NFL Overtime Rule Change Passes Despite Vikings Vote Against It
by Christopher Gates on Mar 23, 2010 5:23 PM CDT
in NFL
Email
PrintThe NFL Rules Committee voted to change the overtime format for the post-season in the National Football League, and the new rules passed by a 28-4 margin. To put the new rules in a nutshell, a team can now only win in overtime without the other team getting the ball if they score a touchdown on the first drive of the extra session. If they kick a field goal, the other team will get a shot to at least match them. If they score a touchdown, the game is over. . .if they kick a field goal, it then goes to sudden death. . .if they fail to score, the game is over.
The four teams that voted against it were the Buffalo Bills, the Baltimore Ravens, the Cincinnati Bengals. . .
Oh, and the team that probably would have really benefited from this rule had it been in place a couple of months ago. . .the NFL's best team in 2009, your Minnesota Vikings. I guess the rumors of the Vikings "whining" about the rule sort of go up in smoke now. . .unless you ask the people in the comment section of the post from Pro Football Talk linked above. Honestly, can anybody read the comments of any post at PFT without the annoying sound of banjos running through their heads?
But, you know. . .it sure would be nice if a sports league would make a rule change like this before a Minnesota sports team got kicked in the teeth by it. This isn't the first time it's happened, either. After the bogus Nate Poole "touchdown catch" in 2003. . .and anybody that thinks that schlub would have gotten both feet down regardless of Brian Russell's push or not is a biased, drooling, mouth-breathing fool. . .the NFL did away with the "force out" rule. (Yes, I know it wasn't right after. But the important thing to remember is that, as usual, the Vikings got screwed.)
And it's not just the Vikings, either. . .in 2008, the Minnesota Twins finished the regular season tied with the Chicago White Sox atop the American League Central. The Twins had the upper hand in the head-to-head series against the White Sox. . .but, since Major League Baseball rules necessitated a coin flip, the division tie-breaker was held in Chicago rather than at the Metrodome. The Twins went on to lose that game and fall out of the playoffs. The next year? Yeah. . .MLB decided that coin flips really weren't the best way to decide these sorts of things, and when the Twins and Tigers wound up tied, the game was played at the Metrodome based on Minnesota's head-to-head season advantage over Detroit. And I'm sure we all remember who won that game, don't we?
But, it is what it is. I suppose the best solution is for the Vikings to just win the whole thing in 2010 and beat all of their opponents by three touchdowns so we don't have to worry about any other potential BS rules. Now, if we can just get into an NFC Championship game that isn't governed by BS officials. . .
55 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Vikings...
must know that they would have won if the NFL officials selected for playoff duty actually had enforced a rule which already existed at the time of the championship game.
How would passing a new rule make them somehow feel any better?
Or enforced any rules at all, really
Minor things like “if a forward pass hits the ground, it’s an incompletion.”
Or “in order for a play to be called pass interference, the intended receiver actually has to be touched by a member of the defense.”
The Daily Norseman - The greatest Vikings' site on the Internet!
by Christopher Gates on Mar 23, 2010 5:48 PM CDT up reply actions
And don't forget, the pass has to be catchable as well
From the only TRUE North division
by thewild_viking_twins on Mar 23, 2010 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Or...
The ball has to cross the goal line to be a touchdown, or the ball has to get past the down marker to be a 1st down. That 4th down play in OT was huge, and I didn’t think and still don’t think he made it. The Saints had a lot of help from the guys in black and white.
The Minnesota Vikings - Undefeated in the Playoffs at Lambeau Field!
Don't forget pasting the QB after he throws the ball is a no no...
But then it’s Favre they probably thought that was the only way to make the game fair.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
Oh Grimey
Puleeze.
"I have seen women walk right past a TV set with a football game on and - this always amazes me - not stop to watch, even if the TV is showing replays of what we call a "good hit," which is a tackle that causes at least one major internal organ to actually fly out of a player's body."
Yeah! How dare you pay attention to the rules, Gonzo!?!?!
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!
Like the new OT rules
A bit confusing at first, but the more I thought about it (read multiple stories on it, and read @SI_PeterKing tweets) the more I understood and liked the new OT rule. It only applies to the NFL Postseason, but the owners can still apply it to this regular season when they meet again in May (in Dallas). I would like to see it implemented to the regular season (not the preseason, who cares about those games) because it would give teams time to understand it and apply their strategy.
