NFL Changes Overtime Rules - FOFC Whiners Shriek in Terror

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by Logan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

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]

Originally Posted by stevew

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

Yes

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

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]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

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?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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]

Originally Posted by 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

[Logan]

It's been fun to keep quoting myself.

Originally Posted by Logan

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

On overtime onside kicks | ProFootballTalk.com

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