Andy Reid isn’t complaining about unfair overtime procedures

Getty Images

Nine years ago, the NFL fixed an inherent unfairness regarding postseason overtime with a half measure that unnecessarily was applied to the regular season as well. Now, the league needs to go the rest of the way and guarantee a possession for both teams, even if the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown.

With the Rams-Saints debacle sucking up most of the officiating oxygen in the aftermath of an historic Championship Sunday, it’s unlikely that media or public opinion will turn to the inequity that the Chiefs experienced when the Patriots called heads, the coin landed that way, the Patriots opted to receive, and the Patriots drove the length of the field and scored the winning touchdown. Indeed, if it didn’t happen after the Patriots did the same thing when winning Super Bowl LI, it’s not going to happen when a victory at one lower level is affected by it.

Meeting with reporters on Monday, Chiefs coach Andy Reid opted not to complain about something he can’t control.

“I’ve sat in on a few of those meetings,” Reid said. “They go back and forth. It’s what the league came up with, and I support it. I sure would’ve liked to have had another crack at it though.”

When asked whether the procedures (which guarantee a possession for the kicking team only after a first-drive field goal) are fundamentally unfair, Reid opted not to take the bait.

“You have to be a good coin-flipper and then you have to get off the field if you don’t have the ball,” Reid said.

He’s technically right, but that doesn’t make it right. Those who defend the current system cry, “Play defense!” But many of those same people routinely bemoan the fact that, in the modern NFL, the deck is stacked in favor of offense.

So why shouldn’t each offense get a crack at the ball? And if there’s a concern that there will be too many plays from scrimmage under that system, why not use the college rule (first and 10 from the 25) or make it simply first and goal from the 10. Or, perhaps better yet, do a hockey shootout-style competition with each team going for two, one at a time, until one team converts and the other doesn’t.

Whatever the system, whichever system the league uses needs to ensure fairness to both teams. When an offense drives the field and scores a touchdown with the other offense not even getting a chance to do the same, that’s simply not fair.

186 responses to “Andy Reid isn’t complaining about unfair overtime procedures

  1. Andy has made probably 70-80 million dollars from the NFL’. With no championships…why should he care.

  2. The rule has been wrong since its existence. Its an offensive league people and they way the referees throw flags in todays game, both teams should be able to receive the ball to be able to score. I just really dont understand the difficulty in determining this. This rule has cost many games over the year for opponents who had never even got a shot at winning the game for their team.

  3. I agree, even though I am happy the Patriots won. The rules have been changed so much favoring the offense that both teams need to get a chance to score at a minimum. Perhaps a 10 minute period.

  4. I think the patriots should have kicked a field goal near the end of regulation to cover the spread. Instead they got greedy and had to get a touchdown. Tom Greedy and Bill Beligreed just had to try to win another Super bowl.

    Jokes on Brady. If something happens and he loses an arm later on in life, he won’t bevable to wear all of his rings at once. Jokes on him.

  5. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    I think the patriots should have kicked a field goal near the end of regulation to cover the spread. Instead they got greedy and had to get a touchdown. Tom Greedy and Bill Beligreed just had to try to win another Super bowl.

    Jokes on Brady. If something happens and he loses an arm later on in life, he won’t be able to wear all of his rings at once. Jokes on him.

  6. If that was the rule, the Patriots would have scored a touchdown, and then the Chiefs scored a touchdown. Now the game is tied.

    Then the Patriots would have had the ball back, drove the field, kicked a field goal and ended the game with a win.

    Then you would be on here writing the same exact post, except whining that the Chiefs should get a second possession too or it’s not fair.

  7. There is no need for this. Play D and stop the other team then you get your chance. Should never have been changed from the original sudden death as it is.

  8. Geez, just stop complaining already.

    Why is it that every time the Patriots win, the rules have to change? Play better during the game, that will solve your issue.

  9. Here’s how this game plays out if KC is allowed an extra possession.

    KC drives down and gets a touchdown.

    Knowing Brady will easily drive down for a field goal to win on the next possession, KC goes for two, makes it and wins.

    The Patriots can’t go for 2 because if they miss, KC wins with an extra point. KC would have a big advantage in kicking off. The Patriots can only work with three downs while KC would work with 4. If you want fairness, try something else.

  10. Oh, gimme a break. Typical prisoner of the moment, reactionary nonsense.
    Yeah, go-to the college system and maybe the games can end up like the LSU-A&M game with 7-8 OT’s, however many it was. (And this is coming from a huge college football fan).

    Here’s an idea: Maybe the Chiefs offense could’ve shown up in the first half. Or, even better, not win the game in regulation. Novel idea, right?

    I’m curious, if the scripts were flipped, would there be so much faux outrage?

  11. Love the extra quarter idea. And then a 6th quarter if still tied. Then a second halftime where the previous act has to get back on stage and play a new set. Then into quarter 7.

    If this had happened Sunday in NO, they would have then postponed the 2nd game until Monday night.

  12. If you can’t get it done in 60 minutes, then you are subject to the “unfairness” of the overtime rules, in which you still have a chance to play defense. You can’t have the game going on all night. Putting it on the line in a championship game for 60 minutes is hard enough on the players.

  13. “You have to be a good coin-flipper and then you have to get off the field if you don’t have the ball,” Reid said

    It’s simple. You either have a good enough defense to stop the other team, or you don’t.

    Ain’t broke, doesn’t need fixing.

