Overtime Games

This is probably gonna sound like a sour grapes post considering the outcome of this evening’s Bombers vs. Redblacks game but I assure you it is not. It is something that has been bugging me for a long time now (that and the Defensive pass interference rule, but that is another rant for another time).

I cannot stand how they have it set up and further, cannot fathom the rationale for it. Perhaps one of you seasoned grey-hairs out there can educate me on it. The history and why it is the way it is.

What I would like to see is that they either declare a game as a tie after the end of the 4th, or play a full quarter and see where the chips fall. This business of “mini-games” and starting off on your opponents’ 35 yard line strikes me as absurd and turns the outcome into a game of chance, rather than a game of skill.

And yes, I fully acknowledge that my team scooped a Grey Cup under the same rules.

Still, if there is any change that I would like to see to the CFL is is the overtime set up.

I love the format the way it is, just like American college ball. Teams get equal possessions and you’re pretty well assured there will be scoring quickly.

I don’t like that if you have last possession and the other team did not score then you can just kick a FG right away without having progressed the ball.

They should start at midfield.

I believe the league adopted this rule to ensure faster resolutions to OT, to satisfy TSN (and fans who found the old format “stale” I suppose).

I don’t mind the mini-games but I don’t like that they’ve taken special teams out of the equation. I think each mini-game should begin with a kick (either a kick-off or a punt…or maybe one of each if there are two mini-games) from the goal line.

I’ve hated the current OT rules ever since they came in. It removes punting and kickoffs from the game, which takes away punt returns and kickoff returns. Special teams are one-third of the Canadian game, but in OT they essentially don’t exist, apart from short field-goal attempts. It’s like taking base-running out of baseball in extra innings, or taking three-pointers out of basketball in OT.

I like it just the way it is. 8)

I see the rationale of the shootout style OT. It’s function of TV product. It would to see drives start at midfield so at least there’s legit chance of an actual stop.

As long as never give a point of an OT loss.

Actually they used to give a point for an overtime loss . The Ti-Cats finished up the 2000 season with a 9-9 record but had 2 OT losses that year so actually finished up with 20 pts in the standings with the two OT games(BC 33 Ham 26 , Cal 41 Ham 38 ) they officially finished at 9-9-0-2-20 on the season .

They used to have two 5-minute halves during the regular season, 10-minute halves during the playoffs. I never heard anyone complain about the format. Then in a game between Hamilton and Edmonton, the Eskimos got the ball first and threw an interception. Hamilton scored to end the first half. Then Edmonton kicked off, and Hamilton ran the ball down the Eskimos’ throats until the clock expired in the second half. Suddenly everyone in the country hated the overtime format, because it was somehow unfair that Hamilton was able to hog the ball for an entire overtime half. The next season they went to the one we have now.

They do this because it is pretty likely to end it in a win and a loss.
They added the mandatory 2 point convert gimmick to increase those odds

I dislike OT in football, outside of championship games. I don’t mind it in most sports, but football is different. It is a game on field position and strategy. That said, if they are going to do it, then I like this method. The NFL’s is not bad either (now that they finally got rid of that ridiculous sudden death), but I prefer this.

I would still rather them shake hands and call it a game of equals if they tie.
I despise the 2 point mandatory attempt gimmick. It is almost as bad as sudden death OT in football.

This “there must be a winner” thing is kinda BS. That’s what playoffs are for.

……Maybe the league should let the kickers settle it in O.T…I believe the ‘little guy’ was on a record run last night and Medlock was 6 for 6 and on one of his own…Let the two kickers go at it until one of them shanks one…Start at the 35 and work the kickers back making it a little harder each time……………………………NAH…wait a minute…we might be still waiting for a winner deep into today after that field goal display… however it would be a little easier on the rest of the players ;D

I really don’t mind the format for OT. You could add in an extra point for an OTL and I wouldn’t mind that, but that takes away some incentive for teams to stay aggressive late in the 4th of a tie ball game knowing they’re getting 1 point for dragging it into OT.


I just had this idea pop up in my head.

Perhaps its absurd but perhaps it also satisfies the desire to conclude games in a quick decisive manner without excising parts of the game like kick returns and clock management.

Instead of possessions starting at the defensive 35 yard line, how about timed 2 minute game-clock possessions that start with a kickoff?

We commence overtime with 2 minutes on the game clock and a kickoff. Then the receiving team has to advance the ball in the allotted time.

Once the possession concludes, the game clock is reset to 2 minutes and the opposite team kicks off irrespective of the result of the previous drive.

The score must be matched or bettered on successive drives. Each team gets the same number of drives perhaps limited to 2 rounds in the regular season. A turnover resulting in a score is game over.

To encourage scoring, perhaps the kickoffs can come from the 20 or 15 yard line such that the receiving team will typically scrimmage from mid field.

You could use stipulations like the existing no 1 point converts.

The drawback of course is that if this went to 2 rounds, that’s upwards of 6 minutes of playing time presumably played under 3 minute warning clock rules. This would exceed the playtime of the superseded 5 minute quarter that was the OT format prior to the current shootout format. Maybe 1 round each would suffice. Maybe 1 round each would result in too many tied games.

Just brainstorming. I actually prefer ties after 60 minutes. If no one was better that day, split the points or maybe offer 3 points for a win like they do in soccer and other sports.

What do you think?

Injuries of tired players is always a consideration in overtime. It has to be decided relatively quickly to get those tired players off the field.

But the first team already started on the 35-yard line. If the first team didn't manage to even score a FG in that situation (almost all teams do when playing OT), then something went very, very wrong for that team, or very, very right for the defending team. Either way, that win by "just kicking a FG right away" is absolutely deserved.

The old way was hard to follow unless you were a diehard CFL fan:

Under the old system: your team scores a touchdown; game not over. Fair enough
your team stops the other team from scoring; still not over.

Then there was two halfs, so you were never quite sure when your team was going to win, (they could be up 3 touchdowns but they kept on playing), which made it confusing, and far less exciting.

The current system has none of these issues and is quite easy to follow; even for casual, and new CFL fans.

By that logic, a regular game is difficult to follow, and confusing.

Seriously, is it difficult to pay attention to the clock, like we do in every single game?

The current system may be easy to follow; it's also just two-thirds of what constitutes football.

The only change that needs to be made regarding overtime is that the mini-games should continue until there’s a winner. And don’t make the same boneheaded move the NHL made by awarding the loserpoint.