We just saw the first OT game with the new rules (which I wasn't even aware of tbh).
2 series from the opponents' 35 with a chance for the other team to respond; 'snake' possession (like a fantasy league draft); when tied, back-and-forth 2 pt convert attempts until a winner emerges.
I've seen mixed reaction online and sorry if this was already debated on here and I missed it, but thought this was worth a topic on its own.
Personally I like it. I am not a fan of ties and when it comes to finding a winner in a reasonable timeframe, I like when that can be accomplished using something as close to the sport as possible. For example, in the NHL, I think the introduction of 3-on-3 OT has done a great job of making extra time more entertaining and solving a winner more often than not with actual (but modified) hockey play vs a shootout (which would be more equivalent to exchanging field goals in football) or a tie.
Just my opinion though. Thoughts?
When it got to the new rules, I thought it was pretty dumb. The 3 on 3 rules in hockey make for a quick, exciting finish. When applied to football, you're having the teams run in and off the field after a single play.
I would much prefer they continue the mini-games. Make them go for TDs only if want to hurry up the process.
I'm all for not having games end in a tie, but I'd rather see the minigames instead of the back-and-forth 2-pt conversion attempts.
Not crazy about any kind of OT when we play again Friday. The defense especially played a lot of plays.
I am ok with a regular season tie. I remember that one point earned being the difference in the standings at the end of the year a few times. Much better than points for/against.
I know I am in the minority. People want to see a winner but does the best team win in this format? Seems like a crapshoot just to get a winner.
I thought it was exciting. I don't think it needed to change though. I'd be just as happy to end in a tie.
I don't see an issue with tie games. There are not that many of them, so what's the deal. I liked the past OT rules where it was a timed mini game rather than a the mini game starting at the 35 yard line. Even that was altered to impose a necessity to go for 2 point PAT.
Since they want to eliminate ties, then it's either mini games and 2 point PAT attempts or what? Is there another feasible option that is quicker and more efficient?
NOTE: I only found 3 games since 2017. Not exactly an earth shattering consequence.
I didn't mind the new format. It's a one play live or die and reduces risk to players for extended playing time.
I thought it was a bit silly looking, but still entertaining. It had an "ok kids your turn" look.
I do not like a tie result. Somebody should win. There's no tie in playoffs, why should there be one regular season. And it's not like hockey it's long season.
I also don't miss the rouge. Thought I would. I'm thinking I won't care about the shorter field.
The confusion about the rule was kind of humorous.
Quote from: markf on July 20, 2026, 03:37:40 PMI thought it was a bit silly looking, but still entertaining.
I do not like a tie result. Somebody should win. There's no tie in playoffs, why should there be one regular season. And it's not like hockey with so many games.
I also don't miss the rouge. Thought I would. I'm thinking I won't care about the shorter field.
You will when you realize that long missed FG returns will no longer be part of the game. A missed FG will essentially go out the back of the end zone.
I think the new OT rules are excellent. They embody the spirit of the game, and allow a skill based resolution.
Yes, the coin flip becomes very important, but execution is more important. If you go first, failure is not an option.
Would I feel the same if we had lost the inaugural 2 point bowl? I think so.
Hockey lends itself to the 3 on 3, moving to something like a 7 player OT changes the game far too much.
Then we get to the One Point Win discussion, with no possible ties, but that's just Ouef, 15, 30, 40 book keeping.
I liked it - ties are meh...
love it
Overtime in general was an infrequent event in the CFL and only the odd tie here and there.
In 2026, we have had 4 OT games in 7 weeks. In 3 of those 4 OT games there was a kick into the end zone which resulted in no point being awarded. An 'unintended' consequence of the modified single point rule appears to be more OT games. When you eliminate the Scorigami options you will see more tie games at the end of regulation time.
I don't have an issue with tie games during the regular season. My preference for OT would be the older rules where teams played real football in two 5 minute halves. Playoffs require a winner and I would hate to see a playoff game come down to 2-point convert attempts. Again my preference would be the older rules which was two 10 minute halves.
Quote from: theaardvark on July 20, 2026, 03:53:00 PMI think the new OT rules are excellent. They embody the spirit of the game, and allow a skill based resolution.
Yes, the coin flip becomes very important, but execution is more important. If you go first, failure is not an option.
Would I feel the same if we had lost the inaugural 2 point bowl? I think so.
Hockey lends itself to the 3 on 3, moving to something like a 7 player OT changes the game far too much.
Then we get to the One Point Win discussion, with no possible ties, but that's just Ouef, 15, 30, 40 book keeping.
Now that the Bombers have shown they can execute the 2 pt. convert effectively, I hope we see them use it more frequently in regular play.
Quote from: Stats Junkie on July 20, 2026, 06:11:54 PMOvertime in general was an infrequent event in the CFL and only the odd tie here and there.
