PDA

View Full Version : Owners Pass New Overtime Rules for Playoffs



SteelBucks
03-23-2010, 05:08 PM
New postseason overtime rules

Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner.

If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball. If [that team] scores a touchdown on its possession, it is the winner. If the score is tied after [both teams have a] possession, the team next scoring by any method shall be the winner.

If the score is tied at the end of a 15-minute overtime period, or if [the overtime period's] initial possession has not ended, another overtime period will begin, and play will continue until a score is made, regardless of how many 15-minute periods are necessary.

feltdizz
03-23-2010, 08:00 PM
So after Peyton Manning gets the ball first and drives down for a perceived game winning FG then lose when the Colts D gives up a TD because of the new rules I bet you we go right back to the old rules. LOL...

stlrz d
03-23-2010, 10:11 PM
So after Peyton Manning gets the ball first and drives down for a perceived game winning FG then lose when the Colts D gives up a TD because of the new rules I bet you we go right back to the old rules. LOL...

People have been complaining about the OT rules long before Manning ever came into the league.

NorthCoast
03-23-2010, 10:50 PM
A recent analysis by economist Richard E. Hawkins of Pennsylvania State University in DuBois confirms that these differences are statistically significant.

"The analysis finds with 99.99 % certainty that the [coin] flip has made a difference in the outcome of the game over the last 10 years," he concludes. "But for the period prior to those 10 years, the coin flip cannot be shown to be important."

Why the difference?

Interestingly, the cumulative data hide the effect of a rule change that occurred in 1994, when kickoffs were moved back 5 yards to the 30-yard line. Since 1994, nearly one-third of overtime games have been won on the first possession by the team that received the ball first. In the first 20 seasons, under the old rule, slightly more than one-quarter of the games were won in this fashion.

Further analysis by Hawkins suggests that the first-to-six rule will reduce the first possession effect but will also result in more potential ties.

This article suggests moving the kick-off back by 5 yds will reduce the first possession winner effect:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/02/why-nfl-overtime-needs-to-change.html

NorthCoast
03-23-2010, 10:56 PM
It is also interesting to mention that the coin-toss winner does not necessarily mean they won without the other team possessing the ball. If fact in OT games over a 20 yr span approximately 72% of the games had both sides possessing the ball.

Also I don't have the stats handy but it would be interesting to know what % of OT games were won with a field goal on the first possession.

stlrz d
03-23-2010, 11:08 PM
A recent analysis by economist Richard E. Hawkins of Pennsylvania State University in DuBois confirms that these differences are statistically significant.

"The analysis finds with 99.99 % certainty that the [coin] flip has made a difference in the outcome of the game over the last 10 years," he concludes. "But for the period prior to those 10 years, the coin flip cannot be shown to be important."

Why the difference?

Interestingly, the cumulative data hide the effect of a rule change that occurred in 1994, when kickoffs were moved back 5 yards to the 30-yard line. Since 1994, nearly one-third of overtime games have been won on the first possession by the team that received the ball first. In the first 20 seasons, under the old rule, slightly more than one-quarter of the games were won in this fashion.

Further analysis by Hawkins suggests that the first-to-six rule will reduce the first possession effect but will also result in more potential ties.

This article suggests moving the kick-off back by 5 yds will reduce the first possession winner effect:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/02/why-nfl-overtime-needs-to-change.html

The rule change is for the playoffs only. There will be no ties...someone has to win in order to advance.

feltdizz
03-23-2010, 11:58 PM
So after Peyton Manning gets the ball first and drives down for a perceived game winning FG then lose when the Colts D gives up a TD because of the new rules I bet you we go right back to the old rules. LOL...

People have been complaining about the OT rules long before Manning ever came into the league.

Talking about it for 20 years but changed it 2 years after Manning was knocked out without a touch in San Diego. For weeks all they talked about was the MVP not getting a touch.

I don't like it and I think if Manning loses an OT game due to the new rule we will hear ESPN and all the experts scream about the change.

Doogie36
03-24-2010, 02:48 AM
What we are failing to see is this:

The winner of the coin toss will still win the majority of the games even in overtime. If the Steelers win the toss what will they do??? They along with the majority of the teams, even the COLTS will KICK OFF. They will elect to KICKOFF or if its EXTREMELY WINDY they will elect to TAKE SIDE!!!!!!!!!

Getting the ball 2nd will tell them exactly what they need to do to win the game. All 4 downs can be used vice only 3 for the team getting the ball first. So once again its an unfair advantage to the team winning the coin toss........Doesnt matter what they do to change overtime its always going to be determined by the flip of the coin.

stlrz d
03-24-2010, 07:25 AM
So after Peyton Manning gets the ball first and drives down for a perceived game winning FG then lose when the Colts D gives up a TD because of the new rules I bet you we go right back to the old rules. LOL...

People have been complaining about the OT rules long before Manning ever came into the league.

Talking about it for 20 years but changed it 2 years after Manning was knocked out without a touch in San Diego. For weeks all they talked about was the MVP not getting a touch.

I don't like it and I think if Manning loses an OT game due to the new rule we will hear ESPN and all the experts scream about the change.

Man you just don't get it, do you?

