PS17 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Stupid, IMO. Why change the rules for the postseason and not the regular season? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/03/23/overtime/index.html?eref=BrkNews ORLANDO -- In a move that will at least remove the NFL's nightmare scenario of a Super Bowl that's unduly impacted by the flip of a coin, the league's owners on Tuesday surprisingly approved a modified sudden death overtime proposal. The new rule, which will be in effect for the NFL's postseason only, allows the team that loses the coin flip at the start of overtime to have a possession unless a touchdown is scored -- either offensively or defensively -- on the first possession. Twenty-eight of the owners voted to approve the proposal, with four voting against it -- Buffalo, Minnesota, Baltimore and Cincinnati. Twenty-four votes were needed to approve the proposal. The league's coaches were said to be overwhelmingly against the measure, but the owners were swayed by the weight of statistics showing that 59.8 percent of the games since 1994 -- when kickoffs were moved back to the 30-yard line -- were won by the team winning the overtime coin toss. Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/03/23/overtime/index.html?eref=BrkNews#ixzz0j1ualuIH Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription **Interesting that Minnesota was one of the four teams do vote against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 ESPN NFL - Mortensen: New OT proposal for playoffs approved (each team gets possession if 1st team kicks FG) I am 100% completely against this. With each passing day the NFL more emphatically states, "offense is more important than defense". Both teams had plenty of chances to win the game before OT, this whole thing is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Annnnnnd beat to the punch... merge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetscanes331 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 They should just go to the college system. They always have to make things so freaking complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jbro22 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 They should just go to the college system. They always have to make things so freaking complicated. This is an even worse idea. Football is about field position and clock management. College football takes both of those out of the equation. It was fine the way it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS17 Posted March 23, 2010 Author Share Posted March 23, 2010 They should just go to the college system. They always have to make things so freaking complicated. The college system is even worse. I think the NFL OT system was fine as it could be. Sudden death, every opportunity to win the game in 60 minutes. If you don't win the toss, man up and play defense to get the ball back. Whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I am 100% completely against this. With each passing day the NFL more emphatically states, "offense is more important than defense". Both teams had plenty of chances to win the game before OT, this whole thing is nonsense. +1 This is a lame and unnecessary gimmick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 They should just go to the college system. They always have to make things so freaking complicated. College overtime sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StraightCash Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jbro22 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 The college system is even worse. I think the NFL OT system was fine as it could be. Sudden death, every opportunity to win the game in 60 minutes. If you don't win the toss, man up and play defense to get the ball back. Whatever... Now thats just asking for too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS17 Posted March 23, 2010 Author Share Posted March 23, 2010 Now thats just asking for too much. God forbid teams have to play defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 i think it's a great idea....and should (and probably will) be used in the regular season eventually as well. each team SHOULD get at least one possession in overtime. i also like the idea of not giving said team possession if their defense goes out and just gives up a TD. the fact that the teams that won the toss won the game 60% of the time is pretty significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 God forbid teams have to play defense. no...but losing a game by holding the team to, say, a long field goal and not even getting a chance on offense is lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetscanes331 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 no...but losing a game by holding the team to, say, a long field goal and not even getting a chance on offense is lame. +1 And the possibility of a game ending in a tie in the regular season? Even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.S. Dylan Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I like this. Winning with a field goal in OT is so cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick34125 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 i like the change too. it's no big deal in the whole context. it just protects a team from losing an important game on a one possession (long) field goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 For all those who like this: how will you like it if the Jets go into OT in the AFC Championship Game, win the toss, kick a FG and then lose because our dead tired defense can't stop Peyton Manning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Monzino Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 For all those who like this: how will you like it if the Jets go into OT in the AFC Championship Game, win the toss, kick a FG and then lose because our dead tired defense can't stop Peyton Manning? How are you going to feel when an aged, worn, bruised and battered Peyton Manning wins the OT coin toss but can only muster a field goal drive, and then fresh legs Sanchez gets