The W
Views: 97644910
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.7.14 1516
The W - Football - NFL OT rules cracked - playoff modification passes, regular season next?
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.15
Pages: 1 2 Next
(509 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (25 total)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.86
Whoa!
    Originally posted by ESPN (sports.espn.go.com)
    Rules proposal passes on 28-4 vote
    By John Clayton and Chris Mortensen
    ESPN.com


    The NFL owners decided to pass a change in the overtime rule that would give the team that loses the coin toss at the start of overtime to get a possession if the coin-toss winning team scores a field goal with the first possession.

    The proposal was passed by a vote of 28-4 as written just for the postseason, but the owners have decided to discuss adopting the changes for the regular season at their next meeting, in May in Dallas.

    The Buffalo Bills, Minnesota Vikings, Baltimore Ravens and Cincinnati Bengals voted against.

    The Competition Committee recommended the change in a vote of 6-2, and commissioner Roger Goodell supported the plan and was able to secure enough votes to get the move passed on Tuesday, a day before the expected Wednesday vote.

    The reason for the change was the increased accuracy of kickers since 1993. In 1994, the NFL moved kickoffs from the 35 to the 30, which created better field position for the teams that won the coin toss and received the kickoffs. Since 1994, kickers have had better than a 50 percent accuracy level on field goals longer than 50 yards.

    "We've had this discussion for a number of years," Competition co-chairman Rich McKay said. " We feel this year's proposal gave us the opportunity to a pretty good rule. Statistically we felt it needed to be changed. It wasn't creating the fairest result as far as field goal accuracy field goal distance and drive starts."

    McKay said one of the selling points was it maintained the sudden death aspect of overtime.

    This is not a one-year experiment. The vote is a permanent change to the overtime rule, which was established in 1974 to minimize tied games.

    If there is discussion about taking this overtime change to involve regular season games, McKay didn't rule out the possibility to be part of the 2010 regular season, but he doubted that a regular-season change would pass.

    Chris Mortensen is ESPN's senior NFL analyst. John Clayton is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com.
Here are the new rules, as summarized by ESPN in their story:

    New postseason overtime rules

    • 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.

    • If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball. If [that team] scores a touchdown on its possession, it is the winner. If the score is tied after [both teams have a] possession, the team next scoring by any method shall be the winner.

    • If the score is tied at the end of a 15-minute overtime period, or if [the overtime period's] initial possession has not ended, another overtime period will begin, and play will continue until a score is made, regardless of how many 15-minute periods are necessary.


YOUR THOUGHTS:



Promote this thread!
hansen9j
Andouille








Since: 7.11.02
From: Riderville, SK

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.89
Peter King has also confirmed that a safety forced by the defense (or S/T, in the case of that Cardinals/Cowboys game a couple of years ago) on the first possession would also end the game.

I'm glad they didn't go college style, and I wish they would make the playoffs be the full 15 minutes but I'm not broken up about it. There's no perfect answer, but if people really needed change, this is okay change.



It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects.
"This topic is going to suck to read in three years." -Psycho Penguin
"Well. Shit." -hansen9j
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 70 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
Why can't they just NOT kickoff to start overtime? Just keep playing the damn game. Whatever down it was, whatever team had the ball on whatever yard line when time expired, you line back up and keep playing until someone scores. No need to worry about if a coin flip is fair, everything field position wise would have been determined by the play in the second half.

Plus we'd never have to see a team "playing for overtime" again just to get out of bad field position.

I don't get why this is such a hard concept.
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 134 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.72
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Why can't they just NOT kickoff to start overtime? Just keep playing the damn game. Whatever down it was, whatever team had the ball on whatever yard line when time expired, you line back up and keep playing until someone scores. No need to worry about if a coin flip is fair, everything field position wise would have been determined by the play in the second half.

    Plus we'd never have to see a team "playing for overtime" again just to get out of bad field position.

    I don't get why this is such a hard concept.


If you do this, then you lose the entire dynamic & sense of urgency in a tie game in the second half. There's no need to run a hurry-up, no need to try to get the ball out of bounds, time-outs would become irrelevant, etc...

I am happy they are making the change & the only thing I would rather see is that if the first team with possession scores a TD, they would still be required to kickoff & give the opposing team a possession in OT. I hated when a game ended without each team getting an offensive possession in OT, regardless of the game ending with a FG or TD.