A couple oddities with the new OT rule: a safety or a pick 6 wins the game outright, if a team kicks an onside kick and recovers, all they need is a fg to win it, if the return team fumbles the kickoff, the recovering team needs only a fg to win it.
Might be an advantage to kick the ball first if you have excellent hands team/spTeam and trust your defense because of field position and if you stop them, all u need is a fg to win it.
If you have great offense, receiving is ideal because you would essentially have 4 downs to get a first, knowing that if you fail to score any points, the other teams only needs a fg.
Skol Vikings!!
I'd be surprised...
if our vote was put in with any doubt the new rule would pass without us.
I BELIEVE...
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Mar 23, 2010 5:58 PM CDT reply actions
Exactly
What I was thinking, Vikings didnt want to be the poster child for this new OT implementation (VikingOT, OTVike Rule, you get the picture). Now no one can bitch about the Vikings wanting/pushing for this change without acknowledging that we voted against it.
Skol Vikings!!
Sudden Death Makes No Sense for Football
For overtime, they should just play a full 15 minute period with three timeouts and no rule changes. Sudden Death makes no sense when it’s possible that one team’s offense will never get the ball. Sudden Death makes sense in Hockey and Soccer where possession constantly switches back and forth, but not in Football.
An extra innings Baseball game doesn’t immediately stop if the first batter in the top of the 10th inning hits a home run. They play full innings to insure that each team gets a fair shot at winning the game. Even in college football each team gets the ball the same number of times to insure that each team gets a fair shot at winning the game. Why not the NFL?
NFL Too Violent
16 games compared to 162. Each NFL game matters more. One in done in the playoffs, as opposed to a series in MLB. NFL improving OT in postseason bc it needed improving. This definitely improves it, not perfect though.
Skol Vikings!!
have the nfl play 162 games and a 7 game serries in the playoffs
see ho many players retire before the age of 30
lol
"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you!"
Possesion does
constantly switch back and forth in football. It can be as simple as 3 plays before you get the ball back. And in as little, actual action time as a handful of seconds.
Play to Win
I suppose the best solution is for the Vikings to just win the whole thing in 2010 and beat all of their opponents by three touchdowns so we don’t have to worry about any other potential BS rules.
Or worry about biased officials, or anything else. This is the key; No Mercy. Once the other side is done, keep up the pressure until regulation time is over.
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!
Longwell is rock solid
The new rules will be good for fans, but since Ryan Longwell is a Viking, I think they voted in their own intrest.
ditto loveboat
I can man-up on that and the team owned it as it was happening. On a positive note. I LIKE TRADITION. The change will haunt the league. Picture this, the 1st field goal is scored , the steelers line up to kick off, there is silence [because they have no cheerleaders] and one of Ben’s towel girls yells stop touching me Ben !
Not a big fan of it.
I would have preferred them to keep it the way it was, or make it a full quarter. I am not a big fan of the no push out rule either. Right now there is nothing to keep a linebacker for picking up a receiver and keeping him in the air for 10 yards and dropping him out of bounds. I am not against all changes, I do like the changes they have made to the onside kicking rules in the last few years. I would like them put 7 mini sensors that wiegh less than 1/8 of a pound in the footballs for automatic measurement of where the ball is for making for a down, crossing the plain of the field and going out of bounds on a punt. This whole idea of having the ref mark the ball with his foot when he has no idea within three yards where the ball is in the pile up and then bring out chains to measure a 1/10 inch short is silly. I also would like to see the refs be fulltime employed.
Generally like the rule.
It’s not perfect but it is an improvement. Extending the game for a full quarter would be cool but for some reason the NFL has issues with the length of games for TV purposes. As if anybody would be upset that a playoff game would be too long. I know everybody turns off a double OT game in the NHL or NBA, and extra innings in the World Series are just inconvenient:)
The sensor in the ball idea could be the best thing to ever happen to the NFL. Imagine the joy and speed of having no measurements or disputes about the spot of the ball. I think the UFL is testing a version of this technology this season and the NFL has plans to implement it in the future if the results are positive. This could eliminate so much ambiguity from the game on crucial goal line and fourth down calls. I can’t wait for this to happen. It’s just a matter of time as there is no downside to eliminating more human error from the officials. Full time refs is also a good idea but I don’t think it’s going to happen anytime soon, unfortunately.
