An NFL spokesman said Saturday the league could change its overtime format for playoff games at a meeting next month.
Under the new format, both teams would get the ball at least once unless the first team to get the ball scores a touchdown, Greg Aiello said. If the first team to get the ball makes a field goal and the other team ties the game, action would continue until a team scores again.
AP
Two questions immediately present themselves:
Why only do this in the playoffs?
How does this lessen the advantage of the receiving team?
Oh, and the kicker quote for all the Brett Favre haters out there:
"The debate about the rules gained steam after the NFC championship game, when New Orleans beat Minnesota 31-28 in overtime and Brett Favre's Vikings never got the ball in the extra period. Under the proposed rule, Minnesota would have gotten another possession because the Vikings didn't allow a touchdown."
almost 2 years ago
John Morgan
62 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Glad to know under the proposed rule
During that game, the Saints would’ve kicked a field goal. Nice, reasonable, presumptuous thinking.
FAVRE!
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
Or, to put it another way.
Let’s say the Saints do kick the field goal. Then the Vikings are forced to either score a touchdown or kick a field goal and give the ball back to the Saints with typical OT rules back in effect.
Knowing how the Vikings played in that game, they probably would've fumbled.
If this does go through can we call this “The Brett Favre OT”? There isn’t really anything wrong with the current OT but I guess they’ll do anything to appease…..Peter King.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
The current over time is broken.
Receiving teams win 60% of the time. Simply moving the kickoff to the 40 yard line would negate most of the advantage, be unobtrusive and not introduce NCAA wackiness.
Unless you're a ballsy coach and would go for the onside kick
Would that just about guarantee a touchback? And on that premise, wouldn’t it be easier to avoid the special teams altogether and start the offense at their own 20?
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
I don't think any team would go for the onside
It fails, and you’ve lost.
by John Morgan on Feb 27, 2010 10:08 PM PST up reply actions
The other solution is to simply continue action into a new quarter, change sides, but not possesion and play with sudden death rules.
by John Morgan on Feb 27, 2010 10:12 PM PST up reply actions
I actually like that idea.
It would make the opening toss so much more importang.
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
Why even have sudden death rules?
Maybe just play a shortened normal quarter, with the winner simply having the most points at the end.
Sudden death rules are exciting, for one
Also, I’m not fond of any rule change that forces fatigued players to play longer than absolutely necessary. That sounds like a recipe for injury.
Only problem with this is the ability to retain possession
substantially changes the dynamics of 4th quarter ball. Like a half-hour 4th quarter. One disincentive to going for the tie is the inability to control whether you retain possession, and teams already go for the tie with some regularity.
The whole issue of OT comes down to the awarding of possession. If a skill could be asserted, to win the possession, rather than a coin flip, equal opportunity possessions could be moot. Some folks may be fixed on possessions, though.
But something like a jump ball or a face-off or hands team scrum of some sort — it would be new and novel and hated, but it would do the job without the convoluted contingencies. Simple. You want first possession, you earn it by going and getting the ball. Sudden death and excitement would be retained.
by jacobstevens on Mar 2, 2010 12:53 PM PST up reply actions
That's exactly what my first question was too
Why only do this in the playoffs?? I think regular season games have enough at stake to merit a consideration as well.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
My thoughts as well.
If the NFL feels this is the best playoff scenario, then it should be applied throughout.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
This doesn't bother me.
They’re easing it in. Playoff games are more important, so it’s kind of contrary to intent, but no matter how great a rule change is, it’s theoretical. It’s going to be experimental and they want to isolate the effects.
by jacobstevens on Mar 2, 2010 12:55 PM PST up reply actions
The NFL irritates me sometimes.
This is stupid.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
The rules should be the same for the regular season and playoffs.
I’ve heard that the players like overtime the way it is now. They don’t need those extra snaps during the season or the playoffs.
This is the NFL....
Not soccer, hockey, basketball, etc.
by SeahawkSammy on Feb 27, 2010 9:48 PM PST up reply actions
Soccer OT (coming from a massive soccer fan)
Irks me. Penalty shootouts are dramatic but they shouldn’t decide a game. I much prefer a sudden death goal in OT and allow extra substitutions. The only thing I can see wrong with it is teams would be totally content with parking the bus in their own goal for 30 minutes.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
Penalty shots are terrible.