Either way, this is definitely an improvement over the current system.
geemoney
Scrapple








Since: 26.1.03
From: Naples, FL

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
I don't like having different rules for the regular season and the playoffs. I know they could still pass in the May meeting, but to me, if you're going to change a rule, change it for the entire season, not just a portion of it.
Matt Tracker
Scrapple








Since: 8.5.03
From: North Carolina

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.89
    Originally posted by geemoney
    I don't like having different rules for the regular season and the playoffs. I know they could still pass in the May meeting, but to me, if you're going to change a rule, change it for the entire season, not just a portion of it.


Agreed. Consistency of rules is imperative.



"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.27
(deleted by It's False on 23.3.10 1359)
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 11 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.17
    Originally posted by Matt Tracker
      Originally posted by geemoney
      I don't like having different rules for the regular season and the playoffs. I know they could still pass in the May meeting, but to me, if you're going to change a rule, change it for the entire season, not just a portion of it.


    Agreed. Consistency of rules is imperative.


Having two different sets of rules for regular season and playoff OT hasn't hurt hockey any.

(I think the NFL should use one version, but this thought occurred to me as I was formulating my other thoughts.)



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
hansen9j
Andouille








Since: 7.11.02
From: Riderville, SK

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.89
More clarifications from Peter King: onside kicks, and muffed kicks recovered by the kicking team, count as the "first" possession. So if you recover your own kick and then kick a field goal, you win.

Presumably a muffed punt would result in both possessions being used up, with it being sudden death at the point.



It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects.
"This topic is going to suck to read in three years." -Psycho Penguin
"Well. Shit." -hansen9j
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 70 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
      Originally posted by wmatistic
      Why can't they just NOT kickoff to start overtime? Just keep playing the damn game. Whatever down it was, whatever team had the ball on whatever yard line when time expired, you line back up and keep playing until someone scores. No need to worry about if a coin flip is fair, everything field position wise would have been determined by the play in the second half.

      Plus we'd never have to see a team "playing for overtime" again just to get out of bad field position.

      I don't get why this is such a hard concept.


    If you do this, then you lose the entire dynamic & sense of urgency in a tie game in the second half. There's no need to run a hurry-up, no need to try to get the ball out of bounds, time-outs would become irrelevant, etc...

    I am happy they are making the change & the only thing I would rather see is that if the first team with possession scores a TD, they would still be required to kickoff & give the opposing team a possession in OT. I hated when a game ended without each team getting an offensive possession in OT, regardless of the game ending with a FG or TD.

    Either way, this is definitely an improvement over the current system.


I must have missed all those tie games where teams didn't play it safe under the current system late in the second half. Do it my way and you have to keep playing hard especially if you're pinned deep. Timeouts only get used by the defense if they pin the other team deep and want a shot to take advantage of that field position by forcing a punt(late in tie games I mean). Which they would get anyway so who cares if they dont have to use a timeout to do so? They earned the position with their play.

(edited by wmatistic on 23.3.10 1525)
Psycho Penguin
Liverwurst








Since: 24.6.07
From: Greenacres FL

Since last post: 1384 days
Last activity: 1380 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.33
I'm fine with this because of the field goal element - I do believe if you've given up a touchdown that your defense, and therefore your team, lost, but a field goal attempt can rely on too many lucky breaks for it to really be the deciding factor. Curious timing on this one, though.



http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/recognition/9471.html


http://www.runningondew.com


"I think that in five years, Orton is far more likely to be in Billy Gunn Land than being a major player in WWE." - Big Bad - 11/22/03
Broncolanche
Sujuk








Since: 2.6.03
From: Littleton, CO

Since last post: 1073 days
Last activity: 325 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.90
    Originally posted by hansen9j
    More clarifications from Peter King: onside kicks, and muffed kicks recovered by the kicking team, count as the "first" possession. So if you recover your own kick and then kick a field goal, you win.

    Presumably a muffed punt would result in both possessions being used up, with it being sudden death at the point.
It would be hilarious if every team that loses the coin toss always attempts onside kicks.
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 11 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.23
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    blah blah blah


Nobody was complaining that the problem with the overtime format was that it encouraged overly conservative play as tie games neared the end of regulation. (And since you brought it up, I'd like to see some examples of exactly what you are complaining about, or some statistics that back up your contention that this is a problem.)

I think it's funny that the coaches are complaining about having to "make more decisions." Um, HELLO. Your JOB is to MAKE DECISIONS. And you are highly compensated for that. Get over it. (Unless you're Andy Reid, in which case, bon chance, even though you were already screwed.)



