Kentucky Jet Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/sp...all/28nfl.html Quote: The N.F.L. could take the first steps toward changing its controversial overtime rules when the competition committee considers a rule that would give both teams a possession in overtime unless the team that receives the ball first scores a touchdown on the opening drive. If it is approved, the rule, called Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
war ensemble Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Make it college-style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aec4 Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 "First to 6".... when did football become table tennis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Since 1994, 60% of overtime games are won by the team winning the toss. An overhaul of the rule is overdue. Players don't want to see the games extended, so the "first to 6," concept seems like a fair compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aec4 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Since 1994, 60% of overtime games are won by the team winning the toss. An overhaul of the rule is overdue. Players don't want to see the games extended, so the "first to 6," concept seems like a fair compromise. first to 6 just seems silly. 4th and 9 from your 20, and I'm supposed to go for it because kicking an FG doesn't have much meaning? Seems silly. In the playoffs, extend the game. Game must go 7:30, or 10 minutes, or something, you pick. If the team that wins the toss keeps the ball for 7:30 more power to them. They win (if they score of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 first to 6 just seems silly. 4th and 9 from your 20, and I'm supposed to go for it because kicking an FG doesn't have much meaning? Seems silly. In the playoffs, extend the game. Game must go 7:30, or 10 minutes, or something, you pick. If the team that wins the toss keeps the ball for 7:30 more power to them. They win (if they score of course) It'll still be three points, it just won't win the game on the opening drive. If they hold their opponent to a FG or less, they could then win the game with another FG. So it definitely means something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachTsurfing Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 One of the few things of the college game that I think would be great in the pro's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Since 1994, 60% of overtime games are won by the team winning the toss. An overhaul of the rule is overdue. Players don't want to see the games extended, so the "first to 6," concept seems like a fair compromise. The team that lost the toss won 40% of the time? Seems close enough to me. I think they should change it so that the coin toss decides the winner. And it should be done in private, in the commissioners office. With no fans present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nycdan Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 While I generally resist rule changes, we need this because as lopsided as it is right now, it's only going to get worse as kickers get more efficient. In 10 years that 60% could very well be 65 or 70%. It's due to two problems. 1) When the NFL moved the kickoff line from the 35 to the 30, they increased the likelihood of a return, which sounds nice in regulation but screws up overtime. Before that, the % of times a team won after winning the toss was actually below 50% (47% I think). 2) Kickers keep getting better from long range. 45 yard FGs are nothing special while 20 years ago, they were much more rarely successful. This means a team only has to get to around the 30 yard line to have a reasonable expectation of scoring and winning. Before you say "teams should just play good defense", consider that after 60 minutes of football, defenses are usually more tired than offenses so that's not really an entirely fair expectation. One fix suggested has been to move the kickoff back to the 35 yard line for overtime. That might help, and if you can get past having different rules for overtime than regulation, would probably get the % of victory back closer to 50%. Otherwise, this at least gives the team losing the flip a reasonable chance to get a shot at victory. I don't love it...and I wish I could come up with a better solution, but I think it's probably for the best if the NFL passes this. Coin flips shouldn't decide things like who gets a 60-40 chance to win the game. They should decide things like who gets to open a new stadium. If only the NFL could get either one of those right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aec4 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 While I generally resist rule changes, we need this because as lopsided as it is right now, it's only going to get worse as kickers get more efficient. In 10 years that 60% could very well be 65 or 70%. It's due to two problems. 1) When the NFL moved the kickoff line from the 35 to the 30, they increased the likelihood of a return, which sounds nice in regulation but screws up overtime. Before that, the % of times a team won after winning the toss was actually below 50% (47% I think). 2) Kickers keep getting better from long range. 45 yard FGs are nothing special while 20 years ago, they were much more rarely successful. This means a team only has to get to around the 30 yard line to have a reasonable expectation of scoring and winning. Before you say "teams should just play good defense", consider that after 60 minutes of football, defenses are usually more tired than offenses so that's not really an entirely fair expectation. One fix suggested has been to move the kickoff back to the 35 yard line for overtime. That might help, and if you can get past having different rules for overtime than regulation, would probably get the % of victory back closer to 50%. Otherwise, this at least gives the team losing the flip a reasonable chance to get a shot at victory. I don't love it...and I wish I could come up with a better solution, but I think it's probably for the best if the NFL passes this. Coin flips shouldn't decide things like who gets a 60-40 chance to win the game. They should decide things like who gets to open a new stadium. If only the NFL could get either one of those right... Putting the KO back to the 35 for OT is much less radical then playing "first to 6" or playing sudden death... oh wait, not really.