  14. “and then you have to get off the field if you don’t have the ball,” Reid said.

    Oh, you mean like the Rams did in that “debacle”.

    Man, your agenda is showing. You should grab a jacket.

  15. I hate the college overtime rules. It seems so contrived. Leave as is. The games are long enough. It isn’t as easy to score a touchdown as you make it sound. I wonder if this issue would even be coming up if it wasn’t the Patriots (again). More focus should be placed on the officiating of the game. In the end, both sides got screwed pretty evenly, but that is the bigger issue.

  16. Making it another playable quarter opens up a whole other can of worms, like teams going for onside kicks, which would be kinda silly.

  17. Couldn’t agree more. Mahomes not getting a chance because of a coin flip (and an unstoppable Brady) just didn’t seem fair or equitable.

  18. Giving each team a possession isn’t going to make the game more fair. What would have happened, the chiefs tie with a touchdown and then the Patriots just have to score anything to win getting two possessions to the Chiefs one? Unless you start making arbitrary situations to determine who wins like forcing 2 point conversions or going to the arcade style college OT it’s not going to be fair.

    As much as the writer decries the calls for a semblance of defense to exist, it’s not that hard to at least hold the other team to a field goal. The Patriots averaged 2.32 points per drive in the regular season. The chiefs 3.25. It’s far from a guarantee that they’re gifted a touchdown by winning the coin toss, even the Chiefs amazing offense. The chiefs had plenty of chances to get off the field, but championship players made championship plays on the championship drive.

    I do like the idea of just giving a full extra quarter for OT in the playoffs, but the Patriots for example had already run 97 plays of offense, which is their most in almost 20 years. You really want teams to play for another ten minutes after that?

  19. Extra quarter or quarters until score. Keeps integrity of game that they always say they strive for

  20. statman25 says:
    January 21, 2019 at 8:56 pm
    Playoffs only, make OT an extra quarter. Could give both teams multiple possessions.


    And what happens if the game is still tied? Another quarter?

  21. Absolutely they need to guarantee a possession for both teams. It’s not right that when they’re starting from scratch one team only has to play good offense to win but the other team has to play both good defense and offense to win.

  22. But what if the opponent gets more possessions in the 15 min OT frame than my team, is that still unfair?

    The rules are fine. Yes people bemoan and say play defense but it’s true. Scoring a TD is still hard, folks are acting like it’s a foregone conclusion that a coin toss gave the patriots 6 points. 75 yards for the score people, hold them to a FG, etc….

    Perhaps we should make everyone play outdoors and stop having indoor climate controlled arenas, yeah, let’s change that too.

  23. Yeah. No reason why you can’t one system for reg season and one for playoffs. It honestly works fine in the NHL.

    Play 10 min, straight sudden death in reg season so you can keep your TV windows. Playoffs, go 15 min, full quarter played.

  24. No. The current way is fine. You give up a TD, too bad – play defense. An opening FG is a cheap score because with today’s kickers, you only have to get to the opposing 40 yard line. But a first-drive TD? Your defense is getting paid millions of dollars too – make a stop.

  25. When they went to this overtime. All of the talking heads said this is what they wanted. Now that the team that they wanted to win lost, they want the rules changed again. By the way the college overtime sucks. 25 yards of football. No kickoff, no punts, that is not even football anymore. It was pretty funny seeing the guys who picked KC with the angry faces on the post game show.

  26. Why did they change both teams having an opportunity to possess the ball? Nobody should win on a coin flip.

  27. No matter what, OT rules will be unfair in one way or another.

    If the first team who receives the ball scores a touchdown and an extra point, the second team could respond with a touchdown and a two point conversion for the win with a conversion. The team who receives the ball second would have an advantage because they would be in four down territory the entire drive, while the first team would call plays as if they will punt on 4th down (the second team would have an expanded set of plays they can call on 2nd and 3rd down).

  28. It’s fine as is. If the league is as concerned about player safety as they pretend to be they shouldn’t subject them to more playing time that late in the season. Change nothing. Next.

  29. Have each overtime period be a mini-game consisting of 2-minute halves (or some other length). Continue playing overtime periods until one ends untied. This ensures both teams receive a kickoff during each overtime period.

  30. Curious if everyone would think the rule is unfair if KC had won the toss and scored a TD to win. *Shakes Magic 8-Ball”* The answer is “My reply is no”. Wow, this thing is almost as good as Tony Romo!

  31. Play a full 10 minutes and repeat as necessary. Football is situational and some teams are built differently than others. That does not make them any less worthy. No shootout gimmicks or short-yardage situations. Just regular football.

  32. This is getting to the point of “everybody gets a trophy”. If you want to get a chance to score, then stop the other team. If your defense can’t do it, then maybe they shouldn’t win anyway.

  33. That last suggestion of taking turns going for two points is anything but ‘better yet’.

    I think the current OT rules should stay as they are for the regular season and change slightly in the postseason to guarantee that each team receives at least on possession. It would add even more excitement to the game, in my opinion.

  34. The Chiefs never had a chance because of the OT rules.

    And yet somehow the Rams lost the coin toss against an even better offense than the Patriots, on the road, and somehow managed to still win that game.

    Perhaps if the Chiefs has played some defense on third down they might have done like the Rams and won despite not winning the coin toss. Defense is part of the game…

  35. 23% of all drives end in a TD, according to Football Outsiders (2018 data). The Chiefs, as prolific as they were in scoring, were the top ranked offence and scored a TD on 40% of their drives. That hardly favors the offence.