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
El Nastio
Andouille








Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 hour
ICQ:  
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.24
    Originally posted by geemoney
    I don't like having different rules for the regular season and the playoffs.


There were already different rules before this. There used to be ties in the regular season and no ties in the playoffs.

As noted by Jay, the NHL has different OT rules.

MLB also uses extra umpires in the playoffs.

I'm PRO this idea, and it seems like a good compromise.



You know, I really don't know what to put here. Close your eyes and thank of something funny!
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 70 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by JayJayDean


    Nobody was complaining that the problem with the overtime format was that it encouraged overly conservative play as tie games neared the end of regulation. (And since you brought it up, I'd like to see some examples of exactly what you are complaining about, or some statistics that back up your contention that this is a problem.)


I wasn't saying that was the reason for doing it my way, simply a nice side effect of all those games we've seen where a team "plays for overtime". Are you telling me you don't see that on a regular basis? It's annoying to me is all so I'd be happy with that change.

The reason for changing it was because a coin flip deciding things wasn't "fair", right? Ok so what could be more fair than overtime being based around the second half of play? Who could complain that their team didn't get the ball in overtime when it wasn't decided by any coin flip at all?

Certainly sounds a lot simpler and more fair than the old way or this new way to me.

geemoney
Scrapple








Since: 26.1.03
From: Naples, FL

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
    Originally posted by El Nastio
      Originally posted by geemoney
      I don't like having different rules for the regular season and the playoffs.


    There were already different rules before this. There used to be ties in the regular season and no ties in the playoffs.



I think this new rule will come into play a LOT more than that one.
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 361 days
Last activity: 321 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.39
    Originally posted by Broncolanche
    It would be hilarious if every team that loses the coin toss always attempts onside kicks.


They were talking about exactly this on the radio when I tuned in. They thought that under this scenario, always onside kicking is the way to go. i.e. if you onside kick and recover it, you've got the ball and any score wins the game. If you onside kick and fail, your opponent has the ball. If they kick a field goal you still get another possession.

I think what they were failing to think about is that if the other team recovers, the extra field position they gain could be what makes the difference between the opponent kicking a field goal or them scoring a TD.

I like it. There's nothing more boring than a team getting within field goal range, running 3 times up the middle, and kicking a field goal that has about 90% accuracy. Obviously if the first team fails to score, then the second team can still do exactly this, but the extra excitement behind "do they kick the field goal and give the other team a chance to beat them, or do they try for the TD" is good to me.

Different rules between regular season and playoffs is obviously because they don't want to have 5 hour regular season games. I would have it just end in a tie at the end of regulation. That always screws with the playoff scenarios and I love that.
Psycho Penguin
Liverwurst








Since: 24.6.07
From: Greenacres FL

Since last post: 1384 days
Last activity: 1380 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.33
So, teams play for overtime but it's unfair rules and beneficial to win a coin toss that they're not sure they'd win? You can't have it both ways.



http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/recognition/9471.html


http://www.runningondew.com


"I think that in five years, Orton is far more likely to be in Billy Gunn Land than being a major player in WWE." - Big Bad - 11/22/03
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.40
I'm fine with this. I'd hate to see my team go through a whole year and lose on a FG due to a coin flip. This at least stretches the field out.

I'm assuming the only reason they didn't do this for the regular season is to prevent games from overlapping as much as possible.

Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 41 min.
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.50
    Originally posted by Psycho Penguin
    I'm fine with this because of the field goal element - I do believe if you've given up a touchdown that your defense, and therefore your team, lost, but a field goal attempt can rely on too many lucky breaks for it to really be the deciding factor. Curious timing on this one, though.


I hate sudden death rules. If it is a 49-49 game and neither defense shows up, why should the 1st touchdown suddenly end it?



-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 5.15
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: McNabb traded to...the Redskins?
Next thread: StaggerLee
Previous thread: Jaguars Sign Aaron Kampman
(509 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Well, a couple of years ago, I distinctly remember Randy Sanders "run it up the middle" offense. This was a style of offense that would be run no matter what. We could have wide-open WRs, 11 men in the box... and we're going up the middle.
Related threads: Your 2010 Hall of Fame class - Will the Saints and Colts go 16-0? - NFL Mid-season Awards - More...
The W - Football - NFL OT rules cracked - playoff modification passes, regular season next?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.167 seconds.