In 2026, we have had 4 OT games in 7 weeks. In 3 of those 4 OT games there was a kick into the end zone which resulted in no point being awarded. An 'unintended' consequence of the modified single point rule appears to be more OT games. When you eliminate the Scorigami options you will see more tie games at the end of regulation time.
I don't have an issue with tie games during the regular season. My preference for OT would be the older rules where teams played real football in two 5 minute halves. Playoffs require a winner and I would hate to see a playoff game come down to 2-point convert attempts. Again my preference would be the older rules which was two 10 minute halves.
One game avoided OT because of the removal of the rouge...
Quote from: Stats Junkie on July 20, 2026, 06:11:54 PMOvertime in general was an infrequent event in the CFL and only the odd tie here and there.
In 2026, we have had 4 OT games in 7 weeks. In 3 of those 4 OT games there was a kick into the end zone which resulted in no point being awarded. An 'unintended' consequence of the modified single point rule appears to be more OT games. When you eliminate the Scorigami options you will see more tie games at the end of regulation time.
I don't have an issue with tie games during the regular season. My preference for OT would be the older rules where teams played real football in two 5 minute halves. Playoffs require a winner and I would hate to see a playoff game come down to 2-point convert attempts. Again my preference would be the older rules which was two 10 minute halves.
Agreed.
I liked it better than a tie. I like the NFL rules better.
One thing to keep in mind in the tie discussion is that, with the new modified rouge, the likelihood of a tie happening is now greater.
I like the new format. You can't go with more minigames. Too taxing on the players.
I don't like ties. It kind of messes up the standings.
On another note however, if you don't have ties anymore, why have a win be worth 2 points?
Personally I like the new O/T format. It adds more urgency and excitement IMHO.
I like the new format...if the teams are too futile to end the game in the mini games, and they both were, as they could only muster up scoring field goals, when good teams usually score a TD, then end the misery with a 2 point showdown.
I wonder if the mini games will start at the 35 next year.
I think they should, teams will need to gain some yards to be in reasonable field goal range.
Quote from: bomb squad on July 20, 2026, 08:36:50 PMOne thing to keep in mind in the tie discussion is that, with the new modified rouge, the likelihood of a tie happening is now greater.
Yes, that's for sure. I sometimes bet on moneyline ties, of quarters and halves. Last season I was only off by a rouge a few times. Very frustrating.
Strangely enough, the bookmakers have not figured out that no rouge should mean more ties at the half, etc. The odds are still the same as last year. That might change if more ties happen... Until then, it's a better bet than it was before. Though still a long shot!
The ot rule for touch football is converts from either the. Five or ten.
If you go for 1 pt it is from the five. If you go from the 10 it is worth 2 pts s.
It's exciting, there is some strategy involved.
The teams get three attempts, with alternating attempts, with the ability to determine either a one point or two point
Making the 2pt converts into a micro game, 3 downs from the 10, might be a different look.
But I think, after this week's successful OT tie breaker, we will not only see teams practicing 2pts more in practice, but I expect to see a shift in thier use during games, depending on scores.
Catching up after scoring a TD when down 9 or 16, it is a no brainer. BUt will HC's start going for it when it is a battle trading TD's like last nights game? To get that edge, and make the opponent got for it too.
If you have a solid 2 pt game, and your opponent hasn't shown they do, I think it becomes another strategic opportunity.
Quote from: theaardvark on July 24, 2026, 06:13:55 PMMaking the 2pt converts into a micro game, 3 downs from the 10, might be a different look.
But I think, after this week's successful OT tie breaker, we will not only see teams practicing 2pts more in practice, but I expect to see a shift in thier use during games, depending on scores.
Catching up after scoring a TD when down 9 or 16, it is a no brainer. BUt will HC's start going for it when it is a battle trading TD's like last nights game? To get that edge, and make the opponent got for it too.
If you have a solid 2 pt game, and your opponent hasn't shown they do, I think it becomes another strategic opportunity.
I can see O'Shea shying away from using the 2 pt. conversion during games in an effort to conceal their method until 2 pts are really needed.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on July 24, 2026, 06:22:28 PMI can see O'Shea shying away from using the 2 pt. conversion during games in an effort to conceal their method until 2 pts are really needed.
Just like in the CGY game tonight. Because of the rouge we had at least 2 times we could have gone for 2 to tie it or get within 7. But MOS will never do it. He doesn't seem to consider it even an option until the 4th -- probably midway through.
Most coaches will go for 2PAT even in the 1st. I can't say I'm particularly against that. Though things might be different when you think Castillo will be near-100% on PAT.
As you said, you also only have so many "sure thing" 2PAT plays drawn up and practiced. You often get to use those only once. (Or twice, like we did in the shootout!) Unless you have an unlimited cornucopia of 2PAT schemes, you have to keep them close to your chest, until the game is on the line.