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 I don't mind this proposal, but I hope it isn't a slippery slope to something more drastic. People have been whining about OT ever since teams decided to stop playing defense. They also refer to the Vikings-Saints game and the "one-drive and done" for the Saints, forgetting two things: 1) Favre threw the game away when he had a chance to lead Minnesota to a game-winning FG in regulation, and 2) the Packers won the toss on OT in their playoff game with Arizona, but it was a Cards defensive TD on the first possession that won that game. Defense is part of the game too. Get a stop or you don't deserve to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguini 15 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 In overtime, if you can't stop the other team from scoring, you shouldn't win. Also, after any coin toss, one side has to have the advantage...if the team that wins the toss only gains a 10% advantage, I don't think anything needs to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 I hate the idea of changing the rules. Bottom line, defense is just as important as offense in the NFL. Any rule changes designed to offset that reality should not be implemented. I don't care what the win % is for those that win the toss, regardless of who starts with the ball, both teams have an opportunity to win the game come the beginning of overtime. Nobody has handing the receiving team free points. If one of them happens to not get an offensive possession, its their own damn fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serphnx Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Since 1994, 60% of overtime games are won by the team winning the toss. An overhaul of the rule is overdue. Players don't want to see the games extended, so the "first to 6," concept seems like a fair compromise. What is the percentage for coin toss wins for a game without overtime? How about win percentage for teams with a 6th round draft pick starting QB vs a 1st round starting QB? There are hundreds of things you can come up with and consider and then change rules on, and you'll never get it to 50-50. Heck, what about the home team, should there no longer be home games in the playoffs to prevent that as well? What about that Cardinals-Packers high scoring game? Yeah these new rules would have made a difference there, right? It's not broken, so don't fix it. If you couldn't win in 60 minutes then man up and play defense at the start of the 61st minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenerdaze Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Gee, why not put only the FG kickers on the field in OT and have a kicking duel starting at the 48 yd line, and increase it by 2-yd increments until ones makes a kick that the other can't match. Gotta look at all possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lupz27 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 I am almost positive you can kick that FG with 4th-10 from their 20 and then the opposing team has a chance to tie or win the game with the next possession but if you get a stop you win you dont need to get to 6. And if you don't score then the game becomes offically sudden death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenerdaze Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 I am almost positive you can kick that FG with 4th-10 from their 20 and then the opposing team has a chance to tie or win the game with the next possession but if you get a stop you win you dont need to get to 6. And if you don't score then the game becomes offically sudden death. The first team to score a TD automatically wins. If neither team scores on their first possession, the game becomes sudden death. Likewise, if both teams score FGs on their first possessions, the game becomes sudden death. If the first team scores a FG, and the second team fails to score anything, the game should be over; both teams had a chance. If the first team fails to score, and the second team scores a FG, the game should be over, as the current rule goes. Both teams had a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Love it. Games are so anti-climactic when teams drive to the 30, play Martyball, and rely on kickers to seal the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lupz27 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Love it. Games are so anti-climactic when teams drive to the 30, play Martyball, and rely on kickers to seal the deal. As us Jet fans know that doesnt always work (2004 AFC divisional round). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 The least penalized team should get the ball in OT. If you lose because you didnt get a crack at the ball, then youve only got yourselves to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyjet69 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 leave it alone! there's nothing wrong with what is in now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetfan13 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Judd Zulgad of the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports via Twitter Vikings owner Zygi Wilf confirms he is against the competition committee's overtime proposal. Wilf said he would be in favor of a rule that keeps sudden death but gives the team that wins the toss the ball on its own 20. He wants to eliminate the OT kickoff and brought up the fact Ced Griffin got hurt on that kickoff vs Saints. Wilf, however, made it clear he has not presented his idea to anyone from the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jbro22 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Retarded. First of all anyone calling for college rules needs to stop and think for a second. NFL has forever been a game about time and field position. To all of a sudden change that for OT is completely absurd. Its fine the way it is, if you have a defense its as easy as stopping them and getting good field position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.