Is it time to take a look at the OT rules?

Purple Pain
Hall of Fame Nominee

Posts: 8,733
Likes: 2,877

Is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Jan 21, 2019 14:15:41 GMT -6

Quote

Post by Purple Pain on Jan 21, 2019 14:15:41 GMT -6

Who remembers when/why the OT rules were changed the last time? Yeah, me neither...

With both conference championships going into OT yesterday (and the many OT games this season), is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Should there be special rules for the playoffs or all or nothing?

Some things to get the discussion started:

Probably Reignman 's view:

More in-depth stuff here:

Since the overtime rule change in 2012, the team that possesses the ball first in OT wins exactly 50% of game by grotkal

Based on the discussions from yesterday's games, there has been a lot of calls to change the current overtime rules. However, the numbers being thrown around on the first team possessing the ball winning (52%, 60%, etc), and thus the game being "decided on a coin flip" have been based on a longer time period that includes previous OT rules (notably the old sudden death, where a FG won regardless of possession). I wanted to check the numbers on OT results under the current rules (TD on first possession ends the game, FG only wins AFTER the first possession). I used the game logs on www.pro-football-reference.com to do this mini-analysis. Apologies if I missed any games, but if I missed 1 or 2 it shouldn't wildly change the numbers. It turns out there are a fair amount of OT games every year.

The current rule was first implemented in the 2010 playoffs, but was extended to regular season games in 2012. Under these rules, there have been a total of 118 overtime games. This includes regular season and playoffs, and includes yesterday's games.

Wins by team that possesses the ball first: 59 (50%)

Of these wins, 23 were on an opening drive TD (39.0% of team with first possession wins, 19.5% overall overtime games)

Wins by team that possesses the ball second: 52 (44.1%)

Ties: 7 (5.9%)

Taking all of this information together, it would seem to suggest that the current NFL rules are actually fairly balanced in terms of giving teams an equal shot to win. The opening drive TD, while not allowing the other team the ball, makes up for two small advantages for the second team to possess the ball. First, they know that they have 4 downs to move the ball if there is a FG on the first possession. Second, they can just kick a FG and win on their first possession, while the first possessor should always try for a TD (potentially leading to turnovers that may not happen if they could just kick a FG to win). Opening drive TDs have also ended less than 20% of overtime games, which means that in over 80% of overtime games, both teams had a shot with the ball (or it wasn't necessary due to a pick 6, or something like that).

The remaining advantage for the team with the first possession is that they are likely to have more possessions than the other side in OT due to getting the ball first and OT having a time limit. This potentially gives an extra opportunity to the team with the first possession. Ties are more likely to hurt the team with the second possession, since they'll sometimes have one fewer possession, but we can't say that all 7 ties would have been victories for those teams getting the ball second.

What do you think? Could improvements be made to the current rules that still maintain this balance? It's unclear how the win totals would change if a first drive TD didn't end the game. It seems likely that the team scoring the TD would still win most of those games, but it would give a big advantage to the team with the second possession of knowing they had 4 downs to move the ball the whole way down the field, while the first team has to decide between kicking a FG and going for it on 4th down. This would potentially swing the pendulum back in the favor of the defending team and likely doesn't improve on the results enough to warrant the extra length of games/chance of injuries. (The injury point was one of the major reasons why overtime was shortened from 15 minutes to 10 minutes.)

An important note -- I make no attempt to weight results by the quality of the teams, home/away, etc. I took a purely agnostic approach (sort of a "these two teams were tied after 60 minutes, so they're basically equal today" approach).