by CanadianViking on Mar 24, 2010 5:38 AM CDT up reply actions
It's also because football is a violent sport
And players put out with the idea it’s going to be so long. When you try and push them past that I would bet money that the percentage of injuries leaps up. So they try and keep OT to a minimum to help protect players as well as other things I’m sure. For instance our need for a CB this year would pretty much be a second hand issue if we hadn’t gone into OT against the Saints last year.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
If only applied to playoffs
it wouldn’t be much extra playing time. This past year it would have resulted in eight or nine extra minutes for four teams. Injuries can happen at anytime during a game. If the NFL wanted to reduce injuries the offseason activities and preseason games should be reduced. These guys don’t get enough recovery time after the season ends. I imagine OT rules, preseason games, and offseason programs will all be issues in the upcoming CBA fight.
by CanadianViking on Mar 24, 2010 8:09 AM CDT up reply actions
Sensors wouldn't work
You’re forgetting that they still have to judge when the player is down. The ball more often than not still moves forward after the player is down. The push out rule is great. It’s in the rule that they cannot carry the offensive player only push. I love the new rule. The game is getting more offensive every year. This gives both teams a chance, especially when the refs blow an interference call on a ball that was uncatchable. That’s all it takes to get into field goal range.
Sensors can work
It just depends on how they coincide time with distance. There are many possible ways to do this. An example that doesn’t even involve sensors is the challenge system in tennis. This system maps the entire court or field and can determine a ball’s position down to millimetres. Software combined with sensors and video replay can be time synced to produce near perfect accuracy. This would first be used on challenges only, as a perfect system would require testing before being used on every call. Point is that the technology exists it just hasn’t been applied yet.
by CanadianViking on Mar 26, 2010 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions
iffy calls so what
We have lost some games by iffy calls and we have won some games by iffy calls. If you don’t want to lose a game by iffy calls, win by 20 and the calls will not matter. No fumbles and we are not talking about any iffy calls at all.
If this happens will the rule change again?
Win the coin toss.
Drive to the 1 yard line and on 4th and 1 play it safe and kick a field goal.
Kick off is run back 97 yards for a touchdown. Game over.
Hey that’s not fair. The teams defense never had a chance.
Rule change.
If and if and if ….
The purpose for the rule change.
Things have changed since the sudden death rule. The league is more offense minded. What was a 50/50 chance of winning 20 years ago has now become a clear advantage for the team who wins the coin toss. You have just played an entire season, get to the NFC championship game, lose the coin toss for overtime. A decent runback move the ball 30-40 yards and a field goal ends your season. The new change is not without flaws but what it is trying to do is make it so that team that loses the coin toss is not at a disadvantage. You could just get rid of the coin toss for overtime altogether.
Whoever scored last give the other team the ball to start overtime or base in on yardage, whoever had the most total yardage gets the ball. All the fans want is for it to be fair.
I still say it was fair
Play better defense or special teams, and you seriously won’t have to worry so much. Like I’ve said in other posts, the team who won the flip won the game on the first possession a grand total of 40% of the OT games played last year. And in roughly half the games, the team who lost the coinflip actually ended up winning. Is it really so flawed?
And I just looked at a few more previous seasons because I'm bored out of my mind
In ’08, 7/15 OT games resulted in at least one change of possession. Again, roughly half.
In ’07, a whopping 10/16 OT games, there was a change of possession at least once…
’06 had 7/12 multiple possession OT games.
In ’05 there were 14 OT games. 9 of them had a change of possession.
Going back to ’04 there were, again, 14 OT games, 10 of which had a change of possession.
’03 was apparently the year of the OT games, because there were 25 total. 19 of them had a change of possession.
In ’02 there were 23 OT games, 13 of which had a change of possession.
And finally in ’01, which is as far back as NFL.com will let me go, 11 of 17 OT games included a change of possession.
All sort of crying over spilled milk at this point since the rule has already been changed, but it does show, at least I believe, that the rules weren’t as unfair as everyone was making them out to be. The coinflip didn’t determine the winner as much as people were saying.
Just for your info.
