PDA

View Full Version : NFL to examine 2 possessions in playoffs OT



hawaiiansteel
03-18-2010, 01:29 AM
NFL to examine 2 possessions in playoffs OT

By The Associated Press Thursday, March 18, 2010



NEW YORK — NFL owners will vote next week whether to allow each team a possession in overtime in the playoffs if the team winning the OT coin toss kicks a field goal on the first series.

Previously, the game would end whenever either side scores, as happened in the NFC championship game in January, with New Orleans beating Minnesota on Garrett Hartley's kick. But NFL competition committee chairman Rich McKay says a trend has developed showing too strong an advantage for teams winning the coin toss to start overtime.

If the team that falls behind by three points on the first series also kicks a field goal, then the game would continue under current sudden death rules.

The proposal is only for the postseason.

"Statistically, it is pretty clear there has been a change," McKay said. "When sudden death was put in for 1974, it clearly worked very well and was a good system. It brought excitement and effectively broke ties. From '74-'93 you had a 50-50 (breakdown) in who would win between those who won toss and who lost the toss.

"Changes occurred over time, and the numbers have changed to 59.8 percent winning the coin toss and winning the game. The team that loses the coin toss wins 38.5 percent.

"We are trying to put in a system that emphasizes more skill and strategy as opposed to the randomness of the coin flip."

McKay credited the advancements in field goal accuracy and skills of return teams for the hefty switch in statistics. The competition committee found that since 1994, when the kickoff was moved back 5 yards to the 30, teams winning the OT coin toss won 34.4 percent of the games on the first series. They kicked field goals 26.2 percent of those times, an increase from 17.9 percent in 15 years.

"I would say this is something that's been on our radar for a number of years and been talked about a lot," he said. "In the last four or five years, we have not proposed anything because we thought if there weren't enough votes (among the 32 owners), we should not propose it. This year, the statistics are so compelling we need to get the discussion going."

Rest assured there will be plenty of discussion; 24 votes are needed to adopt the change.

"Overtime, since 1958, has had ... the first team that scores, wins," said Redskins general manager Bruce Allen. I like the 1958 rules better" than the proposal.

The players union strongly has supported the current overtime setup because it fears another system could lead to more injuries. McKay said the competition committee has "not spent a lot of time with them" on this proposal, but will make the players association aware of the recommendation.

Questions have been raised whether altering overtime is something that must be collectively bargained with the union, but the league says it would simply be a rule change the NFL can enact unilaterally.

Another recommendation to the owners, who will hold their meetings in Orlando, Fla., beginning Sunday, centers on expanding protection for defenseless players, most notably receivers. McKay said a recent rule change helped, but there are cases where receivers already have made a catch and still are defenseless when they get hit in the head area.

The proposal will offer those players protection from hits to the head until after the catch is made and the receiver has an opportunity to protect himself.

papillon
03-18-2010, 08:58 AM
It's the playoffs why not play a 15 minute overtime period? They should eliminate the overtime from regular season games and play a full 15 minutes continuing from the exact point that the game ended in the playoffs.

NFL overtime sucks no matter how you play it, unless you play an entire quarter.

Pappy

RuthlessBurgher
03-18-2010, 11:42 AM
This topic came up about 3 weeks ago:

http://www.planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10693&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=overtime

hawaiiansteel
03-18-2010, 03:01 PM
It's the playoffs why not play a 15 minute overtime period? They should eliminate the overtime from regular season games and play a full 15 minutes continuing from the exact point that the game ended in the playoffs.

NFL overtime sucks no matter how you play it, unless you play an entire quarter.

