Finally an Overtime Rule that makes sense
by CitrusFLViking on Mar 18, 2010 9:00 AM CDT
Email
Print
From access Vikings:
Under the modification, teams would need a touchdown to win the game on the first possession of overtime. A field goal would result in the other team being given a possession. If there's still a tie after that, normal sudden-death rules would apply.
Fairplay is finally being granted to each team in the playoffs. I kind of like it even tho I support the old "Texas overtime rule" Which is different then college and less time consuming.
As you see above, the team must at least score a touchdown with the first possession. If they opt for a field goal it still puts the pressure on the other team to stay away from a FG and push for the win because after each team has had the ball regular rules go into effect. First to score after that.
I don't know why this isn't being done for all games?
The old "Texas Overtime" (High School) spotted the ball on the 10. No 1st downs unless pass interference. You have 3 "innings" so to speak. After the 3rd, the team behind must play for the win unless the opponent had gone for 2 after the TD and got it. So if there was a FG after an exchange of 3 possessions, the last team had to go for the TD if they were down by a FG. If down by seven, they had to go for the 2 point conversion.
At least this is a step in the right direction. 24 teams need to vote it in. For the good of the game, it should be done. Would make for a much better standard in the playoffs. I hate those dang FG wins when the other team never got a shot. This is one time I will call out those in favor of the current OT rules. They are stupid and unfair. I don't buy into the idea that the defense is suppose to do their job. Well so is each offense! A FG win is a representation of the best team of the day? No way! What percentage of FG's are blocked and missed? Odds in favor of the one posession offence. A long kick didn't test the measure of the teams offensive superiority and often not even the defence. The game is decided by a kicker. This OT at least keeps some fight in the beast.
Vote this in owners!
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.
50 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Like the rule
It’s very similar to something I thought would be better for years. My solution for overtime was simply the first team to score six points in any way. That way no field goal wins at all unless you end up kicking two. I like this proposed rule and hope it gets the necessary votes.
Let's not pretend
…that this proposed rule change will actually satisfy anyone who is unhappy with the current “sudden death” rule. There will be cries of unfairness whenever a team wins with a 1st possession TD because it still came down to a coin flip and their favorite team was the one that didn’t get the ball. (Never mind that their favorite team had failed to take control of the game in 4 quarters of regulation, of course.)
Also there would be mega commercial breaks in between each possession.
Of course it’s not perfect. I don’t think a perfect solution even exists. But how can you not agree that it is indisputably better than the status quo? If there is something indusputably more fair than this proposal, please share.
Also, I can deal with enduring commercial breaks if they occur during overtime of an NFL playoff game. If sitting through commercial breaks is endurable any time in an NFL game, it is in that scenario! Not sure I get your point, are you saying you’d rather have an NFL playoff game end more unfairly, than to have to watch it for another twenty minutes? For me, overtime in the playoffs is worth the price of admission, it’s the most exciting moments of the entire football season — not something you want to just get over with so you can go clip your toenails!
I really don't think it is better.
All you get with this is more OT plays, which means more chances for injuries. Honestly, if they want a truly ‘fair’ OT, they’d make it first to 9 points, so that there is absolutely no way a team can win on their first possession, because that seems to be what everyone has their knickers in a twist about.
No I think they have an issue with people being able to pop a cheap field goal
I would be ok if the team getting the ball first would win if they marched all the way down and scored a TD.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
It's not a cheap field goal
First off, Field Goals are missable. It happens all the time. Hell, we saw 2 missed field goals in one game against the Cowboys. Second, if the defense can’t stop the opposing offense from getting into FG range, then, yes, they deserve to lose. Just like they’d deserve to lose if this occured with less than a minute to go in regulation.
hey man no sweat off my back
Enjoy your take on it I’ll enjoy mine, someone posted somewhere that the team who lost the coin flip since 92 or something has won only 38% of the time. Not sure if it’s true didn’t do any leg work on it. If it is then this needs to be revamped. otherwise we can just spin a wheel for OT and see who wins. Sounds fair?
If it’s not true I still think this gives a more balance approach to over time.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
Okay
The problem with that is, since ‘92 the rules have changed. If you want to see just how ’unfair’ OT is to the team who doesn’t win the flip look at this last season, which is using the most recent rules. There were nine overtime games in which the team who won the coin toss didn’t win on the first possession. 7 of the nine games, the team who lost the toss ended up winning the game.
There were 15 OT games total this season, counting post-season. In nine of those games, the coinflip didn’t give away an automatic victory. 7 of the fifteen games ended with the loser of the coinflip winning the game. So basically the coinflip ‘handed’ victory to a team a grand total of 40% of the time last season. Hardly an automatic victory.
