NFL Changes Overtime Rules - FOFC Whiners Shriek in Terror

[RedKingGold]

Wow.


Overtime proposal passes

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 23, 2010 3:22 PM ET
The National Football League owners have approved a change in overtime, starting with the playoffs following the 2010 season, that will modify the sudden-death format and prevent a team from winning a game with a field goal on the opening possession.

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

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

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

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

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

Overtime proposal passes | ProFootballTalk.com (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/23/overtime-proposal-passes/)

NFL owners approve changes to overtime for playoff games (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8171b356&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true)

[Dodgerchick]

wow, what the hell?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Well, at least now the NHL can't be mocked as being the only sport with different OT rules in the regular season and post season.

I like the change. It will make OT games much more interesting and exciting.

[JediKooter]

Lame...

[RedKingGold]

I imagine that the change will be implemented for all regular season games starting in 2011.

[Dr. Sak]

At least Farve can still end it with another one of his famous playoff interceptions.

[Doug5984]

I don't like this- but if it's what the NFL choose oh well. I liked the feeling of and excitement of a game winning FG.

[Dr. Sak]

Well, at least now the NHL can't be mocked as being the only sport with different OT rules in the regular season and post season.


The NHL has many other ways to get mocked.

[wade moore]

I don't like this- but if it's what the NFL choose oh well. I liked the feeling of and excitement of a game winning FG.

Um, you can still have a game winning FG.

[molson]

I don't understand the rule yet.

So is there no point at all in going for a field goal on your first possesion in OT?

[Dr. Sak]

I don't understand the rule yet.

So is there no point at all in going for a field goal on your first possesion in OT?

If you make a FG in the first possession, the opposing team gets a possession to match or beat you with a TD.

[wade moore]

I don't understand the rule yet.

So is there no point at all in going for a field goal on your first possesion in OT?

The other team has to match or beat your FG.

If they match it, it becomes sudden death from there with you getting the ball first.

[molson]

So what do you pick if you win the OT coin toss? Do you still want the ball first?

[MikeVic]

Another way for McNabb to get confused in overtime.

[Dr. Sak]

Another way for McNabb to get confused in overtime.

Or extended time for him to puke.

[Dr. Sak]

So what do you pick if you win the OT coin toss? Do you still want the ball first?

If I'm not mistaken you don't get a choice. If you win the toss you get the ball in OT.

[molson]

If I'm not mistaken you don't get a choice. If you win the toss you get the ball in OT.

Would that be new? Didn't somebody once choose to kick off in NFL overtime?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Would that be new? Didn't somebody once choose to kick off in NFL overtime?

Marty Morningwheg when he coached the Lions. He took the wind. They lost.

[Dr. Sak]

Maybe you are right...i just thought no one would be dumb enough to kick.

[Ksyrup]

I imagine that the change will be implemented for all regular season games starting in 2011.

I doubt it. Coaches don't like it because this gives them 2-3 more decisions to be second-guessed on. NFLPA isn't in favor for regular season games because it increases the number of plays and chance for injury.

Given the quite clear-cut stats tying an increased winning percentage in OT to the 1994 kick-off change, I'm surprised they didn't just implement a change to the kick-off for OT, moving it up to the 35 or 40 yard line to cut down on returns and keep starting field position in check. Or, just give the receiving team the ball at the 20 and be done with it.If they can move the ball half the field to get into FG range, then I have no problem with them winning without the other team getting the ball.

[Ksyrup]

Would that be new? Didn't somebody once choose to kick off in NFL overtime?

It's happened 6 times in NFL history, IIRC.

[molson]

It's happened 6 times in NFL history, IIRC.

Can I assume it was the Lions all 6 times? :)

[Passacaglia]

Maybe you are right...i just thought no one would be dumb enough to kick.

Obviously not a Lions fan.

[sterlingice]

I don't understand the rule yet.

So is there no point at all in going for a field goal on your first possesion in OT?

Yeah- it's like you just penalized the team that wins the toss. Sure, they can get the ball and kick the field goal. But they only get 3 downs to make the decision whereas you're giving the other team 4 downs to keep moving the ball.

Then again, I kindof like the college rules. Or, even better, a modified college rule where you start at midfield not at the 25. At least that way there's an advantage gained by the coin flip.

But don't worry, it'll give more fodder for the Jim Romes and PTIs of the world to make stupid comments like "Well, if the loser team had scored a TD, they wouldn't have to worry", not at all understanding the depth of the problem.

SI

[Samdari]

I imagine that the change will be implemented for all regular season games starting in 2011.

Not necesarily 2011, but the first time a team loses a "win and you're in, lose you go home" game in week 17 of the regular season.

