OT Rule changed for playoffs

[madlithuanian]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/

 

Overtime proposal passes

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 23, 2010 3:22 PM ET

The National Football League owners have approved a change in overtime, starting with the playoffs following the 2010 season, that will modify the sudden-death format and prevent a team from winning a game with a field goal on the opening possession.

 

The vote was 28-4, with the Buffalo Bills, Minnesota Vikings, Baltimore Ravens and Cincinnati Bengals voting against. It needed at least 24 votes to pass.

 

"It was really a good discussion in the sense that there's been a lot of debate, both publicly and privately, over the rule -- which is always good," Competition Committee co-chair Rich McKay said in announcing the vote. "We've had this discussion for a number of years. We felt like this proposal, which we call 'modified sudden death,' was really an opportunity to make what we think was a pretty good rule -- sudden death -- even better."

 

McKay stressed that the new overtime rule, which says the team receiving the kickoff can't end the game on the first possession unless it scores a touchdown, will apply only to the playoffs.

 

"Part of the reason we have different rules is we have different consequences," McKay said. "The consequences in the postseason are, go home if you don't win. In the regular season, we have 15 other games."

 

It's the first major change in playoff overtime rules in the NFL since "The Greatest Game Ever Played," when the Baltimore Colts beat the New York Giants in the 1958 NFL Championship Game.

[bowlingtwig]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/

 

Overtime proposal passes

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 23, 2010 3:22 PM ET

The National Football League owners have approved a change in overtime, starting with the playoffs following the 2010 season, that will modify the sudden-death format and prevent a team from winning a game with a field goal on the opening possession.

 

The vote was 28-4, with the Buffalo Bills, Minnesota Vikings, Baltimore Ravens and Cincinnati Bengals voting against. It needed at least 24 votes to pass.

 

"It was really a good discussion in the sense that there's been a lot of debate, both publicly and privately, over the rule -- which is always good," Competition Committee co-chair Rich McKay said in announcing the vote. "We've had this discussion for a number of years. We felt like this proposal, which we call 'modified sudden death,' was really an opportunity to make what we think was a pretty good rule -- sudden death -- even better."

 

McKay stressed that the new overtime rule, which says the team receiving the kickoff can't end the game on the first possession unless it scores a touchdown, will apply only to the playoffs.

 

"Part of the reason we have different rules is we have different consequences," McKay said. "The consequences in the postseason are, go home if you don't win. In the regular season, we have 15 other games."

 

It's the first major change in playoff overtime rules in the NFL since "The Greatest Game Ever Played," when the Baltimore Colts beat the New York Giants in the 1958 NFL Championship Game.

I don't have a problem with them changing it to allow the other team a chance but this doesn't do that. I think if you wanna change it this way then both teams should be guaranteed the ball 1 time before sudden death begins. I don't like how this is changed but only for the playoffs. If u wanna change it fine, but change it for everything, because you know there is going to be that 1 team that forgets.

[madlithuanian]

I just don't like it. It was fine the way it was.

 

This just bring everything more in line with youth soccer...everyone gets a trophy, etc.

 

The only possibility I'd have like to have seen would have been:

 

1. The team that scored the last points in regular time gets the ball.

2. Start the OT exactly where the 4th ended. If it's 3rd on the 20, then it re-starts with 3rd on the 20.

 

I don't have a problem with them changing it to allow the other team a chance but this doesn't do that. I think if you wanna change it this way then both teams should be guaranteed the ball 1 time before sudden death begins. I don't like how this is changed but only for the playoffs. If u wanna change it fine, but change it for everything, because you know there is going to be that 1 team that forgets.

 

[nfoligno]

Agreed that if you feel like this is a good/right thing, then you make the change, not just for the playoffs, but for all games. The issue was important enough for the owners to want a change. The solution was good enough to install it in the most important games. Sorry, but the reasoning not to have it throughout the regular seasons seems a bit weak.

 

I don't know that it is absolutely necessary to make both teams get a possession. What this does is eliminate from a team winning in OT (first possession) on a FG. To me, that has always been the biggest issue. It just doesn't take "that" much to get your team into FG range, especially if you have a good kicker. Heck, one good return can just about set you up. On the other hand, if a team wins in OT by a TD, I would more often believe they earned it.

