PDA

View Full Version : The matter of rules and overtime in the NFL



HardlinerKC
03-20-2009, 04:58 PM
An ongoing discussion with arguments presented often on both sides of the issue. I'll tell you something, Steel fans, we need some alteration of the current rules on this matter but, having said that, feel I'm already in the minority. Especially when you see my proposal to follow toward the end of my dissertation on this topic. Indulge me for a few moments, okay?

When the NFL owners hold their annual March meetings next week in southern California, they will not have before them a proposal from the league’s Competition Committee on changes in overtime rules.

Let’s hope the owners simply go ahead and make the changes themselves.

“We think it still achieves its major goal, which is it breaks ties,” said Rich McKay, the co-chairman of the competition committee which just finished up meetings in Florida to consider possible changes to rules and regulations. “There’s just not enough support at this time to change it.”

The pro game does not need many changes; it’s a pretty well regulated game these days. But one area that needs change is overtime. After playing four quarters without deciding a winner, the current rules allow the situation where only one team could get a chance to win the game.

It would be a very simple alteration. If a team scores on the first possession of the extra period, the opposing team should be given a chance to score. If they tie the score, then the teams revert to the old rules of the next score wins the game. If the second team counters an opening possession field goal with a touchdown, then the second team wins. If the second team doesn’t score, the game is over.

The extra period was added in the NFL regular season in 1974. Since then there have been 432 overtime games played. Overall, 53.7 percent of those games were won by the team that won the toss in overtime. And overall, 30.1 percent of the time the team that won the toss drove for the winning score on that first possession.

But in recent years those numbers have been changing. For instance, in the 15 overtime games during the 2008 season, the team that won the toss got the victory 66.7 percent of the time and they won on the first possession 46.7 percent of the time.

The changes are being driven by kickers, what with the kickoff line moved back to the 30-yard line and NFL kickers continually improving their FG percentage. Teams getting the overtime kickoff start with better field position than they did years ago and their kickers are strong and consistent enough to drill home the field goals without giving the opponent a chance with the ball.

NFL players support maintaining the current system because they are concerned about the potential for injuries from extra playing time should a new format be adopted.

Given the current labor climate in the NFL, the fact the players are against a change may drive the owners to step up and alter the rules anyway.

There is an unfair quality about the rule and it should be changed. Both teams should have at least one chance to score. Okay, back to the volatile opening statement I made on this topic and another solution for this issue:

As we know, the vast majority of NFL overtime games are decided by a FG anyway, so why not borrow a page from MLS and have the Kickers take 5 shots from the 50 yard line with the team hitting the most, wins. WINS. Save the wear and tear on the players! If it's still tied at the conclusion of 5 kicks for each team, then go to a one-on-one format with the first kicker that misses after the other converts to decide the winner.

Again, and let this fact sink in: MOST OVERTIME GAMES ARE DECIDED BY A FG ANYWAY!!! Your thoughts?

feltdizz
03-20-2009, 05:34 PM
straight bull####

if the NFL's beloved Peyton Manning had a chance to play in their OT loss then this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

But in recent years those numbers have been changing. For instance, in the 15 overtime games during the 2008 season, the team that won the toss got the victory 66.7 percent of the time and they won on the first possession 46.7 percent of the time.

this makes no sense IMO.. if they won on the first possession under 47 percent of the time then what is the point of changing the rule?

stlrz d
03-20-2009, 06:13 PM
straight bull####

if the NFL's beloved Peyton Manning had a chance to play in their OT loss then this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

But in recent years those numbers have been changing. For instance, in the 15 overtime games during the 2008 season, the team that won the toss got the victory 66.7 percent of the time and they won on the first possession 46.7 percent of the time.

this makes no sense IMO.. if they won on the first possession under 47 percent of the time then what is the point of changing the rule?

I disagree with you. It is a big deal because it happened in the playoffs. Members of the media who are opposed to the current rule simply use Manning since it happened when his team was playing.

Hardliner, I agree it should change but I don't like your solution. However, I have no solution of my own. :oops:

feltdizz
03-20-2009, 06:27 PM
straight bull####

if the NFL's beloved Peyton Manning had a chance to play in their OT loss then this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

But in recent years those numbers have been changing. For instance, in the 15 overtime games during the 2008 season, the team that won the toss got the victory 66.7 percent of the time and they won on the first possession 46.7 percent of the time.

this makes no sense IMO.. if they won on the first possession under 47 percent of the time then what is the point of changing the rule?

I disagree with you. It is a big deal because it happened in the playoffs. Members of the media who are opposed to the current rule simply use Manning since it happened when his team was playing.

Hardliner, I agree it should change but I don't like your solution. However, I have no solution of my own. :oops:

was that the first OT game in playoff history?
if Peyton got the ball first and won would this be an issue?

it's only because the media darling didn't get a chance to quick hike another TD on SD..

if the team who got the flip scored on the first possession 47% of the time.. then what is the problem? It means the other team got the ball once 53% of the time..

sure it shows the team usually wins 66% of the time.. but it also shows the other team got a possession.

if it wasn't Manning we wouldn't be hearing about it plain and simple.. do you really think the media would talk about how unfair it was Rivers didn't get a chance to touch the ball with an 8-8 team?

stlrz d
03-20-2009, 06:48 PM
Again I disagree. Manning is a big name so people who want the OT rules changed use his name to state their case.

I don't recall the last time a playoff game went to OT and only one team touched the ball, but I'm sure there was just as much pub about it then as there is now.


I'm not just singling you out...I really, really have a STRONG dislike for any NFL conspiracy BS of any kind.

D Rock
03-20-2009, 07:32 PM
straight bull####

if the NFL's beloved Peyton Manning had a chance to play in their OT loss then this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

But in recent years those numbers have been changing. For instance, in the 15 overtime games during the 2008 season, the team that won the toss got the victory 66.7 percent of the time and they won on the first possession 46.7 percent of the time.

this makes no sense IMO.. if they won on the first possession under 47 percent of the time then what is the point of changing the rule?

exactly. The other team got a chance to win over half of the time. No need for a change.

Discipline of Steel
03-20-2009, 10:42 PM
I think the current rules make teams consider their in-game moves more carefully if they dont want to go to overtime. The only change I would make is that the team that came from behind to tie would have to kick off in the overtime. Maybe they would have more incentive to go for the win if they knew that. If OT was 0-0 (ever happen?) then a coin flip would have to work.

papillon
03-20-2009, 11:25 PM
Two solutions for me:

Either leave the game a tie or
Play another complete quarter.

Anything else is not really deciding the game by playing football. I hate the current OT rules even more than I hate ties; I'd rather the teams just have a tie than the current OT rules. They might as well just send the kickers out and just determine the winner by the coin flip, it's a 50-50 proposition.

Unfortunately, in such a physical game continuing to play really isn't an option, but it would be my favorite. All things would be even just like in the first 60 minutes.

Pappy

SteelerNation1
03-21-2009, 01:11 AM
As soon as a sb goes to ot, the rule will change. Mark it down

frankthetank1
03-21-2009, 10:21 AM
As soon as a sb goes to ot, the rule will change. Mark it down

i agree, that would definetly bring a rule change. one thing is certain there should never be any ties in an nfl game or any other sport.

HardlinerKC
03-21-2009, 01:56 PM
Good to see no one has a strong opinion on this topic. :lol: :lol:

I think the owners will leave the game as it is now, but that doesn't make it right. We're talking the fatigue and injury factor that will be addressed in other upcoming rules changes at the meetings but not the downside of a violent game and its participants being asked to play up to another quarter of a game prone to injuries, especially for overworked and tired players?

For now, I'd settle for an OT game having to be decided by more than 3 points but even that puts many tired players in harm's way of significant injuries. I suppose the catchphrase of this entire topic will be, "To be continued".

Northern_Blitz
03-21-2009, 03:43 PM
There is no need to change the OT format.

Stats show that your chance of winning is about the same whether or not you win the toss.

Defence is part of a football team too. If you D can't stop someone in OT, I'm OK with your O not getting a chance. If you put all your cap money on one side of the ball and sacrifice balance, there should be a penalty for that and I'm OK if you loose in OT (especially in the play-offs).

papillon
03-21-2009, 09:46 PM
There is no need to change the OT format.

Stats show that your chance of winning is about the same whether or not you win the toss.

Defence is part of a football team too. If you D can't stop someone in OT, I'm OK with your O not getting a chance. If you put all your cap money on one side of the ball and sacrifice balance, there should be a penalty for that and I'm OK if you loose in OT (especially in the play-offs).

Defense is part of football, but, they've changed the rules to give the advantage to the offense in an attempt to add scoring to a football game. We saw what good offense can do the even the best defense in the NFL in the Super Bowl.

I still don't see what's wrong with a tie during the regular season and play 15 minute overtimes until one team wins the game during the playoffs and Super Bowl.

Pappy

RuthlessBurgher
03-22-2009, 01:16 AM
Okay, a couple of other suggestions. Keep in mind the following facts:

There are more kickers that are accurate from beyond 50 yards now, so basically if a team is able to get the ball to the opposing team's 35 yard line, they can attempt a game winning FG. Since they moved the kickoff position back to the 30 yard line, there are less and less touchbacks (since the ball needs to travel 70 yards in the air to reach the end zone). And since there are plenty of quality return men in the league, a quality return out to your 35 or 40 yard line would mean that you only have to drive 25-30 yards before you reach FG range. What can we do to prevent this?

Option A: You could make it such that any TD ends the game in a sudden death fashion, but a FG allows the other team to have an offensive possession to either tie or beat you. If they other team also kicked a FG on their possession to tie the game, then standard sudden death rules would take effect. This prevents the decent kick return, then a couple of first downs and a long FG attempt to win from deciding these games. If the team that gets the ball first wants to end the game outright, they have to drive the length of the field for a TD or else risk giving the other team a last chance with the ball to tie or win.

Option B: Keep sudden death but don't kick the ball off to start overtime. If they didn't kickoff and just gave the team the ball at their own, say, 10 yard line to start overtime, would you as a coach take the ball and the chance to drive it 90 yards for a TD or 55 yards for a long FG attempt to win the game before your opponent has a chance to get possession, or would you put your defense out there, hoping that they could stop them, because a 3 and out by your defense would give you excellent field position to win the game. That would put the coach in an interesting decision. Offensive-minded teams like New England and Indy would likely take the ball at their own 10 and go for the long drive. Defensive-minded teams like Pittsburgh and Baltimore would likely put out their defense to come after your QB at the shadow of his own goalline and an awful lot of grass in front of him. What would you do in that situation?

Discipline of Steel
03-22-2009, 09:06 AM
I think college football messes with the 'character' of the game too much in their overtime solution. I would hate to see the NFL resolve ties in any other fashion than playing football by the standard rules. With that said, I dont mind seeing ties in the regular season, if only to avoid the increasing specter of injury. However, if a game needs to be resolved, let the teams duke it out in the usual fashion without changing how they play. Giving a team the initial kickoff in OT (if it really is a true advantage) due to a factor other than a coin flip would certainly change strategy but not the dynamics of the game.

stlrz d
03-22-2009, 10:10 AM
I like option A.

feltdizz
03-22-2009, 10:51 AM
There is no need to change the OT format.

Stats show that your chance of winning is about the same whether or not you win the toss.

Defence is part of a football team too. If you D can't stop someone in OT, I'm OK with your O not getting a chance. If you put all your cap money on one side of the ball and sacrifice balance, there should be a penalty for that and I'm OK if you loose in OT (especially in the play-offs).

Defense is part of football, but, they've changed the rules to give the advantage to the offense in an attempt to add scoring to a football game. We saw what good offense can do the even the best defense in the NFL in the Super Bowl.

I still don't see what's wrong with a tie during the regular season and play 15 minute overtimes until one team wins the game during the playoffs and Super Bowl.

Pappy

but we also saw what a #23 offense could do with 2 minutes left...

I don't like ties...

and regarding FG's.. when the game is on the line we have seen FG kickers miss from 35 yards...

I like the formula the way it is.. and I agree... D is part of the team just like the O.. spend wisely...