A couple of day’s ago I was watching NFL network and they showed the stats I think you’d be interested in. They showed the 60/40 split we’ve all heard as the main reason for the OT rule. This was based on games between 94-2009 I believe. They also showed the more relevant stat that during that time frame 33% of games ended on the first possession. Compared to the pre 94 stats where it was almost 50/50 after the toss and 24% of games were won on the first possession. My percentages might be off by a point but the margin is correct. Anyway thought you’d like to have the other important numbers. The segment might even be on NFL.com.
by CanadianViking on Mar 24, 2010 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions
I saw the same thing...
… moving kickoffs to the 30 from the 35 in 94 had a pretty major impact on the game.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Mar 24, 2010 11:40 PM CDT up reply actions
I could live with 33% of them ending in one possession
Just a third? I mean, the way some people are arguing for the new rules, you’d figure it was more around 60% or so. If its lower than 50% then I think its pretty fair myself. But, again, spilled milk. Rules already changed. Damn owners.
The stats are interesting
33% win on first possession and 60% win based on the outcome of the coin toss. Perhaps the biggest issue with the coin toss is that if you win the toss you still win almost 30% of the time on a second possession. The main thing the stats show is a trend. 9% more games ending on first possession and about 8% more winning due to the outcome of the toss.
Not huge numbers but enough to get away from 50/50 and only one in four games ending on first possession. So enough change to show an advantage beginning to develop. It would’ve been interesting to see if adjusting the kickoff spot in OT to the 30 or 25 would’ve achieved the old ratio that indicated more fairness.
Seems like a decent rule and if it doesn’t work out they’ll change it Don’t think there is a perfect overtime rule for football. My favorites are an extra quarter or first team to score six points. Simple and fair but probably too long for regular season use. Anyway, as long as they don’t go to the college rules I’m cool with trying for minor improvements.
by CanadianViking on Mar 25, 2010 5:57 AM CDT up reply actions
If that scenario starts deciding 60% of games...
… you’ll have a point. Until then…
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Mar 24, 2010 11:39 PM CDT up reply actions
I keep hearing people say
That the NFL is too physical and that they couldn’t play out a full OT. Bullshit! These are big boys, they’re getting paid well for what they do, make them go out and play the full quarter.
The Minnesota Vikings - Undefeated in the Playoffs at Lambeau Field!
It's called injuries
The more tired a player gets the more likely he is to get hurt. Your right though they’re big boys we should have each coach throw hammers at the other teams QB. The last QB standing wins. Not to apt, but still players are not just people they are also business items and no one wants to lose a million dollar capital asset.
It's a lot easier to love the Vikings when they win...
If you were slamming bodies with a 300+ pound man for 60 minutes
how appealing would having to go an extra unnecessary 15 sound? Yeah, they’re paid well and yes they’re big… which means when they get hurt its usually pretty ugly. Case in point: Griffin. Amazing what one extra play can do to a person.
The owners who voted for this rule change...
… and who opposed a full period of OT, are the same guys who look likely to add an extra game or two onto the end of the season in a couple of years. The player injury argument is a red herring used by those who like the sudden death rule to begin with.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Mar 24, 2010 11:43 PM CDT up reply actions
They won't throw in extra games
The season is perfectly fine as it is right now. And if the league tried to throw in extra games, the NFLPA would be fighting them the whole way. I don’t see it happening, or if it does not anytime soon.
We'll see.
My bet is that increasing the # of regular season games is inevitable, probably with the next CBA (whether that gets done next offseason or before the 2012 season.)
Regardless, the point is that the owners want more games in the regular season, so the suggestion that they want less plays in overtime to protect players is crap.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Mar 25, 2010 10:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Come on, Frost, you know better than to try this….
Amazing what one extra play can do to a person.
That makes it sound like all overtime should be banned, because one extra play results in horrible injuries. If football is too dangerous to play for an extra 15 minutes on the rare occassions that a tie game occurs, perhaps it should just be banned altogether so that no one ever gets hurt by it again.
No. The more I read your arguments, the more I’m in favor of playing out a full "5th quarter’, and let physical conditioning be a bigger factor.
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 read about the article on yahoo this morning..
And what I found funny, is that most people were assuming this new rule was based upon the NFC Championship game with the Saints/Vikings and how the majority of other teams beleived the Vikings were the better team.