Pappy




:Agree


however, the players' union is strongly against a 15 minute overtime period because it may cause more injuries...players are more tired, players have to play longer and should get compensated for doing so, etc.

hawaiiansteel
03-19-2010, 12:09 AM
from steelershotline.com


The owner’s meetings will begin next week and there are several big-time topics on the table. Perhaps the most vital one is dealing with overtime as it now stands. However, the owners will also continue to discuss more changes to make the game safer. Safer according to the owners but for some players, it is just a continuation of making the game weaker. Some of those players are Hines Ward and Ryan Clark. Last year, the NFL came up with the “Hines Ward rule” after #86 ended Cincinnati’s Keith Rivers’ season the year before with a lethal hit. We all know how big a hitter Ryan Clark is and now the owners are not liking his style of blasting out opponents and word is they will use Clark’s style as an example for needed improvements for safety. The President of the Atlanta Falcons, Rich McKay, spoke to the issue as well as changing overtime prior to the convening of the meetings next week:

“One thing we've done is propose that we would give additional protection to the receiver even after the receiver has caught the ball. That's always been a pretty tight line for us. In this instance, we're going to try to expand that line and give him protection until he has an opportunity to defend himself from hits to the head by defenders launching upwards towards his head. Statistically, it is pretty clear there has been a change. When sudden death was put in for 1974, it clearly worked very well and was a good system. It brought excitement and effectively broke ties. From '74-'93 you had a 50-50 breakdown in who would win between those who won toss and who lost the toss. Changes occurred over time, and the numbers have changed to 59.8 percent winning the coin toss and winning the game. The team that loses the coin toss wins 38.5 percent. We are trying to put in a system that emphasizes more skill and strategy as opposed to the randomness of the coin flip. I would say this is something that's been on our radar for a number of years and been talked about a lot. In the last four or five years, we have not proposed anything because we thought if there weren't enough votes among the 32 owners, we should not propose it. This year, the statistics are so compelling we need to get the discussion going. We want to protect the snappers more on the field-goal tries. We're going to propose that no one can line up within the frame of the body of the snapper to try to give him an opportunity to get his head up and get himself protected. We'll propose a rule that creates the ball being dead if a runner loses or has his helmet come off during a play, which is a college rule they've had and used.”

For any changes to take place, 24 owners must agree.

Discipline of Steel
03-19-2010, 07:16 AM
Another recommendation to the owners, who will hold their meetings in Orlando, Fla., beginning Sunday, centers on expanding protection for defenseless players, most notably receivers. McKay said a recent rule change helped, but there are cases where receivers already have made a catch and still are defenseless when they get hit in the head area.

The proposal will offer those players protection from hits to the head until after the catch is made and the receiver has an opportunity to protect himself.

I hate this. If you are on the field, pay attention and dont expect the refs to protect you. This just promotes more wussy behavior such as calling for flags.

papillon
03-19-2010, 09:43 AM
They're going to ruin the game by making it too easy for the offense. It is already beginning to resemble Canadian football because of all the passing. I find it hard to believe that the majority of football fans want to see more offense and less defense. I don't want the 70s again where the defenses dominated (although, the memories are fond), but it's getting to be ridiculously easy for an offense to move the ball.

I'm already to the point that I can't watch a complete football game unless the Steelers are playing or its the playoffs.

Pappy

hawaiiansteel
03-19-2010, 02:41 PM
They're going to ruin the game by making it too easy for the offense. It is already beginning to resemble Canadian football because of all the passing. I find it hard to believe that the majority of football fans want to see more offense and less defense. I don't want the 70s again where the defenses dominated (although, the memories are fond), but it's getting to be ridiculously easy for an offense to move the ball.

I'm already to the point that I can't watch a complete football game unless the Steelers are playing or its the playoffs.

Pappy


here is Rooney's take on the safety and overtime issues:



Safety changes: “I think it's something we need to continue to look at. There are areas we can do better in. By the same token, I'm not sure we need dramatic changes at this point. Hopefully, we're talking more about little tweaks to the rules rather than major changes.”

Overtime: “We've been for a change in the rule since we first started discussing it a few years ago. I guess I'm happy it's on the agenda. I'm not sure I'm excited what the proposal is. It sounds to me like they may be making it more complicated than necessary.”

hawaiiansteel
03-20-2010, 02:27 PM
Jeff Fisher makes his case for modified overtime

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 20, 2010


Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher is the co-chairman of the NFL's Competition Committee, and he says his support for the new "modified sudden death" overtime proposal is quite simple.

"What we don't want to have happen in the playoffs is a kickoff return, and then a penalty and a field goal, and have the game be over," Fisher said in an interview at NFL.com.

Fisher says the proposed change to overtime won't take away any of the excitement of sudden death because a team still has the opportunity to win with a touchdown on its first possession. But it also assures the team that loses the coin toss that it will get the ball if it can hold its opponent to a field goal.

"What we're proposing has sudden-death qualities throughout it, even at the beginning," Fisher said. "Bottom line is that each team will have an opportunity to possess -- doesn't guarantee a possession."

The proposed new rule, which would apply only to playoff games, will be voted on by the owners at a meeting next week.

spyboots
03-20-2010, 04:28 PM
Teams that don't have good defenses are probably the ones who'll vote yes (and also the teams with someone who can run back a TD on the kickoff).

hawaiiansteel
03-21-2010, 09:01 PM
i agree with Bill Polian on this one -


Stats changed Polian's mind on overtime rules

Posted by Mike Florio on March 21, 2010


Colts president Bill Polian has a reputation for using his position on the Competition Committee to push rule changes aimed at assisting his team in some way. When it comes to the proposed changes to the postseason overtime rules, Polian supports an approach that would have resulted in the same outcome to the game that ended Tony Dungy's coaching career.

In a 2008 wild-card playoff against San Diego, the Chargers drove for a touchdown on the first drive of overtime, preventing Colts quarterback Peyton Manning from ever getting a crack at the ball. Under the new proposal, which recently was passed by the Competition Committee, the Colts would have gotten a chance to score only if the Chargers had settled for a field goal -- or if they had failed to score at all.

Regardless, Polian supports the move, according to Albert Breer of the Boston Globe.

"No matter where you came down on the subject," Polian said, "whether you were a pure two-possession guy or a status quo guy, as I was going in, when you saw the statistics broken down from 1994-2009, and you saw the team winning the toss winning 60 percent of the time, and then you saw the accuracy of field-goal kickers, both in distance and accuracy over that period of time, it's obvious that it's game that from 1994 on is very different than what we had prior to 1994," he said. "[Before that], essentially, there was no difference between team winning the toss and losing it."

As Competition Committee co-chair Rich McKay pointed out during a Wednesday conference call, the increase in first-drive field goals traces to the movement of the kickoff point from the 35 to the 30.

But what about the knee-jerk "just play defense" opposition to changing the current procedure?

"This rule allows the defense to play defense, because if you hold them to a field goal, you've got a shot," Polian said. "So it does allow you to play defense -- it actually forces you to play defense. As opposed to long kickoff return, first down, no yardage; second down, short yardage; third down, long pass, pass interference; field goal, game over. This forces you to play defense. If you can't play defense, you're going to get scored upon."

Polian also explained that the change is being considered for the postseason only because the NFLPA is opposed to extending games.

"We listened to the players a great deal. There was a concern [about lengthening games], and we recognized it," Polian said.

NKySteeler
03-21-2010, 09:32 PM
here is Rooney's take on the safety and overtime issues:

Safety changes: “I think it's something we need to continue to look at. There are areas we can do better in. By the same token, I'm not sure we need dramatic changes at this point. Hopefully, we're talking more about little tweaks to the rules rather than major changes.”

Overtime: “We've been for a change in the rule since we first started discussing it a few years ago. I guess I'm happy it's on the agenda. I'm not sure I'm excited what the proposal is. It sounds to me like they may be making it more complicated than necessary.”

