Owners Vote to Change Overtime
Reports are just out that the owners have passed the proposed OT rule change, with the Jets voting with (contrary to prior statement) that they would vote against the change.
[Peter King's MMQB featured this topic heavily yesterday]
30 Responses to Owners Vote to Change Overtime
-
Marvel says:
This was a stupid move … This change was made because of teams like the Colts , Saints , & Cardinals etc … What about the bottom feeders who scrapped it out all regulation in a 3 to 3 game … They should have the chance to end the game first possession in OT .. This ain’t college you want the ball back play big boy defense & man up ..
Let me remind you how the Cardinals vs Packers playoff game ended in OT…
Cardinals lose coin toss
Cardinals kick off
Cardinals play defense
Cardinals create turnover
Cardinals Win gameMoral of the story…MAN UP & PLAY D
If they change the WR rules I will stop loving my favorite sport & become a casual fan .. This sucks big time ..
-
Jim says:
I don’t get the outrage from that Vikings/Saints game. The Vikings fumbled the ball 7 or 8 times. They deserved to lose that game. They didn’t even deserve to go into OT. But now everyone uses them as an example of why we need to change OT rules? Give me a break. If you can’t get it done in regulation, why should you be given extra opportunities in OT? Maybe I’m a bit old fashioned but I’m truly against this. Wish Woody would have stuck by his guns and voted NO.
-
SackDance99 says:
What I don’t understand is that the winner of the coin toss still has first dibs and still can score without the other team ever having a chance. Sure, a TD is harder than an FG, but the rule still makes the coin toss winner the most important factor in OT. I have the feeling if Rex were ever in this situation, he would kick off. Force a 3 and out, then kick an FG and game over.
-
Dylan says:
I like it because it makes teams have to prove themselves on defense and on offense. I think the Jets are going to be a very balanced team so it should work in our favor.
-
I also like it for these 2 reasons:
1) Giving up one long pass (30+ yards) in OT won’t essentially lose you the game.
2) We won’t see anymore of that overly conservative football in overtime where teams get the ball inside the 30 and then run the ball 3 times. Teams are going to be taking more risks in order to score a TD.
-
JesusRevis says:
What exactly is the new rule?
-
C Low says:
What are the official rules of the new OT? All I hear is bits and pieces. This sounds like Washington DC
-
Le' Sean Roberts says:
If the team on offense kicks a field goal the other team gets a chance to go on offense. I’m not sure about the TD scenario however.
-
If the team on offense kicks a field goal the other team gets a chance to go on offense. I’m not sure about the TD scenario however.
So if the team who wins the toss kicks a 20 yard chip shot, they still have to kick off and can lose if the other team scores a TD? what happens if both team score a FG? Then what? Another coin flip? Then what?
I HATE THIS RULE!
It can easily impact the end of a 4th quarter AS WELL in a different way than the present form does. THIS IS BAD. Think an explosive team like Colts v playing a defensive minded team like Jets/Ravens/etc.
Ravens know a OT FG won’t win it so they AVOID OT AT ALL COST. NOT GOOD, NOT GOOD!!!!!
-
Jake says:
New rule is that if the coin toss winning team scores a field goal on their first possession than the other team gets another possession, however this is only for the post season as of now
-
starz31 says:
yeah, not a big fan of changing the rule just for the postseason. I understand taking the potential of a tie at the end of regulation during the regular season must be the big factor there, i just dont like that teams will have to play a new, different style of football in the most important time of the year…for the first time all season. No getting use to it, or ironing out the kinks during the regular season. No, you gotta be ready for the rule in the most stressful time of the season.
-
gr33n says:
I like the new rules, due to the owner-cited statistics about coin-toss-winning teams winning in OT 60% of the time, since 1994. A coin toss should not be allowed to provide an advantage like that.
This change is odd compared to some of the alternatives, but a change in the OT rules has been long overdue.
-
Ferraro41 says:
This is pretty stupid. So if a team wins the toss, completes a bunch of passes and kicks a field goal, the other team gets the ball. But if the team wins the coin toss and their returner returns it for a TD, the game is over. And this is going to produce the “fairest result”?
If they really wanted to make it more fair (and I’m not saying I agree with changing the rules myself), why over-complicate it? Why not just make it each team gets at least one offensive possession, period. If you don’t score, you obviously punt to the other team. But if you score a field goal or TD, you kick off to the other team for a chance to match. Period. *That* would produce a much fairer result, IMHO.
-
As I understand it, if the team that gets possession first scores a TD, it’s still game over. The only change is that a FG on the first possession doesn’t end the game. The other team gets a chance to score. If they score a TD, game over. A FG would return possession to the original team, and make the game sudden death from there.
Agreed with @starz though, that the rules should be the same during the regular season, even though the NFLPA is opposed for injury reasons. The rule changes the OT dynamic enough.
-
The rule is only for the postseason and basically allows the team that loses the coin toss to have a possession if the team that wins the coin toss and elects to receive scores an FG. But, if the team that wins the coin toss and elects to receive scores a TD, it wins. If both teams on their initial possessions score FGs, then it’s sudden death until a team scores. Basically, it protects the team that loses the coin toss from seeing the team that wins the coin toss drive to the 35 yard line and kick a game-winning FG. My problem is that why just give the other team a chance in the event of an FG, why not a TD, too?
-
James in TN says:
why didn’t we vote against it?
-
TDubbs says:
2) We won’t see anymore of that overly conservative football in overtime where teams get the ball inside the 30 and then run the ball 3 times. Teams are going to be taking more risks in order to score a TD.
Agreed. I think that this was the biggest problem with sudden death overtime, and it seems like the new rules were designed to address this. Personally, I think the new system will put MORE of a focus on playing good defense, as the team that loses the coin toss will be playing against a TD-minded team, rather than one that is playing cop-out strategy noted above.
-
Jcjets says:
Adam Shefter (via Twitter):
An onside kick to start overtime is about the opportunity to possess. If you blow your opportunity to possess the ball, you can lose game.Sounds like the team that looses the coin toss but recovers an onside kick that would be an “offensive opportunity” for the receiving team and the team the lost the toss but recovered the onside kick can then kick a field goal and win.
-
Shamik says:
I love it. The above chaos and confusion here and elsewhere shows exactly the problem with this stupid rule. Keep it simple NFL! What in god’s name was wrong with “first to 6″? Its simple as hell and keeps defense a priority. Bunch of retards!
-
john l says:
i like it however i believe it should start in week 16 since most playoff berths are decided in the last two weeks
-
Merc20 says:
Disagree.. I like the rule. It keeps sudden death and guards against the cheap first field goal with all of the high powered offenses that make the playoffs. I like the idea more and more every time i think about it.
The league constantly makes it easier for offenses, why not throw a bone to the defense in the playoffs.
Separate note, have they voted on that sissy headhunting rule for receivers?
-
Oyea Goodell would also like to eliminate the 3 point stance from the game of football , to lesson the collisions at the line …. WTF is with all the friggin retarded changes ..
Btw ..I re-read the WR rule change proposal & it’s not as bad as I thought it was .. But it’s still stupid ….
-
96DEBACLE says:
all this does is make a FG on the first possession pointless.
killing the sudden death of the sudden death overtime.
now its kinda sudden death -
96DEBACLE
I don’t like the rule but as I understand it .,A field goal is not pointless if you recieve the ball first .. After you kick the field goal if you stop the other team from scoring during their posession you win the game ..
-
starz31 nailed this — Why have this rule for only the post-season, the absolute most critical time, without even trying it out in the regular season??!!
The first time someone tries an onsides kick and recovers it in the Super Bowl, they’ll be screaming the game is over while the other team will be saying they never got a possession and the refs will be in a circle just shrugging, looking like idiots on the biggest of all stages.
Seriously, as fundamental change as this and you don’t even try it out in the preseason? Video replay at least was tried out in the preseason for a season or two first before it was incorporated into the game.
Just a stupid knee-jerk reaction.
-
Bent says: They’re meeting in May to decide if it will also be used in the regular season per Adam Schefter.
-
BamBam says:
I strongly suspect that this rule will apply evenly to the regular season and playoffs. Nobody wants to try something “new and improved” for the first time at a critical moment.
-
NYDREAMER says:
Very Interesting, while most are talking about the benefits of the game, a friend of mine hit me with a new theory. It comes down to commercials and more T.V. revenue. Think about it, in the playoffs, fans are glued to the t.v., after the kick, they go to a commercial, before a field goal they go to a commercial. The NFL and teams are getting more revenue from a longer game.
-
HYPOTHETICAL HERE:
I know its a bit farfetched but here me out…..
If you are playing Peyton Manning and he was on fire to tie up the game in the 4th quarter. And you lose the OT coinflip. Would you be tempted to onside kick it?
-You know that Peyton Manning can easily march the ball down the field, since he did so in the 4th quarter.
-If you recover the ball a FG wins it for your team WITHOUT GIVING PEYTON THE BALL. Right?
-If Colts recover then they are pretty much in FG range already HOWEVER the odds of them making at least a FG if you kicked deep would have been great anyways.
-Either way you would have to worry about the TD.
Interesting that proponents of this change often cited the Saints/Vikes playoff game, bu the Vikes were one of four teams to vote against.
I wished the NFL would have just moved up the kickoff spot. Sometimes the easiest solutions are overlooked.