But, they fail to realize that the Vikings voted against this new ruling. Maybe they didn’t want to see bitter about their loss, maybe it is because they knew it was going to pass without their vote, or maybe (The reason I believe they voted against it) it was because Longwell is pretty reliable.
One thing that has been discussed for the 2009 season was how many field goal kickers were very unsuccessful for their field goals. Lots of players were released due to missing field goals. I beleive the Saints would of lost one of their games if a kicker had made a FG. The Vikings were fortunate to have the Ravens kicker miss their field goal. Which brings me understand why the Ravens voted against it.. They don’t have a reliable kicker that can kick in clutch situations.
Overall, strategies will have to be done differently to win games in OT. Will teams who need an extra point to tie go for the two-pt conversion instead? Will they go for it on 4th & 1 instead of a FG? It’ll make it very interesting, and add variables on the could-of, should-of’s…
Great
Now another rule that is going to confuse my wife during football season. If it does not get crazing enough with some of the touchy laws of the game in the 1st place.
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. ~Mark Twain
Thank you Crazy!
College OT makes far more sense. Texas high school started this way back and much more simple. Put the ball on the 10. -4 plays. Rotates til there is a winer. After 3 rounds the last team is required to go for the win
by CitrusFLViking on Mar 24, 2010 8:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Your Welcome Citrus
Yeah I think College OT seems more fair to all the teams.
Ski-U-Mah!
by CrazyCollegian on Mar 24, 2010 9:23 PM CDT up reply actions
Gonzo
I really don’t get the title please someone explain? The Vikings didn’t vote against..
Favre + 3 = ❼ = Vikings= 2009-2010 NFL Champions= New Stadium=Greatest Fans and Team!
by UnBannedVikingholic on Mar 24, 2010 5:12 PM CDT reply actions
They
voted against changing the OT rules.
Ski-U-Mah!
by CrazyCollegian on Mar 24, 2010 6:06 PM CDT up reply actions
I like the rule change
they haven’t figured out OT quite yet, but this is still better than what they had before
and also, I like to stay off of Pro Football Talk, I’ve never seen a larger collection of douchebags in my life
From the only TRUE North division
by thewild_viking_twins on Mar 24, 2010 7:20 PM CDT reply actions
You still read the comments on PFT?
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Mar 24, 2010 11:36 PM CDT reply actions
While the O.T. Rules are archaic.....
the NFL did it the wrong way with just the playoffs and don’t care for how they set it up. If folks are worried about injuries in O.T, then shorten it.
My thought is:
A. Both teams get a shot at the ball no matter who scores 1st, be it FG or TD. If second team don’t score, tough $hit, you lose.
B. Cut the length of O.T. from a full Quarter to 5 minutes.
C. If after 5 minutes no score, perhaps a sudden death like hockey, each kicker kicks from 45 yards out and the one that misses, loses the game?
What would be your folks thought on that? Sure I’ll be called nut’s by some and I don’t care. But it would be a system all season and post season long, not this half assed only in the playoffs crap when the games in the regular season count just as much in tight divisional races.
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk."
"You men are only risking your lives, while I am risking an almost-certain Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor!"
"We have clearance Clarence. Roger Rodger, what's our vector Victor?"
Like a voice crying out in the wilderness...
Prepare Ye the Way of Regular Season OT rule changes!
From LINK
As for the overtime modification, several owners said they also expect the rule instituted the previous day for the playoffs to be revisited in May to include the regular season.
"It’s a better system, so why not have a better system every game?" Lurie said of expanding the new OT rule that allows a team losing the coin toss and allowing a field goal on the first series to then get a possession.
New York Giants owner John Mara added he expects discussion and possibly a vote on using the new OT system to occur at the owners meetings in Dallas in May. The change was proposed only for the postseason by the competition committee and was passed 28-4 Tuesday.
Goodell said the league wants to meet with the players and the networks for some input and further discuss the ramifications of expanding the OT change.
"We had a proposal for the postseason, we passed that with the understanding that it’ll be discussed for the regular season," he said.
I BELIEVE...
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Mar 25, 2010 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions
Dumb rule
I hate to give props to the Vikings however…………this is a stupid rule and they deserve a pat on the back for being one of 4 teams to vote it down!! (damn that was painful for me!)
by greenbay packers backer on Mar 28, 2010 4:41 AM CDT 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.
