Talk:Overtime (sports)

American and Canadian football

Perhaps it is time to spin this section off to its own article? It has grown quite large. Cheers --Daveb 03:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Too large? It doesn't even have time to mention the Canadian rule. Probably an oversight.WHPratt (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's better now.WHPratt (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what would happen if an NFL playoff game went to a third overtime. Would play follow from the end of the second overtime, or is this a new "half" with a new coin toss and kickoff. It would be nice if someone could add this information.WHPratt (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

After the completion of the second overtime, play would commence after a "halftime" break. Therefore, the team with the 2nd half option will decide if they want to kick (unlikely), defend an endzone (just as unlikely), or receive the ball. AllPurposeGamer (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

BE->AE page move

I'm rather surprised to see it wasn't discussed here first, since it seems to be inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines regarding different country's versions of English. 24.18.215.132 01:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Longest Overtime Games

A short list of the longest overtime games of each sport should be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.105.21.234 (talk) 19:22, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

The longest NFL and Pro football games are listed as under 2 hours...? Is this simply actual playing time? i.e. 4x15 min regulation and 2x15 min overtime for a 90 min game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.144.93 (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, isn't that obvious? I put a note. 128.227.7.105 21:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

basketball

in highschool basketball play, the Overtime period is in fact 5 minutes, not 4 like the current article suggests —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngoogs (talk • contribs) 15:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Association Football

I've noticed over the past couple of years a tendency for commentators and journalists to use "overtime" to refer to stoppage time added at the end of a half, not got any concrete references atm, but might it be worth including when I can find one? 82.13.190.199 (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NBA Lakers seven or eight overtimes

I hate going senile, but this memory has to be right becasue of the number times I've been called wrong. When I was young, some time in the late 1960s, I woke up to hear on the radio that the Lakers had played eight overtimes the night before. The headline in the Los Angeles Times sports section report that the game went to seven overtimes, but did not give a final score. This is because the Times was put to bed after the sixth overtime. That night on the TV news they talked about the eight overtime game.

Since then, I have heard many times about the seven overtime game. I believe that this comes from misunderstanding the Times headline. But even if I am wrong, I have heard many many times of the seven overtime game, and that beats the six overtime game noted on this page. I have Googled and Alta Visted and Yahooed and I haven't found any reference to this game. I hope some basketball historian can set the record straight.  Randall Bart   Talk  21:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I didn't make the proposal, but I'm adding the relevant section here and adding my support to the proposal. The fact that BrE and AmE have different names for the same thing does not mean we need different articles, since each is a survey article. If any one sport has a section long enough, that can be refactored out to its own, and obviously the name there will be appropriate for the primary locale: e.g.overtime (American football) and/or extra time (association football) — maybe even overtime (football) and/or extra time (football) respectively, though I would advise against that if and when the time comes. jnestorius^(talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment if this gets support, I'd point out that (a) Extra time was created on 7 March 2004, while Overtime (sports) wasn't created until 3 May 2004. I've seen occasional instances where the BrE term is created first, but in subsequent merge discussions this is overlooked and the default term becomes the AmE version, in conflict with WP:ENGVAR. Also, in BrE, "overtime" is a commonly used phrase in the workplace, so I think moving everything to extra time makes more sense. --DeLarge (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment to me i think that extra time should just be deleted, everything is basically the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.36.216 (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and merge it.--Dr. Pizza (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment I am leaning to "extra time" for the merge target based on DeLarge's mentioning of work and ENGVAR. The (sports) disambiguates it fine while simply "extra time" might be vague as an article title though. I do agree that one of the articles should be left as a redirect.Cptnono (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Support - Either name as the canonical one would be fine, or use a Solomonic division of the baby such as was used for the airplane article and call it extra periods in sporting events. :) - PhilipR (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Support In the long term I think extra time (i.e. for association football) could have its own article, but I'm very much in favour of arranging content based on what we have right now, so it makes sense to merge them. I'm not bothered about how the articles are named. --Jameboy (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves (including splits and mergers). Jameboy (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. Extra time is a short unsourced article which doesn't really say much other than what's already on the Overtime article. Any unique content should be merged and a redirect created. It would also be worth adding some sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Support, and I support using the 'overtime' name for Alzarian's same reason. Additionally, the reasoning that 'in BrE, "overtime" is a commonly used phrase in the workplace' is not very meaningful, as "overtime" has the same meaning in that context in the US. Isaac (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Support however I do not know which name should be the page name. --MicroX (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Support would prefer extra time tho, in order to differentiate from the overtime at work. --Madcynic (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