An entire game decided by luck.
by John Morgan on Feb 27, 2010 10:16 PM PST up reply actions
Calling the flip of a coin is luck. Making a penalty shot takes a certain amount of skill.
At least both sides have the same opportunity to score. I would like to see the NFL adopt a system similar to college.
by Trojan Knight on Feb 28, 2010 4:11 AM PST up reply actions
You determine the entire outcome of a match based on a peculiar subset of the skills necessary to win otherwise.
That isn’t right. It’s great for television and all that, but it doesn’t make an awful lot of sense.
Also great for Beckham.
But not as much for the rest of us.
by jacobstevens on Mar 2, 2010 12:56 PM PST up reply actions
More so for the goalkeeper than the kicker.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Feb 28, 2010 10:38 AM PST up reply actions
Soccer's OT is ideal by me
Obviously I don’t like penalty shoot-outs. I’m Dutch and for us…well…we were knocked out of back-to-back European/World Cups due to penalty shoot-outs, it’s a bit of a national trauma.
But golden goal is nonsense, and was justifiably removed just as it should be in the NFL. The total game + overtime should be enough time to decide it, and it usually is, if neither team can grab the advantage, then consider penalties as punishment.
by Thomas Beekers on Feb 28, 2010 9:29 AM PST up reply actions
The rules should be changed
The kicker from each team should meet at the 50 yard line and wrestle in the manner of the ancient Greeks. Winner takes all. It wouldn’t be football but it would be legendary.
The Raiders Might Start Doing Better
Janikowski is a monster
I like these rules.
I agree that they should apply to the regular season as well.
by Mind of no mind on Feb 28, 2010 2:56 AM PST reply actions
I'm so glad this is getting taken care of.
Driving for field goal range should not win you the game.
by DrunkAmerican on Feb 28, 2010 3:11 AM PST reply actions
I guess we overglorified Josh Brown's late-game contributions
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Feb 28, 2010 10:39 AM PST up reply actions
Yup, still stupid
If you’re going to make a rule change, why not make it not stupid instead of slightly less stupid?
In other news:
NFL is considering banning the Quarterback Sack because Brett Favre could get a ‘big owie’ and have his consecutive games started streak threatened.
by Misfit74 on Feb 28, 2010 7:59 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Why not 4?
If you can get 2 safeties in overtime, you should win the game.
by Mind of no mind on Feb 28, 2010 8:48 PM PST up reply actions
Eliminate turnovers....
that way the Vikings could keep the ball and win in regulation instead of giving it to the other team 5 times!!!!
Until a team plays a "perfect" game.....
and loses in overtime should anyone even think about changing the way overtime is run.
by SeahawkSammy on Feb 28, 2010 10:06 AM PST up reply actions
Am I the only one that likes college overtimes?
They’ve produced some amazing games. When was the last time you saw a truly exciting NFL overtime? They’re almost always a letdown.
by djafrot on Feb 28, 2010 12:06 PM PST via mobile reply actions
It's arcarde-style football.
I like it because its fun but they place the ball at a spot where you are guaranteed a scoring chance.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
That's the problem that I have with the format.
I like that both teams get the ball, but I don’t like that the ball is placed with practically a guaranteed scoring chance. Put the ball on the 45 or the 50. Otherwise, it’s almost like, why have a defense then?
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Feb 28, 2010 7:22 PM PST up reply actions
The defense still has to try to stop a TD.
Having them start closer to the end zone doesn’t make the defense any less important. RED ZONE defense, yes.
It just makes it quicker.
I get that.
But the defense should be allowed to deny a field goal as well. What I’m saying is that points shouldn’t be a practically guaranteed thing.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 1, 2010 7:31 AM PST up reply actions
Why not?
They’re practically guaranteed over the course of the game. I doubt any defensive player finds it unfair that the offense starts so close to the end zone. In fact, they probably see it as a greater challenge.
I suppose you could just “alternate drives” until one team can’t match up… i.e. instead of starting at the 30, there’s a kickoff.
Oh come on.
I doubt any defensive player finds it unfair that the offense starts so close to the end zone. In fact, they probably see it as a greater challenge.
That’s just corny.
The last exciting NFL OT was Seahawks 24 Giants 21.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
But then you have to have a tie contingency.
same predicament as in the 4th quarter. Allow ties? Sudden death? Equal possessions?
The Rams-Panthers playoff game was a double-OT. We’d still be faced with a problem with no solution.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
