Proposed New Overtime Rules

[pbmax]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/27/more-on-modified-overtime-proposal/

If it takes three sentences to explain, its too complicated. It should stay the way it is: Sudden Death. Very simple. People who complain that the game might end on one possession need to ask themselves why one of the coaches didn't try to win the game outright. If you want to increase the incentive to play to win, the declare that OT is like a 2nd halftime, and the team that won the coin toss at the beginning gets to pick again. That way, everyone knows what is coming. Teams also may wish to spend on defense.

Or even simpler? Move the kickoff in OT back up to the 35 so some kickers can knock it out of the endzone OR choose to skyball it and get a chance to pin them behind the 20. But this seems preposterously complex:


More on the modified overtime proposal

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on February 27, 2010 6:25 PM ET
Florio usually takes the overtime posts because, well, he hates it more than he hates a costly 12-men on the field penalty.

But he's gone for the evening, and we already have an update to the modified sudden death rule the competition committee is considering for the playoffs.

Here's how the proposal will look, according to NFL spokesman Greg Aiello.

"Both teams would be guaranteed a possession unless first team with the ball scores a touchdown," Aiello tweeted.

"If the first team to get the ball kicks a field goal, the other team gets the ball. If it doesn't score, the game is over. If the second team with the ball ties it with a field goal, the game continues until someone scores."

So the proposal won't be the first team to score six points wins, as we initially thought. You can win on a field goal if you prevent the other team for scoring.

I don't hate the old overtime as much as Florio, but this proposal is an improvement from the current system. It would add excitement, strategy, and some fairness to overtime.

The only part we don't understand: Why would the change be good enough for the playoffs, but not the regular season?

That part isn't logical, but this proposal is a good to start to possible change. Now it just needs to pass.

[Joemailman]

I see this as an improvement over the current system. It's not all that complex. It might confuse the casual fan at first, but they'll catch on eventually. I agree that the change, if there is to be one, should also apply to the regular season.

[Lurker64]

Yeah, I think "first to six points" is probably better than this. Much easier for the average fan to grasp.

Though, I have to say, what's wrong with ties (at least in the regular season)? I'd like to see a game which is tied at the end of regulation in the regular season end in a tie, and handle ties in the playoffs by just playing extra quarters (or 10 minuted periods, say) until one ends in a non-tie.

[channtheman]

Completely stupid and it wouldn't even solve the problem that so many people were whining about. The year the Chargers beat the Colts in overtime, everyone was bitching because Manning never got a chance. Under those rules he STILL wouldn't have gotten a chance because the Chargers scored a TD on their first possession!

Someone made a very good point. How about teams with a minute left and 2 timeouts taking a knee at their own 20? They don't have ANY right to complain about overtime being unfair when they didn't even want to try to win the game in regulation.

[red]

i don't like it

if you don't like overtime the way it is then try and win the game in regulation

this is going to prolong the game bu a lot

[sheepshead]

Yeah, I think "first to six points" is probably better than this. Much easier for the average fan to grasp.

Though, I have to say, what's wrong with ties (at least in the regular season)? I'd like to see a game which is tied at the end of regulation in the regular season end in a tie, and handle ties in the playoffs by just playing extra quarters (or 10 minuted periods, say) until one ends in a non-tie.

I agree. Ties in the regular season should stand. One possession each in the playoffs, period. Winner...wins.

[Gunakor]

I say leave the rules as they are, and force teams to play better defense to win overtime games. Both teams. If your defense isn't good enough to win a game for you then you don't deserve to win in overtime.

[red]

i think overtime should consist of just a shootout. no sudden death, just straight to the field goals

but kickers don't try the fg's, defensive players do

each teams gets at least 5 attempts from 30 yards out. if its still tied after that then you start moving back 5 yards every round until one team as an advantage after a round. both teams would get the exact same number of attempts

now this could lead to great excitement. most teams would bury the linemen far down in the order. however this could come back to bite a team in the ass if the game goes to octo-overtime and you have a 350 pound nose tackle trying to kick a 55 yarder to win the super bowl

now that's football

[DonHutson]

Grand solution to a non-problem.