Seriously, there’s nothing wrong with the OT rules. They should be left as they are.
4 quarters of regulation should mean something
I would be in favor of scrumming for the 1st possession in OT. I’m sure that would still seem to have too much luck involved for some complainers, though.
Where is the acknowledgement that a team that loses OT by playing defense 1st failed to stop the other team? That demonstrates a lack of defensive ability, not luck. Everyone here is upset because the Vikes lost, but after letting go of one of the league’s best safeties (Sharper, to the very team that beat the Vikes) and being below average against the pass with no upgrades at CB or changes in the defensive game plan, the Vikings got exactly what they deserved. It was not a matter of luck at all.
The longer the OT, the less meaningful the 4 quarters of regulation.
Did you know that NFL games took less time than MLB games about 10-15 years ago? They did. At this rate, MLB may regain its former position as America’s favorite sport and have a salary cap before the NFL has one again.
4 quarter of regulation mean's something
It means that neither team got the job done. I think this change in rules is because the kicking game has gotten so good that a game can be decided by giving up just a couple of first downs. You say that the longer the OT, the less meaningful the 4 quarters of regulation become. I disagree because neither team did enough to win so more time is needed. Are overtime games in the NHL diminished because they go through two or more periods of overtime? Is a baseball game worse when it goes to extra innings? I think in all cases that the drama, intensity, and magnification of mistakes only increase which is a good thing.
I don’t think there is a perfect solution for overtime in football. I believe the fairest possible overtime would be the first team to score a touchdown wins. The problem with this solution is that it could take a long time. I wouldn’t mind seeing an extra quarter in the playoffs before the sudden death comes into play. I agree that the defense deserves responsibility for allowing a team to get into field goal range. The problem is that the stats say that 60% of the time the coin flip essentially decides the winner. It’s just too easy for an offense to gain 20-30 yards this late in a game.
Also MLB games are often longer than football games and their salary system is not heading towards a cap anytime soon. I’m a Toronto Bluejay’s fan who has to deal with the Yankee’s and Red Sox outspending my team by $100 million or more every year. Talk about a lack of parity!
by CanadianViking on Mar 19, 2010 7:43 PM CDT up reply actions
No
The coinflip just determines who gets the ball. That’s it. The defense and offense and ST play determines who wins, just like it does in regulation. If you’re playing a complete game on all three levels, then it shouldn’t matter who wins the coinflip. I mean, hell, just look at the Bengals-Browns game from just this last season.
The Bengals won the flip, and they won the game in OT. Case closed, right? No, it’s not, because the Cleveland defense stepped up and stopped the offense from scoring. If the Brown’s offense was better, they would’ve won. This game nearly went to a tie, if not for a last second OT FG from Cinnci.
Fast Forward to the Cowboys-Chiefs game. Same season. The Chiefs won the flip. Who won that game again? Oh, right, the Cowboys did. Good defense stepped up, stopped the Chief offense, gave the Dallas offense a chance to win it, which they did.
Move forward again, Jets vs Bills. Game goes to OT. Jets get the ball. Jets clearly win, right? Nope! The Bills step it up, stop the Jets from scoring. Bills end up winning the game.
Moving on, Chiefs, again, against the Steelers. Chiefs win the game. Who won that coin flip? The Steelers did. Again, this is from just last season.
Same season, next week. Steelers again. This time versus the Ravens. Game goes to OT. Steelers win the toss. Ravens win the game…
Week later, Saints vs Redskins. Game goes to OT. Redskins win the toss, drive down the field. What happens? Saints defense steps up, forces a turn over, Saints recover. Their offense goes down the field for the win.
The very next week, Dolphins vs Titans. Game, you know, goes to OT. Dolphins win the coin toss. Who wins the game? Titans.
Then it’s our turn. Us vs Chicago. Chicago wins the flip. They also win the game. But what happens in the OT period? They miss a FG. And we have a chance to win the game, but Peterson fumbles. They didn’t win on the first possession, however.
Next up, playoffs. Packers vs Cardinals. We all know how this one went. Pack won the toss, Cardinals force the turnover, return it for a TD. Game over.
That… is NINE games. Nine OT games in which the team that won the coinflip either did NOT score on the first possession, or did not win the game. That is the majority of OT games from this last season. The flip doesn’t matter, it just determines who gets the ball first. Seriously. Nine games just this last season. Do the rules really need to be changed? Maybe we’re all just butthurt because the OT rules bit us in the ass during the playoffs….
