I’m not really advocating for the rule I’m just saying that KC had equal chance to effect the game. Their defence lost them the game.
If it was the other way round I wouldn’t be complaining.
NFL Thread
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
If it was the other way round I wouldn’t be complaining.
you don't "just have to deal with it". you can advocate for a fairer system, which i am doing
why not just play rock paper scissors, best of 3? both teams had an equal chance in the first place
It’s useless in the context of the game which is played under the current rules though. The players are aware of the rules and it’s up to them to effect the game. KC lost the game themselves.
they lost the game after being arbitrarily placed in a position where the odds were stacked against them
congrats berbaclass
Tbf, the NFL is the only level on the American football pyramid that doesn’t allow both teams a possession in overtime.
High school and college both start at a set yard line and give each team the ball.
It's not equal and I can't believe you can't see that. One side has a risk free go at an attacking drive, knowing that if they fail they will have another opportunity with their defence. The other side has all of the risk in attempting to defend a drive, knowing if they fail they won't get an opportunity with their attack.
There is very little effect KC players can have on a coin toss they weren't allowed to call.
They bottled it. They gave up 3 3rd and 10 conversions.
Well here's to six pages of arguing in circles.
Hop over to the Current Events thread and watch the blood moon/lunar eclipse.
Hop over to the Current Events thread and watch the blood moon/lunar eclipse.
Rock, paper, scissors would be infinitely better than a coin toss for determining sides, kick offs and other such matters across all sports!
It would add an intriguing element to captaincy and make for great viewing!
you're missing the point and i think its because you are a fan of one of the teams who played in the game
Again guys, I’m not saying that the rule is fair. I said during the previous game that I didn’t think it was.
I’m just saying that both sets of players know what they have to do and are aware of the rules and KC were let down by their defence.
No I’m not I agree with you that the rule is not very fair, I just think it’s irrelevant because they play with the current rules in mind and KC failed on defence. I don’t think it’s fair to say KC couldn’t do anything to stop NE scoring because they absolutely could and almost did multiple times.
While I agree that the current system isn’t fair (or fairer say like college football where both teams get the ball), this also is the system that’s been in play forever and everyone knows the rules. You don’t see a big clamor or movement in getting it changed either. I remember the days when the first team who scored (even by a field goal) that won. I’m not too bothered either way, as both teams had 60 minutes to settle the game and prevent OT. Also there’s some excitement knowing that you score a TD and it’s over. A walk off or golden goal situation. Not saying college football overtime’s aren’t exciting either, btw. Just feel college OTs are cool for college and NFL OT is fun and exciting for the NFL. And while it may not be ideal, the coin flip has a lot to do with it.
Should make the coin toss first to 9 out of 16 
Tbh it’s just sad that all everyone will talk about now is the OT, when in reality we played an excellent game against the odds.
I think the current OT system is stupid and needs changing but the hyperbole changes so much when it’s the Patriots who benefit. Comments like “won because of a coin toss” are kind of silly because we still had to get a TD to make that comment relevant. Brees won the toss. One slip up and the Rams were in with a short field.
I’m sure there is a fairer system out there for OT. I think part of the issue is players don’t want it changed because they don’t want to have to play more time.
Anyway, I’m glad we won. Should be a great Super Bowl.
I think the current OT system is stupid and needs changing but the hyperbole changes so much when it’s the Patriots who benefit. Comments like “won because of a coin toss” are kind of silly because we still had to get a TD to make that comment relevant. Brees won the toss. One slip up and the Rams were in with a short field.
I’m sure there is a fairer system out there for OT. I think part of the issue is players don’t want it changed because they don’t want to have to play more time.
Anyway, I’m glad we won. Should be a great Super Bowl.
KC have themselves to blame for letting it get to the coin toss through bad game management. If they were a bit smarter they’d have won that game but I think the inexperience showed in the end.
They should have wound the clock down more and not given the ball back with 2 minutes left. That was asking for trouble.
As far as I’m concerned they had 60 minutes to win the game and they know what happens if it’s level at the end of it. The OT rule may not be the fairest but they had the chance to not let it come down to that. Not to even mention things like Ford’s offside...
They should have wound the clock down more and not given the ball back with 2 minutes left. That was asking for trouble.
As far as I’m concerned they had 60 minutes to win the game and they know what happens if it’s level at the end of it. The OT rule may not be the fairest but they had the chance to not let it come down to that. Not to even mention things like Ford’s offside...
Math not your strong suit, huh Dave? What do you do if it’s 8-8?Should make the coin toss first to 9 out of 16
Last edited:
Try getting on to AFL given it will be on during the off season. It's a much faster and harder sport. Plus it's a football code where they actually kick the ball.
Highlights from the Grand Final in September. 100k people in the stands. Game went down to the last minute.
Also #46 for Collingwood (Mason Cox), the black and white team, is an American who has come across and has been playing well.
Last edited:
The OT rule is shit. What happened in regulation changes nothing.
There’s no point in saying the players know the rules beforehand when the actual point is that these said rules are terrible.
Patriots gifted another easy ride into the superbowl . The AFC is a joke .
When Miami Dolphins are one of the best teams things need to change .
They really need to shake up the divisions again . I certainly can't be bothered watching Brady and Co again in a Superbowl
When Miami Dolphins are one of the best teams things need to change .
They really need to shake up the divisions again . I certainly can't be bothered watching Brady and Co again in a Superbowl
Not really
It's said almost every year and a lot no matter which team benefits
Here it might be argued more cos you have more patriots fans here - thus making an opposing argument against it cos their team won
But both teams not getting possession is crazy in a playoff game especially when it decides something so big
I don’t think there’s anyone who supports it, including patriots fans. The majority of which on here have clearly said that it’s not the best rule. But perhaps if you read the next sentence, you’ll understand the context of my post. Some of us fans perhaps get overly defensive because of the level of BS.
The fact of the matter is this: the rule sucks, whoever is playing, whoever benefits. It’s bad for any fan of the sport. But to say it’s the sole reason a team wins is wrong. It contributes. Unfairly so. Which is why it’s a crap rule. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only reason a team wins.
feck the OT rules and feck the patriots.
The ot rules suck only cause every time Brady is around, the guy drives down the field pinging darts everywhere
Didn’t hear any complaints about them in the earlier game
Brady forever
Didn’t hear any complaints about them in the earlier game
Brady forever
They suck because they actually suck. The Patriots just make it more obvious than it already is.
That's because you don't read anything other than patriots posts. It's talked about in here every time and it's a bullshit rule.
Also in the earlier game each team had a drive.
You're kidding right? Even in the early game people were saying that the OT rules suck, as they've been saying for years in the NFL thread.
They do suck, it's very unfair. I don't begrudge it to Brady though, he made the plays and performed as clinically as ever. You just know what's gonna happen and you ain't stopping him. Harsh on Mahomes of course, think he was a bit impressed by the occassion in the first half, and the Pats' D played lights out.
I get it that emotions might be involved here due to people being upset about the outcome of the OT in this particular game but the rule has been around for long enough and all teams know it so they play with it in mind.
Neither defence in this instance was particularly good so either team should have ensured they win it in regular time. Once it gets to OT, they both knew the result of the coin toss will have an influence on the eventual winner.
I liken this to penalty kicks at the end of a draw match in football. When it occurs in a World Cup final, I’ve heard many pundits cry about the rule being unfair and would love for a better way to decide a World Cup winner. However the teams can’t go on playing forever until a winner is found, so concessions have to be made at some point (usually not very fair) to decide a winner and bring the game to an end.
This is the best alternative idea I’ve seen so far,
I’m a Pats fan so I was delighted in this case, but I’ve been at the losing end of an unfair rule when my national team lost the Confederations Cup finals in 2003 to a Thierry Henry golden goal in extra time. I was gutted at the time about the loss not about the rule because the rules are well known beforehand so you can’t complain about it after you fall victim.
Neither defence in this instance was particularly good so either team should have ensured they win it in regular time. Once it gets to OT, they both knew the result of the coin toss will have an influence on the eventual winner.
I liken this to penalty kicks at the end of a draw match in football. When it occurs in a World Cup final, I’ve heard many pundits cry about the rule being unfair and would love for a better way to decide a World Cup winner. However the teams can’t go on playing forever until a winner is found, so concessions have to be made at some point (usually not very fair) to decide a winner and bring the game to an end.
This is the best alternative idea I’ve seen so far,
although I’m not sure how the coaching staffs and players will take a game which continues for 30 minutes or more without an outright winner. I would alter it a bit to allow for kicks and extra two points (one teams kicker could score and the other misses), anything to bring the match to an end quickly.
I’m a Pats fan so I was delighted in this case, but I’ve been at the losing end of an unfair rule when my national team lost the Confederations Cup finals in 2003 to a Thierry Henry golden goal in extra time. I was gutted at the time about the loss not about the rule because the rules are well known beforehand so you can’t complain about it after you fall victim.
Tom feckin Brady! What a monster!
Can't wait for Bill Burr's Monday morning podcast, he'll be drunk as feck.
Can't wait for Bill Burr's Monday morning podcast, he'll be drunk as feck.
Didn't think the patriots had much of a chance to get there after regular season. Thought chiefs would win comfortably but that was an incredible display from the whole squad.
OT rule isn't the best and Mahomes should've been given a chance. But we all knew the rules before it started and the chiefs D had the chance to get it back to the O - they couldn't.
9 Super Bowl appearances - yikes.
OT rule isn't the best and Mahomes should've been given a chance. But we all knew the rules before it started and the chiefs D had the chance to get it back to the O - they couldn't.
9 Super Bowl appearances - yikes.
The next sentence is irrelevant to you saying the hyperbole changing when its the patriots benefits. Its not. Its the from the majority of people, no matter which team plays in the playoffs or which team wins and has been for years.
There is no level of BS. Comments like 'won cos of a coin toss' are not just aimed at Patriots. Teams are defo benefiting and having an advantage cos of coin toss though.
They didnt 'bottle it'. Thats ignoring the tiredness of the defence as well as the good play calling and execution of the Patriots.
Defo impressive for Brady to get to another superbowlTom feckin Brady! What a monster!
Can't wait for Bill Burr's Monday morning podcast, he'll be drunk as feck.
But he was not good and hugely benefits from a GOAT coach and system
And a well built franchise
Not that it takes away from his own status but it defo helps him. But fair play to him for still going
You’ve just agreed with me in your post. So let’s just leave it where it is.
@Fanatic 00237 its like penalties, if the team that scores the first penalty wins.
This 2017 article still rings (no pun intended) true. Also shows why the college football overtime rule is definitely not a more fair system of deciding after a tie.
https://www.theringer.com/2017/2/6/...s-super-bowl-li-patriots-falcons-62316a6f8e3c
https://www.theringer.com/2017/2/6/...s-super-bowl-li-patriots-falcons-62316a6f8e3c
The NFL’s Overtime Rules Aren’t Fair — but Neither Are the Alternatives
Matthew Slater’s “heads” call was one of the decisive moments of Super Bowl LI
By Rodger Sherman Feb 6, 2017, 3:16pm EST
Sure, the Patriots made a lot of great plays Sunday night — they had to in order to pull off the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history. But if I had to pick the one that won them the game, I’d pick a play by Matthew Slater.
No, it wasn’t a catch he made: Although he’s listed as a wide receiver, he has only one career catch, and that was in 2011. No, it wasn’t a play he made on special teams. Although he’s made the Pro Bowl six times, his work limiting the Falcons to zero punt return yards wasn’t a critical factor in the game — much of that fell on the punter, and besides, New England didn’t punt during its comeback.
I’m talking about the play Slater made at the beginning of overtime. As New England’s special teams captain, it was Slater’s job to make a pick for the coin toss. Our Kevin Clark reports that Slater is a heads guy, having picked it over tails every time he’s been given the chance over the past six seasons.
