NFL considering change to OT rules
by Brian Galliford on Feb 28, 2010 9:16 AM EST
in Buffalo Bills News
Email
PrintSpeaking at the 2010 NFL Scouting Combine, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello mentioned that the league is looking into changing its overtime rules. There's one caveat, however - the change would only apply to playoff games. The proposed changes will be discussed and voted on during league meetings from March 21-24.
The proposed changes are as follows: in playoff games, the winner of the coin toss would still be able to win a game in sudden death fashion. That would only happen if they scored a touchdown on their opening possession of the extra session. Were they to kick a field goal, the opponent would receive the ball with an opportunity to equal or exceed those three points. If that team gets a field goal equalizer, overtime continues until the first team scores. If they score a touchdown, they win the game. If they don't score at all... well, you get the idea.
Two-thirds of NFL teams would need to approve the rules changes to put them into effect. And again, just to emphasize the point - this would not affect regular season play.
The NFL has not changed its overtime rules since 1974, a year in which the rules were applied to regular season games for the first time.
Source: The Associated Press
64 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Ah, the silly Peter King OT rules. That alone should be reason not to enact it.
And doing that just in the playoffs makes sense how?
The problem now is that with the kickoff from the 30 teams often are starting around the other 30 yard line. And kickers are highly accurate so you only need to make it to the other 25 to be in easy FG range, and you could still kick from the 35 (for a 52 yarder). So a team only needs to be able to get 40-45 yards to win with one possession which is why the team winning the coin flip has an advantage.
How do you fix that? By backing up where the team starts with the ball it makes things a little more interesting.
Personally, I like the ‘you cut the cake, I decide what piece I want’ idea (for lack of a better description). It’s a fairer, logical system, that adds an element of strategy.
Instead of the coin toss one team would state a yard line to start at to begin OT (and perhaps also which direction they would go to account for windy days). So if the one team chooses the 15 yard line (or any yard line), the other team would choose whether they want to begin on offense or defense from that point.
At some point on the field a team would decide they would have a better shot at winning if they started the OT on defense. Whether that’s the 20 yard line or all the way down to the 1 yard line I don’t know, but I think it’d be pretty fair and very interesting to watch, while also maintaining sudden death at the same time.
Actually
It was Bill Simmons ideas, I’m pretty sure he has been tweeting about it and wrote about it after the SB.
New decade, New GM, New Coach, Jimmy Clausen? Could the ineptitude end?
The Official Draft Jimmy Clausen Bandwagon.
by SouthBuffaloNDgrad on Feb 28, 2010 4:32 PM EST up reply actions
Kickers? Accurate? You watch any of the playoffs. JK
New decade, New GM, New Coach, Jimmy Clausen? Could the ineptitude end?
The Official Draft Jimmy Clausen Bandwagon.
by SouthBuffaloNDgrad on Feb 28, 2010 4:34 PM EST up reply actions
I really like that idea. Another good idea i have heard is the idea of both head coaches having to secretly tell the official from which yard line they would like to start with the ball on and which ever team has the farther away place to start with the ball at would receive the ball at that position and then play would continue like a regular sudden death. That way overtime is not left up to a coin toss and rather would be a mental competition between the two head coaches.
But players are the ones who should decide the game, not coaches.
YES WE CHAN!
Tweet
Your daily source for Buffalo Bills information.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 1, 2010 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
I dislike your solution and the proposed one, too. I don’t want contrived ideas. I want a system that’s, ya know, football. Add an extra period – ten minutes or the full fifteen, keep it the way it is, you can change it to make it “every team gets at least one possession before it becomes sudden death”.
YES WE CHAN!
Tweet
Your daily source for Buffalo Bills information.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 1, 2010 2:19 PM EST up reply actions
I’m all for changing the rule, but do it right. The rule should be changed for playoff and regular season games, and should be very similar to the college format. Perhaps instead of the 25 yard line, the offense could start somewhere between the offensive 35 yard line and midfield.
A touchdown by the coin toss winner should not automatically end the game; that’s silly. Both teams should have equal opportunity to produce equal results. That only seems fair.
But why remove special teams from the equation?
YES WE CHAN!
Tweet
Your daily source for Buffalo Bills information.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 1, 2010 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
KISS
Each team gets one possession. If the game is still tied after that, sudden death.
A married man should forget his mistakes. There's no use in two people remembering the same thing!
No, KISS is what the NFL has now. Possession is determined randomly (coin flip), the defense chooses which goal to defend (worthless in domes but important in bad weather stadiums), and the first team to score wins. I hope the rule stays just as it is.
