NFL Changes Overtime Rules - FOFC Whiners Shriek in Terror
 

Wow.


Overtime proposal passes | ProFootballTalk.com

NFL owners approve changes to overtime for playoff games

wow, what the hell?

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.

Lame...

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

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

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.

The NHL has many other ways to get mocked.

Um, you can still have a game winning FG.

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.

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.

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

Another way for McNabb to get confused in overtime.

Or extended time for him to puke.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

Obviously not a Lions 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

How fucking silly.

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

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.

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?

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

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

A safety also wins it on the first drive.

Just stupid...

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.

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

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

I'll blame it on the rain...

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.

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.

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.

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.

He should have called for another on-sides kick.

I would have.

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


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