[Ksyrup]

Can I assume it was the Lions all 6 times? :)

The Lions are the only team in recent history to do it. I think the others were all from the 70s or earlier, maybe, when teams really did have a 50/50 chance of winning whether or not they took the ball first. I read some stuff on this a while ago, but I might have also seen it referenced in Peter King's columns. He's been a big proponent of changing the OT rules for some time.

[Doug5984]

Um, you can still have a game winning FG.

You are right on anything past that first drive, but how many games are going to have the FG on the first drive and then a stop on the next drive and it ends like that. We'll have to see how it goes, teams will def have to play more aggressive on that first drive, not just the set up the 40 yard FG, maybe once I see happen like that it will be just as exciting. I just know for college football it's always more exciting to me when a team wins it on an offensive play and not a 4th down stop.

[Passacaglia]

This is as good a spot to reiterate a great idea someone here had in another thread. If the game is tied at regulation, play should resume as it was when the game ended. I think that makes sudden death much more palatable.

[Samdari]

Then again, I kindof like the college rules. Or, even better, a modified college rule where you start at midfield not at the 25. At least that way there's an advantage gained by the coin flip.

The whole point of changing the rule was to eliminate the advantage in winning the coin flip.

EDIT: This rule does seem to give an advantage to the team that kicks off to start OT. But, it woudl seem to be a smaller advantage, and the team that wins the coin flip can choose to take that advantage. It will be interesting to see how that goes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

How fucking silly.

[Logan]

I love how it still leaves open the bullshit argument of "both teams should get a chance to touch the ball in OT!"

I also like how you can now make the argument that this new system could make it better to kick off.

Signed,

Someone who was fine with the way it was

[Doug5984]

Another strategy to consider- you drive down to the 5, it's 4th down. You get another shot to go for the endzone, if you miss the team starts at the 5, hopefully your defense can stop them from going 95 yards and you then have the ability to go down and kick that 40 yard FG to win it. Or do you kick the 17 yard field goal, kick off and possibly give them good field position.

I think I'd want my coach to go for the TD

[Logan]

Another strategy to consider- you drive down to the 5, it's 4th down. You get another shot to go for the endzone, if you miss the team starts at the 5, hopefully your defense can stop them from going 95 yards and you then have the ability to go down and kick that 40 yard FG to win it. Or do you kick the 17 yard field goal, kick off and possibly give them good field position.

I think I'd want my coach to go for the TD

Your defense doesn't need to stop them from going 95 yards...it needs to stop them from getting into FG position.

[Celeval]

This is silly. A touchdown on the first drive still wins it, so why wouldn't you want the ball first to go get the touchdown?

[SackAttack]

Interesting that the Vikings' loss to the Saints is probably what precipitated final action here, and yet the Vikings voted against the change.

[DanGarion]

Lame...

No, he's not an NFL coach anymore, you can't blame him...

[PackerFanatic]

A safety also wins it on the first drive.

Just stupid...

[RPI-Fan]

Yeah- it's like you just penalized the team that wins the toss. Sure, they can get the ball and kick the field goal. But they only get 3 downs to make the decision whereas you're giving the other team 4 downs to keep moving the ball.

Then again, I kindof like the college rules. Or, even better, a modified college rule where you start at midfield not at the 25. At least that way there's an advantage gained by the coin flip.

But don't worry, it'll give more fodder for the Jim Romes and PTIs of the world to make stupid comments like "Well, if the loser team had scored a TD, they wouldn't have to worry", not at all understanding the depth of the problem.

SI

Your guys' argument isn't consistent. If the new rules shift the advantage to the kicking team, that is fine. Normatively, I would think one thing that everyone agrees on is that any rule change should reduce the advantage that winning the coin toss gives one team. As long as the new rules don't give the team that wins the toss (and may play defense) more than a 60% chance of winning (or whatever the stat is for teams that currently win the toss), there isn't a problem on this count.

[JediKooter]

I just heard Nate Kaeding breathing a huge sigh of relief...

[sooner333]

Interesting that the Vikings' loss to the Saints is probably what precipitated final action here, and yet the Vikings voted against the change.

I kind of viewed it as not wanting to appear like sour grapes.

[JediKooter]

No, he's not an NFL coach anymore, you can't blame him...

I'll blame it on the rain...

[Logan]

I want to see the rules change so that if an offense gives up a INT-TD or fumble return for a TD on the opening drive, they get the opportunity to march their defense out there for the same chance to tie the game.

[SackAttack]

I kind of viewed it as not wanting to appear like sour grapes.