By the way, there’s nothing that says that the team kicking off has to defend at all. A team could call an onside kick. Yes, it spells certain defeat if the other team recovers (near midfield) but who would ever expect it?
It can always get worse. Let me tell you how.
by Ron From NM on Feb 28, 2010 10:14 AM EST up reply actions
Both teams should have to go in the same direction.
Why not keep all the controllable factors equal, and let the teams be the variables that are almost completely responsible for the outcome? I don’t want either team having an advantage that can be eliminated.
In the current system the offense has the advantage of getting the ball first while the defense has the advantage (when outdoors in bad weather) of using the elements to try to slow/stop the offense. And if the offense doesn’t score on their first opportunity the defense gets the ball and the elements. I think it is fair as it stands.
I’ve got to say that I do like Pistol’s idea—the visiting team picks a point on the field and the home team decides whether to play offense or defense from that point. I think that the defense should get to choose which goal to defend even in that situation. So, if a visiting team says the 10 yard line they will know that they will be going into the wind (if any) and have about 60 yards to go to be in FG range…..or get to have the home team in that situation if the home team opts to take the ball.
It can always get worse. Let me tell you how.
by Ron From NM on Feb 28, 2010 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
Why over complicate it? Why should either team get the advantage of weather or antything else? Why not make it simpler and fair?
Teams should never, ever, be allowed to pick the starting point. That needs to be a universal rule. The NFL will never go for letting teams pick, anyway.
.
agreed.....again KISS.....right now we just have the last "S"
In the old days, you had a better chance of getting the ball. Today, offenses and kickers are just too good…..to much of an advantage.
A married man should forget his mistakes. There's no use in two people remembering the same thing!
I like it
simple – effective and it’s fair. every teams offense gets a chance (which is what the NFL wants – more offense). you’re going to see 4th down conversions in OT that are going to be exciting to watch.
we can probably argue different ways that it could have been done, but at the end of the day I think they picked a good idea out of the man ideas i’m sure they had.
I hope the owners approve
Hello - thanks for reading my signature. It's very interesting. Bye
this is just half hearting it if you ask me
I dont get it. Whats the point of having different rules in the playoffs? Everyone has been clamoring for different overtime rules and just applying new ones to the playoffs is only going half way and isnt fair to the teams or the fans. In a 16 game season, I’d say each regular season win is almost as important as a playoff win and should have the same rules. The difference between 9-7 and 10-6 is enormous in this league.
"you just have to know there's always going to be adversity. None of these games are going to be easy. Nothing will be given to us" - Paul Posluszny
I’m with you. The rule changes should be for regular and postseason. Also, they should be better than the ones being proposed . I’m amazed at how difficult it is to make fairly simple and obvious changes.
agreed.....but it took the NFL a few tries to instant replay right, so this doesn't shock me.
A married man should forget his mistakes. There's no use in two people remembering the same thing!
amen to this
The difference between 9-7 and 10-6 is enormous in this league
"I have to bite my tongue not to ask how his wealth of experience with mediocrity is helping him prepare to make the Bills mediocre." - SB Nation's Peter Bean about Chan Gailey during the NFL Scouting Combine
by norcaliangelsfan on Feb 28, 2010 1:02 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed. If the rules aren’t fair enough for the playoffs, then they’re not fair enough for the regular season.
I signed up for Second Life about a year ago. Back then my life was so great that I literally wanted a second one. In my Second Life I was also a paper salesman and I was also named Dwight. Absolutely everything was the same. Except I could fly. - Dwight Schrute
Hey Poz how about that hockey game!?!
Fantastic game, you guys gave us a serious run for our money. But…
CANADA WINS THE GOLD BABY!!!!!!! SID THE KID FOR THE WIN!!!!
The more I see, the les I know.
by CanadianBillsFan on Feb 28, 2010 6:01 PM EST up reply actions
Congrats to you guys
Well played game.
A married man should forget his mistakes. There's no use in two people remembering the same thing!
unbelievable game
congratulations to you guys on a great win. I got to say that Parise goal with 24 seconds left got me a bloody lip from diving onto a pile on, I couldn’t believe it!
Sid came through for you and I’m glad if it wasn’t us that you guys got the gold.
I was also happy with the classy ovation that the Canadian fans gave Ryan Miller after the game, he was absolutely incredible this tournament and I’m glad he got MVP recognition.
There is no denying how good this tournament, and the play of USA and Canada, is for American hockey and the NHL.
Enjoy the win, CBF team Canada earned it but I hope the two games we played this tourney will have earned US hockey a little more respect from Canadians.
"you just have to know there's always going to be adversity. None of these games are going to be easy. Nothing will be given to us" - Paul Posluszny
That Parise goal almost broke my heart. Definate clutch performance by him. And Miller deffinatly deserved the tournament MVP, no doubt about it, he was outstanding throughout.
And you guys deffinatly earned my respect, and then some. You guys played a great game. And the fact that you were also the youngest team in the tournament speaks volumes about USA hockey. I have no doubt that you guys will be a powerhouse for years to come and I am looking forward to many more Gold medal games with you guys.
Fantastic game, congradulations on the silve and an outstanding tournament. Looking forward to seeing more of the same from you guys down the road.
The more I see, the les I know.
by CanadianBillsFan on Feb 28, 2010 7:58 PM EST up reply actions
And I Truly nothing bad to say about the USA and how they played. They played an outstadning tournament with a lot of poise and class. Truly impressed me. Good luck in years to come. And I am truly looking forward to meeting you in more games and have no doubt that you too will win a few.
But tonight is mine, Go Canada!!! ;-)
The more I see, the les I know.
by CanadianBillsFan on Feb 28, 2010 8:00 PM EST up reply actions
Oh and if anybody bothered with the closing ceremonies, I have to sincerely appologise on behafe of every canadian for those.
The tongue in cheek attempt to make fun of ourselves failed miserable (thats what happens when all of our best writters are working on american sitcoms). And the music acts SUCK! What is up with this endless barrage of EMO BS? None of those bands truly reprensent anything about canada. I mean Avril Lavigne, Simple Plan and Headly? Really? Where are The Tragically Hip and Rush? They’re who we really should have had up there! And don’t even get me started on the french acts. Quebec has a large multitude of fantastci musical artists, unfortunatly none of them were there tonight.
HUGE disapointement so far.
The more I see, the les I know.
by CanadianBillsFan on Feb 28, 2010 10:52 PM EST up reply actions
Congrats to CBF!
Are you kidding me? What a game! You guys got us in what will go down as one of the best hockey games ever played. Well deserved gold. O’Canada!
Thank you! And you guys showed me skills I didn’t know you had in this tourney. I’m looking forward to many more games like today’s. And who knows, maybe you’ll actually win a few ;-)
The more I see, the les I know.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 1, 2010 12:09 AM EST up reply actions
appreciate the recognition
of team USA’s improvement buddy. Congrats again on the win, it was a once in a lifetime chance for Canada to win in Canada. I can only imagine how drunk Vancouver was.
And I’m glad you brought up the closing ceremony as a huge disappointment because I was trying to defend Canada as not being properly represented by that display, at which the friends and family with me were laughing. I was laughing at the attempt to make fun of yourselves (what the heck was that? Giant beavers and a floating moose?) but everybody else was laughing more at the musical acts. I’m really glad you are disappointed so I can tell people that those music acts were not reflective of Canadian music, haha!
In the end, that closing ceremony – no matter how hysterically awful – will be forgotten by next year but the memory of how passionate the Canadian fans and city were for the Olympic games will be remembered. It was obvious that you Canadians are very proud of your heritage and country.
"you just have to know there's always going to be adversity. None of these games are going to be easy. Nothing will be given to us" - Paul Posluszny
by poz on Mar 1, 2010 2:43 AM EST up reply actions
We might not be as vocal about our patriotism as americans, but believe me it’s there. And I will never forget this overitime win. I swear it will be my generation’s ’72 summet series and the Henderson goal.
The more I see, the les I know.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 1, 2010 2:58 AM EST up reply actions
And thanks for the kind words about us Canucks. And yes please do relay the message that the closing ceremonies were more tungue in cheek than anything else. We were trying to make fun of our own steriotypes (they did hand out mouse antlers to everyone in the crowd after all). It just failed miserably.
The more I see, the les I know.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 1, 2010 3:54 PM EST up reply actions
Bob Costas said they were tongue in cheek on the telecast. If people missed it they were watching CBC.
YES WE CHAN!
Tweet
Your daily source for Buffalo Bills information.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 1, 2010 4:36 PM EST up reply actions
Actually the Olympics were on CTV this year.
The more I see, the les I know.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 1, 2010 6:56 PM EST up reply actions
Ahhh. In any event, they mentioned on the American broadcast that it was tongue in cheek.
YES WE CHAN!
Tweet
Your daily source for Buffalo Bills information.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 1, 2010 9:52 PM EST up reply actions
Neil Young was there…..
YES WE CHAN!
Tweet
Your daily source for Buffalo Bills information.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 1, 2010 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
But not performing, unfortunatly.
The more I see, the les I know.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 1, 2010 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
He performed on the NBC telecast. He sang “Lon May You Run”
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978075443
YES WE CHAN!
Tweet
Your daily source for Buffalo Bills information.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 1, 2010 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
Hmm, guess I must have missed that.
The more I see, the les I know.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 1, 2010 6:57 PM EST up reply actions
They extinguished the flame during the song.
YES WE CHAN!
Tweet
Your daily source for Buffalo Bills information.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 1, 2010 9:53 PM EST up reply actions
The game is not just about mandating fairness of result
60 minutes of regulation is enough of an equalizer as it is. In those 60 minutes, both teams have an equal chance to exert their wills to win on their opponent. The game isn’t about stopping at key points to make sure each time can get their shot. It’s about making the most of the opportunities you have. We don’t make sure both teams have an equal time of possession during regulation, because we respect the teams’ right to impose their game through struggle. That is the basic competitive concept of sport.
As it stands, teams only have to drive into field goal range to score. Why is that an unfair thing? Not only can the defense do its job, but the team that loses the coin toss had all of regulation to win the game and they couldn’t.
Mmmph rrgh prrmf! - someone with his mouth gagged
Go Jazz! Go Hogs! GO BILLS!
by Dyl on Feb 28, 2010 3:11 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
hard to argue with this perspective......
Rec’d
The only cure for a bad today is tomorrow.
by norcaliangelsfan on Feb 28, 2010 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
Rec’d also.
2010 Bills' truth in advertising: "Look out Cleveland, this year we score 6!" - bluecollarbuffalo
by thefourwinds on Feb 28, 2010 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
Ho-hum..........
By your logic, there shouldn’t be overtime at all. The game should just end in a draw, since neither team could “impose there will” enough to win in regulation.
i couldn’t agree with you less.
As it stands, teams only have to drive into field goal range to score. Why is that an unfair thing? Not only can the defense do its job, but the team that loses the coin toss had all of regulation to win the game and they couldn’t.
yes – but it works both ways. BOTH teams failed to win the game in regulation – shouldn’t BOTH teams offenses and defenses have an equal opportunity to win the game? why should something like a coin flip determine the most possible outcome?
The NFL is about being equal – salary cap, revenue sharing etc… – this makes overtime equal. Both teams offenses and defenses now would have a chance to win the game instead of just one side of a team touching the ball unless there is a punt or turnover.
Overtime is 0-0. no score – you’re giving a greater opportunity for the team that wins the coin flip to win a game at 0-0. to me – that’s not equal
Hello - thanks for reading my signature. It's very interesting. Bye
by J2 on Mar 1, 2010 11:07 AM EST up reply actions
Interesting idea – why not just continue the 4th quarter using the same down and distance as you had at the end of regulation from the same spot on the field? :-) No new coin toss or kickoff.
YES WE CHAN!
Tweet
Your daily source for Buffalo Bills information.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 1, 2010 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
like halfs? well I guess what if you had the ball at the opponents 10. now you have one team going 10 yards and the other having to go from wherever the kickoff was returned too.
since – in essence it’s a new game – it should start a new I would think
Hello - thanks for reading my signature. It's very interesting. Bye
by J2 on Mar 1, 2010 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
Actually I was thinking like quarters.
YES WE CHAN!
Tweet
Your daily source for Buffalo Bills information.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 1, 2010 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
err – ya – you know – if I wasn’t a complete moron i would have said quarters
Hello - thanks for reading my signature. It's very interesting. Bye
by J2 on Mar 1, 2010 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
I hear what you’re saying but I think you’re basing things off of odds where I’m basing them off of the talent of your own team. You have no excuses for not stopping the team that wins the coin toss. What can you say, that your defense wasn’t good enough to get a 3-and-out? That falls on your own team.
Winning the opening coin toss places you in a favorable position, a position where you have the potential to win the game if you can execute your will. Teams fail to score on that possession quite often. It’s not a conclusive path to victory.
Mmmph rrgh prrmf! - someone with his mouth gagged
Go Jazz! Go Hogs! GO BILLS!
by Dyl on Mar 1, 2010 5:44 PM EST up reply actions
rec’d.
All the emphasis seems to be on the offensive side of the ball. People conveniently forget that the defense still is out there and can make a play, whether by a stop or a turnover.
It’s not as if 90% of teams go down and score on the first possession anyway.
I am open if they tweak it for the playoffs (as potentially suggested above), but for the regular season, leave it be.
from MMQB
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/02/28/combine/index.html?eref=sihp
Of the 445 overtime regular-season games played in the 36-year history of the system, only seven times has the team that won the flip chosen to kick off instead of receive. And 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.
Overtime has become over-reliant on playing for field goals. In the first five years of overtime, NFL kickers were accurate on 61 percent of their attempts. In the last five years, the number is 82 percent. Except for the lousy performances of kickers in the playoffs this year, you can see why teams play for the field goal in overtime. Teams surely do: Since 1994, 73 percent of overtime games have been won by a field goal.
Hello - thanks for reading my signature. It's very interesting. Bye
by J2 on Mar 1, 2010 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
I strongly dislike the current overtime format and I hate ties even more.
I’d like to see them play a 7-10 minute period, where whoever leads at the end wins, if the game is still tied, play another overtime (at least for the playoffs). This format works great in the NBA and in the NHL playoffs so I think it would be just as good in the NFL.
Thing about that is exhaustion
Teams in basketball can play three or even four times a week. Football teams due to the nature of the more physically pounding game need the week to recouperate. Not every athlete needs this time, but many on the team in all sports do.
Thinking about it formulaicly, basketball teams playing back-to-backs get an hour of rest for every 2 minutes of game time they play. (48 minutes – 24 hours) Football players playing one game a week get 5.6 hours for every 2 minutes of football. (60 minutes – 7 days) What that means is that adding another period adds a lot of needed rest time. In basketball another 5 minute period would equal only 2.5 hours more rest. That’s not so hard to get. But another 15 minutes of football would demand 42 additional hours of rest (two days).
I’m not saying the football players couldn’t handle an extra period and still play. Yet, the quality of play would likely suffer. I’m saying they’d likely be taxed for the next game a good deal MORE than say, a basketball player would be taxed by that extra time.
Mmmph rrgh prrmf! - someone with his mouth gagged
Go Jazz! Go Hogs! GO BILLS!
I'm not sure I agree
I definitely disagree with how you try to quantify the problem in terms of minutes of play and minutes of rest. From a week to week basis, I don’t know how much of an effect it would have on the athletes, play might suffer, but I doubt it will be more noticeable than how teams look on Thursday night games. I don’t think it would tire the athletes as much as you suggest, especially if they were only asked to play one overtime, because they have so much time to recover.
From a fan’s point of view, I want a full period of overtime to decide who is the better team. I believe it would be more fair than the current format. I would be interested to know what players themselves think about such a change.
by billsfan4life on Feb 28, 2010 8:23 PM EST up reply actions
I don't really agree or disagree with what I stated
I just wanted to throw it out there.
Mmmph rrgh prrmf! - someone with his mouth gagged
Go Jazz! Go Hogs! GO BILLS!
I've always felt an additional quarter cut up into two 7 minute chunks works best
If one team scores in the 1st 7 minute half, game over, if neither does, you play a second 7 minute half and if still tied, game goes down as a tie.
Nix and Chan, the new Cheech and Chong of the Bills, hopefully they will be as successful in business as they were, and not so much the drug fueled comedy act....
Overtime should be changed
The only thing I’d do to change it is that the game ends on the next score, but field goals are banned. I make that distinction because I feel like a safety should end the game as well.
Overtime is a problem with high scoring offenses and is not really a problem with powerful defenses. If it was the Ravens and the Jets in overtime it wouldn’t be much of a problem. New Orleans and Indianapolis= problem.
If the NFL is concerned with this concept of “parity” then they cannot very well keep this overtime which amounts to a coin flip 30 or so yards to cover and a kick. Everyone is for this overtime until their team is victimized by it.
The problem isn’t even the coin flip so much as the game ends on a kick from a player who doesn’t play every down and usually isn’t physical in the least.
This space held in honor of Robert Royal known to his friends as "Sweet Cream Style Corn" March 11 2006- February 26, 2009
Continue the 4th Quarter
I’ve heard them all, but I still think they should do sudden death overtime as a continuation of the 4th quarter. If you have the ball as time expires, you keep the ball at the same down and distance to start OT. If you kick a last second FG to tie it up, the other team gets the first shot at winning.
This eliminates the question of who will kick to start the overtime and everyone gets to strategize during the last quarter to set up the extra frame.
I know there is no way this one will pass, but it is the favorte alternative that I have heard.
Illinois: My governor is a bigger crook than your governor
I think that's a reasonable way to eliminate the coin toss, which annoys me to no end
Even if there is no advantage, statistically, to winning the coin toss, I hate the role a flip of a coin takes in the current format. I like it
by billsfan4life on Feb 28, 2010 8:26 PM EST up reply actions
I just suggested that above but you said it first.
YES WE CHAN!
Tweet
Your daily source for Buffalo Bills information.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 1, 2010 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