If you don't want to lose in OT, play some D.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Yeah, I think "first to six points" is probably better than this. Much easier for the average fan to grasp.

Though, I have to say, what's wrong with ties (at least in the regular season)? I'd like to see a game which is tied at the end of regulation in the regular season end in a tie, and handle ties in the playoffs by just playing extra quarters (or 10 minuted periods, say) until one ends in a non-tie.

I agree. Ties in the regular season should stand. One possession each in the playoffs, period. Winner...wins.

Old School agrees with both of you. Ties were counted as 1/2 win and 1/2 loss in the old days and it worked fine. Go back to letting ties stand in the regular season. In the playoffs, just go with the same system we got now. First team to score wins.

[The Leaper]

I'd rather see no overtime in the regular season. For postseason...just keep tacking on 10 minute periods until one of them ends with a team ahead of the other.

[gbgary]

keep it as is!

[Smidgeon]

After watching the Olympic gold medal hockey game today, I started thinking about the NFL and its hope to really make American football an international craze. I'm convinced now that the rule changes that the NFL is considering implementing are all in an attempt to control the game.

Hockey is a brutal, fast-paced sport that isn't too complicated. You score or you don't. You win or you don't. The announcer stated that there are only seven reviewable plays in hockey. Seven. Can you even count how many football has? Right now the NFL falls between MLB and the NHL for complexity of rules. Tweaking the rules to provide for circumstantial conditions will (in my opinion) make the NFL more of a niche sport. It will become so much more complicated to follow. For example: the Greg Jennings non-touchdown. Three steps and falling down is an incomplete pass but if he hadn't fallen and had thrown the ball down instead it would have been a touchdown.

How will the NFL be able to market this sport to the world if the complexities are so nuanced that even the officials can't agree on what's what? That's why I think tweaking things that don't need to be tweaked (i.e. overtime rules) is messing with a good thing.

[packerbacker1234]

Biggest issue I have with any of this is it's a "playoff only" rule.

So, if that is to remain the case I say no. The game should not CHANGE just because it;s the playoffs, other then not being able to end in a tie.

Sorry, until it is something they say is universal, I wont support it.

[sharpe1027]

How about just playing two shortened halfs (maybe 7-8 minutes each)? That way each team will receive a kickoff at the start of one of the halfs.

[get louder at lambeau]

How about this-

Put the ball at the 50, and line both teams up at their goalline. Blow the whistle, and whoever comes up with the ball wins. False start and you lose.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Do what the colleges do except have the ball at the 40 yd line for each team. Defense can run turnovers back. If the D gets a pick 6, it's over.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Yeah, I think "first to six points" is probably better than this. Much easier for the average fan to grasp.

Though, I have to say, what's wrong with ties (at least in the regular season)? I'd like to see a game which is tied at the end of regulation in the regular season end in a tie, and handle ties in the playoffs by just playing extra quarters (or 10 minuted periods, say) until one ends in a non-tie.

I agree. Ties in the regular season should stand. One possession each in the playoffs, period. Winner...wins.

Old School agrees with both of you. Ties were counted as 1/2 win and 1/2 loss in the old days and it worked fine. Go back to letting ties stand in the regular season. In the playoffs, just go with the same system we got now. First team to score wins.

Sorry. Sometimes my age gets to me and my memory leaves.

After giving some thought to this, I now seem to remember that ties in the NFL in the old days were not counted as a half game won and a half game lost. I think they were considered as not played at all. Winners were determined by won-lost percentage without counting ties as games played in the percentage.

[The Leaper]

I think they should play dodgeball to decide the winner.

[get louder at lambeau]

I think they should play dodgeball to decide the winner.

That would be an unfair advantage for the Bears. Cutler is exceptional at hitting opposing players with the football.

[pbmax]

How does everyone feel about the first to six proposal? It would not guarantee a possession apiece, but it would make FGs less appealing.