Solid points
You’ve proved that the stats didn’t apply to this season in particular and in fact showed the opposite percentage compared to the combined stats from 92 to 09. That is only this past year though. In a larger period of time the stats bear out that the winner of the coin flip wins much more than they lose. I think those stats can be misleading as you pointed out that teams who win the coin flip don’t always win on the first possession. I will argue that if the coin flip doesn’t matter why do 99 % of teams elect to receive. Obviously there is an advantage to getting the ball first.
I don’t hate the current rule but I do think there is a better solution. In fact, I like the current rule for the regular season. In the playoff’s it just seems a little abrupt. I compare it to a shootout in hockey in the regular season compared to overtime in the playoffs. Regular season games should be ended in a timely fashion but I think playoffs should be more fairly decided due to their finality. Nobody wants the best team to lose due to one bad call or one bad return. Yes I am referencing our most recent loss. Thing is our loss was considered unfair or cheap by a lot of people who weren’t Viking or Favre fans. One of my best friend’s is a long time Saint’s fan who called me after the game where we had a very brief awkward conversation. His only comment on the game was that he felt embarrassed that they won the way they did.
I don’t know what the best solution is but I don’t mind this new proposed rule for the playoffs. I don’t want to see anything like the college or CFL approach but I don’t think this is a bad change. It will encourage teams to score touchdowns instead of field goals and will make wins seem more definitive. In a league where more challenges and penalties are being called into question, anything that is more clear cut and definite is a very good thing.
by CanadianViking on Mar 19, 2010 9:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Of course teams will elect to recieve
because it means they can end the game immediately. The new rules won’t change that. The only advantage the team that wins the flip gets, is they have a chance to end the game first. That is all.
And I suppose I’m one of the few who considered the loss as being fair. We came in, we played terribly sloppy, and we lost. Simple as that. We had, what, 6 fumbles/turnovers? Teams shouldn’t win games in which they perform that bad. The only sour taste from that game occured in OT, not because the Saints won the flip (Damnit Hutch, tails never fails), but because of the referees and their bullshit P.I. call that practically gave them the win. I think, if we are really going to have a knee-jerk reaction over the game it should apply to the referrees who apply the rules, rather than to the OT rules themselves.
I mostly agree
For the most part losing was entirely on us. That bullshit P.I. and the illegal contact penalty at the start of OT were much more to blame for our loss than the rules of OT. Like I said, I don’t hate the current rule but I think it can be improved as can the quality of officiating.
For fun lets apply the new rule to that painful loss. Saint’s win toss which leads to field goal. Now we get the ball and either score a field goal, touchdown, or fail to score and lose anyway. If we kicked a field goal and the Saint’s responded with another and won I wouldn’t feel like we got cheated at all. I would feel the same if we failed to match their field goal. My main point is that the new rule would negate the effect of one bad P.I. call or other bad penalties basically giving one team the win.
Maybe if the ref’s were better at their job we wouldn’t even be talking about this rule. I think this rule was born because the NFL doesn’t like to blame their refs for bad officiating and would rather tweak the rules to deflect the criticism from them. We lost and we can’t blame the rules. I agree, but I think this rule would allow a greater chance for the best team to win because there is less chance of one play deciding the outcome.
by CanadianViking on Mar 19, 2010 9:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah if the new rule was applied to the NFC Championship
I would more than likely be happy, because I’m sure it would have meant us playing the Colts in the SB. I guess my real issue with it isn’t the merit of the proposed rule. I understand it. What I don’t like about it is, simply… its attempting to fix something which I don’t believe is broken.
If they are going to introduce new rules, I feel it should be to fix issues. Case in point: the Flozell Adams rule. Changing OT however, I feel, is unnecessary.
That makes sense
I agree with what you just said. The NFL is always going to be a work in progress. Rule changes happen every year and some work and some don’t. I would rather they clarify the going to the ground reception rule before any other changes. I also like the idea of two different PI penalties. One being a spot foul for blatant infractions and another being 10 or 15 yard penalty for less obvious infractions. I hate seeing a 50 yard gain on a debatable interference penalty. Sorry getting off topic. Main problem with the league is the inconsistent officiating.
by CanadianViking on Mar 19, 2010 10:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Why not rule out Cover-2, then?
If most teams would give up on the Tampa-2 as a way to skimp on the quality of their secondaries (like the Vikings), they would stand a chance of winning the game after losing the coin toss. Why isn’t the onus on coaches and personnel depts to figure out a way to actually defend the pass?