    Besides, where does it end? What if being th teams score? Then they both get the ball again? Oh, but one scored against the wind, the other had the wind. That’s unfair! Now, they both get the ball with the wind. But that’s unfair because one team got to go first.

    And go the hokey college route? No thank you.

    Enough with the participation ribbon approach to life.

  36. Um, how about you play better in all 3 phases of the game so you don’t have to go to OT? And if you do how about you just play good defense…even in a system set up for offense, you never know you just may get a call (or no call) go your way. Why do people feel the need to change something because their team lost, last I checked one team has to win and one team has to lose.

  37. It is stupid to complain about them when the team that wins the coin toss only wins the game 52% of the time. It’s as fair as it can get. Ignore the babies.

  38. Seems like Reid, a man who’s actual life and well being is supported by and has been his adult life, by football, can take a chill pill about something that affects him personally and professionally, chances are a lot of the talking heads can too.

  39. Rules only become unfair when the Patriots wins. Had the Chiefs won the coin flip, scored a touchdown and won, this would be a non-topic.

  40. But then what purpose would the coin flip be used for, if not for OT?

    We just don’t seem to have much use for it any longer. Damn pity.

    We wouldn’t even be having this conversation if Patriots had lost the coin flip. Not many seemed to mind it so much when Patriots won the OT coin flip vs Falcons.

    Everybody said the same thing back then – you gotta stop them.

    Um, yeah.

    Don’t get rid of coin flip. It’s just so endearing. So NFL.

  41. So let’s say the winner of the coin toss goes and scores a touchdown. Then the other team gets the ball and THEY score a touchdown too. Now the game is tied again. Does that mean that team #1 can now win with a FG or do they need a touchdown? And if they do score a second time, do they win or does team #2 get another chance? It seems too convoluted to me. Let’s just leave the overtime rule as it is.
    Yesterday we had two overtime games, the winner of the coin toss lost the first game and the winner of the coin toss won the second game. The current system works.

  42. I have no dog in the fight but I frankly couldn’t care less about the Chiefs missing out on the SB (they’ll get there, Mahomes is a stud). And I rarely agree with Florio on these things. But he’s 100% right here, it needs to be fixed.

    When you look at the Chiefs they were a solid offense and a so-so defense (really both teams were). So you knew whoever won the coin toss was winning the game. It’s not right, all three facets of your team should hit the field in OT. Would have been nice to see what Mahomes did in OT.

    Side note, when the KC defense was tired and sucking wind in OT why did Reid not use a timeout or two? It’s not like he gets to carry them over to the next game. I think he should have given them a breather and tried to regroup, get them focused instead of ending the game with a pocket full of timeouts. Truth is, timeouts don’t do you much good in OT anyways since you’re really not playing against the clock like in regulation.

  43. “…and then you have to get off the field if you don’t have the ball,” Reid said.

    All your Defense had to do Andy was get the Pats off the field. They didn’t do that and you lost.

  44. I wish they would have left it the old way. TRUE sudden death. You have 4 quarters to defeat your opponent. If you can’t stop the other team from scoring first in OT, you lose. Stop crying.

  45. So if Team A scores a touchdown and Team B scores a touchdown, then what? The next team that scores wins (which then could be argued for the same reason as the current overtime rule – team A gets more chances). We had 2 overtime games yesterday. In the NFC game, the team that got the ball 2nd won. In the AFC game, the team that got the ball 1st won. Sounds fair to me.

  46. Team that receives the kick scores a TD, they must kick an extra point. The other team gets a possession, if they score a TD, they must convert a 2 point conversion. Both teams get a chance on offense, both teams have a chance to make a defensive stop.

    Don’t like that, use college OT rules. As rules stand, I really don’t here a problem tho.

  47. So, if the second team gets a possession, and scores a TD, then what? If the Chiefs got a possession, scored, and the Pats scored on their next drive (without the Chiefs getting a 2nd drive), wouldn’t you still be whining about that?

    Teams have 60 minutes before they get to OT. Then, you have a shot on defense. The defense can now even give up a FG, but just needs to keep them out of the end zone. If you cannot do that much, then you go home. There are 50+ players on a team that can affect the outcome. Put the blame where it is due in OT, the defense couldn’t come up with the stop. As Romo pointed out, maybe the Chiefs needed a time out to try to regroup.

  48. I think Reid should be complaining that he wasn’t smart enough to call a timeout yo give his d a rest and break the Pat’s momentum before they got to the endzonw….

  49. Here are some thoughts on overtime rule in pro football. I do not like the college rule. It’s too gimmicky and so removed from the rest of the game in regulation. Soccer sudden death penalty shoot-out is stupid. Hate it.

    My thought is to almost eliminate overtime entirely. In the last 60 seconds of the game, the offensive team is not allowed to tie the score and they must opt to make the higher score to win the game. If a field goal only ties the game, you must go for a touchdown. If a touchdown plus extra point tie the game, you must go for 2 point conversion. And in the least likely scenario that if 8 points are not enough to break a tie, then you go into overtime as the FIFTH quarter in sudden death, whichever scores first wins the game.

    This simplifies the rule without extending the playing time in most cases. This encourages coaches to not be so damn conservative and leave their fate to a coin flip. Had the Chiefs opted to go for a touchdown instead of tying with a field goal, they would’ve had a better chance winning that game. If the rule forces you to go for it, there’s no second guessing. And you would rather live with that than losing a coin flip.