Could be. But if they're taking that stance, you'd think at least another 11 would've said "Well, if they don't think a problem exists, why are we changing anything?"

[RPI-Fan]

Could be. But if they're taking that stance, you'd think at least another 11 would've said "Well, if they don't think a problem exists, why are we changing anything?"

Owners talk, a lot; my guess is that the Vikings would have been perfectly willing to vote for the change if they were the deciding vote.

[Greyroofoo]

I want to see the rules change so that if an offense gives up a INT-TD or fumble return for a TD on the opening drive, they get the opportunity to march their defense out there for the same chance to tie the game.

That will be real exciting watching the QB kneel down several times.

[Logan]

That will be real exciting watching the QB kneel down several times.

All in the name of equality baby, if that's what is most important.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I posted something on FOFC nearly three years ago, and I'm reposting it in this thread for comedy value:

March 2, 2003. Dallas Desperados at Arizona Rattlers. Dallas kicker Jason Wells made a game-tying field goal from 34 yards out with 49 seconds remaining. The game went to overtime with the score 58-58.

AFL rules state that each team gets at least one possession in overtime. When Arizona won the coin toss, Rattlers coach Danny White (yes, that Danny White) elected to kick off. This is normal, just like an NCAA team electing to play defense to start overtime. Danny White had an idea, though. He had his kicker, Nelson Garner, attempt an onside kick. The Rattlers recovered and drove down the field for a touchdown. Danny White thought the game was over at this point. After all, he figured that Dallas' possession started when Arizona kicked off. In his mind, the Desperados failed to recover the onside kick, so it was essentially a turnover on their possession.

Danny White thought wrong.

The officials huddled for a couple of minutes and determined that Dallas had never officially had an overtime possession, so Arizona would have to attempt an extra point and kick off to Dallas. White was livid, but there was nothing he could do. Nelson Garner went back onto the field for Arizona and missed the extra point. Arizona 64, Dallas 58. Garner then kicked off to the Desperados so Dallas could have their possession.

The Desperados put together a 7-play, 48-yard drive that ended in a 10-yard touchdown pass from Jim Kubiak to Shannon Culver, tying the score at 64. Dallas kicker Jason Wells makes the extra point, and the Desperados win one of the most controversial games in AFL history. After the game, all Danny White could say was that he didn't know the overtime rules well enough and admits that his clever idea to circumvent the rules wasn't so clever after all.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[JediKooter]

He should have called for another on-sides kick.

[Pumpy Tudors]

He should have called for another on-sides kick.
I would have.

[Logan]

I posted something on FOFC nearly three years ago, and I'm reposting it in this thread for comedy value:

...

AFL rules state that each team gets at least one possession in overtime.

...

The officials huddled for a couple of minutes and determined that Dallas had never officially had an overtime possession, so Arizona would have to attempt an extra point and kick off to Dallas.

So far at least, until the rulebook comes out, here's what we have to go on from ESPN:

• Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner.

Define "opportunity to possess the ball" keeping your story in mind.

[JediKooter]

I would have.

I mean, why not? If I get it back, we can go for a field goal and if the field goal is successful, there's no way the other team can score 9 points after they finally have their one possession.

[molson]

He should have called for another on-sides kick.

That would have been tremendous. If they recovered and scored again, Dallas would presumably still be entitled to another possession, but would have to figure out how to score 2 TDs without giving the ball back. Which, presumably, they could do with 2 successful onside kicks.

Edit: No wait, that wouldn't work. I'm confused.

[molson]

Define "opportunity to possess the ball" keeping your story in mind.

Ya, that's a biggie.

What if the receiving team fumbles? Or what if the kicking team kicks deep but recover without the receiving team ever touching the ball?

[Pumpy Tudors]

I told you people that arena football was great.

[Logan]

Tell me something, how is it "better football" when the receiving team pulls off a successful drive with a bunch of first downs and marches down to the 12 yard line before deciding whether or not to roll the dice on 4th down by going for the FG or 1st down/TD, because they know their opponent will have "last licks"?

How is it "better football" when on the next equitable possession, the team pulls off a successful drive with a bunch of first downs and marches down to the 12 yard line but now doesn't need to make the same tough decision about whether or not to roll the dice because the prior results are already known?

[Passacaglia]

I posted something on FOFC nearly three years ago, and I'm reposting it in this thread for comedy value:

March 2, 2003. Dallas Desperados at Arizona Rattlers. Dallas kicker Jason Wells made a game-tying field goal from 34 yards out with 49 seconds remaining. The game went to overtime with the score 58-58.