The same tendencies favoring passing are at work in regulation, but it seems that some don’t get it. Making a good return and moving the ball downfield couldn’t have been too easy in a tied game.
There are already serious talks underway in MLB about a salary cap. I don’t remember when the next CBA will be negotiated, but I thought it was fairly soon.
I get you
You’re basically saying stop somebody and the rules don’t matter. Can’t disagree with you there. All I can say is that the current rules generally favor the offense over the defense. This just means that it’s a little easier to get into field goal range that it is to prevent it. The defense regains some advantage in the red zone but that doesn’t come into play in OT.
Ideally I would like to see games decided by long drives where one bad call doesn’t end the game. Maybe I’m sour about our loss to the Saint’s but I don’t blame the loss on the rules as much as I do on the bad PI call and our mistakes. I think with this new rule there is less chance of a debatable outcome. Ref’s can still blow calls but at least this way teams can respond with all three phases of their team getting on the field. I do like keeping the current rule for the regular season though. A four hour game in the postseason is cool but during the regular season that wouldn’t be practical.
I hope MLB does get a salary cap because their current system is the worst in professional sports. No matter what team you cheer for it would be nice if the playing field was more even.
by CanadianViking on Mar 19, 2010 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions
So stupid
It’s basically the same OT. They just made it longer. If both teams get the FG, the team who won the flip still has the ability to end it, which is what everyone was bitching about. Is it really worth changing OT for?
No
What everyone was “bitching” about was that the winning team could just gain 17 total yards on offense, then kcik a FG and win, without the other team ever touching the ball. Which is what happened in the last playoff OT game we saw. Which is not at all the same as the other team getting a chance with the ball, but coming up short.
It should not be that hard to see the difference in the two scenarios.
If our ST would have covered better
then this probably wouldn’t even be an issue right now. If we play a complete game, then it shouldn’t matter if we get the ball first or not. Seriously, if that same scenario happened in regulation, would everyone say we need to change the rules still? I’m going to guess not.
17 yards. That’s about 2 first downs. If a defense can force a 3 and out, which we had done several times that game already, it wouldn’t matter. It’s not the rules that need to change. I don’t think its the rules’ fault we lost..
I like it....
But still, a team would want to be the winner of a coin flip.
Lets say a team wins the flip… They can’t just settle for a field goal. A team would be able to stop them from scoring a TD and settle for a field goal. Now the other team has the option to push for a FG or a TD. Question is, since your 2nd on posession, do you push for a TD or risk going for the simple tie knowing that if the other team scores the next FG wins? Puts in more variables… Makes it more interesting…. But in the end, more fair. How many overtime games end with a FG? Why not push to make it for a TD, since most believe its easier to hold a team to a FG vs. a TD.
Would it lengthen the OT time-wise? Maybe…. maybe not… But it would be more fair in my opinion.
The only way it would be completely fair, is if, they just added another quarter to play.. Maybe reduced time…
This leaves more strats to be done..
Do you kick the FG and hope the other team doesn’t score? Or do you risk it and go for the TD hoping that if you miss that chance, the other team doesn’t come back w/ a FG? Maybe you fail to get a TD, but you may be giving your team a reasonable field position to defend.. You could potentially get the ball right back.
No one said it was "fair"q
They’re just trying to make it less unfair.
Like I said before, I’m pretty sure there simply isn’t a truly “fair” solution.
Oh I agree..
Finding a fair scenario would be hard.
Only fair way would be to add a full quarter. (Or possibly a reduced quarter)
But, I can see some teams getting burned by it… Team wins coin flip, goes conservative and kicks a FG, opposing team marches down scores a TD. (1st team thinks, we should of went for a TD). Or, Coin wins flip, settles for a FG, opposing team matches with a FG, 1st team goes doesn’t convert, opposing team gets in position to kick a FG).
But in the end, it can at least be said they had their chance…
If a team on defense, their first defensive series can’t keep the ball out of their own endzone, than they proved they weren’t the team to win.
If I recall, the Bears/Vikings game went into OT, but they scored by a TD. Better than them getting a FG.. I think I would of been more upset about that (Especially if this new rule takes effect this coming season).
Yahoo Link "Brett Favre Rule"?
MJD and his man-crush on Brett Favre…
Way to find a way to write an article and include him in there.
I really don't understand why this involves Favre's name
other than most people wanted to watch Favre come back and kick the Saints ass in OT…lol
The journalist goes on to explain the real reason why the NFL is putting this to vote, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Favre.…..It has everything to do with how the NFL is so much different today than it was when they originally came up with the rule in1974’.