  50. That’s on you if you can’t force a three and out or at least hold for a field goal. Play by college rules at the pro level and the game won’t end. I know, it’s totally disheartening as you watch your defense get shredded, but I dunno, maybe you don’t let a guy like Marcus Peters go because you don’t care for his attitude.

  51. C’mon Mike. It’s a football game, someone has to lose, it’s not always ‘fair’.

    The Chiefs defense was always going to cost them big at some point, they sucked and it finally caught up to them.

    This isnt grade school where everyone gets a try so as not to hurt anyone’s feelings.


    Vince Lombardi is rolling over in his grave.

  52. Agree. But, only for the playoffs. No ‘clock’. One possession each. And, if it’s still tied, then it’s first score thereafter.
    Again, Playoffs only. The regular season can stay as is.

  53. I don’t see a reason to change the OT rule in the regular season, but in the playoffs each team deserves a possession regardless of whether the team who won the coin toss goes down and scores

    If you don’t think it’s that much of an advantage to get the ball first in overtime the boys in Vegas don’t agree. The in game line went from pick’em to +150 if you too the team that lost the coin toss. So obviously the bookmakers look at being on defense first in OT as a pretty big disadvantage

  54. The game ending on a first possession seems illogical. I don’t understand the argument as to why the loser of the coin flip not getting a chance? Especially in the playoffs where the clock is insignificant.

  55. i’m sorry but if you want the ball, STOP the offense. all this talk of let the other team get a chance is bs. they had their chance when the defense was on the field.

  56. Question: why are we crying about this now (9 years after the new OT rules were implemented)? The fact of the matter remains, scoring a TD is much more difficult (unless facing the chiefs D) than scoring a FG.

  57. Guaranteed possessions in order to keep the game going? Thank you, but no.

    That would just give NFL officials more chances to call pass interference calls in the event the team who loss was reduced to chucking the football into the endzone.

  58. Yes, I get it. Mahomes was robbed. Look, the guy was shut out the entire first half. One first down — on penalty — until 6 minutes remained in the 2nd quarter. The first half was the real opportunity to make a difference.

    Imagine we indulged the whiners on this. The Chiefs get a possession and Mahomes scores a TD. Then Brady scores again. Then Mahomes. Why not? The defenses are gassed. By now it’s like 63-63, and the foorball game is beginning to resemble a game of table tennis.

    That’s not exciting.

  59. It isn’t unfair. Each team has the same chance to win the coin flip. Being unlucky is far from being unfair. Cry me a river.

  60. No he never got on the field because the defense didn’t stop them.

    If anything they need to go to what college does. You go back and forth until one team doesn’t score from the 25 and you have to go for 2

  61. I really never cared how OT was played; it is merely an extension of the 4th quarter. The coin toss is necessary just as it is at the beginning of the game. In regulation time, a coin toss determines which team kicks off and which team receives. No one disputes that coin toss. After 4 quarters, there is an extension added to determine which team scores first to break the tie; therefore, another coin toss. Only losers complain about the system.

    So, to appease the cry-babies, just toss a coin, determine kicker and receiver, and play an additional quarter, 15 minutes. Actually, that is the fairest way to settle this dispute. And Florio can take his Whaa-whaa-whaas and grab his pacifier with both hands. Of course, until he begins his whaa-whaa-whaaing about players getting too tired and player safety being at risk.

  62. Keep it as it is, or go back to sudden death, 1st score wins.

    Teams with good defenses (or a defense which isn’t gassed, because their head coach knows when to call a timeout to give his defense a breather) are rewarded for being stout enough to force a punt or long field goal attempt.

    Andy’s offense-centric, of course he wanted a chance at the ball in Mahomes’ hand. And his defense sucks for 6 years and counting now.

  63. The OT rule was unfair when a team could just kick a FG on the opening drive and win the game. It’s fair now. Reid should complain about his lousy defense.

  64. OR…just leave it how it is because the current system is the most fair system there is. But what do I know

  65. I think we all know that if the Chiefs won the toss and scored a TD to win, not a single person would have questioned the rule. And, of course, rather than the Patriots season being viewed as ending by coin flip, it would have been the most meaningful loss in history signifying a changing of the guard and a million other profound cliches.

  66. To say it isn’t fair the other team doesn’t get the ball.because you aren’t able to do what is required,doesn’t make sense.You are supposed to keep the other team from scoring,you can’t do that,you lose.I really wish they would go back to sudden death

  67. “do a hockey shootout-style competition with each team going for two, one at a time, until one team converts and the other doesn’t.”

    That could be fun

  68. Why do I get the feeling that if the Pats lost this game in the same way there would be no outcry about the unfairness of the OT rules at all.

  69. “Why shouldn’t each offense get a crack at the ball? [why not use the college rule?]”

    Quite simply, because it’s not football. Hockey style shootouts take away from the game. They decide the game on something which is just… not the game. It’s like deciding games on the All-Star week skills competition. Thankfully, they don’t do this in the playoffs or it would really taint the ultimate value of those games.

    Unfortunately, they do it what they do in college football and it ultimately makes the game worse. It’s a great loss to the game to not have these overtime games decided by playing the sport the same way you did the first 60 minutes.

    If they started deciding NFL playoff games this way I’m not sure whether I’d keep watching.

  70. Because the rules are not unfair. KC’s Defense was out there. Stop the Patriots from scoring a TD!

  71. statman25 says:
    January 21, 2019 at 8:56 pm
    Playoffs only, make OT an extra quarter. Could give both teams multiple possessions.