I still think they could thrown the number of times the coin flip winner wins/loses the game back into balance by moving the OT kickoff back up to the 35 yard line.

[pbmax]

Peter King mentioned this in MMQB, but I think he overplayed one aspect of the finding (that there is a definite advantage to going second and knowing what you need to score - essentially, it puts 4th down into play as another attempt at a first down, rather than a punt).

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/03/new-proposed-overtime-rules.html


He finds that the guaranteed possession model moves things much closer to 50/50. The guaranteed possession only after a FG moves the needle much less.

[hoosier]

How does everyone feel about the first to six proposal? It would not guarantee a possession apiece, but it would make FGs less appealing.

I still think they could thrown the number of times the coin flip winner wins/loses the game back into balance by moving the OT kickoff back up to the 35 yard line.

In trying to fix a perceived problem I think it might actually make the problem worse. Sudden death OT creates dissatisfaction among fans whenever one team scores without the other team getting the ball. First to 6 would certainly decrease the frequency of those one drive overtimes, but it would not do away with them and it might compound the problem, because now the NFL has basically acknowledged the problem but failed to fix it. First team to 6 reeks of the inequity of half-measures.

I cannot think of an overtime format that is free of problems. All models have the potential to be too short or too long, arbitrary or drawn out to the point of boredom and increased injuries. I much prefer sudden death, which at least doesn't try to hide its warts.

[swede]

How does everyone feel about the first to six proposal? It would not guarantee a possession apiece, but it would make FGs less appealing.

I still think they could thrown the number of times the coin flip winner wins/loses the game back into balance by moving the OT kickoff back up to the 35 yard line.

In trying to fix a perceived problem I think it might actually make the problem worse. Sudden death OT creates dissatisfaction among fans whenever one team scores without the other team getting the ball. First to 6 would certainly decrease the frequency of those one drive overtimes, but it would not do away with them and it might compound the problem, because now the NFL has basically acknowledged the problem but failed to fix it. First team to 6 reeks of the inequity of half-measures.

I cannot think of an overtime format that is free of problems. All models have the potential to be too short or too long, arbitrary or drawn out to the point of boredom and increased injuries. I much prefer sudden death, which at least doesn't try to hide its warts.

Excellent point. Exploring the other options can lead one to the conclusion that what we had wasn't that bad anyway. Statistically, the ending is always going to suck for 50% of the participants,

[sharpe1027]

How does everyone feel about the first to six proposal? It would not guarantee a possession apiece, but it would make FGs less appealing.

I still think they could thrown the number of times the coin flip winner wins/loses the game back into balance by moving the OT kickoff back up to the 35 yard line.

Just leave it as is. If you don't like overtime, you should have won the game in regulation. :lol:

[The Leaper]

One thing that really bothers me about this is the fact the NFL is even considering making this change DIRECTLY TO THE POSTSEASON without having some kind of trial period either in preseason or the regular season. I think that is a major error in judgment. Whatever "improved" proposal you come up with should be tried out in games that mean far less than the NFL playoffs.

[pbmax]

How does everyone feel about the first to six proposal? It would not guarantee a possession apiece, but it would make FGs less appealing.

I still think they could thrown the number of times the coin flip winner wins/loses the game back into balance by moving the OT kickoff back up to the 35 yard line.

In trying to fix a perceived problem I think it might actually make the problem worse. Sudden death OT creates dissatisfaction among fans whenever one team scores without the other team getting the ball. First to 6 would certainly decrease the frequency of those one drive overtimes, but it would not do away with them and it might compound the problem, because now the NFL has basically acknowledged the problem but failed to fix it. First team to 6 reeks of the inequity of half-measures.

I cannot think of an overtime format that is free of problems. All models have the potential to be too short or too long, arbitrary or drawn out to the point of boredom and increased injuries. I much prefer sudden death, which at least doesn't try to hide its warts.
That would depend on what you mean by fix it. If opponents of the current OT want to eliminate the advantage of the coin flip winner, then they will find out that any OT scenario gives someone an advantage, coin flip or no.

But if the goal is to make the winner earn the OT win, then first to six does address that problem. Its gives the defense a better chance and makes penalties less determinative.

I tend to think that almost the same could be achieved by moving the kickoff to the 35. But then, I don't see the need to change it.

[sharpe1027]

That would depend on what you mean by fix it. If opponents of the current OT want to eliminate the advantage of the coin flip winner, then they will find out that any OT scenario gives someone an advantage, coin flip or no.


Why not keep it the same, but make up rules on who gets the ball first based upon something other than a coin toss.

For example, the team with the most yards gets the ball first, or the team with the most touchdowns or the team with the fewest turnovers, or the team that has the guy with the longest hair.

[hoosier]

How does everyone feel about the first to six proposal? It would not guarantee a possession apiece, but it would make FGs less appealing.

I still think they could thrown the number of times the coin flip winner wins/loses the game back into balance by moving the OT kickoff back up to the 35 yard line.

In trying to fix a perceived problem I think it might actually make the problem worse. Sudden death OT creates dissatisfaction among fans whenever one team scores without the other team getting the ball. First to 6 would certainly decrease the frequency of those one drive overtimes, but it would not do away with them and it might compound the problem, because now the NFL has basically acknowledged the problem but failed to fix it. First team to 6 reeks of the inequity of half-measures.

I cannot think of an overtime format that is free of problems. All models have the potential to be too short or too long, arbitrary or drawn out to the point of boredom and increased injuries. I much prefer sudden death, which at least doesn't try to hide its warts.
That would depend on what you mean by fix it. If opponents of the current OT want to eliminate the advantage of the coin flip winner, then they will find out that any OT scenario gives someone an advantage, coin flip or no.

But if the goal is to make the winner earn the OT win, then first to six does address that problem. Its gives the defense a better chance and makes penalties less determinative.

I tend to think that almost the same could be achieved by moving the kickoff to the 35. But then, I don't see the need to change it.

I suppose that moving kickoff up to 35 also has an advantage over first to 6, since first to 6 would presumably result in more ties (if implemented in regular season) or double overtimes (in playoffs) and thus greater chance for injury. So would just the opening OT kickoff be moved up to the 35, or would all OT kickoffs be placed there?

One interesting consideration with the current OT format is that, in addition to placing huge importance on major penalties (if the offense has a reliable kicker, a long defensive pass interference penalty is basically a game ender), it also give a big advantage to defenses capable of shutting down the oppponent. "Bend but don't break" doesn't do much good when the opponent only needs 30 yards for a winning FG try.

[packrulz]

Breaking news: The new overtime rule was approved.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8171b356&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

[MadScientist]

Now that the rule has changed, using the playoffs as a test bed, there won't
be an overtime playoff game for a couple of years.

[get louder at lambeau]

Wait! Call the owners back into the conference room.

I just thought of a better solution. Keep overtime as sudden death, but FGs aren't allowed. You go for it or punt.

[RashanGary]

Wait! Call the owners back into the conference room.

I just thought of a better solution. Keep overtime as sudden death, but FGs aren't allowed. You go for it or punt.

haha. The horror. Thompson signed a quality LT to a deal that goes year by year if the Packers choose. They "could" draft a LT that would push Clifton and if that player ends up becoming reliable, they can cut Clifton after one year, with no real loss other than his 1st years pay in an uncapped year.

The horror!!

[get louder at lambeau]

Wait! Call the owners back into the conference room.

I just thought of a better solution. Keep overtime as sudden death, but FGs aren't allowed. You go for it or punt.

haha. The horror. Thompson signed a quality LT to a deal that goes year by year if the Packers choose. They "could" draft a LT that would push Clifton and if that player ends up becoming reliable, they can cut Clifton after one year, with no real loss other than his 1st years pay in an uncapped year.

The horror!!

So...

...

...