AFL rules state that each team gets at least one possession in overtime. When Arizona won the coin toss, Rattlers coach Danny White (yes, that Danny White) elected to kick off. This is normal, just like an NCAA team electing to play defense to start overtime. Danny White had an idea, though. He had his kicker, Nelson Garner, attempt an onside kick. The Rattlers recovered and drove down the field for a touchdown. Danny White thought the game was over at this point. After all, he figured that Dallas' possession started when Arizona kicked off. In his mind, the Desperados failed to recover the onside kick, so it was essentially a turnover on their possession.

Danny White thought wrong.

The officials huddled for a couple of minutes and determined that Dallas had never officially had an overtime possession, so Arizona would have to attempt an extra point and kick off to Dallas. White was livid, but there was nothing he could do. Nelson Garner went back onto the field for Arizona and missed the extra point. Arizona 64, Dallas 58. Garner then kicked off to the Desperados so Dallas could have their possession.

The Desperados put together a 7-play, 48-yard drive that ended in a 10-yard touchdown pass from Jim Kubiak to Shannon Culver, tying the score at 64. Dallas kicker Jason Wells makes the extra point, and the Desperados win one of the most controversial games in AFL history. After the game, all Danny White could say was that he didn't know the overtime rules well enough and admits that his clever idea to circumvent the rules wasn't so clever after all.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Calling it an idea to circumvent the rules is lame. The AFL rules were just wrong -- they meant that they wanted each team to kick off once, but the letter of their rules said otherwise. This is compounded by the fact that 'opportunity to possess the ball' is too vague. No wonder the league went dead.

[MrBug708]

Time to just change it to college rules

[JediKooter]

That would have been tremendous. If they recovered and scored again, Dallas would presumably still be entitled to another possession, but would have to figure out how to score 2 TDs without giving the ball back. Which, presumably, they could do with 2 successful onside kicks.

Edit: No wait, that wouldn't work. I'm confused.

My thinking is, they would only be allowed one possession. As soon as they get that possession, game over, since there's no 9 point play that I'm aware of in the NFL or AFL. Of course though, I'm saying this in complete ignorance of what rules are in place for the kicking team and if they can actually do that.

[Passacaglia]

I think molson was right that it wouldn't work. If Arizona kicked onsides twice, and scored two TDs, they could kick off to Dallas normally, and all Dallas could do is score one TD -- after they did that, the game would be over, and they wouldn't even get the chance for an onsides kick.

[Passacaglia]

I guess what I mean is, molson had all that figured out in his edit. Sort of.

[JediKooter]

Exactly what I was saying. No way to score enough points in one possession. :D

[Pumpy Tudors]

Calling it an idea to circumvent the rules is lame. The AFL rules were just wrong -- they meant that they wanted each team to kick off once, but the letter of their rules said otherwise. This is compounded by the fact that 'opportunity to possess the ball' is too vague. No wonder the league went dead.
I will kill you.

[stevew]

I'm too lazy to read the rest of the thread. A pick 6 or a safety end the game?

[Honolulu_Blue]

I'm too lazy to read the rest of the thread. A pick 6 or a safety end the game?

Yes

[Honolulu_Blue]

Tell me something, how is it "better football" when the receiving team pulls off a successful drive with a bunch of first downs and marches down to the 12 yard line before deciding whether or not to roll the dice on 4th down by going for the FG or 1st down/TD, because they know their opponent will have "last licks"?

How is it "better football" when on the next equitable possession, the team pulls off a successful drive with a bunch of first downs and marches down to the 12 yard line but now doesn't need to make the same tough decision about whether or not to roll the dice because the prior results are already known?

Because it's better than the original rule where the team that won a totally random coin toss won 60% of the games.

It's simple really.

I'm surprised at the general reaction by folks. Maybe it will completely fail in practice, but I think it will make playoffs OT much more exciting and interesting.

Will it be "better football"? I don't know. I don't even know what that means exactly.

[Honolulu_Blue]

To be fair, as a Lions fan, any changes to the rules that only affect playoff games are really out of my realm of comprehension. Perhaps there's something about playoff football that I've forgotten about over time that makes this idea so horrible. (pun intended)

[Dr. Sak]

http://msp73.photobucket.com/albums/i201/aykis16/playoffs.jpg

[gstelmack]

Because it's better than the original rule where the team that won a totally random coin toss won 60% of the games.

They went and made offense easier, then were shocked that the offenses scored more points?

I would much prefer they just move the kickoff forward 5 yards again, since the big objection is a good return + 2 first downs = makable FG these days, with kickers having bigger legs.

I do like the idea of more teams going for the TD instead of settling for the FG in the overtime period. I just think this one is a bit screwy, especially with the whole safety loophole. I was more interested in the "first to 6 points wins" concept.

