the NFL charged with trying to fix Social Security rather than the OT play-off rules.

  117. edsbay says: Jan 22, 2016 12:15 PM

    Its a HorseS$^T rule. One team gets an extra possession. Only sport I know that does that.

  118. Mo Pro Babble says: Jan 22, 2016 12:16 PM

    dexterismyhero says:
    Jan 22, 2016 11:51 AM
    @switchwitch59 says:
    Jan 22, 2016 10:48 AM: Example: 14 years later you people are still whining about the Tuck Rule game, FOURTEEN YEARS LATER!!!
    =================================
    Really, who is whining now. Go shovel some snow.

    We don’t have any snow, and you’re confusing complaining about whiners with actual whining.

  119. allight59 says: Jan 22, 2016 12:18 PM

    won’t be an issue for the Packers for the next several years as they won’t be in any play off games….

  120. stellarperformance says: Jan 22, 2016 12:20 PM

    crownofthehelmet says:
    Jan 22, 2016 11:56 AM
    “Hey, you guys can’t run that play, we’ve never seen it before. That’s not fair!”
    ///////////////////////////////////////

    That’s not the point. What is wrong with both teams getting creative? What is wrong with requiring both teams to make a stop?

    It should be about the entire team effort, not the convenience of a coin flip. Do you honestly think I am the only one that believes this? Why do you think colleges changed?

    I would rather just flip the coin and call it a day than do it the way they’re doing it now. I’ve always felt that way.

  121. dccowboy says: Jan 22, 2016 12:21 PM

    Simple solution — don’t let them score a TD

  122. rosstuckershair says: Jan 22, 2016 12:24 PM

    Seems as though Dom Capers Cover 0 cost the Green Bay Rodgers last year. So…the improvement?……don’t cover anyone in OT.

    The rule is fine, Capers needs a better defense that doesn’t win the NFL 2 top records for the quickest OT losses

  123. chesswhileyouplaycheckers says: Jan 22, 2016 12:27 PM

    That’s refreshing. Usually if something isn’t broken the league is in a furious rush to fix it until it is

  124. usdcoyotesfan says: Jan 22, 2016 12:33 PM

    Somebody explain to me why everyone thinks it’s fair that one team can win just by scoring, but the other team has to make a stop AND score to win.

  125. usdcoyotesfan says: Jan 22, 2016 12:36 PM

    You people say “play defense if you want to win.” If that’s the case, BOTH teams should have to play defense. Not that hard to understand, people.

  126. scoocha says: Jan 22, 2016 12:40 PM

    Packers could have gone for 2 if they were worried about the coin toss and their defenses’ ability to stop AZ.

  127. stuckonwords says: Jan 22, 2016 12:48 PM

    The reason you’re in overtime is because you just spent 60 minutes going back and forth and back and forth and back and forth, with both teams getting their turns. But that didn’t cut it. 60 minutes later you still don’t have a winner.

    So you go to overtime. If you can’t resolve the stinkin’ game in regulation, we’ll force your hand. Overtime. Flip a coin. First team to score wins. Them’s the rules.

    (Then we backed down cuz of all the whiners and made it so that a field goal by the first team wouldn’t be the end, but I digress…)

  128. excusemewhileiwhipthisoutagain says: Jan 22, 2016 12:54 PM

    Fine as is.

    Stop whining and do your job in regulation.

  129. In Teddy We Trust says: Jan 22, 2016 1:04 PM

    stellarperformance says:
    Jan 22, 2016 12:20 PM

    I would rather just flip the coin and call it a day than do it the way they’re doing it now. I’ve always felt that way.
    _________

    So you’re whining incessantly that it isn’t fair that the team that wins the coin flip gets the ball and could win the game by scoring a touchdown without the other team getting the ball, but you think it would be more fair to just decide the game on the coin flip?

    Once again, ladies and gentlemen, Packer fan logic!

  130. stellarperformance says: Jan 22, 2016 1:37 PM

    Whining incessantly? I made one logical comment.

  131. stellarperformance says: Jan 22, 2016 1:39 PM

    usdcoyotesfan says:
    Jan 22, 2016 12:33 PM
    Somebody explain to me why everyone thinks it’s fair that one team can win just by scoring, but the other team has to make a stop AND score to win.
    ///////////////////

    Exactly! Thank you.

  132. gsr1191 says: Jan 22, 2016 1:41 PM

    gsr1191 says:
    Jan 22, 2016 10:30 AM
    Cowherd made a good point on his radio show on Monday. The only time you hear calls to have this rule changed is when a top QB is the one not getting the chance. I guarantee if this happened to guys like Dalton, A Smith, or Bridgewater, it wouldn’t have been brought up
    _________________________
    If Cowherd really said this than he is a moron! Of course no one cares about those guys. None of them make the playoffs better or more interesting by being the playoffs. Especially Bridgewater as that guy sucks. He has become johny check down.

    —————————————————–

    Shouldn’t change a rule for a few big name QB’s n that are not getting a chance because their D can’t do their job!
    Also, you say they don’t make the playoffs better, but yet they’re in the playoffs (Dalton was hurt, i know) and their games matter too. So do their opportunities.

  133. stellarperformance says: Jan 22, 2016 1:46 PM

    This is purely NFL commentary. It has nothing to do with the recent results. That’s over and done with.

    But if I were asked if I would prefer to lose in overtime to the likely SuperBowl winner, or have my kicker shank a sure thing…..I’ll take the OT loss, thank you very much.

  134. kingpel says: Jan 22, 2016 1:49 PM

    I preferred sudden death OT to begin with so don’t expect me to whine about giving these players even MORE chances to do what should have been done in the first 60 minutes of the game.

    You pay your defensive players for a reason. Make a stop.

  135. packer1965 says: Jan 22, 2016 1:51 PM

    The NFL has slanted the field toward offense for years. All the rules favor the offense. That means the first team to get the ball in OT does indeed have an advantage. So the coin flip becomes vital. Yes it is true Green Bay could have won had they stopped Arizona. But likewise if Green Bay had won the toss would the Cardinals have stopped Aaron Rodgers from winning? They couldn’t stop him fro going 100 yards in less than a minute at the end of regulation. If the league is going to maximize offense to promote entertainment then they should let each team have the ball in OT so the coin flip doesn’t give a huge edge to one team. They could have the exact same rules as now except both teams get the ball just like they do if the first team kicks a FG. No sense in the best QB in football being left on the bench two years in a row in OT when he just tied the game on the last play of regulation…all because of a coin flip.

  136. bonzai2oo says: Jan 22, 2016 2:01 PM

    Look at this another way. Let’s say both teams decided before the game that they were equals, that any game they play will end in a tie. So instead, they agree to bypass regulation play altogether – they agree to just play the overtime. If the first team scored a TD, the second team’s offense wouldn’t even see the field! It may be the agreed upon “rule,” – but no, it’s not a fair competitive rule.

  137. ebdug says: Jan 22, 2016 2:08 PM

    Sudden Death is right, it’s the coin toss that is wrong. Give the ball to the team that ties the score.

  138. deathspiralx says: Jan 22, 2016 2:11 PM

    You know, if you want something fair and not overcomplex…

    Just take a 5 minute break and continue playing from the current context until someone scores next.

  139. cakesw says: Jan 22, 2016 2:13 PM

    What is also missing in all of this is the fact that the Cardinals scored 17 of their 26 points the last 3 times they had the ball.

    Make a stop….and this isn’t a conversation we are having…

    They even got a redo of the coin toss.

  140. cakesw says: Jan 22, 2016 2:16 PM

    What pains me about the Packers…is the fact that with :00 on the clock…

    And the Packers trailing 20-19

    They elected to GO FOR THE TIE !!!!!!!!!!!

    Stop whining about the overtime rules….

  141. bleedingfacemask says: Jan 22, 2016 2:17 PM

    So, both teams drive for a TD on their first possession…then what?

    Well, what if neither of them score again for the extra period? Just keep turning over possession…

    Now we have more games ending in a tie. Bullocks.

    Add the possibility that the game bleeds over well into the first period of the next game…the game you really wanted to watch…and you’ve got a bunch of peeved football fans.

    It may not be perfect for YOU, or it may upset you that YOUR favorite team lost, but it is so vastly superior to what we had before.

  142. packer1965 says: Jan 22, 2016 2:33 PM

    The cry “Make A Stop” seems to me to work both ways. If Green Bay should have just “Made a stop” when Zona got the ball first then why not give the Packers the ball one time after Arizona scored and say to Arizona “Make a stop” and you win!!! At least both teams would have possessed the ball. And yes if Green Bay had scored and tied it up again then it would fall back to sudden death because from that point on two point conversion opportunities and defense would all have factored into the equation.

  143. justletmesignupok says: Jan 22, 2016 2:34 PM

    So, Michael, let’s say we change it so it’s fair (as you see fair). Team a gets the ball. Drives for 13:30. Scores a TD. Now, team B gets the ball, but only has 1:30 to score. How is that fair? Are you going to allow them the same amount of time as Team A took?
    How about if Team A’s QB gets hurt during the game. Does the other team have to play their backup, too?
    Just get over it. It’s fair. You have to play all 3 phases or you lose. The college system is painful. Nothing more exciting than a game that ends 9-9 in regulation being decided 52-49.

  144. selldannysell says: Jan 22, 2016 2:39 PM

    If everyone is so hot for both teams to have a possession in overtime, why can’t the league just doing it the way it’s done in college: Have both teams open possession at the other team’s 30 and have “rounds” until one team outscores the other.

  145. pemory says: Jan 22, 2016 2:40 PM

    ’58 title game (aka “The Greatest Game Ever Played”) worked out pretty well. Probably wouldn’t have been nearly as compelling if the Colts had to kickoff to the Giants after Alan Ameche scored. Just sayin’….

  146. packer1965 says: Jan 22, 2016 2:46 PM

    College takes it way too far. I like the fact that OT in the NFL includes kickoff normal rules and also doesn’t extend a full quarter as some have suggested. But allowing both teams to possess the ball in exactly the same format we have now (except whether the first team scores a FG or TD the second team gets a crack at it) seems to be a fairer system. I agree a 9-9 college game that ends 52-49 is nuts.

  147. packer1965 says: Jan 22, 2016 2:48 PM

    In 1958 the league had rules favoring the running game and defense. CBs could smother receivers. it was a different game. Now too often by the end of the game the defense is whithering and they cant touch the offensive man so it becomes a 7 on 7 drill. That was not the case in 58.

  148. purplepackerhater says: Jan 22, 2016 3:06 PM

    In Teddy beat me to the retort. It’s absurd for you to post such dribble Stellar, you’re better than that. You’d rather have an arbitrary coin flip decide than let the two teams decide it on the field?

    Here’s the flaws with other’s ideas:
    1) Each team gets a possession: You’d have the same argument about one team getting an extra possession if both teams score FGs or TD’s on their first drive.

    2) Adding less than an extra full quarter: One team could eat up 7-8 mins of clock on their possession leaving the other team with too little time, thus “unfair” they would cry in packer land because that’s all they do, whine about how the rules don’t compensate for their choking complex.

    3) College Rules: With shortened fields and quality of kicking the games could go on for days.

  149. In Teddy We Trust says: Jan 22, 2016 3:14 PM

    usdcoyotesfan says:
    Jan 22, 2016 12:33 PM

    Somebody explain to me why everyone thinks it’s fair that one team can win just by scoring, but the other team has to make a stop AND score to win.
    _______

    Because the team that gets the ball first plays the game in a standard way. On fourth down, they will punt or go for a field goal. The second team knows exactly what they need to do to win, so they can go all out to score a touchdown or a field goal depending on what they need. The first team is at a disadvantage, so they have the opportunity to win it with a touchdown to balance it out.

  150. purplepackerhater says: Jan 22, 2016 3:20 PM

    1B) Continued…the second team (team B) to possess the ball would have a HUGE advantage. They’d get 4 downs on every series and know exactly what they needed to do to win. Thus “winning” the coin flip is now a punishment.

    As it stands now, winner of the flip gets advantage of scoring a TD to win. Loser of the flip gets advantage of knowing exactly what it needs to do to win or re-tie the game if they can do just one thing…keep the other team from getting a TD. Seems fair to me.

    Team = Offense + Defense + Special Teams. They are not separate entities, they are 3 parts to the whole, as it is both TEAMS have a chance to win on offense, defense and special teams. Just because one part of your team is better than the other doesn’t mean the rules should be changed to benefit your team.

    If GB had intercepted the ball and ran it back for a TD…would Arizona then have the right to demand a chance for their defense to take the field…since both teams should get equal playing time for all parts of their teams? Of course not…Offense doesn’t and shouldn’t get special treatment.

  151. joker65 says: Jan 22, 2016 3:20 PM

    “…that something isn’t right about Green Bay exiting the postseason in back-to-back years by losing the coin toss, kicking off, and having their opponent score a walk-off six-pointer”…

    _____

    This makes it seem like the Packers didn’t field a defense. They did. The defense failed both times.

  152. joker65 says: Jan 22, 2016 3:31 PM

    conormacleodisloosebutthole says:
    Jan 22, 2016 11:11 AM
    eaglephan says:
    Jan 22, 2016 8:42 AM
    Carson Palmer beats Arron Rodgers and now we need new overtime rules, The media so Pathetic! They should re-watch that game and see how the league already gives their favorites, Rodgers & Brady every possible no call (holding etc..) and then over penalizes the d’s these guy play every week. And yet no media outcry…
    _________________________
    So this is why your team sucks? If anyone has a right to complain about officiating it is GREEN BAY. Real fans do not complain about that however. Green Bay expects bad calls every damn week.

    _____

    Anytime a Packer fan complains about the referees, it is the biggest joke ever. They get more preferential calls than any other team in the league. Crazy how they don’t see it.

  153. linemanguy74 says: Jan 22, 2016 3:38 PM

    What difference does it make isn’t Rogers 0-7 in OT games

  154. marttizzle says: Jan 22, 2016 3:43 PM

    In the end my Vikings are Division Champions!!!

  155. conormacleodisloosebutthole says: Jan 22, 2016 4:09 PM

    joker65 says:
    Jan 22, 2016 3:31 PM
    conormacleodisloosebutthole says:
    Jan 22, 2016 11:11 AM
    eaglephan says:
    Jan 22, 2016 8:42 AM
    Carson Palmer beats Arron Rodgers and now we need new overtime rules, The media so Pathetic! They should re-watch that game and see how the league already gives their favorites, Rodgers & Brady every possible no call (holding etc..) and then over penalizes the d’s these guy play every week. And yet no media outcry…
    _________________________
    So this is why your team sucks? If anyone has a right to complain about officiating it is GREEN BAY. Real fans do not complain about that however. Green Bay expects bad calls every damn week.

    _____

    Anytime a Packer fan complains about the referees, it is the biggest joke ever. They get more preferential calls than any other team in the league. Crazy how they don’t see it.
    ______________
    Like the game in Seattle that got the replacement refs fired? That game? The one where the NFL apologized and then rehired the old refs before the next games? The vast majority of us didn’t complain about the illegal pick on the Cards last TD that even Collinsworth made sure and point out. Bad calls and no calls are made in every game against each team. Grow up and get used to it or keep blaming the refs like a whiny b.

  156. ariani1985 says: Jan 22, 2016 4:12 PM

    But, but, but, but, that is a tricky play! You can’t run that! Its the playoffs! I think the packer fans are looking for the wambulance! Waaaaaahhhhh, Waaaaaahhhhh!

  157. ariani1985 says: Jan 22, 2016 4:14 PM

    Soon fecal performance will want everyone to give up the play call before the snap! Damm packer trolls are butt hurt!

  158. crownofthehelmet says: Jan 22, 2016 4:58 PM

    Why don’t I remember this being such an issue after last year’s Packers OT loss? Oh that’s right, everyone was busy talking about the greatest choke job in the history of the NFL playoffs.

  159. fjw2 says: Jan 22, 2016 5:05 PM

    “the league has a goofy cultural superstition regarding the notion that it makes sense to keep the unfair rule in place because the team that was screwed by it once will likely benefit from it the next time. ”

    This is what is kind of funny about the NFL and all other sports when it comes to their “winning strategies”: Their completer ineptitude when it comes to comprehending logic.

    Yes, it IS a goofy superstition, because it is not based on anything approaching true.

    In reality, it is no more likely that the team that was screwed the last two times (Green Bay) would benefit from a (perceived bad) rule the next time, than it was the first two times. This is just (very basic) probability theory that you should have learned in high school; that a coin flip always has a 50/50 chance. Even if heads has come up 10 times in a row, it’s still 50% likelihood that it comes up again the next time.

    SMH

  160. rainsarge says: Jan 22, 2016 5:34 PM

    The winning percentage for the toss winner winning the OT games was about 60% the rules were changed to even this out a bit. But you still have to play defense and special teams. Even if Rogers got the ball he had needed 2 miracles just to get past the Cardinals D just to get it to OT he wouldn’t have got a 3rd

  161. bleedingfacemask says: Jan 22, 2016 7:40 PM

    conormacleodisloosebutthole says:
    Jan 22, 2016 4:09 PM

    ——————-
    Anytime a Packer fan complains about the referees, it is the biggest joke ever. They get more preferential calls than any other team in the league. Crazy how they don’t see it.
    ______________
    Like the game in Seattle that got the replacement refs fired? That game? The one where the NFL apologized and then rehired the old refs before the next games?
    ————————

    The NFL never apologized. More precisely, the NFL watched the replays in NY after the huge public outcry, and declared they could see no reason to overturn the call. Just like the full-time employees in the replay booth on Monday could see no reason to overturn the call.

    The NFL also did not rehire the refs. The refs do not work for them, they never have. The refs were locked out by the team owners, and it was the team owners who brought them back…not “rehired”.

  162. expertatnfl says: Jan 22, 2016 10:16 PM

    “…Green Bay exiting the postseason in back-to-back years by losing the coin toss”

    Get over the man-crush you have on Rodgers. They aren’t very good. They weren’t good last year either. A BS replay on Dez’s catch got them there last year. This year it was a thumb-rub.

    Give it a break.

  163. usdcoyotesfan says: Jan 24, 2016 2:37 AM

    The reason Rodgers is 0-7 in overtime games is because in 5 of them hem the Packers never got the ball.

  164. usdcoyotesfan says: Jan 24, 2016 12:48 PM

    It is interesting that Viking fans say the Seahawks, not the refs, beat the Packers in 2012 but say the refs, not the Packers, beat the Cowboys in the playoffs last year. Hypocrite much?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!