...I'lll take that as you like my proposal? :lol:

[Joemailman]

Wait! Call the owners back into the conference room.

I just thought of a better solution. Keep overtime as sudden death, but FGs aren't allowed. You go for it or punt.

With our punters? Go for it I guess.

[RashanGary]

haha. I don't know how that got in here. I looked for it in the other thread and couldn't find it. Here it is.

[pbmax]

Horrible. Ridiculously complicated to satisfy too many groups. A safety can win the game but not a FG. Dopes.

The only good part of this is that like with the 2 point conversion (according to Peter King), the coaches got jobbed while they were not even in the room. The vote was originally going to happen tomorrow, but they moved it up while the coaches were golfing.

[pbmax]

This isn't promising. And I know it covers a lot of unlikely scenarios, but its quite complicated.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/88956802.html

[hoosier]

This isn't promising. And I know it covers a lot of unlikely scenarios, but its quite complicated.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/88956802.html

Yuck. A good rule is one that seems intuitive once you repeat it and mull it over a little. This list of scenarios, as one of the JSO comments put it, simply causes you to "lose the will to live."

[ThunderDan]

It seems like the NFL was in a rush to fix the OT problem. Doesn't seem like they addressed the issue at all to me.

Teams will now defer if they win the coin toss. That way if the other team scores a FG you know you have 4 downs when you have the ball. They are basically giving the 2nd team 33% more plays per series. If it's 3 and 8 and I know I can't punt on 4th down, I would call for a 5 yard crossing route and set-up 4 and 3. If the guy breaks a tackle maybe I get a first.

This potential in the new rule seems like a much bigger advantage than winning the coin toss as is.

[ThunderDan]

The other issue I have with this rule is that it is only for the playoffs. It will take 10-15 years (or longer) to have enough overtime games to have a statistically significant sample to see if there is an unfair bias in the new rule.

[channtheman]

I think had they just made it so that you can't punt (as someone else said) it would mean BOTH teams knew they had to go for it on 4th down. (Issue then becomes the other team getting an unfair advantage of field position if they were to stop the opposing team on their own 20 yard line).

Really, I don't think overtime was that bad.

[channtheman]

double

[CaptainKickass]

Sure feels like the NFL owners voted for "change for the sake of change".

I can't think of any other "playoff only" NFL rules off the top of my head. Are there any?

In addressing the issue of "fair/unfair advantage" concerning possession in overtime....

I'm pretty damn sure that this issue was addressed a long ass time ago by the great forefathers of football. They too recognized the need for a way to fairly balance the odds regarding possession and overtime to which everyone agreed to.

They called it "The Coin Toss".

[pbmax]

It seems like the NFL was in a rush to fix the OT problem. Doesn't seem like they addressed the issue at all to me.

Teams will now defer if they win the coin toss. That way if the other team scores a FG you know you have 4 downs when you have the ball. They are basically giving the 2nd team 33% more plays per series. If it's 3 and 8 and I know I can't punt on 4th down, I would call for a 5 yard crossing route and set-up 4 and 3. If the guy breaks a tackle maybe I get a first.

This potential in the new rule seems like a much bigger advantage than winning the coin toss as is.
I don't know if they will defer. This is unlike college where you are GUARANTEED a possession. If you kickoff and yield a TD, then its over. What will change will be increased motivation to keep the drive alive while in FG range. Teams will be less likely to run left for a yard to get in the middle of the field. They will call a play for a first down.

Long field goals become more problematic as well. Teams will be more likely to punt.

[MOBB DEEP]

Let's call these the Brett Favre rules

the WHOLE world outside of packer nation and N.O. wanted to see him v manning! but absurdities prevented the dream from becoming reality :evil:

[Gunakor]

Just play defense and don't allow the opponent to score a FG in the first place.

[MJZiggy]

So can anyone tell me why the NFLPA went apeshit about this?

[ThunderDan]

So can anyone tell me why the NFLPA went apeshit about this?

More snaps in the game = more injuries