NFL Changing Overtime Rules
by Vikant on Feb 27, 2010 8:07 PM CST
Email
PrintFor the playoffs at least
INDIANAPOLIS -- An NFL spokesman says the league could change its overtime format for playoff games at a meeting next month.
Greg Aiello said Satuday that under the new format, both teams would get the ball at least once unless the first team to get the ball scores a touchdown.
If the first team to get the ball makes a field goal and the other team ties the game, action would continue until a team scores again.
Under the current rules, the first team to score wins.
The competition committee will discuss the new concept with teams and players at league meetings March 21-24 in Orlando, Fla., when it could come to a vote. At least two thirds of the teams would need to agree to the changes for new rules to be adopted.
This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.
56 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
good
this win the coin toss win the game crap is annoying
From the only TRUE North division
by thewild_viking_twins on Feb 27, 2010 8:38 PM CST reply actions
While I truly agree...
The statistics point to it being about 50/50 I think. I still think both team should get a shot with the ball.
Skol Vikings!
Woot Woot!
The thing is
it isn’t win the coin toss win the game. We easily could have still won. Football is two parts, offense and defense. Minus that BS P.I. call, we easily could have prevented them from getting in FG range and then gotten the ball ourselves.
Three parts
you forgot the refs :)
From the only TRUE North division
by thewild_viking_twins on Feb 28, 2010 1:01 PM CST up reply actions
thank god!
hopefully this happens because the game will be much more interesting if both offenses got the ball.
How about
the first team to score a touchdown wins. No need for field goals.
Except that that could make for a really long game in post season. Especially if it’s a defensive game.
I can’t decide. I’m gonna have to toss a coin.
I like this idea.
Brett Favre is the Greatest QB in NFL History!
Brett Favre will be back in 2010, 100% Guaranteed!
by REVENGE4FAVRE on Feb 27, 2010 10:14 PM CST up reply actions
I heard a good one...
First team to score six points wins. That way, if a field goal is made, it’s not over.
Skol Vikings!
Woot Woot!
so
one team could score two field goals before other team scores a touchdown?
i do bleed purple, just can not get enough even with a sb win go vikes
by new york viking on Feb 28, 2010 6:22 AM CST up reply actions
Correct.
If one team scores two field goals, they win. That ensures that unless a TD is scored immediately, each team gets a possession.
Skol Vikings!
Woot Woot!
First team to score six points. That's interesting.
In overtime a team has just reached the far range of their kicker. It’s fourth and 2. Do they kick for a possible three and hope they get the ball back or go for the first down and maybe the win?
I like it. Lots of drama.
I wonder if the networks would go for any rule change. They probably love the few passes, field goal and quick game over so it doesn’t cut into their regular programing.
by JethroBoViking on Mar 1, 2010 11:04 PM CST up reply actions
Football ratings dwarf the ratings for “regular scheduled programming.” The NFL is likely the only league with the leverage for t.v. rights. Besides what exactly is on television at 5 o’clock Sunday afternoons?
I don’t think the networks really have any sway over this one.
Other football games.. :)
no an overtime football game is good for everyone. I’m suprised the networks wouldn’t want to stretch it out then have a comercial license so that when OT hits certain commercials get aired at inflated prices, since they know people will be glued to the screen.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
definitely needs it
Although they say that defenses win championships, you can’t can’t cough a title of because a team has a little bit of luck
college?
why not just do the college overtime way? the other team should still get a chance to tie a field goal and a touchdown.
David Chagoya
thats too easy for the pros
both teams getting the ball inside the 35 is it?? or is it the 25?
by vikesfan4lyf on Feb 27, 2010 10:34 PM CST up reply actions
Takes out 1/3 of the game.
Special teams (not counting field goals) are completely ignored. It’s a big part of the game. Every ten yards a return team gets is one less first down the offense needs. Say no to that solution.
Skol Vikings!
Woot Woot!
This proposal is great
I don’t like the idea of an never ending period of play, but winning on a field goal in OT is pretty bogus. You often here the kicking of field goals referred to as settling for 3; how is it that you win a game in overtime with a play you normal are compromising on? If a team is held to a field in OT, then the other team should have the opportunity to score six. If they fail to score a touchdown and settle for a field goal, then sudden death from there on sounds fair.
What did you think of my above idea?
Not mine, just reiterating what I remember reading somewhere. I can’t remember where I got it though. First team to score six points wins.
Skol Vikings!
Woot Woot!
I see where you are going...
I am not totally sold that the current rule has to change. However, if it must, I like the current league proposal. What you suggest goes one step past what I think is necessary…possibly guaranteeing more than two possessions per team, essentially playing until something gives. I want the games to end sooner rather than later and granting each team at least one possession is as fair as it should ever get.
I'm not really sure how it is different from the rule they are looking at
If you score 6 points you win? Well if the lead team gets a TD they win. If they get a FG then the other team has a chance to win. Now from what I’m reading of what the NFL is saying (what?!) after the first posession whoever has the most points at the end of their possesion wins. Which means if the other teams defense pulls a safety that team wins. Not really sure where the getting to six points is going to improve this.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
well lett both teams get the ball
and if both score, its a deathmatch!1
Favre + 3 = ❼ = Vikings= 2009-2010 NFL Champions= New Stadium=Greatest Fans and Team!
by UnBannedVikingholic on Mar 2, 2010 7:34 AM CST reply actions
Plain and simple!
If one team gets the ball first and scores, then the other team has one chance to match it or beat it. If they match it the game goes on until both teams get the same amount of chances on both sides. Score 3 the other team score 7. They both got the same chance and the 7 points win. If the score is zero and the other is zero or 3 to 3 the game goes on as the quarter time continuous. Then the next possession is scored 7 the second team gets a chance to score 7. Any pick up kids game knows, when you do not get the same chance on both sides, it’s not fair. What a Joke that the NFL isn’t smarter then the play ground kids!
not sure I like that
It doesn’t need to be that fair. It can just sit on the fact that both teams should have a chance for their offense to be on the field and a long field goal shouldn’t be way a good team gets punched out of the off season. So if )lets just use a random team) the saints went down and decided to play it safe and kick a FG in the first posession (and lets pick another random team) the Vikes take it back and shove it down their scrawny cheap shot throats and score a TD the Vikes win it. If the Vikes score a FG whoever scores next wins the game. Yes it still is handy to have the ball first but it’s not as brutal as it would be if there was not chance to get yourself back in the game.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
What's that saying?
Defense wins championships. Nothing wrong with getting punched out of the offseason by a FG. If your defense is better, the team shouldn’t have even gotten into FG range. Our defense was plagued by shitty reffing, which is out of our hands, but we easily, if not for that bullshit pass interference, could have stopped the Saints from getting into FG range. The rules are fine as is.
one drive can be resolved by a fluke
You can have the best DB’s in the world, one slips a bit and 20 yard catch happens, now the team is in FG range and your out. I’m not a big fan of that.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
Well, honestly, that’s just football. Does it suck when it happens? Yeah. But its part of the game. It’s like if you lose out on the post season because of a similar thing happening in regulation during the last game of the season. Do we suddenly need to change regulation rules to give the other team a chance to come back?
Not at all but that was part of a long game where both teams had an equal chance
Not the result of flipping a coin and hoping that you can stop an offense from moving 40 yards. Also, the NFL seems to me where getting mid field yardage is getting easier for teams while getting yards in the red zone is still staying relativley difficult. So even if you have a great red zone defense, becasue there is no chance of the other team have a shot you still lose out. This basically hamstrigns the defense as it is playing with it’s arm tied behind its back.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
Few thoughts
You could do it two ways to potentially be fair.
The NFL could set it up as the first team in OT that scores a TD wins. If a team is 4th & whatever and feels like they could settle for a FG, than this would give the opposing team a chance to match or beat that. They only get possession of the ball to try until turnover on downs.
So for ex: Vikings vs. Saints NFC game, Vikings would of had a chance to get the ball back, but they would of either needed to match the score by kicking a FG or go for the win with a TD. — If we matched with a FG, we kick off again and until a team takes the lead and the other team can’t match on their next possession wins (with a TD being an automatic win).
Or we could simplify the quarter down to 5 minutes. Treat it as a regular quarter minus challenges. (They would all be booth reviews). Score early – and you better hope your defense holds them off. It would make for some new game-planning, that’s for sure.
I think its too easy for teams to get a potential FG in OT. A TD is harder since as you enter the redzone, putting the ball in the endzone is harder. Kicking a FG feels like it is more of a certain score. TDs don’t come as easy.
Conflicting desires
The NFL wants multiple things out of overtime. I would rate them as follows.
1. Fairness to each team.
2.Sudden death aspect. The great Colts-Giants NFL championship game was the first that went to sudden death. It was a huge hit. Sudden death is important to the NFL.
3. Don’t let the game drag on.
4. Ties should be possible, but very rare
The only thing that is changed is that now the rulebook favors offense. Thus, each team needs a legitimate shot to possess the ball on offense in order to make overtime fair.
An overtime period, or “first team to X number of points” both lack excitement.
Modified sudden death is the way to go.
But football isn't just offense
Defense is a huge part of the game as well, especially when you get into the post season. That’s why they say that defense wins championships. Each team DOES have a legitimate chance to get possession of the football in OT. If your team loses the flip, then the defense needs to earn its paychecks and get you the ball, just like it would in regulation. I don’t see any need for a change.
I have a reply...
You’re right. It has been evolving for the past twenty years in that direction. Does change the debate in any serious way?
I think so.
If offense and defense are each 45% of the game, and special teams 10%, it wouldn’t matter who gets the ball first in sudden death overtime.
But if offense is 50% of the game, defense is 40%, and special teams 10%, it does matter. Each team really, badly wants to have their offense on the field first.
by medicineball on Mar 3, 2010 11:24 AM CST up reply actions
For arguments sake:
What if the rules favoring the offense only balance the game? I believe defensive units gel quicker than offensive units because the nature of their responsibilities are reactionary. Offenses rely on timing and consistency to a much greater degree, whilst on defense, often times players are giver wider latitude to execute the broader goal. The rules might make it easier for offensive success, but if the offense is handicapped from the beginning…
I haven’t thought this out thoroughly, an examination of the rule book would be the first step, and that is a monstrous task. Generic percentages don’t really make the argument. In a sudden death scenario, offense could be an arbitrary 1.5% and each team would badly want its offense on the field (offense giving you a better chance to score than defense).
That’s very thoughtful. I just have a simpler, probably more primitive approach. Just give each team the ball,
It's modified sudden death
If the score is stlll tied after the two opening possessions, then it is sudden death.
Furthermore, if the first team scores, and then holds the other team. The 4th down play could be a walk-off “sudden death” win like a bottom of the ninth game-winning home run in baseball.
by medicineball on Mar 3, 2010 11:43 PM CST up reply actions
Most sports do.
And then offer a way out after that. Hell if you want sudden death just have both kickers go out after the game is over and start kicking field goals, backing up 3 yards every time tell one misses it.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
So?
Oddly enough not a lot of sport have sudden death rules until after you hammer through a OT or two. Sudden death sounds cool like gaping chest wound, but in reality I don’t think it’s the best way to resolve the contest.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
You could look at average points per game over the last 50 years and see if you can spot a trend
That should tell you if offenses have been getting it easier as time goes on. You could even do it for yards and TD’s. You could even go crazier than that. Notice I said you, because that sounds like way to much work for me.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
You are completley correct
Other sports have gone this way as well, soccer being one of them and Hockey another. People like watching games that things happen in. Since scoring is the biggest thing that will happen (overtly) people want to see it as much as possible. So you see slight changes to the rules to allow this to happen.. It’s just human nature man.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
Here's my response
If the rulebook favors the offense so heavily, then why are we even debating OT rules at all? If its so terribly bad, then clearly we need to take a look at the rulebook as it is in regards to how the game is played during regulation before we even step foot into discussing how overtime will proceed.
But people like deep bombs without a DB tackling a WR at the line of scrimmage, and the star quarterbacks to play all season.
by medicineball on Mar 3, 2010 11:44 PM CST up reply actions
It's a game buddy.
And as a game it’s growing with the fan base (as it should) The rule book isn’t broken, but it is evolving as time goes on. This is what keeps the NFL dynamic and interesting when other sports suck.(baseball)
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
Equal time
is the method in other sports. It’s a set amount of time in basketball, hockey – or extra FULL innings of baseball. It’s not ‘1st team to score wins’. Sure, basketball teams can come out in OT and crush the opponent. Or the away baseball team gets 7 in their half of the 10th, making it boring – but it’s not ‘get the ball, win the game if you score’. That is not a level playing field IMO.
The difference between those sports and football is
football is far more violent. Hell, we saw ourselves what difference a single play can make. If we didn’t need to go into OT against the Saints, we wouldn’t be worried about whether Griffin can even start next season or not. I mean there’s a reason the football season is only 23 games, as opposed to the fifty plus for basketball, hockey, etc.
Instead of a Coin Toss, use Thumb-Wrestling!
Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Alex Smith caddied for Jim Harbaugh at AT&T Pro-Am
- Boston (in) Common: Kevin Youkilis set to marry Tom Brady’s sister
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
- The hidden play of Super Bowl XLVI: Justin Tuck’s third-quarter sack
- Report: Chad Ochocinco will become Chad Johnson once again
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.