Really?.... Where and when did he say this?... I might'a missed it.... Not doubting it whatsoever, but how about posting a link for a change?.... That way we all could see what you are stating as truth..... Sorta adds credibility to the incessant article posting when a source is listed with a link.... LoL! ... Not that it matters.

hawaiiansteel
03-22-2010, 02:15 PM
here is Rooney's take on the safety and overtime issues:

Safety changes: “I think it's something we need to continue to look at. There are areas we can do better in. By the same token, I'm not sure we need dramatic changes at this point. Hopefully, we're talking more about little tweaks to the rules rather than major changes.”

Overtime: “We've been for a change in the rule since we first started discussing it a few years ago. I guess I'm happy it's on the agenda. I'm not sure I'm excited what the proposal is. It sounds to me like they may be making it more complicated than necessary.”

Really?.... Where and when did he say this?... I might'a missed it.... Not doubting it whatsoever, but how about posting a link for a change?.... That way we all could see what you are stating as truth..... Sorta adds credibility to the incessant article posting when a source is listed with a link.... LoL! ... Not that it matters.




I will do my best to provide a link from now on, it is my full intention to provide only credible information and to be as professional as possible. :Cheers


NFL | Could wait on deciding new overtime proposal

Mon, 22 Mar 2010


Alex Marvez, of FOXSports.com, reports the NFL is set to vote Wednesday, March 24, upon a change to its overtime format for the postseason. However, there also is the option of tabling the vote until the May owners meetings in Dallas, which would appear likely. Out of seven NFL teams asked about the new overtime rule, only two (Atlanta Falcons and Houston Texans) supported the change. The Cincinnati Bengals and Pittsburgh Steelers seem likely to vote against it, while the New Orleans Saints, Seattle Seahawks and Green Bay Packers were undecided. The New York Jets are also reportedly leaning against any changes. The Minnesota Vikings and Detroit Lions are on the fence while the Indianapolis Colts, New England Patriots and the New York Giants would vote for the measure.



Read more: http://www.kffl.com/hotw/nfl#634021#ixzz0ivisiJQU

hawaiiansteel
03-22-2010, 06:33 PM
McKay comes out against two-possession overtime

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 22, 2010


The NFL's proposed change to playoff overtime will give the team that loses the coin toss a chance of getting the ball if it gives up a field goal on the opening possession. But it won't guarantee each team a possession; if the team that wins the toss can score a touchdown on the first possession, the game ends.

NFL Competition Committee co-chair Rich McKay said today that he opposes a rule that would guarantee a two-possession overtime because he believes maintaining the sudden-death aspect of the ability to win on the opening possession is important.

"The problem with the two-possession rule is it will change the way people play at the end of the game," McKay said. "It would absolutely have an effect. If there's a minute and a half to go, you're at home and you feel good about your team, if you're in a two-possession overtime, you're going to be conservative. Real conservative. Because in the end you feel very comfortable going into overtime. Whereas in a sudden-death format you're not as comfortable, and you're motivated to score. And that's why we all like the sudden death aspect of it. This was the best proposal we could craft that modified it and still kept the major elements of it."

McKay said he's optimistic that the proposal will be adopted because the Competition Committee has demonstrated to the owners the statistics showing how big an advantage winning the coin flip at the start of overtime is.

"A lot of people are very open to talking about it because people do recognize the statistical situation we're in," McKay said. "I hope they recognize that the change we're proposing is not a dramatic change in philosophy. It's still a sudden-death system."

The overtime proposal will apply only to playoff games, and whether the rule is adopted or not, regular-season overtime will be unchanged in 2010. McKay noted that the stakes are higher in the playoffs and as a result the Competition Committee thought it was more important to get overtime right.

"This rule is proposed as postseason only," McKay said. "The reason it was suggested as postseason only is that there were teams that thought, in the regular season you play 16 games, and if a game ends in a tie, you've still got 15 other chances to get to the playoffs. In the postseason you don't."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -overtime/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/22/mckay-comes-out-against-two-possession-overtime/)