All of that said, I think this makes coaches even MORE conservative at the end of regulation which will negate any benefit gained from the overtime. Minnesota threw a pick at the end of regulation when Favre could have run for the first down, tough!

If you don't like the 60/40 odds in overtime, win it in regulation.

[Logan]

Because it's better than the original rule where the team that won a totally random coin toss won 60% of the games.

That 60% includes the instances where the team who wins the toss goes on to win the game at some point of the overtime, so you're referencing a stat which includes the times where the other team gets a chance to score as well (aka exactly what this rule change is trying to "fix").

That 60% stat also is just from 2000-2007, from what I've seen referenced (I think that's when the kickoff was moved, correct me if I'm wrong), but dating back to 1974 the percentage goes down to 48%.

Using the same 2000-2007 stats, the team who wins the toss has gone on to score on their first possession 30% of the time (37 out of 124 times). Within that figure of course, we will also have TDs so the percentage that could be remedied would still be lower.

Advanced NFL Stats: How Important is the Coin Flip in OT? (http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/10/how-important-is-coin-flip-in-ot.html)

[Buccaneer]

Well, at least now the NHL can't be mocked as being the only sport with different OT rules in the regular season and post season.

The NFL already have different OT rules in the regular season and post season.


I like the change. It will make OT games much more interesting and exciting.

+1

As long as it doesn't ever go to college OT rules, which is fucking silly with its 24-24 games becoming 57-51.

[mckerney]

This is silly. A touchdown on the first drive still wins it, so why wouldn't you want the ball first to go get the touchdown?

I think most teams would, though it'd be interesting to see what a team like the 2000 Baltimore Ravens would do. A team like that with a great defense but so-so offense might be better off kicking and forcing a punt that would let them play for a field goal on a shorter field. A coach may not want to kick in that situation even if it were a better strategy for fear of looking like the next Marty Mornhinweg if they were to give up a TD.

[molson]

I like the change, and would love to see it extended to the regular season (apparently that isn't ruled out yet for 2010, but more likely it will happen after that). Actually, I'd rather games just end in ties in the regular season after regulation, but since I'm the only person in the world that wants that, it ain't happening.

An NFL OT needs to accomplish a few things:

1. Be as close as possible to a 50/50 outcome overall after any coin toss
2. Doesn't drag the game on forever
3. Doesn't screw up stats (i.e. allows a QB to throw for 8 TDs in the college tiebreaker).
4. Limits emotionally unsatisfying endings in games.

This plan addresses these things - obviously a priority was keeping games short, and and this is shortest OT possible that's not true sudden death. I would have preferred just first to 6 points, since there's just a certain elegance to that, but I can live with this.

I never whined about my team losing in OT when they lose the toss, and I don't think it's a fairness issue, but even in games where I have no rooting interest, I hate the OT kickoff return to the 40, a couple of short passes and runs, field goal, game over.....Just a unsatisfying ending.

[hhiipp]

Interesting that the Vikings' loss to the Saints is probably what precipitated final action here, and yet the Vikings voted against the change.

They didn't really vote against the change. They texted Brett Favre to ask if they should vote for or against the rule change. Brett replied that he wouldn't be able to make his decision until a week before pre-season games start. The Vikings owner was okay with that and abstained from voting so the NFL took that as a "No".

[Logan]

Using the same 2000-2007 stats, the team who wins the toss has gone on to score on their first possession 30% of the time (37 out of 124 times). Within that figure of course, we will also have TDs so the percentage that could be remedied would still be lower.

Just to expand on this since I saw it on ESPN this morning...win coin toss/kick FG happened 22.8% of the time. Win coin toss/drive down for a TD happened 6.9% of the time.

[Dr. Sak]

Rejected OT Formats (http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2010/03/rejected-nfl-overtime-formats.html)

[Logan]

It's been fun to keep quoting myself.

Define "opportunity to possess the ball" keeping your story in mind.

On overtime onside kicks | ProFootballTalk.com (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/23/on-overtime-onside-kicks/)

We know many of you have questions about the new overtime rules, so let's try to answer one more.

Some of you have asked what happens if a team recovers an onside kick on the first kickoff of overtime. In that scenario, the recovering team could win the game on a field goal. The rules read:

"A kickoff is the opportunity to possess for the receiving team. If the kicking team legally recovers the kick, the receiving team is considered to have had its opportunity."

[molson]

It looks like there's some momentum to change the OT for the 2010 regular season as well:

NFL owners ponder new-look OT for regular season, approve safety rules - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5024325&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines)