Question: Anyone else caught off guard by the new overtime rules?

[BigAlinKnoxville]

So we were in the third overtime. I stepped away to the bathroom and when I came back, we were lined up near the goal line and the screen said, "2-point Conversion." I was thinking, "Whoa! We scored a touchdown and I missed it! But why does our score still say 20 points...?"

So yeah, this one somehow flew completely over my head.

One thing I'll say, though; this will likely end the seven and eight-overtime games, and the extremely long time it can take for a game to end.

Anyone else caught by surprise on this one?

 

[92tide]

i had heard that they had changed this year, but had no clue what the new rules were until they posted them on screen

 

[Tidewater]

After some 7-overtime game two or three years ago, the competition committee changed the rules to this.
Personally, I prefer getting the ball on the 25. There is more "normal" football strategy to the overtime this way (on 4th and short do I go for the 1st down, or kick the FG, and hope my D holds the other guy's to a FG?).
Getting the ball on the 3 for a 2-point conversion is just weird, and, I would argue, more likely to result in more overtime periods (since there is only an opportunity for 2 points and the turn is an on/off decision).

 

[Ledsteplin]

I was. I haven't watched any OT games in a long while. I had heard there were changes, but didn't know what. It had me a bit worried at first. But the Tide pulled it out.

 

[BayouBama75]

I was because of the 9 OT game earlier with Illinois and Penn St. I think it was the first one I had watched that went that far,

 

[Elefantman]

I was because of the 9 OT game earlier with Illinois and Penn St. I think it was the first one I had watched that went that far,

That's when I found out about the rule change too.

 

[keith024]

I was. Knew it had been changed but didn’t realize we went for 2 points like that

 

[Ole Man Dan]

I was. Knew it had been changed but didn’t realize we went for 2 points like that

I read it and thought it was a goofy. We won, but I'm not sure it does more than maybe speed up the OT periods.

 

[edwd58]

I knew about the new rule and saw it earlier this season when PSU (or SPU if you prefer) lost to Illinois in 9 OT's. I'm not a big fan of this deciding a winner this way, it's like soccer using penalty kicks, but they didn't ask for my opinion.

 

[uafan4life]

So we were in the third overtime. I stepped away to the bathroom and when I came back, we were lined up near the goal line and the screen said, "2-point Conversion." I was thinking, "Whoa! We scored a touchdown and I missed it! But why does our score still say 20 points...?"

So yeah, this one somehow flew completely over my head.

One thing I'll say, though; this will likely end the seven and eight-overtime games, and the extremely long time it can take for a game to end.

Anyone else caught by surprise on this one?

No.

 

[DogPatch]

So we were in the third overtime. I stepped away to the bathroom and when I came back, we were lined up near the goal line and the screen said, "2-point Conversion." I was thinking, "Whoa! We scored a touchdown and I missed it! But why does our score still say 20 points...?"

So yeah, this one somehow flew completely over my head.

One thing I'll say, though; this will likely end the seven and eight-overtime games, and the extremely long time it can take for a game to end.

Anyone else caught by surprise on this one?

Nope. Got a good look with Illinois- Penn State.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I was aware that there had been changes, and that at some point, it reverted to 2-point conversion plays. But I didn’t know the details until they were posted on the TV screen.

Also, I read or heard somewhere that coaches wanted this at least in part to prevent injuries resulting from fatigue. As in, you may have the same number of overtime periods, or even more. But each one will consist of only one play for each team. Also, for each side of the ball (O and D), there will be a rest period about the length of a full time-out between those single plays as the teams switch ends of the stadium.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I was because of the 9 OT game earlier with Illinois and Penn St. I think it was the first one I had watched that went that far,

Yeah, I learned about it then as the final score was similar to the IB after 9 OTs.

I'm fine with the change - both teams get a chance and you don't end up with a 4+ hours football game. Both Bama and Abruun were exhausted by the end of that game - both football (overall) and technique (specifically) go out the window when you get tired and that's when injuries are more likely to occur.

 

[Cruiser]

Harsin blew it not going for 2 on their first TD and trying to end the game. We had momentum and their D was gassed. Run your best 2 pt play and go for the win

 

[UntouchableCrew]

I knew about it from that preposterous Illinois/Penn State game earlier this year that went to 8 OTs.

Hate the rule and would be furious if we lost an Iron Bowl in a "shootout."

 

[Krymsonman]

I wasn't noticing anything until I watched the Penn State-Illinois game early in the year that went 9OT's. I just don't like the "one play for everything" approach.

 

[Roll Tide 00]

I'm glad we took advantage of the new rules.That about gave us all heartattacks.

 

[CajunCrimson]

Heck. Let’s just line them up for 50 yard field goals until someone misses.

 

[uafan4life]

I knew about it from that preposterous Illinois/Penn State game earlier this year that went to 8 OTs.

Hate the rule and would be furious if we lost an Iron Bowl in a "shootout."

That's not what the word "shootout" typically means.

Like it or not, it's logically a significant improvement over the old system - which strongly favored certain teams (schemes or anyone with a great kicker) over others, significantly lengthened (at least potentially) the games, and measurably increased the occurrence of injuries.


Let's think about this logically, examining the alternatives - CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE GAME WAS TIED AT THE END OF REGULATION.


Option 1: Go back to it being a tie.
- If you prefer this, I have no time for you.

Option 2: Return to the old system.
- You/We complained about this one so much - plus the aforementioned downsides - that they changed it. Go to the back of the class and have a seat.

Option 3: Switch to the NFL System
- Which one? They've tried, what three different systems now and people still aren't happy?

Option 4: Switch to something no one has conceived, yet.
- Give the specifics, the pros, and the cons and then we'll talk.


Think about your all-time classic, hard-fought, close football games. How did the best of those end? Depending upon your perspective, either a last-minute score or a last-minute stop.

HOW IS THIS REALLY ANY DIFFERENT?

Except, of course, that both teams get a shot instead of just the team that happened to get the ball (or get the stop) last before time ran out.

Maybe the problem is the terminology...


CURRENT OVERTIME RULES:
First Overtime: Dueling Scoring Possessions (Each team gets the ball, 1st and 10, at the 25.)
Second Overtime: Dueling Scoring Possessions, no PATs (Each team gets the ball, 1st and 10, at the 25. If a TD is scored, you cannot just kick a PAT.)
Third Overtime, and Following: Dueling Goal-Line Stands, No Field-Goals (Each team gets the ball, 4th and Goal, at the 3 yard line. No Field Goals or PATs are allowed. TDs in these overtime periods are worth only 2 points with no extra points available.)


Does that terminology make it sit a little better???

 

[BigAlinKnoxville]

Option 1: Go back to it being a tie.
- If you prefer this, I have no time for you.

"A tie is like kissing your sister."
-Coach Paul "Bear" Bryant

Totally agree. A tie gives both teams that nice, dull, mediocre feeling.