From 74’ to 93’, it was basically a 50/50 split, win/loss in Overtime…no matter who won the coin toss.
However, Since 1994’ the team that lost the coin toss has only won 38.5% of the games.
The team owners and officials are seeing a pattern here, and they want to fix it.
It really bugs me when the media makes up their own news… Just like you said, the media will find anyway they can to put Favre in their story.
Shutdown Corner...
I think MJD is the sports writer.. I think his man-crush on Favre plays a huge role. I think, in reality he is not fond of Favre, but the Packers are his favorite team from what I have noticed over his articles.
But, your correct. Why find a way to put his name in the article?? Calling it the Favre Rule??? That would make no sense, since the OT has affected many teams as of the recent years.
either way..
I’ve seen that he’s been a GB packer fan…..
When he forecasted Playoff scenarios.. He was always giving the Packers the benefit of the doubt over other teams.
Many commenters on yahoo noticed this..
Luckily, the Vikings were consistently seeing a 1st round bye, but not a #1 seed.
So he was pretty right there.
The reason for this rule
The NFL knew they fck up on the game. They think if thet make this rule it is going to hide the fact they ref mess up the game. What a coincident?
one more rule
to favor the pass over the run but if the fan can stay a little longer and you dont cut us off to go to the packers/bears game i can live with it i suppose.
fantacy guys
will love/hate the extra stats
competitive contact sports are not suppose to be fair
wake up ladies?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Dont like the "take turns"
Either keep as is..1st one to score wins…Or add an extra time period..8 mins or whatever time..NBA basketball has extra time added..Baseball has an extra inning or innings
Imagine how boring Basketball would be if it was sudden death.
The game woudl be over within seconds… Here’s the Jump! Okay Home team has it…. There he goes, he dunks it.. Game over.
Bit of a difference between the sports
Basketball players also don’t have to travel 30 yards to score. And they don’t have 11 bulky men trying to smash them into the ground either.
Continental Basketball Association
had a win-by-3 sudden death OT. I saw the Topeka Sizzlers win one by getting the tip-off and shooting a 3. It was really quick, but exciting.
My solution would be simple
When the clock runs out take a break like the two minute warning and then the team with the ball continues their drive. If they score the other team recieves one chance to tie or win the game. Other than that it is sudden death. No silly coin flip no taking a knee just to get to over time just keep playing.
by SouthernNorseman on Mar 19, 2010 9:48 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
This I agree with..
except… don’t even give the other team a chance to score. Just don’t do it. If their defense, which is a third of the game, doesn’t perform, then they lose. Simple as that.
One of the main things about as the clock nears the end..
Is clock management… Are you ahead??? You try to kill the clock… If your down, you push for a TD or FG (depending on how far behidn you are). They run 2-minute drills in practice for a reason..
Btw, is I were to have anyone behind center for a 2minute drill, it would be Favre. It was why I hated playing him while he was a Packer. He was always able to find a way to come-back!!!
Frost I agree with you but
There should be some penalty for not winning the game in regulation. Having the other team have one chance would be a significant penalty.
by SouthernNorseman on Mar 19, 2010 12:04 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Just that it through
My response to Frost about penalizing one team for not winning in reulation is actually a reward for the other team. My new thought is hit the team with the ball with a delay of game penalty and play on until one team scores
by SouthernNorseman on Mar 19, 2010 12:25 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
It's not completely fair, but it's more fair.
I’d find it tough to see a team that elects to play defense first, since if you score a TD you keep the other offense off the field. But it’s definitely an improvement over the current format.
What I don’t get is why they’re only considering it for playoff games. Um, there are only 16 games in a season, they’re all pretty important—why make only playoff games more fair?
by Eric J. Thompson on Mar 19, 2010 12:34 PM CDT reply actions
I’d find it tough to see a team that elects to play defense first, since if you score a TD you keep the other offense off the field
There’s info on this floating around here somewhere.
I guess only 1 team has elected to kick in OT, and I think it was the Lions…….they lost..lol
I can’t confirm if that’s true or not, but I thought I would share that with ya’. :)
I suppose thumb-wrestling is out...
As an alternative, I’d like to propose Cheerleader Mud-Wrestling. Whichever team’s cheerleaders succeed in throwing the other team’s cheerleaders out of a huge pool of mud, first, settles the game. I’d even volunteer to officiate. :)
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!
I think a #1 concern
Is how we have double-header games…
The idea is to get the game to end quickly, so you can catch the end and see the next game and not miss anything.
It also has to do with regular programming. If it cuts into the next TV Show (Especially New episodes), some people would complain.
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.