EDIT: Because someone was arguing that playoff games are different from regular season and so I shouldn't include ties (I honestly don't know what the argument is on why ties should be omitted, but whatever), I omitted playoff games and looked solely at the regular season. Note that there are 8 playoff games and 7 have been won by the team with the first possession (5 by opening drive TDs). Definitely not a big enough sample size to say anything there, but we can look at the regular season games alone:

Regular Season (110 OT games):

Wins by team that possesses the ball first: 52 (47.3%)

Of these wins, 18 were on an opening drive TD (34.6% of team with first possession wins, 16.4% overall overtime games)

Wins by team that possesses the ball second: 51 (46.4%)

Ties: 7 (6.4%)

(excuse the rounding error adding up to 100.1%)

Link: old.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/aic4gt/since_the_overtime_rule_change_in_2012_the_team/

Last Edit: Jan 21, 2019 14:16:20 GMT -6 by Purple Pain

diehardtwinsfan
Moderator

Posts: 11,972

Likes: 7,511

Is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Jan 21, 2019 20:06:49 GMT -6

Quote

Post by diehardtwinsfan on Jan 21, 2019 20:06:49 GMT -6

I've always been a proponent of each team having a possession. Winning the coin toss should not give you an advantage. Period.

But if they didn't change it for Rodgers... I have to think it will never be changed.

Last Edit: Jan 21, 2019 20:07:16 GMT -6 by diehardtwinsfan

Reignman
Purple Pain Lap Dog

Posts: 44,728

Likes: 30,671
Fan Since: 1984

Is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Jan 21, 2019 20:10:22 GMT -6 Funkytown likes this

Quote

Post by Reignman on Jan 21, 2019 20:10:22 GMT -6

It's a slippery slope. I thought about it as soon as the Patriots were marching downfield on a tired Chiefs defense. What can you do? They made the right rule change by saying it had to be a TD cuz yeah, a FG was ridiculously easy if you're anyone but the Vikings or Bears.

Although the rule was a few years too late for the Vikings, as it always is. Just like the push out rule. Miracle in the desert doesn't happen if that stupid rule never existed. Why did it ever exist? As long as it's not PI, and it wasn't, why does the receiver have a right to come down in bounds? To me that's like saying, well the receiver has the right to catch the ball anywhere on the field and a defender can't touch him until he actually catches the ball. Because that's basically what they were saying on the push out rule. A defender literally has to let a receiver catch the ball. Nate Poole probably doesn't get both feet in even if he isn't pushed.

But I digress. If you change the OT rule again to automatically give both teams at least one possession, then people will whine when both teams score a TD on their opening possession and the first team scores a FG or TD on it's 2nd possession. Well why doesn't the other team get a 2nd chance to respond? You can already see it coming.

And that might be the right answer, in the name of fairness. As long as the teams keep scoring TD's, the other team should always get a chance to respond even if the game ends up 76-70 or goes to triple OT. As soon as a team is held to a FG or a punt, then they forfeit their right to additional fair chances. And ofc any defensive score should still automatically end the game right there, pick-6 or safety. You had your fair chance and blew it. That's the best answer IMO.

Only 25% of all drives in the NFL end in a TD, so this shouldn't be a problem. You're not going to end up with any 6 TD OT's. You'll be lucky to end up with an occasional 10-7 or 14-10 OT period. Unlike whatever that nonsense they do in college where teams start at the 25 and you end up with a ton of 66-60 games. Dumb! I'll be done with football if they adopt the college OT rules.

Incoming rant ... your sport is stupid if you have to play by a different set of rules than you did in regulation. Talking about you hockey. Time to overhaul your entire sport if you gotta start doing silly things like that. Like yeah, I can't figure out why you have so many triple OT's in the playoffs when scoring is almost impossible. Same with you soccer. Hey lets stop playing the our sport the way it was meant to be played and lets have a skills competition to decide the winner instead lol. It's so dumb. It would be like the NFL deciding OT by which QB can throw the most footballs through a tire swing from 20 yards. Why on earth play 17 innings when you can just have a HR derby after the 10th?

Oh and yay, lets put OT losses in a separate category and give those teams a point too like it's some sort of participation trophy league. *suicide*

You look at the NHL standings and it looks like every team is above .500. Why?! I liked it better when every other game ended in a tie. Well no I didn't, so how bout you just make scoring a little easier and make it a moot point?

The NFL needs to create a common sense division and hire me. I'll fix football. Instead they waste their time hiring Rachel Maddow to show them how to be more hip. Because that's the real problem, the league looks out of touch to teenagers. *facepalm*

Aug 8, 2024 18:42:12 GMT -6 whoskmoon said:

if sitting and watching something versus actually doing it made a person great at it, Reignman would be the next Ron Jeremy.

Raptorman Hall of Fame Inductee Posts: 18,515 Likes: 8,269 Fan Since: November 6, 1966.	Is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Jan 21, 2019 22:17:57 GMT -6 Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by Raptorman on Jan 21, 2019 22:17:57 GMT -6 Personally, I like the way college does it. Each team gets it a say the 40 yard line. And you keep going to someone screws up. That would be the most fair.
	You can't truly call yourself "peaceful" unless you are capable of great violence. If you are not capable of great violence, you are not peaceful, you are harmless.

beckmt Hall of Fame Inductee Posts: 12,220 Likes: 1,584	Is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Jan 22, 2019 2:26:54 GMT -6 Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by beckmt on Jan 22, 2019 2:26:54 GMT -6 I think getting an equal number of possessions is fair. Game ends automatically on a kick return for TD or a defensive score.

Purple Pain
Hall of Fame Nominee

Posts: 8,733
Likes: 2,877

Is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Jan 22, 2019 13:14:34 GMT -6

Quote

Post by Purple Pain on Jan 22, 2019 13:14:34 GMT -6

Does that need to change, though? If you’re more of a football purist, you probably think the current overtime rules are fair. And they are. You get a kickoff and a chance to return the ball, and if your defense can keep the opposing offense out of the end zone your team gets the ball, even if they give up a field goal. For folks that think the Chiefs got screwed by not getting the ball, I say don’t give up three third and 10 conversions on the winning OT drive and hold the Patriots to a field goal.

So, do I THINK the rules need to be changed to make things ‘more fair’? No. All in all it’s a pretty balanced way to decide a game, and it makes offense, defense, and special teams all critical for success.

But do I WANT the rules to be changed? Yes...yes I do. I get that the NFL is a business, I do. But it’s also equal part entertainment, and for my money nothing is more entertaining than college football overtime. In college, teams start out at the opponent’s 25 yard line. If they score a touchdown, the other team has to score a touchdown. If they do, on to another overtime. If the team that gets the ball first kicks a field goal, the opponent has to kick a field goal to continue. If the other team scores a TD though, game over. If the team that gets the ball first doesn’t score, then a field goal by the other team wins it.

If they match touchdowns and extra points after two overtimes, starting at the third overtime until the conclusion of the game teams must go for two after scoring a TD. If no one scores on their first possession, then it moves to sudden death, and the game is played until there is a winner. There are no ties.

Is it football purity? No, not even close, and I’ll be the first to admit that. There is no kickoff as the ball is pre-positioned, and the punt is eliminated, too. Scores can also be wildly inflated if a game goes to four, five...or even seven overtimes, as we saw happen in the SEC last year.

Is it entertaining as hell, though? Yeah, it sure is. I would make a couple of modifications so the chances of a Texas A&M vs LSU game would be minimal, but it would still be wildly entertaining. I would adopt the current NCAA overtime rules, but with two modifications:

1. Teams start at the opponent’s 40 yard line. The NFL has been trying to eliminate kickoffs and kickoff returns in recent years, so this continues down that road. If the offense can’t get a first down, a field goal attempt would be anywhere from a 48 to 57 yard attempt, assuming they didn’t lose any yardage on the possession.

2. Teams must go for two starting with the first overtime.

For one, this would be a lot more entertaining to watch. It guarantees both teams get at least one possession, and it will forever eliminate the tie. Special teams are still in play, as a field goal can still win it, but by starting at the 40 it’s a dicey kick for a lot of NFL kickers anymore, and three points is no sure thing if the offense can’t make a first down.

Making teams go for two points right away instead of kicking an extra point will probably eliminate games going longer than the current 10 minute overtime period does in terms of total plays called. And if the NFL is serious about player safety, I think this is something that they really need to look at. For example, there were two overtime games that went the full, 10 minute OT period that had games end in a tie this past season. In the week two, 29-29 tie the Vikings and Packers played in Green Bay, there were a total of 18 plays called in OT. In week one, Pittsburgh and Cleveland played to a 21-21 tie. In that game, a total of 29 plays were called in the overtime period. Heck, in the AFC Championship, the Patriots ran 13 plays in OT, and the Chiefs didn’t even get the ball.

By contrast, last November Ohio State and Maryland played a wild, 52-51 game that went to a single overtime. There were a total of 10 plays called in that game, which ended when Maryland failed on a two point conversion. I use that example because Maryland went for two points right away to win the game (although they didn’t have to)...and it was the first college OT game that came into my head without looking, Buckeyes fan and all that. If you want to compensate for the difference between the 40 yard line and the 25 as a starting point, let’s do that. And just for the sake of argument, let’s say that both teams needed three additional plays to get a first down to about roughly the same point OSU and Maryland started, the 25 yard line.

That’s still just 16 plays, 13 less than the Vikings week two game, and only three more in a the single possession OT game we saw on Sunday in Kansas City. So, if you adopt this format, you:

1. Have a good chance of less total plays, which protects the players
2. Have a game that still relies on offense, defense, and a sound field goal kicker, so special teams isn’t eliminated, other than for player safety.
3. Get both teams at least one offensive possession.
4. Forever eliminate a tie game.

Sign me up.

Last Edit: Jan 22, 2019 13:15:03 GMT -6 by Purple Pain

diehardtwinsfan
Moderator

Posts: 11,972

Likes: 7,511

Is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Jan 22, 2019 14:37:12 GMT -6

Quote

Post by diehardtwinsfan on Jan 22, 2019 14:37:12 GMT -6

Jan 21, 2019 20:10:22 GMT -6 Reignman said:

It's a slippery slope. I thought about it as soon as the Patriots were marching downfield on a tired Chiefs defense. What can you do? They made the right rule change by saying it had to be a TD cuz yeah, a FG was ridiculously easy if you're anyone but the Vikings or Bears.

Although the rule was a few years too late for the Vikings, as it always is. Just like the push out rule. Miracle in the desert doesn't happen if that stupid rule never existed. Why did it ever exist? As long as it's not PI, and it wasn't, why does the receiver have a right to come down in bounds? To me that's like saying, well the receiver has the right to catch the ball anywhere on the field and a defender can't touch him until he actually catches the ball. Because that's basically what they were saying on the push out rule. A defender literally has to let a receiver catch the ball. Nate Poole probably doesn't get both feet in even if he isn't pushed.

But I digress. If you change the OT rule again to automatically give both teams at least one possession, then people will whine when both teams score a TD on their opening possession and the first team scores a FG or TD on it's 2nd possession. Well why doesn't the other team get a 2nd chance to respond? You can already see it coming.

And that might be the right answer, in the name of fairness. As long as the teams keep scoring TD's, the other team should always get a chance to respond even if the game ends up 76-70 or goes to triple OT. As soon as a team is held to a FG or a punt, then they forfeit their right to additional fair chances. And ofc any defensive score should still automatically end the game right there, pick-6 or safety. You had your fair chance and blew it. That's the best answer IMO.

Only 25% of all drives in the NFL end in a TD, so this shouldn't be a problem. You're not going to end up with any 6 TD OT's. You'll be lucky to end up with an occasional 10-7 or 14-10 OT period. Unlike whatever that nonsense they do in college where teams start at the 25 and you end up with a ton of 66-60 games. Dumb! I'll be done with football if they adopt the college OT rules.

Incoming rant ... your sport is stupid if you have to play by a different set of rules than you did in regulation. Talking about you hockey. Time to overhaul your entire sport if you gotta start doing silly things like that. Like yeah, I can't figure out why you have so many triple OT's in the playoffs when scoring is almost impossible. Same with you soccer. Hey lets stop playing the our sport the way it was meant to be played and lets have a skills competition to decide the winner instead lol. It's so dumb. It would be like the NFL deciding OT by which QB can throw the most footballs through a tire swing from 20 yards. Why on earth play 17 innings when you can just have a HR derby after the 10th?

Oh and yay, lets put OT losses in a separate category and give those teams a point too like it's some sort of participation trophy league. *suicide*

You look at the NHL standings and it looks like every team is above .500. Why?! I liked it better when every other game ended in a tie. Well no I didn't, so how bout you just make scoring a little easier and make it a moot point?

The NFL needs to create a common sense division and hire me. I'll fix football. Instead they waste their time hiring Rachel Maddow to show them how to be more hip. Because that's the real problem, the league looks out of touch to teenagers. *facepalm*

Perhaps they should change it to only end the game if the team gets a TD and a 2 point on the opening drive?

Only real thing I think is that once they've each scored a pair of TDs, it's OK to simply point out that if no one is playing defense then the next score wins... You have to put a practical limit somewhere... but in the case of the Pats/Chiefs, KC should have had a chance to match it.

Reignman
Purple Pain Lap Dog

Posts: 44,728

Likes: 30,671
Fan Since: 1984

Is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Jan 22, 2019 17:20:45 GMT -6 beckmt likes this

Quote

Post by Reignman on Jan 22, 2019 17:20:45 GMT -6

Jan 22, 2019 14:37:12 GMT -6 diehardtwinsfan said:

Only real thing I think is that once they've each scored a pair of TDs, it's OK to simply point out that if no one is playing defense then the next score wins

That just gets you back to the original problem. If neither team is playing defense, then the coin toss decides everything. The league created this mess themselves by making scoring much easier, now they have to adjust all the other rules to make everything seem fair and make sense.

Aug 8, 2024 18:42:12 GMT -6 whoskmoon said:

if sitting and watching something versus actually doing it made a person great at it, Reignman would be the next Ron Jeremy.

Reignman
Purple Pain Lap Dog

Posts: 44,728

Likes: 30,671
Fan Since: 1984

Is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Jan 22, 2019 17:22:00 GMT -6

Quote

Post by Reignman on Jan 22, 2019 17:22:00 GMT -6

Jan 22, 2019 2:26:54 GMT -6 beckmt said:

I think getting an equal number of possessions is fair. Game ends automatically on a kick return for TD or a defensive score.

Defensive score yes, but a kick return TD is the same problem. If the team that wins the coin toss returns the opening kick for a TD, how is that fair?

Aug 8, 2024 18:42:12 GMT -6 whoskmoon said:

if sitting and watching something versus actually doing it made a person great at it, Reignman would be the next Ron Jeremy.

Reignman
Purple Pain Lap Dog

Posts: 44,728

Likes: 30,671
Fan Since: 1984

Is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Jan 22, 2019 17:24:55 GMT -6 beckmt likes this

Quote

Post by Reignman on Jan 22, 2019 17:24:55 GMT -6

Jan 21, 2019 22:17:57 GMT -6 Raptorman said:

Personally, I like the way college does it. Each team gets it a say the 40 yard line. And you keep going to someone screws up. That would be the most fair.

Why the 40 yard line? That seems arbitrary. Why are we changing the rules just because it's OT? Why not just keep playing normal football until someone screws up? Making them drive the length of the field gives them more of an opportunity to screw up and we shouldn't get any ridiculous 66-60 games like we do in college.

Aug 8, 2024 18:42:12 GMT -6 whoskmoon said:

if sitting and watching something versus actually doing it made a person great at it, Reignman would be the next Ron Jeremy.

Raptorman
Hall of Fame Inductee

Posts: 18,515

Likes: 8,269
Fan Since: November 6, 1966.

Is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Jan 22, 2019 18:24:08 GMT -6

Quote

Post by Raptorman on Jan 22, 2019 18:24:08 GMT -6

Jan 22, 2019 17:24:55 GMT -6 Reignman said:

Jan 21, 2019 22:17:57 GMT -6 Raptorman said:

Personally, I like the way college does it. Each team gets it a say the 40 yard line. And you keep going to someone screws up. That would be the most fair.

Why the 40 yard line? That seems arbitrary. Why are we changing the rules just because it's OT? Why not just keep playing normal football until someone screws up? Making them drive the length of the field gives them more of an opportunity to screw up and we shouldn't get any ridiculous 66-60 games like we do in college.

Why the 40? Because NFL Kickers. The 40 would be a 57 yard FG. That would make them at least run a few plays to get closer. 25 yard line would be a 42 yard field goal. It also shortens the game.

Last Edit: Jan 22, 2019 18:24:41 GMT -6 by Raptorman

You can't truly call yourself "peaceful" unless you are capable of great violence. If you are not capable of great violence, you are not peaceful, you are harmless.

Funkytown Owner Purple Pain Big Dog Posts: 67,642 Likes: 31,566 Fan Since: 1998 Member is Online	Is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Jan 23, 2019 10:45:54 GMT -6 Danchat likes this Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by Funkytown on Jan 23, 2019 10:45:54 GMT -6

Reignman
Purple Pain Lap Dog

Posts: 44,728

Likes: 30,671
Fan Since: 1984

Is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Jan 24, 2019 17:29:04 GMT -6 Funkytown likes this

Quote

Post by Reignman on Jan 24, 2019 17:29:04 GMT -6

Jan 23, 2019 10:45:54 GMT -6 Funkytown said:

I don't get it. Is 52% some big margin or something? The sample size is small. And nothing should be compared to college football unless you're talking about dumpster fires because everything about college football is awful.

Since 2008, when the option to defer was implemented, the team that won the coin toss at the beginning of the game won 51.6% of the time. In 2018 they won 53.5% of the time. So I guess they're unfair no matter when they take place.

Some coin toss stats: Since 2008, the coin toss winner deferred 58.3% of the time. Teams that deferred won 52.1% of the time. The trend in recent years has been to defer however. In 2018 the coin toss winner deferred 94.7% of the time and won 53.5% of the time.

Since 2002, teams that call the flip only win the flip 49.7% of the time (47.7% in 2018). Unfortunately the heads/tails data doesn't exist so I can't confirm if tails in fact never fails. Teams that call the flip and win the flip only win 43.1% of the games however. Although to be fair, only the road team calls the flip, so that might have something to do with it xD.

And the best news of all regarding the coin toss, I found one more thing that the Vikings suck at. Since 2002 the Vikings are dead last at calling the flip correctly at only 42.7% (Zim is at 30% 12/40 in his career). The Titans were #1 at 58.8% and the Pukers were ofc 2nd at 58.1%. Hold on, it gets even better. The Vikings opponents rank #2 in getting the flip correct at 57.4%. So yay us! We even choke when it comes to random chance.

You want the smoking gun of why we were so much better in 2017 than in 2018? We won the coin toss in 2017 56.3% of the time and only 37.5% this year. Boom! Case closed. Case Keenum.

Aug 8, 2024 18:42:12 GMT -6 whoskmoon said:

if sitting and watching something versus actually doing it made a person great at it, Reignman would be the next Ron Jeremy.

Reignman
Purple Pain Lap Dog

Posts: 44,728

Likes: 30,671
Fan Since: 1984

Is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Jan 24, 2019 18:17:56 GMT -6 Funkytown likes this

Quote

Post by Reignman on Jan 24, 2019 18:17:56 GMT -6

Oh and an interesting tid regarding the toss that most people are probably unaware of, including myself. When you call the flip correctly, you get 3 choices. 1) Kick/receive, 2) defend a goal (take wind), 3) defer your choice to the 2nd half. The team that losses the coin toss does in fact get the same 3 choices to start the 2nd half. Well 2 choices, they can't defer to the 3rd half xD. But they don't just automatically start the 2nd half the opposite of how the game started. A team can in fact receive the kick to begin both halves, however rare that ends up happening.

In fact, before 2008 when the deferral option was added, only 1 team from 1999-2007 won the opening coin toss and chose the wind. Can you guess which team? And no it wasn't Marty Mornhinweg. It was Denny Green in 1999, at Chicago. There was a 16mph wind coming from the North, so the 5-4 Vikings chose the wind to begin the game. The Bears then chose to receive. And since the Bears lost the coin flip, they got first choice to begin the 2nd half and again chose to receive.

MIN wins the coin toss and elects to defer. CHI elects to Receive, and MIN elects to defend the north goal.
M.Berger kicks 70 yards from MIN 30 to end zone, Touchback. Ball first bounced at the CB 7

The play by play data says "defer" for whatever reason, but that wasn't an option at the time. MIN elected to defend the north goal and then CHI elected to receive. The strategy paid off as the Bears went 3 n out on their opening drive.

MIN elects to Receive, and CHI elects to defend the goal.
M.Berger kicks 59 yards from MIN 30 to CHI 11. G.Milburn to CHI 32 for 21 yards (J.Mills). ball first bounced at CB13

Again the play by play data got it wrong to begin the 2nd half. MIN elected to receive, but kicked off anyway lol? That was rather charitable. Ummm no, Chicago had first choice and they elected to receive again, and again they went 3 n out. So hey, what do you know, something actually worked out for the Vikings once upon a time. Anyone else shocked that the Bears didn't begin both halves with a TD drive?

This game would end up going to OT, so Denny Green had an opportunity to do what Marty Mornhinweg would infamously do in 2002, also in Chicago, which was win an OT coin toss and choose the wind instead of receiving the ball. Bold move Cotton, however it didn't pay off for Marty. The Bears scored on the opening drive in OT xD. That was back when you only needed a FG to end OT, So bold indeed.

Play By Play Overtime 11/24/2002
DET wins toss, elects to defend the North goal, and CHI elects to Receive.

Mornhinweg was fired at the end of the year after going 3-13.

Back to this game. In OT Denny Green elected to receive this time, but he should have taken the wind again perhaps lol. Jeff George threw an INT on the first play of OT. The Bears however went 3 n out and missed the GW FG. The Vikings responded by driving down and kicking a GW FG of their own.

MIN wins toss, elects to Receive, and CHI elects to defend the North goal.
C.Boniol kicks 70 yards from CHI 30 to end zone, Touchback.

The only other team I'm aware of that didn't elect to receive after winning an OT coin toss, was Bill Belichick in 2013 against Denver. The game Manning had a 24-0 halftime lead over Brady.

Play By Play Overtime 11/24/2013
NE wins toss, elects to defend the North goal, and DEN elects to Receive.
S.Gostkowski kicks 65 yards from NE 35 to end zone, Touchback

The Broncos would make it to midfield before punting. 4 punts later the Patriots would finally win on a FG with 2 minutes to go in OT. Based on the current OT rules (10 min OT), this game would have ended in a tie.

Aug 8, 2024 18:42:12 GMT -6 whoskmoon said:

if sitting and watching something versus actually doing it made a person great at it, Reignman would be the next Ron Jeremy.

diehardtwinsfan Moderator Posts: 11,972 Likes: 7,511	Is it time to take a look at the OT rules? Jan 25, 2019 9:44:46 GMT -6 Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by diehardtwinsfan on Jan 25, 2019 9:44:46 GMT -6 I didn't know the Vikings were allowed to kick a GW FG in OT.