NHL overtime

The NHL has (or had) a strange rule which said that if a team pulled their goalie and gave up a losing goal in regular season overtime, they lost their point for the "regulation tie"/"overtime loss." What was the thinking behind that? WHPratt (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I checked, and such a rule is still in force. Now, surely this must have been in reaction to some abuse of the overtime concept. Some team in some league must have needed one point to qualify for the playoffs or to clinch some position, and having attained that, must have then decided to blow off the overtime as a waste of their resources. Or perhaps some team really considered that going for the quick kill and letting the chips fall where they might to be an acceptable strategy. (That's interesting, because the argument for rewarding the OT Loss was to guarantee the teams something so that they'd not be afraid to take chances in the overtime.) In any event, there must be an interesting story behind this. WHPratt (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Apparently, when the overtime concept was tested in minor leagues, some coaches really did adopt the philosophy that they'd already locked up one point in the standings, and that they were risking nothing by going "all out;" and they actually did begin the overtime with the extra skater in place. The NHL added this strange codicil to avoid these scenarios. WHPratt (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Shortest overtime?

?andycjp (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Need more precise wording?

It says "In March 2010, the NFL amended its rules for postseason overtime after a vote by the team owners. If the team that wins the coin toss scores a touchdown on their first possession, they are declared the winner." I'm not sure that's technically correct. The rule doesn't necessarily apply to the coin toss winner, but rather to the team that receives the kickoff. Doesn't the coin toss winner get the option of kicking or receiving? (Yes, I know that they're not likely to choose to kick.) WHPratt (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Coaches tend to get fired if they choose to kick the ball first in overtime, but yes, you are correct. Go ahead and fix that sentence. --Jayron32 14:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Bill Belicheck didn't get fired. 2604:6000:D500:3D00:850B:2520:5209:5D24 (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"Overtime" vs. "Extra time"

Why do Americans use "Overtime" instead of "Extra time"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.6.55 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Assuming this is a genuine question, not a snide comment, I would imagine it comes from “overtime” in a workplace context. If a worker works beyond the end of his scheduled shift, he is said to work overtime, so by parallel construction, teams having to play beyond the end of regulation time are playing overtime. Wschart (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

IOT?

What North American sport has EVER used the abbreviation IOT to mean "in overtime"? Sure, the announcers say the game is in overtime, in the same way they would say the game is IN the 4th quarter. But just as they never abbreviated it I4 in In 4th, they never abbreviate it IOT.

2604:6000:D500:3D00:850B:2520:5209:5D24 (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Injury time?

injury time redirects to this article - which contains not a word about it!?? Would someone who knows about such things please repair? [Context: the lawsuit involving Chelsea FC and the team doctor. If a player needed medical attention, why didn't the game stop? Soccer does have injury time, doesn't it?]. --88.97.11.54 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

NFL OT Ambiguity?

Source: https://operations.nfl.com/media/4693/2020-nfl-rulebook.pdf

According to Rule 16, Section 1, Article 3 (a) ...

(a) Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner, or if the team kicking off to start the overtime period scores a safety on the receiving team’s initial possession, in which case the team that kicked off is the winner. If a touchdown is scored, the game is over, and the Try is not attempted.

Note the use of "both" and "must."

However, according to Rule 16, Section 1, Article 4 (a)

(a) There shall be a maximum of one 10-minute period, even if the second team has not had an opportunity to possess the ball or if its initial possession has not ended. If the score is tied at the end of the period, the game shall result in a tie.

This text would seem to say that the 10-minute limit overrides the above "must." I.e., the period is not to be extended just to allow the second team a possession.

So, what happens if Team A receives the overtime opening kickoff, takes more than nine minutes of playing time to move down the field, burns up the remaining clock and kicks a field goal as time expires? Here, it would seem that a field goal on the first possession is enough. Or could they declare the game a tie for failure to uphold the 3(a) clause? A tie with one team having legally scored three more points than the other would look most peculiar in the record book.

Granted, a ten-minute drive would be unlikely. It would probably require eight or nine first downs, each of barely ten yards with no incomplete passes or out-of-bounds plays, though some offensive penalties and other lost yardage mixed in could help matters, (though Team B has a couple of timeouts to help their chances). The 4(a) clause does seem to acknowledge that one drive could eat up all of the allowed overtime.

I'm guessing that 4(a) overrides 3(a), but you'd think that the rulebook would clarify the point explicitly. WHPratt (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"120mins" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 120mins and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 1#120mins until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 21:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus is that the use of American English has been established in this article, which meant that WP:RETAIN overrides any potential reason to move to the proposed new title. feminist🩸 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Overtime (sports) → Extra time – Per WP:NCDAB Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. Also, extra time is the preferred term in association football, the world's most popular sport. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Although "extra time" doesn't need the parenthetical, "overtime" is the more common term across all sports. O.N.R. ^(talk) 21:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  From a little research as follows:

  Extra time: Football (soccer), Rugby Union, Rugby League, Field Hockey, Aussie Rules, Gaelic Football, Hurling, Shinty, Netball, Korfball

  Overtime: American Football, Canadian Football, Basketball, Ice Hockey, Lacrosse

  So not sure this is correct @Old Naval Rooftops. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Forgot Camogie for extra time! YorkshireExpat (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The issue I see in this situation is that we have one guideline, WP:NCDAB, conflicting with another, WP:RETAIN (via WP:TITLEVAR). Whenever two or more WP:AT guidelines conflict, consensus determines which one to predominantly use. Right now, I prefer to error on the WP:RETAIN side, because the article currently seems to have been predominantly written in American English since at least 2004, most of the content on the page has historically been about North American sports, and "overtime" seems to be the term used more in American English than "extra time". IMO, a page move to "extra time" would thus mean the article would have to be completely rewritten into British English or equivalent so the article title and the body text would match, something I would prefer not to do. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Zzyzx11 No conflict. WP:ENGVAR states When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties OR THE CHANGE REDUCES AMBIGUITY), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another. (I've added some caps for emphasis).

  Also, this isn't really an ENGVAR issue. MLS (which was American last time I checked) uses 'extra time', so no need to rewrite.

  Added to the fact that football is, by some distance, the most popular sport in the world, there's really no good reason not to move this (also the hockey in that list is field hockey, not ice hockey, which also uses 'extra time'). YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Switching from one WP:NCDAB style to another does not necessarily significantly reduce ambiguity, otherwise natural disambiguation would have been made "mandatory", not "generally preferable". The fact that MLS uses "extra time" does not offset the fact that "overtime" is still prominently used more in American English as the specific term for this general topic, and again this article seems to have been predominantly written in American English. And one of your core arguments that your preferred term is "used more" or "more widely distributed" worldwide than the current title has always been considered an invalid WP:ENGVAR argument, because it would seriously compromise the notion that Wikipedia "prefers no national variety over others" for most topics. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, the old WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose most of the world does not speak English, so using the non-English world for "extra time" does not make sense at all. And of the English speaking territories, it's called soccer in most of the territory of the Anglosphere (US/Canda/Australia/South Africa), so using the example of football a bad example, as it alone shows that what is what in what region is different. WP:RETAIN don't switch dialects of English for this generic spelling of this topic. "overtime" being the generic term for this topic in North American English and the current spelling being used. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  This just makes no sense. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies, I'll try and unravel. It's not really to do with the fact that association football is called football or soccer in whatever part of the Anglosphere. It's to do with the fact that all those parts of the Anglosphere use the term 'extra time'. The main argument is that we reduce ambiguity by using 'extra time', as we can then get rid of the dab. I didn't bring WP:RETAIN into it. Others did that. I'm simply pointing out that for this topic it isn't that simple. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RETAIN, among others. "Overtime" is just as valid a title as "Extra time". 162 etc. (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Except the title is 'Overtime (sports)'. Overtime goes elsewhere. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, overtime works just as well or better than 'Extra time' as both a descriptor and a common name, and is recognizable by readers. This RM had some good timing, with the overtime of the 2024 Super Bowl being broadcast (and understood as 'Overtime') globally. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  113 milllion by their reckoning. Good audience.

  The World Cup final had 1.5 billion. I made up one of the difference. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  OP, please familiarize yourself with WP:BADGER. You've stated your argument already. 162 etc. (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ah yes. I see. Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine. I'm pretty sure that's all I've been doing. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  "Extra innings" is applicable to baseball, yet is not called into question as a topic in opposition of "Overtime (sports)". "Overtime" in sports is an inclusive term for a game or match passing its initial allotted time limit, and is understood in that context no matter what the involved game or sport. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONALITY (in most of the world's sports) and WP:NATURAL. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RETAIN. "Overtime" is just as valid of a term as "extra time" and the fact that "extra time" would not need a descriptor is not that big of a deal. The article has a primary focus on US sports where "overtime" is more commonly used, and is written in American English. If these things are changed, we could consider revisiting this topic. Frank Anchor 13:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unprofessional writing style in NFL overtime section

The last two paragraphs of the section on NFL overtime are rather unprofessionally written. Please remove or adjust such subjective and casual language as “Patrick Mahomes worked his magic,” “Fans were happy… but felt bummed out,” and “what they should’ve done.” Spark2212 (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

"A.e.t." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect A.e.t. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 22 § A.e.t. until a consensus is reached. Wburrow (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)