 

I don't have a problem with them changing it to allow the other team a chance but this doesn't do that. I think if you wanna change it this way then both teams should be guaranteed the ball 1 time before sudden death begins. I don't like how this is changed but only for the playoffs. If u wanna change it fine, but change it for everything, because you know there is going to be that 1 team that forgets.

 

[nfoligno]

I have no issue with making a change. I have never cared for the sudden death aspect in pro football. In particular, I never liked it when another team would win on a 50 yard FG they barely had to move the ball to get into position for. If a team scores a TD in overtime, that is more often deserved. But a team gets a good return, followed by one 1st down, and suddenly they are in FG range. That should not be enough to earn the win.

 

I just don't like it. It was fine the way it was.

 

This just bring everything more in line with youth soccer...everyone gets a trophy, etc.

 

The only possibility I'd have like to have seen would have been:

 

1. The team that scored the last points in regular time gets the ball.

2. Start the OT exactly where the 4th ended. If it's 3rd on the 20, then it re-starts with 3rd on the 20.

 

[madlithuanian]

Blech!

 

The easy solution is to put the kick spot back to the 35 as it was in the past.

 

Let's move closer toward classic pigskin instead of Techmo Bowl... Let the NCAA have the little fun 'n games. I want a battler, not nonsene rules that apply under certain circumstances and on certain days.

 

An even easier solution. Beat the other team during the alotted time.

 

 

I have no issue with making a change. I have never cared for the sudden death aspect in pro football. In particular, I never liked it when another team would win on a 50 yard FG they barely had to move the ball to get into position for. If a team scores a TD in overtime, that is more often deserved. But a team gets a good return, followed by one 1st down, and suddenly they are in FG range. That should not be enough to earn the win.

 

[DGBears]

Blech!

 

The easy solution is to put the kick spot back to the 35 as it was in the past.

 

Let's move closer toward classic pigskin instead of Techmo Bowl... Let the NCAA have the little fun 'n games. I want a battler, not nonsene rules that apply under certain circumstances and on certain days.

 

An even easier solution. Beat the other team during the alotted time.

 

I think this is a move in the right direction for the NFL. I also wish they would change it for everything however. Sure the guys who are for tradition and fear change hate this but seriously, you are put in a situation where your teams chances to win a super bowl, or even a playoff spot for that matter, rides on the ability to pick the right side on a flip of a metal coin. That does not dictate which team deserves to win, or who is better, it shows that you were lucky enough to pick a coin right. Sure college is full of games and gimmicks but I have to believe that the team that truly earns it and plays better earns the win, because both teams are given an equal opportunity to showcase both sides of their skilled talents. Should you just go ahead and win in the alotted time given in a game? In a perfect world, yes. However, with the high abilities of todays players, sometimes thats just not enough. I applaud the NFL in realizing what needs to be done and only hope that in the future they subside the stubbornness all together and change the rules for all OT situations.

[balta1701-A]

Agreed that if you feel like this is a good/right thing, then you make the change, not just for the playoffs, but for all games. The issue was important enough for the owners to want a change. The solution was good enough to install it in the most important games. Sorry, but the reasoning not to have it throughout the regular seasons seems a bit weak.

 

I don't know that it is absolutely necessary to make both teams get a possession. What this does is eliminate from a team winning in OT (first possession) on a FG. To me, that has always been the biggest issue. It just doesn't take "that" much to get your team into FG range, especially if you have a good kicker. Heck, one good return can just about set you up. On the other hand, if a team wins in OT by a TD, I would more often believe they earned it.

Eventually, this is going to happen for all games. And it's the right move.

[bowlingtwig]

Eventually, this is going to happen for all games. And it's the right move.

I think that I read that they will vote again in May to see about adding it for the regular season 2010.

[flea]

The coin toss & then sudden deasth was the most ridiculous rule in all of pro sports...........................untill now!! Give them both a shot this new way is no better & if it's good enough for the play-offs ya do it regular season too

[madlithuanian]

I hate it. Totally utterly hate it. Why don't we just make TD's = 10 points? How about you only need 9 yards for a first down?

 

Please, it wasn't broken. There was no need to fix it.

 

At the end we can hand out trophies for everyone for effort! yay!

 

F this weak s&$t.

 

Yep. I'm old school. And I ain't budgin'.

 

I think this is a move in the right direction for the NFL. I also wish they would change it for everything however. Sure the guys who are for tradition and fear change hate this but seriously, you are put in a situation where your teams chances to win a super bowl, or even a playoff spot for that matter, rides on the ability to pick the right side on a flip of a metal coin. That does not dictate which team deserves to win, or who is better, it shows that you were lucky enough to pick a coin right. Sure college is full of games and gimmicks but I have to believe that the team that truly earns it and plays better earns the win, because both teams are given an equal opportunity to showcase both sides of their skilled talents. Should you just go ahead and win in the alotted time given in a game? In a perfect world, yes. However, with the high abilities of todays players, sometimes thats just not enough. I applaud the NFL in realizing what needs to be done and only hope that in the future they subside the stubbornness all together and change the rules for all OT situations.

 

[madlithuanian]

I'll be curious how the player union responds...

 

This could be an interesting element in the CBA... Goodell says it isn't part of it, but I somehow doubt that the point is over.

 

I think that I read that they will vote again in May to see about adding it for the regular season 2010.

 

[madlithuanian]

Ick!

 

Maybe I'm the only one that thinks this is a stupid idea.

 

There are not that many OT games. A little more than 59% isn't that huge of a margin.

 

Reactive. Lord Favre, the Mighty Manning, and Brawny Brday didn't get chances to score. Waa!!!! Let's change the rules for our goddesses!

 

F that! I'm sticking to my guns.

 

This was a rule change that didn't need to happen. Change the kicoff spot back to the 35. Again a rule that was f'ed with that didn't need to change. Mamby pamby crapola.

 

When I walked to school, it was in a ice storm, a hundred miles, no shoes, ...(insert crotchety old man jokes here)

 

 

 

 

The coin toss & then sudden deasth was the most ridiculous rule in all of pro sports...........................untill now!! Give them both a shot this new way is no better & if it's good enough for the play-offs ya do it regular season too

 

[balta1701-A]

Please, it wasn't broken. There was no need to fix it.

Frankly, I disagree.

[azbearsfan]

At the end we can hand out trophies for everyone for effort! yay!

 

 

I fail to see how this rule change is "handing out trophies for effort"

 

Lets not judge this until we see it in action.

 

Personally I like the college OT. Its hella exciting.

[bowlingtwig]

I fail to see how this rule change is "handing out trophies for effort"

 

Lets not judge this until we see it in action.

 

Personally I like the college OT. Its hella exciting.

I agree with the college system. It gives both teams a chance. Unlike the NFL doesn't always give both team a chance.

[bowlingtwig]

I agree with the college system. It gives both teams a chance. Unlike the NFL doesn't always give both team a chance.

What I find funny is that 28 owners approved however most coaches are against it. I wonder what they did to get this past considering that there was an early poll that showed that only 10 owners agreed with it yesterday morning and then by the time they voted they had 28 votes.

[madlithuanian]

Why was it so broken that it needed fixing?

 

How many games go into OT?

 

What are the exact percentages of winning the coin flip and winning the game through various parts of history?

 

Based on fina; season statndings,etc...what should the outcomes of those games really should have been?

 

My bet is that you'll find none of it would have made a difference.

 

Change isn't good for change's sake. Why were you not up in arms over this for the past decade?

 

Just saying.... I'm not rying to be argumentative. I just don't think it was needed in the least.

 

Frankly, I disagree.

 

[madlithuanian]

It's not. It just alludes to the slippery slop nature of the neutering of the NFL that's been going on for years now.

 

I prefer to be judge, jury and executioner on this matter. I don't like it philisophically. I don't need to see it in practice to make that decision.

 

I like it for college. College is just that. I like my NFL old school as possible.

 

I fail to see how this rule change is "handing out trophies for effort"

 

Lets not judge this until we see it in action.

 

Personally I like the college OT. Its hella exciting.

 

[madlithuanian]

Ick. It's fine for college as scores are like the Arena league half the time with very little defense played on most occassions.

 

It destroys the strategy pof the game completely. This is chess, not checkers. (Although to Smith it is, so it'd probably do us good.)

 

All elements to the game need to be set in play for it to not be a lame soccer shoot out.

 

 

 

 

I agree with the college system. It gives both teams a chance. Unlike the NFL doesn't always give both team a chance.

 

[madlithuanian]

That is a fascinating element to this. Also that the vote was moved up a day to purposefully exclude coaches.

 

I have no issue that the owners want it and should get it. It's their product. They can ruin it as they see fit.

 

But coaches, players, and fans do not have to like it.

 

I'll be railing against this anytime it's brought up.

 

3 point stance is next.

 

Then comes no touching of WR's.

 

Then come the flags...

 

What I find funny is that 28 owners approved however most coaches are against it. I wonder what they did to get this past considering that there was an early poll that showed that only 10 owners agreed with it yesterday morning and then by the time they voted they had 28 votes.

 

[balta1701-A]

What you're failing to note is that the nature of the game itself has changed over the past decade or so. The main change has been the kickers; with training and practice techniques, they've just gotten better at hitting the long, GW field goal that prevents the other team from getting the ball. Combine that with the change in kickoff position to cut down on touchbacks, and if a team starts at the 35, they have to go about 30 yards to have a legitimate chance to win the game. That change has produced noticeable results in game outcomes.

 

For the raw data I'm borrowing from Peter King, who was a big advocate for this change.

over the past 16 seasons, the number of games won by the coin-flip winner has risen sharply. Between 1974 and 1993, 46.8 percent of overtime games were won by the coin-flip winner. Since 1994, it's 59.8 percent. It used to be that less than half the OT games were won by the lucky team to start the fifth quarter; now it's three out of five.

 

 

...

Since 1994, 73 percent of overtime games have been won by a field goal.

[madlithuanian]

I don't fail to see that all elements of the game have improved, let alone kicking. And if the kicking is so great, why can't the kicker boot it in the end zone and make the other team march futher?

 

Don't get me started on the kickoff position...yet another lame rule that shoudn't have been changed.

 

It's a philosophy. Either you agree with sudden death or you don't. This new mish-mosh of both is beyond lame. Either give teams equal chances or don't. I think college, while silly, at least gets that part right. If you're going to do it, don't be a wuss. Do it. The NFL is wussing out.

 

Bringing up King only infuriates me more! He's a Favre apologist and overall blow-hard...

 

 

 

What you're failing to note is that the nature of the game itself has changed over the past decade or so. The main change has been the kickers; with training and practice techniques, they've just gotten better at hitting the long, GW field goal that prevents the other team from getting the ball. Combine that with the change in kickoff position to cut down on touchbacks, and if a team starts at the 35, they have to go about 30 yards to have a legitimate chance to win the game. That change has produced noticeable results in game outcomes.

 

For the raw data I'm borrowing from Peter King, who was a big advocate for this change.

 

[nfoligno]

It destroys the strategy pof the game completely. This is chess, not checkers. (Although to Smith it is, so it'd probably do us good.)

 

All elements to the game need to be set in play for it to not be a lame soccer shoot out.

 

How is the current/past overtime rules anything like chess. You win the coin flip, you take the ball. Period. Not much strategy there.

[nfoligno]

Players Union will always try to make an argument, but I don't see it. I did see (PFT or someone talked about this) where they might have had an argument if the college rules were applied. It seems the Players Union has rights when it comes to increases in player time. If you had the college rules carry over, then you would, due to the extra possession by rule, be creating extra playing time for players. Thus the union might have had an argument.

 

But the rules, as they were written, don't seem that way.

 

I'll be curious how the player union responds...

 

This could be an interesting element in the CBA... Goodell says it isn't part of it, but I somehow doubt that the point is over.