Earlier, at the beginning of the game, Slater had faltered. The Super Bowl coin toss is a big deal, with bettors placing wagers on it and the NFL bringing out a celebrity to throw the coin — last night it was former President George H.W. Bush. And the coin came up tails.
So, during the overtime coin toss, Slater’s head had to be spinning. Was heads really the right call? Is it true that tails never fails? In the ultimate show of consistency and #ThePatriotWay, he called heads and won.
Sunday night featured the first overtime in Super Bowl history, and therefore the first time the NFL’s overtime rules received scrutiny on its largest stage. While the opening coin toss of games means almost nothing, the coin toss in overtime is a major determinant of who wins and who loses. Since 2010, when the NFL reworked its overtime rules for the playoffs, each team has been guaranteed a possession or the opportunity to possess — unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its first possession. (The rules were adopted in the regular season in 2012.)
If Atlanta had won the toss, the best offense in the NFL would have gotten the ball with a chance to win the game with a touchdown. Sure, the Falcons farted through most of the second half, but their offense still played a relatively good game and could have succeeded in OT. Matt Ryan finished with over 12 yards per passing attempt, Julio Jones made some of the greatest catches we’ll ever forget, and the running backs rolled. The chances of them mustering a touchdown after an ugly second half were low, but I’d say they were still higher than New England’s chances of scoring four times on four possessions while shutting Atlanta out after playing terribly for 40 minutes — and that happened.
Furthermore, Atlanta’s defense would have gotten time to rest. The Patriots ran the Falcons ragged on a series of long drives at the end of regulation, and when New England won the toss, the Falcons had to put their gassed defense back on the field. The Patriots trampled over them, winning with a walk-off touchdown. The best offense in the NFL? Never got to touch the ball.
Of all the coaches in NFL history, nobody has toyed with the idea that maybe it’s bad to start overtime with the ball more than Belichick has. There have been 12 overtime games when a team has chosen to give the ball away. Eleven were games when weather made field position outweigh possession. Belichick coached one, a 2013 New England win over Denver when the wind helped the Patriots gain great field position for a game-winning field goal.
The 12th was a stranger Belichick game, played on one of the nicest days in the history of New York Decembers. He opted to kick despite the decent weather, and the Jets scored and won on the first drive of OT. It was such a baffling decision that many assumed Slater had messed up in telling the referee the Patriots wanted to kick; when people found out he hadn’t messed up, some assumed Belichick was trying to intentionally lose to give New England a more favorable playoff opponent. While it seems unlikely that Belichick would throw a game after playing his starters for 60 minutes, that explanation made more sense than one of the greatest coaches of all time making a decision that benefited the other team.
Suffice it to say, there is no evidence that backs up the premise that kicking the ball in overtime helps a team win. Since the NFL instituted its new overtime rules, there have been 87 overtime games. Five have been ties, and the team to get the ball first has won 45 of the remaining 82. That’s 54.8 percent, meaning simply winning the coin toss makes a team 9.6 percent more likely to win.
The best alternative would seem to be college football’s OT system, a quickly understandable mini-game based around points. But if you’re looking for a system not influenced by coin tosses, college football isn’t the place. In that system, teams get to choose whether to play on offense first or second. The team that goes second has a massive advantage, knowing how many points it needs to tie or win the game. A study of the first 10 years of college football’s overtime rules found that teams that went second won 54.9 percent of the time. Another study found that teams that start on defense had a 52.1 percent win probability, smaller than the NFL’s but still significant. And this Redditor tabulated that teams going second in overtime had won 331 of 602 overtime games, almost 55 percent. Allowing both teams to touch the ball lends plausible fairness to the game, but it doesn’t make it even.
Earlier this season I wrote that the NFL’s overtime rules don’t make sense, and I stand by that. The rule changes, which did away with sudden death by field goal, made winning the coin toss slightly less important. But the new, modified system rarely changes winners to losers, and it makes ties significantly more likely, even though some NFL players and coaches still don’t know ties exist. Five years after its introduction, the system still requires a lengthy explanation from the ref.
But in the 150 or so years we’ve been playing football, nobody’s really come up with a fair method of determining the winner after a tie in regulation. In 2005 The New York Times reported that a pair of engineers, the Quanbeck brothers, had pitched the league on a system in which one team chose the field position to open overtime and the other team chose whether to play offense or defense from that spot. The Quanbecks have other proposals, based around auction-style systems where teams choose field position or the ball.
The proposals seem fun! They’d add an element of theater and strategy that’s lost in the coin toss. I’m also 100 percent sure the NFL would never seriously consider any of them.
We will likely be stuck with this system, or at least a system based heavily on luck, for quite some time. So let’s find beauty in it. It will lead to desperate defenses fighting to force a field goal; it will lead to strange decisions about whether to play for the tie or the lead; it will lead to ties, the weirdest thing football has to offer. Sunday night, it led to the Patriots putting the perfect capper on the greatest comeback the Super Bowl has ever seen. Anything else would have been an anticlimax.
If we’re being honest, we know it’s unfair that Atlanta didn’t get the ball back for reasons due to a bouncing coin and not football. But if we’re being really honest, we know the team didn’t deserve that ball. The Falcons had so many opportunities to avoid overtime, and crumpled in all of them. It was only fitting that overtime featured them getting trucked off the field and into the history books with the most embarrassing collapse football’s championship game has ever seen. Yes, the coin toss means they were slighted by fate, but their loss was also fueled by their own failure.
Matthew Slater’s “heads” call was one of the decisive moments of Super Bowl LI
By Rodger Sherman Feb 6, 2017, 3:16pm EST
Sure, the Patriots made a lot of great plays Sunday night — they had to in order to pull off the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history. But if I had to pick the one that won them the game, I’d pick a play by Matthew Slater.
No, it wasn’t a catch he made: Although he’s listed as a wide receiver, he has only one career catch, and that was in 2011. No, it wasn’t a play he made on special teams. Although he’s made the Pro Bowl six times, his work limiting the Falcons to zero punt return yards wasn’t a critical factor in the game — much of that fell on the punter, and besides, New England didn’t punt during its comeback.
I’m talking about the play Slater made at the beginning of overtime. As New England’s special teams captain, it was Slater’s job to make a pick for the coin toss. Our Kevin Clark reports that Slater is a heads guy, having picked it over tails every time he’s been given the chance over the past six seasons.
Earlier, at the beginning of the game, Slater had faltered. The Super Bowl coin toss is a big deal, with bettors placing wagers on it and the NFL bringing out a celebrity to throw the coin — last night it was former President George H.W. Bush. And the coin came up tails.
So, during the overtime coin toss, Slater’s head had to be spinning. Was heads really the right call? Is it true that tails never fails? In the ultimate show of consistency and #ThePatriotWay, he called heads and won.
Sunday night featured the first overtime in Super Bowl history, and therefore the first time the NFL’s overtime rules received scrutiny on its largest stage. While the opening coin toss of games means almost nothing, the coin toss in overtime is a major determinant of who wins and who loses. Since 2010, when the NFL reworked its overtime rules for the playoffs, each team has been guaranteed a possession or the opportunity to possess — unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its first possession. (The rules were adopted in the regular season in 2012.)
If Atlanta had won the toss, the best offense in the NFL would have gotten the ball with a chance to win the game with a touchdown. Sure, the Falcons farted through most of the second half, but their offense still played a relatively good game and could have succeeded in OT. Matt Ryan finished with over 12 yards per passing attempt, Julio Jones made some of the greatest catches we’ll ever forget, and the running backs rolled. The chances of them mustering a touchdown after an ugly second half were low, but I’d say they were still higher than New England’s chances of scoring four times on four possessions while shutting Atlanta out after playing terribly for 40 minutes — and that happened.
Furthermore, Atlanta’s defense would have gotten time to rest. The Patriots ran the Falcons ragged on a series of long drives at the end of regulation, and when New England won the toss, the Falcons had to put their gassed defense back on the field. The Patriots trampled over them, winning with a walk-off touchdown. The best offense in the NFL? Never got to touch the ball.
Of all the coaches in NFL history, nobody has toyed with the idea that maybe it’s bad to start overtime with the ball more than Belichick has. There have been 12 overtime games when a team has chosen to give the ball away. Eleven were games when weather made field position outweigh possession. Belichick coached one, a 2013 New England win over Denver when the wind helped the Patriots gain great field position for a game-winning field goal.
The 12th was a stranger Belichick game, played on one of the nicest days in the history of New York Decembers. He opted to kick despite the decent weather, and the Jets scored and won on the first drive of OT. It was such a baffling decision that many assumed Slater had messed up in telling the referee the Patriots wanted to kick; when people found out he hadn’t messed up, some assumed Belichick was trying to intentionally lose to give New England a more favorable playoff opponent. While it seems unlikely that Belichick would throw a game after playing his starters for 60 minutes, that explanation made more sense than one of the greatest coaches of all time making a decision that benefited the other team.
Suffice it to say, there is no evidence that backs up the premise that kicking the ball in overtime helps a team win. Since the NFL instituted its new overtime rules, there have been 87 overtime games. Five have been ties, and the team to get the ball first has won 45 of the remaining 82. That’s 54.8 percent, meaning simply winning the coin toss makes a team 9.6 percent more likely to win.
The best alternative would seem to be college football’s OT system, a quickly understandable mini-game based around points. But if you’re looking for a system not influenced by coin tosses, college football isn’t the place. In that system, teams get to choose whether to play on offense first or second. The team that goes second has a massive advantage, knowing how many points it needs to tie or win the game. A study of the first 10 years of college football’s overtime rules found that teams that went second won 54.9 percent of the time. Another study found that teams that start on defense had a 52.1 percent win probability, smaller than the NFL’s but still significant. And this Redditor tabulated that teams going second in overtime had won 331 of 602 overtime games, almost 55 percent. Allowing both teams to touch the ball lends plausible fairness to the game, but it doesn’t make it even.
Earlier this season I wrote that the NFL’s overtime rules don’t make sense, and I stand by that. The rule changes, which did away with sudden death by field goal, made winning the coin toss slightly less important. But the new, modified system rarely changes winners to losers, and it makes ties significantly more likely, even though some NFL players and coaches still don’t know ties exist. Five years after its introduction, the system still requires a lengthy explanation from the ref.
But in the 150 or so years we’ve been playing football, nobody’s really come up with a fair method of determining the winner after a tie in regulation. In 2005 The New York Times reported that a pair of engineers, the Quanbeck brothers, had pitched the league on a system in which one team chose the field position to open overtime and the other team chose whether to play offense or defense from that spot. The Quanbecks have other proposals, based around auction-style systems where teams choose field position or the ball.
The proposals seem fun! They’d add an element of theater and strategy that’s lost in the coin toss. I’m also 100 percent sure the NFL would never seriously consider any of them.
We will likely be stuck with this system, or at least a system based heavily on luck, for quite some time. So let’s find beauty in it. It will lead to desperate defenses fighting to force a field goal; it will lead to strange decisions about whether to play for the tie or the lead; it will lead to ties, the weirdest thing football has to offer. Sunday night, it led to the Patriots putting the perfect capper on the greatest comeback the Super Bowl has ever seen. Anything else would have been an anticlimax.
If we’re being honest, we know it’s unfair that Atlanta didn’t get the ball back for reasons due to a bouncing coin and not football. But if we’re being really honest, we know the team didn’t deserve that ball. The Falcons had so many opportunities to avoid overtime, and crumpled in all of them. It was only fitting that overtime featured them getting trucked off the field and into the history books with the most embarrassing collapse football’s championship game has ever seen. Yes, the coin toss means they were slighted by fate, but their loss was also fueled by their own failure.
Last edited: