Nantz from CBS speaks to OT rule

[PennSkinsFan]

"Just when Patrick Ramsey and the Redskins were clicking and couldn't be stopped in the fourth quarter, they are denied the chance to match or better Matt Bryant's winning field goal in OT. It is the most egregious rule in all of the sport."

Thoughts?

[CarMike]

Even if the don't want to admit it.....you can be sure that the Giants are very happy that they didn't have to face Ramsey and the offense in OT.

I've been saying for a long time that there needs to be changes to the OT rules. Its not fair for one team to have the ball and the other team doesn't have the chance just because they lose the coin flip.

[NamVet4]

I don't see them going to the college OT rule. I fear the TV people, who are the big revenue contributors want these games to move along in a fairly stable alloted time. And I'll pose this question because I am not sure of the answer - who pays for the extra commercials in OT - is it figured out in the agreements with the advertisers and sponsors that if there is an OT they will be charged more????
Just my 2 cents !

[hail2skins]

Spurrier even said he likes it the way it is.

[hail2skins]

I really am comfortable with the currrent rule. So what, you don't win the coin toss. Go play defense, stop them, then get your offense on the board.

[Seebs]

We used to have the sudden death rule for soccer but in european competitions it has been change last year: Ot is normally 2*15 minutes. NOw they look at the score after 15 minutes and if there is a leader, it is the winner. Why not do 2*7.5 minutes and if there is a leader after 7.5 minutes he wins the game?

[CarMike]

Not sure about that NamVet. But, I would like to see both teams get a chance with the ball. Reguardless of who wins the coin flip. The Redskins should have had a chance to score after the Giants did. have them kickoff the ball to the Redskins and either force us to kick a FG or score a TD. That would also make the team that wins the coin flip think twice about kicking a FG so early in OT.

[jporterweb]

I think they need to play 10 minute overtime's, and eliminate the field goal in OT. Therefore the only way to win is by scoring TD's and 2pts.

[ShaggySkins]

I have no problem with the OT rule. If the Defense had done there job like they did in the 4th Quarter then Ramsey does get another chance. The only change I may like to see is just let them play out the full 15 minutes and whomever is up wins no sudden death.

[ShaggySkins]

Also with the College OT rule I think it would be super difficult for it to work with the skill of kickers in this league. You would have to let each team start at there own 20 or so. Kickers can hit from 50 yards fairly consistently, if that was the way it was done games would stretch way too long.

[dukeuch]

It's a long post, but stick with it.

All the outrage regarding the unfairness of overtime is so bogus. I have copied sections of a great article I saw back in February, in response to complaints regarding overtime games in 2002, which turned out to be statistical anomolies compared to the years through 2001. I have copied the site and article address;

http://www.sports-central.org/sports/nfl/articles/article165.shtml

but I am not sure how to establish an actual link, so I've copied the bulk of the article. Assuming this guy's research is correct, it turns out that through 2001, 45% of the teams that win the toss lose the game, 50% win the games, 4% of the games end in ties, and in 1% of the OT's, the team that wins the toss chooses to kick, and those games break down to 50/50%. Perhaps even more importantly, in only 20% of the games does the receiving team win with a field goal on it's first possesion.

So is all this argument about how the toss-winner receiving team wins 50% of the games while the toss loser kicking team wins "only" 45% of the games? Remember, all this happens after a 50/50 coin flip, the fairest deal in the world. So what's the big deal?

Also, I have read some stuff that seems to indicate that the biggest determinant of whether the recieving team wins on the first posssesion is field position, which is has systematically become better as the kickoff has been moved back to the 30 yard line. I have no problem with the current system, but if it must be changed, how about just giving the toss winner the ball on the 20 (but of course, this ends up being a disadvantage for teams with good kick returners, or teams with great defenses)?

I strongly suggest all those who call for revamping check out the article below, and then repond. Is it really worth changing? Heck, what if research showed that the receiving team of the opening kickoff won in similar percentages, should we change the rules to make sure each team had the same number of possesions?


"With the aid of the "NFL Record & Fact Book" (a reference I suggest these critics peruse), your humble correspondent has reviewed every single regular season and postseason overtime game ever played in the NFL (or the pre-merger AFL). Some interesting things can be observed.

Conscious of the fact that these very-sudden sudden-death games were more frequent this season (leading to the outcry), I divided the history into two periods: the 2002 season just ended, and from the beginning of time through 2001. As I compiled my unofficial tally, I classified each outcome into groups of my own definition, with the intent to test this idea that winning the toss virtually guarantees an easy and undeserved victory. (Such an outrage!)

For every overtime game, there is a coin toss, and somebody wins that coin toss. That is itself a random outcome, and there is nothing more fair than random, especially given that the two teams have played to a standoff. That's why lotteries are random (or supposed to be). Critics argue that a team and its coaches have worked all week toward a goal that is now to be determined by a silly coin toss. Well, that may seem a bit capricious, but it's not unfair. And as we shall see, it does not determine the outcome of the overtime game all that often. The question is, I think, not whether the winning of the toss is fair, but whether to do so provides a significant advantage.

Once the toss has been won, the winner may choose to receive the ball, or may choose which goal to defend. Over the years, a few teams have opted to kick-off. We had an example of that this season. If that works (because of a wind advantage) the coach is a genius. If not, he's a dolt, but at least we don't have to listen to any whining about an injustice.

Once in a while, an overtime game ends in a tie. We had one of those this year. No injustice there.

So here are the categories: 1) games in which the coin toss winner kicks off; 2) games that end in a tie; 3) games in which the team that wins the toss loses the game; 4) games won by the coin toss winner, but not on their first possession; 5) games won by the coin toss winner, and on their first possession, but by scoring a touchdown; 6) the nightmare scenario: team wins toss, drives for FG, loser never gets offense on field, winner never penetrates end zone.

Outcomes No. 1 and No. 2 are rare. In OTs through 2001, they constitute only 1% and 4% of the outcomes, respectively. But here's a good one: the team that wins the toss loses the game 45% of the time! So where's that Nantzian outrage now? Not only does winning the toss not mean your team will win immediately; almost half the time, it won't win at all. What's so unjust about that?

The team that wins the toss and receives the ball wins the game in the other 50% of cases.

Fifty percent sounds pretty equitable to me.

Of those games won by the lucky kick-receiving team, about half (or 23% of all OTs) are won by that team later, after both teams have had the ball at least once each. Nothing unjust about that. The remaining games won by the lucky kick-receiving team, (about half of them, or 27% of all OTs) are won on the first drive. However, not all of the first-drive wins end with a field goal. That means a team must allow a TD from scrimmage, or the kickoff was returned all the way (we saw both of those this year, too). But these outcomes represent failures to tackle, not miscarriages of justice.

Finally, a subset of that subset, the nightmare scenario, occurs 20% of the time.

So now we know that only one-in-five OT contests ends with the nightmare scenario. That's not a particularly likely outcome, and don't forget, both teams have a 50-50 chance of being that lucky team in the first place.

If 20% is such a sure thing, consider this proposition: I'm thinking of a number between one and five. If you guess it, I give you $10,000. If you're wrong, you give me $10,000. Wanna play? Why not?

Because assuming I would even admit if your guess is correct, you have only a 20% chance of winning. Not enough on which to rely, is it? Not that good a deal for you, is it?

Now, failing to score on the first possession doesn't cost a team the game (or $10,000), but the point is that winning the toss and having the first possession doesn't win the game for them either, does it?

And if there's one thing I want readers to take away from this, it is that the team that loses the toss, and kicks off, wins the game 45% of the time.

That's not 45-55, either, it's 45-50-4-1, because we have to include ties and cases where the coin toss winner kicks. Another way to put it is that the team that loses the toss has a 49.5% chance of not losing. (That's 45% wins + 4% ties + wins in half of the games where the toss was lost, but the ball was received anyway.)

Everything I have said so far is based on OT games through 2001. Will I conveniently omit stats from 2002? No. We know that occurrences of the nightmare scenario were up. Thus the controversy.

Still, it's not that bad. They comprised just over one-third of the OT games (35%). Winning the toss led to winning the game in 62% of 2002's OTs, which is definitely up from 50%, but still only five of every eight.

As for those times when the nightmare scenario occurs, it has to mean that some part of your team failed.

Football is offense, defense, and special teams. If you kick off, and the other team scores before you gain possession, that must mean that either your special teams or defense (or both) failed.

If the kickoff went out of bounds (spot that ball at the 40), or the cover team allowed the returner as far as the 40, that's a special teams failure, is it not? Assuming your coverage holds them to the 35 or 30, they have to drive 32-37 yards to get in range for a 50-yard field goal, and more for a closer shot. Shouldn't your defense perform better than to allow three or four first downs (or a big play) when the game is on the line?

If not, haven't they failed? Any team that pays attention only to its offense, and does not expect its defense, (or special teams), to perform has bigger problems than worrying about the overtime format.

Isn't it a pretty serious problem if your team allows a scoring drive after the opening kickoff, the second-half kickoff, or a kickoff following one of your own scores? Of course it is. So why this "victimization" if your team allows it in OT?

It is not unreasonable to expect to kickoff, suppress the returner between the 20 and 30, and force a punt. Since the punting team will be facing into the wind (they elected to receive), now you are receiving a wind-hampered punt, and returning it. Shouldn't that provide the team that kicked off with a big edge in field position? (For example, first team started at own 25, second team starts at own 40.) Wind, if present, will be the ally of the team that kicked off in all subsequent punts, for and against, and all subsequent field goal attempts, for and against.

Those are some of the reasons they win 45% of the time.

In summary, there are several possible outcomes in OT games, only one of which could possibly be labeled an injustice. The winner and loser in all other scenarios can not look to the coin toss as the determinant. Even in the one scenario thought by some to be unjust, the coin toss winner enjoys this outcome in only one-fifth of the games, and it is, in this writer's opinion, unbecoming to ignore a failure on defense and/or special teams, and attribute a loss to a format known to all in advance.

A coin toss is a random event, and unto itself, as fair as fair can be. If the stakes are too high to be decided by such a frivolous undertaking, don't leave matters at such risk. If you have the better team, win the damned game in regulation!"

[hail2skins]

geez, how did you get that big of a post on? The board normally prevents post that large.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by hail2skins
geez, how did you get that big of a post on? The board normally prevents post that large.

Don't know, just did it. But what abou the content, does it make OT as it is seem not so bad?

[Keino]

I've always felt like the Sudden Death Rule should stay. I disagree with Nantz. Had the Redskins played Defense we would've seen the Ramsey led offense get back on the field. The rule is best as is. We were not beaten by a coin toss, but by untimely bad defense.....

[skinswin'emALL]

Statistis aside, i would like to see the OT rule first to 6 points. That way a team would have to score a TD on their first drive if they win the toss. And 2 FG would also win. this would be the best of both worlds - a team could win on their first pos, but they would have to score a TD.

This was brought up at the owners and competition mettings this off season, but was not paseed this year. Sometimes it take a few years for things like this to change. It took years to get OT in first. I am glad we have at least some form of OT. It sure beats a tie, yuck!

[Hailyeah]

Originally posted by hail2skins
I really am comfortable with the currrent rule. So what, you don't win the coin toss. Go play defense, stop them, then get your offense on the board.

This is how I feel exactly. I just think that the phrase, "Well, then play defense" just thwarts any questioning/argument about changing the rule. Why change the gameplay of football in OT? I just don't understand giving artificial (unearned) field position or regulating FG attempts or any funny concept of 'equality'. I'm simply for keeping the normal course of events in the game and seeing what happens. The Skins D blew it. Flat out. They were aided by a seemingly costly holding call on the Giants return which put the ball at the 6 and yet still couldn't stop NY.

Jim Nantz is a tool anyway. I'm sure he called the Giants victory, "A win for the ages" borrowing off his own bland call for Tigers first Masters title and the Michigan St basketball championship and all the other events he's allowed to do. Annoying broadcaster IMO.

[Spence]

The Redskins had plenty of chances to win that game in regulation. They sleepwalked through the first half. They lost points to penalties. They gave the Giants points off penalties. They let the Giants drive 80+ yards in overtime.

A smart team would have won that game. The Redskins are not smart.

[rskinsfan10]

I'll make this short and sweet. I hate the current rule.

[Spence]

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
I'll make this short and sweet. I hate the current rule. No doubt, the college rule is a lot more fun. No excuse for the Redskins, though. Whenever someone on the radio makes some excuse for another Redskins loss I flash back to about a million different Norv Turner press conferences. Makes my blood run cold.

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by Spence
No doubt, the college rule is a lot more fun. No excuse for the Redskins, though. Whenever someone on the radio makes some excuse for another Redskins loss I flash back to about a million different Norv Turner press conferences. Makes my blood run cold.

I'm not sure I would want the college rule either. I would rather go with a 7 1/2 minute extra period and crown the winner after that time has expired.

For the record, I've always hated this rule, way before Sunday's outcome. I think we has a thread talking about this in the off-season.

[Patrick]

Hmmm - this is one of the great debates in the NFL.
My thought: Why don't we just go BACK to the WAY it used to be and have Win, Losses AND Ties. So what if 2,3,4,5 teams are tie for a position in the playoff. There are enough tie breakers that will sore that out ( no different than now).

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Patrick
Hmmm - this is one of the great debates in the NFL.
My thought: Why don't we just go BACK to the WAY it used to be and have Win, Losses AND Ties. So what if 2,3,4,5 teams are tie for a position in the playoff. There are enough tie breakers that will sore that out ( no different than now).

Very good idea, which will never happen. Why not let teams play for a tie?