Was Anyone Else Confused By The New OT Rule?

[flippy]

When I knew Denver was scoring in OT, my first thought was "Oh Fudge! I guess Ben's gonna have to score a TD and tie this up and I know he will."

I was thinking both teams had to have an offensive possession and didn't realize right away that the it was over until the announcers said Denver's going to NE.

It is what it is. And I now get that getting into FG range is too easy and they don't want the game ending on a first possession FG. But for some reason, I forgot that part of the rule on the score.

Anyone else have the same reaction? Did you think we'd get a shot too?

I actually thought thank god for the new rule. But I guess the complete rule didn't sink in until after the game was over.

[phillyesq]

I understood the rule. The explanation, however, was a bit convoluted. Why not just say that the team that receives the kickoff cannot end the game on its first possession with a FG?

[Eich]

No, sorry, it was clear to me.

I texted a friend as soon as Denver won the coin toss and said, "Please Defense, end it quickly and score" and I no sooner got done typing that and the EXACT opposite happened. Jeebus.

The new rule was clearly to prevent a cheap win by the coin toss winner moving the ball a few yards and kicking a Field goal. The only way to end the game quickly under the new rules is for a TD to be scored on the opening possession (either by the offense or by the defense).

[Eich]

I understood the rule. The explanation, however, was a bit convoluted. Why not just say that the team that receives the kickoff cannot end the game on its first possession with a FG?

I guess because the team that kicks off on the first possession can also end the game by scoring on Defense.

What I'm not sure about is what if the team that kicks off ends up scoring with a safety?

[sd steel]

I understood the rule. The explanation, however, was a bit convoluted. Why not just say that the team that receives the kickoff cannot end the game on its first possession with a FG?

I guess because the team that kicks off on the first possession can also end the game by scoring on Defense.

What I'm not sure about is what if the team that kicks off ends up scoring with a safety?

They win.

[Oviedo]

Obviously LeBesau didn't understand it because by not having at least one safety deep he played right into the one thing that would end the game immediately...a touchdown.

[Ghost]

I told my wife Farrior should have been cut immediately for calling tails in OT.

I understood the rule but agree with Phiily that ref did a poor job of explaining and it was convaluted.

[sd steel]

I didn't think I was confused until I read these rules:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... time-rules

These rules are just plain stupid. Let say we don't score a TD on the first drive but we elect to kick a field goal, if the other team doesn't score on their possesion they automatically lose, but there is no clock to worry about. It just seems odd to me. Or their rules regarding what constitutes a possesion. They aren't hard rules, but they are a little confusing.

[7 UP]

Ill admit it I was confused. I thought I knew the rule going in. But The announcers and ref made it sound like each team was guaranteed at least one possession. So I thought, oh even if they score, we get a possession. So after they scored I was confused as to why the game was over. Only to find out that the rules were exactly how I thought they were in the first place.

[skyhawk]

I was so in shock from the new rules to the immediate touchdown I was sitting there like I was stoned. WTF just happened? The new overtime rule? Oh wait, not even THAT matters/helps the Steelers screwed up so badly. Immediately couldn't speak at all. It felt like 1994 AFC Championship. Complete silence in Steeler nation.