    It should be for the Regular Season as well! We also need to change the Onside kick rule back to 2017 Standards, Allow for one Review Mistake with No Penalty and as long as You get Your Challenges RIGHT, keep giving you More of them! They Should also Allow Leaping on Field Goals and Extra Points, and Stop the Clock on plays that Lose Yards late in games which makes teams Earn It!

    Oh and by the way Get Rid of Stupid Penalties like Illegal Shifts and Ticky Tack Calls that do not have any impact on the game! Refs have Too Much Impact and Power just like Government! Common Sense!

  72. There are three phases of the game. Coaches talk about them all the time. You must win in all three phases to win in the playoffs. If you can’t make a defensive stop your offense will not get on the field much. So guaranteeing the offense gets a chance to get on the field in OT seems to be the job of the defense not the rule book.

  73. The only reason this is an issue is because pundits feel “cheated” out of seeing a dramatic comeback from Mahomes, which would have been dramatic. But the rules are the rules. Both teams knew them going into the game. Patriots did enough to force OT then got some good fortune and made the plays that mattered.

  74. How about 3 or 4 more extra Time Outs. Then Andy could have walked away with 6 or 7 Time Outs in his pocket while his defense was gassed. Obviously He’s a good coach but he does seem to make mistakes in big games with issues involving time.

  75. Since the new rules were implemented, exactly 50% of overtime games were decided on the first possession. So it’s a fair system which has produced even results. The Saints also won the coin toss, but the Rams defense did their JOB and didn’t allow NO to score a TD.

    I’m open to compromise though, such as giving each team one possession and then making it sudden death if it’s tied after two possessions .The college system is lousy and your “shootout” suggestion is ludicrous.

  76. If you guarantee both sides a possession that would give a slight advantage to the team getting the ball second. That’s because if the first team scores the team going second would be going for it on every 4th down. The way it is just now that advantage is negated by the TD winning the game for the first team possessing. Overall I do think changing it would be better than it is now, my point is there’s never going to be a perfect solution.

  77. Regular season as well as playoffs please, as the results of regular season games can determine the seedings for the playoffs so it really has to be across the board. This is the best impartial article you have written Mike, so credit where credit is due. Thank you.

  78. The Chiefs already “lost” a playoff game. I am sure Reid doesn’t want a fine from the big kahunas of the NFL that can dish it out, but can’t take it.

  79. Why not just let both teams win the AFC championship trophy and everyone goes home happy and we have orange slices after the game?

  80. The New Orleans Saints won the coin flip, didn’t score the LA Rams defense stepped up. because

    Of course – the NO Saints are claiming the game was fixed even though they had the same advantage that the NE Patriots had in winning the coin flip (“deck is stacked in favor of offense”, “unfair”….)

    I think that Gilette commercial about masculinity should be redone with all of the sore sports whose teams lost their football games this past weekend … then having the Gilette voice over asking if this is the “best a man can get”.

    My goodness are we becoming soft

  81. Do you realize that your proposed solution to this does nothing to solve the root of the problem? If your proposed solution had been in place, and the Chiefs had responded by scoring a TD, how would allowing the Patriots to win by kicking a field goal on their next possession be fair? You still have the same issue in place, with the coin toss winner having an unfair advantage because of sudden death overtime.

    While I’m not in favor of this, it seems you should be pushing for the complete removal of sudden death OT, otherwise this unfair advantage is always going to exist.

  82. Nice turnaround, PFT. Yesterday you thought the overtime rule was “cruel, but fair”. Today you flip-flop and think it’s unfair. The truth of the matter is that the league will not change the rule, and well it shouldn’t. It was up to the Chiefs’ defense to stop the Patriots, and they didn’t. Maybe next time they will, if there is a next time. Sorry, Chiefs, but them’s the breaks.

  83. Getty Images
    Nine years ago, the NFL fixed an inherent unfairness regarding postseason overtime with a half measure that unnecessarily was applied to the regular season as well

    Correction, Nine years ago the NFL caved to the whines and caterwauling of the crybabies who lost in OT. This isn’t Nintendo. You can’t just keep getting extra Marios when you lose. Maybe the NFL should institute a win by 2 scores rule. Had KC won on the first possession there would be zero discussion of rule changes. In fact if NE had won by scoring a TD after a KC field goal or even a NE FG after a KC possession the same cries of unfairness would be heard across the land. Funny how one team’s success is re-writing the entire rule book.

  84. Fair? You had 60 minutes to outscote your opponent. That’s what’s fair. What’s really fair (and good for the game) is to stop making the defense irrelevant. As we saw in the Rams/Saints game, the defense stopped the first chance offense and the Rams won the game, despite losing the coin toss. Everyone needs to grow up and stop acting like 5 years olds stomping their feet and crying.

  85. None of the other professional sports has any debate whatsoever about whether their OT is fair or not. It’s not that complicated. Play another quarter of football. If that’s not enough, play another quarter.

  86. “Now, the league needs to go the rest of the way and guarantee a possession for both teams, even if the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown.”

    Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with OT the way it is. The current set up is a great compromise as is. Don’t like OT rules, win during regulation. Don’t put yourself in the position.

    Pretty sick of all the, “it’s not fair” whining…. pathetic imo.

  87. I agree with Florio, the rules are stacked in favor of offense. Each team should get at least one offensive possession.

  88. OT is great the way it is. There is a tension to it that adds excitement and the defense can still take the ball and score at any time to win the game outright.

    If both teams get a possession then the coin toss is irrelevant.

    The real problem is poor officiating. Focus on that.

  89. If the team that wins the coin toss scores a TD on its first possession, is it really fairer to give the team that lost the coin toss a possession?

    If the coin toss winner kicks a field goal, the coin toss loser will get a possession with a chance to tie or win. However, if the coin toss winner is faced with a fourth down situation and is not in field goal range, it will almost certainly punt. Once again, both teams will have at least one possession.

    However, if the coin toss winner scores a TD, the coin toss loser will never punt. While the coin toss winner effectively needed to gain a first down in three plays to retain possession, the coin toss loser gets four tries to advance the ball by the same ten yards. Is it really fair to guarantee one team four downs to advance the ball when the other teams was effectively limited to three?

  90. I still say flip the OT coin at the start of the game. Both teams would know all game who won the toss. Then if a team doesn’t think they can stop their opponent and they already know they lost the OT toss they won’t play for OT.

  91. At some point overtime format is irrelevant: you have to go to sudden death at some point because football can’t go on forever like some other sports. They played a full 60 so the point where you make it sudden death is kind of arbitrary. I would be ok if they just kept the rules similar and said you could not win on a TD on the first posession either. Other team gets one guaranteed possession. I also think flipping the OT coin at the start of the game as I said previously could negate the negative effect of the coin flip.

  92. It’s only unfair when the opposing QB is Tom Brady. Anyone else notice that once the Patriots won the coin toss, the Patriots defense, specifically D McCourty, celebrated as if they’d already won the game.

  93. I didn’t see this much complaining after the Super Bowl when NE drove to beat ATL.

    It’s telling though how many wanted KC to win that this is an ongoing commentary.

  94. Nothing unfair about the rules whatsoever.

    Don’t like it? Then stop a team on 3rd and long at least once in your own house in regulation so they don’t score late and get you to overtime.

  95. why not use the college rule (first and 10 from the 25) or make it simply first and goal from the 10.

    The college rules are not football. They’re a gimmick and have no place in the NFL.

    No interest in seeing 90-84 scores in this league.

  96. When an offense drives the field and scores a touchdown with the other offense not even getting a chance to do the same, that’s simply not fair.
    I really do wonder if this is an issue at all if the Patriots lost this game or the Super Bowl by the same “unfair” rules.

    I think we all know the answer to that one.

  97. This is a good point because offenses have an advantage, until it suggests going with the awful college style OT system or a 2-point conversion challenge.

  98. Eliminate Overtime in the regular season, make it an additional quarter in the post-season.

  99. Playoffs only, team who scores points last unanswered or unmatced wins. But I agree with the way College does it. What’s wrong with the college system?

  100. Here’s my solution, which no one will like, of course. Instead of a coin toss at the end of regulation, put the football with the points facing each end zone. Put one player from each team at their 30 yard line. Shoot off a blank gun as they do in track and let them run to get the football. If they both get there at the same time, let them scramble for it and push each other off just like they do when someone fumbles during the game. The player who gets it, his team has the ball at their 40 yard line. They score a TD or a FG, they win.
    I can’t imagine the tension and excitement which would happen in my scenario.

  101. Here’s my solution, which no one will like, of course. Instead of a coin toss at the end of regulation, put the football on the logo at the 50 yard line with the points facing each end zone. Put one player from each team at their 30 yard line. Shoot off a blank gun as they do in track and let them run to get the football. If they both get there at the same time, let them scramble for it and push each other off just like they do when someone fumbles during the game. The player who gets it, his team has the ball at their 40 yard line. They score a TD or a FG, they win.
    I can’t imagine the tension and excitement which would happen in my scenario.

  102. The only reason anyone is complaining about the OT rules is because the Pats won the flip and scored a TD. If the Chiefs had done the same you wouldn’t hear a peep. And you all know it.

    And for the record — there were two OT games on Sunday. One team won the toss and scored a TD to win, the other team lost the toss, made a stop, and won the game.

    The numbers on OT’s since 2012 also show no significant advantage for the team that wins the coin flip. They win 50% of the time, while those who lose the flip win 45%, and the other 5 % are ties.

    Get over it you babies.

  103. If they are determined to change this, then it seems like the only ‘fair’ system will be the college football overtime system. The only thing I will change is that if you score a TD, you HAVE to go for 2.

    And if both teams score a 2 TDs, on the second TD, the LOS for the 2-pt conversion is moved back to the 10 or whatever. Have to do something to make it harder to score.

    It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

  104. I just don’t understand why he didn’t try to run more clock when he was at the one…make them burn at least one time out

  105. how about being able to play defense? thats half the game? the softening of america continues. its pro sports. who cares about feelings of fans of teams that cant make a stop one time when it counts? its the same reason i dont feel bad for the bears. sure their kicker missed the kick, but that supposed great d needed to stop foles one more time, but instead turn soft and couldnt tackle a rookie tight end on a 3 yard catch on third and 8 that he turned into a first down. if you lose in the nfl, its because you didnt make enough plays to win. nobody DESERVES anything in pro sports.

  106. “I’ve sat in on a few of those meetings and let me tell you, the food is off the hook,” Reid said.

  107. If people do not like to lose in OT….Then win.But they did not get a chance….they had a chance to stop them.KC won the 1st coin flip and gave the ball to the Patriots.Rams stopped the saints…games ended in ties during the season.But it is not fair….whatever.

  108. I would like playoff overtime become a 15 minute quarter. When the OT quarter ends the game is over. Unless there is a tie then another OT quarter would be added.

  109. Stop with the “it’s not fair” crap! Holy cow. They had 60 minutes to win the game, didn’t do so, and then were given a chance to simply hold New England out of the endzone and they’d get the ball back. Seeing as the Patriots only scored 17 point after their first two drives, apparently the Chiefs very well had the ability to stop New England. They failed.

  110. If KC had won that toss and scored a TD, would the media and PFT fanbase all be crying out for the rules to be changed to have given Brady a chance to have a drive too? No, the fans would all be about the “end of the evil empire” and the media talking “changing of the guard”. Instead you all want the rules changed because Pats won a coin toss.

  111. That said, if they are demanding to give both teams a chance to have the ball, there is a fairly easy way to do it. If the first team scores a touchdown, they automatically get the extra point. If the second team scores a touchdown on the ensuing drive, they must go for 2. That gets rid of the possibility of continually extending overtime.

  112. I’m a Saints fan, which is an important context to provide for the following opinions. Life is not fair. Deal with it. Weren’t the Chiefs allowed in overtime to field a team of 11 players, all of whom are given a chance to keep the other team from scoring a touchdown? They were. Stop somebody. Soft people complain about unfairness.

    Was the no-call on the obvious pass interference in the Saints game unfair? Yes. Deal with it. Move on. The Saints still had a 3-point lead with 1:41 to play, at home, with their home crowd behind them. They also got the ball first in overtime. They also had a 13-point lead in the first half while taking a nap on a fake punt.

    I’m so tired of the ninny media types and fans who whine and complain about everything instead of focusing on the hundred other plays in a game that also made a difference.

  113. Wouldn’t it be easier for Goodell to just suspend Brady and force Belichick to retire….I mean those are the two real issues here. Let’s not get bottled up on OT rules 9 years later after they already changed it.

    Some fans are sick of Pats success, so be it. As someone else said above, chiefs win toss and march down for TD there is ZERO chance this conversation is happening…ZERO.

  114. I’m so confused about this. While watching the game, I was fairly certain KC was allowed to put 11 guys on the field to play defense. I’ll have to go back and check the tape but I could swear they had players on the field during overtime. If I’m right about that, I’m afraid I don’t understand what wasn’t fair about the outcome.

  115. All this talk about it being fair because the defense had a chance to stop the offense is dead wrong. But it was fair. It was fair because the coin was fair. Each team had the same shot at being the one who had the ball first, hence fairness.

  116. The fundamental problem with giving both teams a chance is that it’s a HUGE advantage for the second team to go. They know what they need to do and have no problem going for it on 4th down, and so on, This is one of many reasons why the college rules are ridiculous.

    How is that “fair”?

  117. An awful part about college OT is that the points and statistics count.

    You didn’t score 52 points and throw for 6 touchdowns, you threw for 2 and scored 24.

  118. The Chiefs offense had the chance to win it at the end of regulation. All they could muster was a FG to tie.
    The defense could have stopped the Pats with less than two minutes to go but instead let them drive and score. Then could’ve stopped them again in OT but didn’t. The defense has sucked all year. Time for Bob Sutton to go.

  119. What’s unfair is how much better Tom Brady is at reading a defense than any other player in the league. Maybe they NFL should demand that he wear an eye-patch over one eye to cut down on his peripheral vision as a handicap.

  120. You can’t name another sport where both teams don’t have a legit shot at scoring in an OT situation. As for the second team having some kind of advantage, one team always gets to go first. Even in golf.

  121. I think it’s NOT unfair. Teams shouldn’t be rewarded for failing to win in regulation! OT should be both an opportunity and punishment. It should be harder and more treacherous.

    The 2012 rule change took care of it. Only needing a FG was too easy. But if you don’t win in regulation and can’t stop the other team from going the length of the field and scoring a TD, why do you think you still deserve a chance to win? You don’t, you had your chance. If you can prevent a TD and then score yourself, then you deserve a chance.

    The current system is just right.

  122. I’m thinking get rid of the OT coin toss. Rather, the team that has possession at the end of the game retains it, just like at the end of the other quarters. Treat OT like the next quarter, switch sides and keep playing. To keep the length down, maybe 6-10min OT period. That allows the team in possession to not kill the entire clock in a short period, though they still could. If tied at the end of the OT period, then go to another OT period just like they do now.

  123. SWFLPC.INC says:
    January 22, 2019 at 10:48 am

    What’s unfair is how much better Tom Brady is at reading a defense than any other player in the league.
    True. Though of course Max Kellerman doesn’t consider this part of playing QB. He makes his determination based on who can throw it the furthest, which is why his top 10 QBs list include Jamarcus Russell and Jeff George.

  124. If you don’t bother to have a defense that can prevent a touchdown drive then you don’t really have the ability to complain when the other team scores a touchdown.

    The reason the rule was changed was to prevent a team that had basically one good play in OT to get 30+ yards from winning the game with a kick. Even the best defenses can give up a play or two in a drive. Making it so that teams still get a shot after letting another team drive down and score a touchdown is absurd. Defense still should matter in this league.

  125. Unfair??? The defense is given a chance to stop them. The Pat’s ran and passed through them like swiss cheese.

  126. The league changed the rule to disallow a FG from winning because it was “too easy” to move the ball 30 yards and win. If a team’s defense cannot hold other team from scoring a TD then the defensive teams does not deserve to win. This is a non-issue.

  127. Only because the rules favor offense by protecting receivers and quarterbacks I will agree on this. Prior to the QB protection rules, you could just tell the defending team to stop the other team from scoring. Now a coin toss determines too much. But please don’t get rid of special teams.

  128. My wife (who hates football) but seems to get interested when it’s dramatic or close asked me about the over-time rules and when she heard them was like “How is that fair in any way?” and I was defending the rules because look, you’ve GOT TO STOP THEM from a TD. If you can’t, you don’t deserve to win. It’s not like the old day where you complete two passes and kick a 50 yarder to win. So from a non fan perspective I get it, but as a football fan I see nothing wrong with the rules. The Chiefs had a MATADOR DEFENSE and didn’t deserve to win. Sorry. PS – Not a Pats fan, just honest.

  129. If you give up a touchdown on the first drive of overtime, you don’t deserve another chance on offense. Call me old-fashioned.

  130. Changing the OT rules would not even be discussed if the Chiefs had won the coin toss and marched straight downfield and ended it. Their defense allowed three 3rd and 10’s to be converted. That is on them. Their HC had 3 timeouts in his back pocket. Did he use one when his defense was obviously gassed? Nope. They just let the Pats march straight to the game-ending TD. If you lose the coin toss, you deal with it and try to make a stop. The Chiefs failed.

  131. I have a way to fix this OT issue that you’re all crying about.

    How about when a team is down by 3 or 7 in the last 2 minutes they have to play for a WIN in regulation? If down by 3, they have to score a TD, if down by 7 they have to score a TD and go for 2. No game tying FGs or TDs allowed in regulation. Go for the win or go home.

    There, I’ve fixed it – there are no overtimes ever again. You’re all welcome.

    Or you can leave it how it is because it is fair – each team has the same exact change to get the coin flip and each team has a defense that has a chance to stop the other team.

  132. It’s true that had the Chiefs not decided to tie it at 31 by kicking the field goal, and instead went for the touchdown to end it, there would have been no OT, and no coin toss. They instead would be preparing for the Super Bowl. Andy Reid playing it safe came back to bite him. So whose fault is it?

  133. First team with possession has to make a choice on 4th down (if they get to that point). If they happen to get a TD then the choice is removed from team 2 and so they will always get 4 attempts at 1st down rather than 3 and an option. Is that likewise fair? Do we eliminate punting to even it up?

  134. bradygirl12 says:
    January 22, 2019 at 12:47 pm
    Changing the OT rules would not even be discussed if the Chiefs had won the coin toss and marched straight downfield and ended it.


    You are correct. Instead all of those people complaining would be touting how great Mahommes is at QB. If Chiefs fans want to be upset, then they should be upset at their offense for scoring zero points in the 1st half.

  135. I’m a Chiefs fan and don’t care to change the rule. I especially don’t believe in different rules for the playoffs. Every game counts.

  136. I would give both teams a chance to possess the ball, and if they match TD for TD, or FG for FG with their possessions then it’s “sudden-death” after that.

  137. statman25 says:
    January 21, 2019 at 8:56 pm
    Playoffs only, make OT an extra quarter. Could give both teams multiple possessions.

    Actually I agree. Especially with offense friendly rules. Can’t be the GOAT of anything playing under these rules and comparing it to 20, 30 years ago. Love to see any of these teams, for instance, play against the ’85 Bears (not a Bear fan).

  138. I really believe that this complaint about changing the overtime rules is all about most of the country hating the Patriots. If it had happened the other way around, there would be no discussion.

  139. Ask yourselves this, honestly now. If the AFCCG was reversed and KC had won the coin flip and scored a TD, would ANYBODY even be talking about this right now?

    I’m gonna go out on a limb and say NO.

  140. The fact remains, the Cheifs in the first half did not score a point. They had a great chance but Mahomes missed a wide open receiver that would walked in to endzone for a touchdown. How big would those points have been in the second half. Also in overtime the Pats converted at least 3 3rd and long on the touch down drive. The Chiefs D couldn’t get off the field that enabled the Pats to score the game winning score.

  141. Here’s an idea, why not eliminate the coin toss?

    Let me explain. Let’s say the last team to score in regulation (the team who had to come from behind to tie the game) is forced to kickoff in OT…think about it.
    No one could complain that its unfair, if you didn’t want to kickoff in OT then you shouldn’t have had to come from behind to tie the game in the end of regulation. No chance or luck of a coin flip, just kickoff to the team that was last winning before the game got tied up. Keep the rest of OT the same as it is now, just take out the coin flip, whoever was last winning in regulation receives the OT kickoff, nobody would have a right to complain in this scenario. Think about it.

  142. I think the patriots should have kicked a field goal near the end of regulation to cover the spread. Instead they got greedy and had to get a touchdown. Tom Greedy and Bill Beligreed just had to try to win another Super bowl.

    Jokes on Brady. If something happens and he loses an arm later on in life, he won’t bevable to wear all of his rings at once. Jokes on him.


    This is kind of scary…

  143. I say, go back to outright sudden death. I however, would like to see the coin flip done away with. It’s a thing of chance and a waste of time. Make home field advantage mean a little more by just making the rule that the home team chooses at the beginning of the game and the beginning of overtime if they want to kick or receive the ball.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.