the ball back and throws a touchdown pass to Dustin Keller across the middle for a touchdown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick34125 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 For all those who like this: how will you like it if the Jets go into OT in the AFC Championship Game, win the toss, kick a FG and then lose because our dead tired defense can't stop Peyton Manning? For all those who don't like this: how will you like it if the jets go into OT in the AFC Championship Game, lose the toss, have Peyton Manning slash our tired defense yet hold him to a field goal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 College overtime sucks. Sure does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoping4ASuperBowl Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 +1 And the possibility of a game ending in a tie in the regular season? Even worse. Just ask McNabb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 If the problem is the 60/40 split that began when they moved the kickoffs back, then why not move kickoffs to the 35 yard line in OT in the playoffs (or in all OT games) instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 For all those who like this: how will you like it if the Jets go into OT in the AFC Championship Game, win the toss, kick a FG and then lose because our dead tired defense can't stop Peyton Manning? So, whats the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoping4ASuperBowl Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Sure does. I have to agree. It's a simple coin toss, if you lost the toss, get the ball back. The games are long enough as is, now we gotta add at least another hour just for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 do a QB skills compettion hang a tire 30 yards down field, first QB to throw one through it wins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoping4ASuperBowl Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 do a QB skills compettion hang a tire 30 yards down field, first QB to throw one through it wins on their knees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Dumb. Retarded. Stupid. Thanks for further ruining the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barton Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 There's 2 sides to the game. Forcing teams to use both makes more sense. If this had been the way for 40 years and now it was switched to sudden death, you'd all be whining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 For all those who like this: how will you like it if the Jets go into OT in the AFC Championship Game, win the toss, kick a FG and then lose because our dead tired defense can't stop Peyton Manning? Which I can guarantee you WILL happen. This rule hurts the current Jets, big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Bit Special Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 the fact that the teams that won the toss won the game 60% of the time is pretty significant. This "fact" isnt entirely correct. The team who won the coin toss only won on the first possession 35% of the time. 65% of the time both teams had a shot to win. http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d817068a6&template=null&confirm=true Q. Rich, again on the overtime. On the 59.8% and the other number, is that teams that win the coin toss winning on their first possession? RICH McKAY: No, that's winning the game. Q. Winning the game? RICH McKAY: That's correct. The winning on their first possession number is now, in what I'll call the second era, which is '94 to 2009, that number is now 34.4%. Before '93, that number was 25.4%. Q. And do you have a number on how many of those were won by field goals? RICH McKAY: Yeah. Hold it. I've got numbers for everything. On the first possession, those field goals are 26.2% of the time people win on the first drive with the field goal. Q. That's since '94? RICH McKAY: That's correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.S. Dylan Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I have a question... if one team drives down and kicks a fg and then the other team does.. does it go back and forth until someone scores a TD? I think losing on a field goal in OT is bull**** and that's why I like this rule, especially in a big game. It would force a team to play for a score and not for a ***** field goal. I couldn't stand the Pats winning those sb's on fgs.. very frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Bit Special Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I am not a fan of this new rule. It fixes a problem that never existed. If its all about fairness, why arent both teams awarded the ball if a TD is scored? I thought people wanted things to be "fair"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Bit Special Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I have a question... if one team drives down and kicks a fg and then the other team does.. does it go back and forth until someone scores a TD? If both teams kick a FG, the next score wins no matter what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.S. Dylan Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 If both teams kick a FG, the next score wins no matter what it is. Okay that will save a two hour overtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Bit Special Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I think losing on a field goal in OT is bull**** and that's why I like this rule, especially in a big game. It would force a team to play for a score and not for a ***** field goal. I couldn't stand the Pats winning those sb's on fgs.. very frustrating. what about a FG to end a game at the end of the 4th quarter? Is that bull****? If its bull**** in OT, then its bull**** in regulation. I'll settle for each team requiring a possession in OT. That makes sense. Ending a game on a TD on the first possession is somehow better than kicking a FG? Im ok with doing away with the coin toss and giving the home team the right to choose ball or kick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.