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]

Re: Proposed New Overtime Rules

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.