People will use whatever leverage they can to further their argument. The OT rules weren't changed because Manning didn't get to touch the ball. But Manning is a big name so when he doesn't get to touch the ball in OT the people who want the OT rules changed will use his name as LEVERAGE to make their case.

:roll:

steelblood
03-24-2010, 08:09 AM
What we are failing to see is this:

The winner of the coin toss will still win the majority of the games even in overtime. If the Steelers win the toss what will they do??? They along with the majority of the teams, even the COLTS will KICK OFF. They will elect to KICKOFF or if its EXTREMELY WINDY they will elect to TAKE SIDE!!!!!!!!!

Getting the ball 2nd will tell them exactly what they need to do to win the game. All 4 downs can be used vice only 3 for the team getting the ball first. So once again its an unfair advantage to the team winning the coin toss........Doesnt matter what they do to change overtime its always going to be determined by the flip of the coin.

Unless the team that receives the ball scores a TD. Then, it is over. I don't think teams will want to allow that to happen. Most teams will receive.

SteelBucks
03-24-2010, 09:19 AM
What we are failing to see is this:

The winner of the coin toss will still win the majority of the games even in overtime. If the Steelers win the toss what will they do??? They along with the majority of the teams, even the COLTS will KICK OFF. They will elect to KICKOFF or if its EXTREMELY WINDY they will elect to TAKE SIDE!!!!!!!!!

Getting the ball 2nd will tell them exactly what they need to do to win the game. All 4 downs can be used vice only 3 for the team getting the ball first. So once again its an unfair advantage to the team winning the coin toss........Doesnt matter what they do to change overtime its always going to be determined by the flip of the coin.

Unless the team that receives the ball scores a TD. Then, it is over. I don't think teams will want to allow that to happen. Most teams will receive.

:Agree

BURGH86STEEL
03-24-2010, 09:24 AM
I don't know if they will ever get it right. Seems they are heading towards over managing the league on several levels.

JTP53609
03-24-2010, 10:09 AM
my question is, when the heck are they going to have the opening week night games announced and the thanksgiving games too, they said it would be done yesterday but per wikipedia, it says they are delayed, just pick a few games for heavens sake, wiki does say the steelers saints game will be a primetime game just not to open the season....

another question, dan rooney already said no to the saints steelers opener because that would mean we would be on the road for 3 straight weeks to open the season bc of the pirates, my quesition is, why not have a primetime game on week 2 or 3 if that is the case, we usually seem to get 2 primetimes to open the first month of the season anyway..

RuthlessBurgher
03-24-2010, 10:10 AM
So after Peyton Manning gets the ball first and drives down for a perceived game winning FG then lose when the Colts D gives up a TD because of the new rules I bet you we go right back to the old rules. LOL...

People have been complaining about the OT rules long before Manning ever came into the league.

Talking about it for 20 years but changed it 2 years after Manning was knocked out without a touch in San Diego. For weeks all they talked about was the MVP not getting a touch.

I don't like it and I think if Manning loses an OT game due to the new rule we will hear ESPN and all the experts scream about the change.

The Colts lost that game because the Chargers scored a TD on the first OT possession. Under these new rules, if that happened, Peyton still would have not touched the ball in OT.

RuthlessBurgher
03-24-2010, 10:13 AM
What we are failing to see is this:

The winner of the coin toss will still win the majority of the games even in overtime. If the Steelers win the toss what will they do??? They along with the majority of the teams, even the COLTS will KICK OFF. They will elect to KICKOFF or if its EXTREMELY WINDY they will elect to TAKE SIDE!!!!!!!!!

Getting the ball 2nd will tell them exactly what they need to do to win the game. All 4 downs can be used vice only 3 for the team getting the ball first. So once again its an unfair advantage to the team winning the coin toss........Doesnt matter what they do to change overtime its always going to be determined by the flip of the coin.

A touchdown wins the game no matter what, and the Steeler special teams has a propensity for giving up TD returns on kickoffs. There is no way in hell that the Steelers would choose to kickoff in overtime and lose the game on a runback. They (along with every other team not coached by Marty Morhinweg) will choose to receive in OT under these new playoff OT rules.

RuthlessBurgher
03-24-2010, 10:16 AM
A recent analysis by economist Richard E. Hawkins of Pennsylvania State University in DuBois confirms that these differences are statistically significant.

"The analysis finds with 99.99 % certainty that the [coin] flip has made a difference in the outcome of the game over the last 10 years," he concludes. "But for the period prior to those 10 years, the coin flip cannot be shown to be important."

Why the difference?

Interestingly, the cumulative data hide the effect of a rule change that occurred in 1994, when kickoffs were moved back 5 yards to the 30-yard line. Since 1994, nearly one-third of overtime games have been won on the first possession by the team that received the ball first. In the first 20 seasons, under the old rule, slightly more than one-quarter of the games were won in this fashion.

Further analysis by Hawkins suggests that the first-to-six rule will reduce the first possession effect but will also result in more potential ties.

This article suggests moving the kick-off back by 5 yds will reduce the first possession winner effect:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/02/why-nfl-overtime-needs-to-change.html

The rule change is for the playoffs only. There will be no ties...someone has to win in order to advance.

Very true. And why the hell are they calling it "first-to-six" rule in this article? It isn't first to six. Sure, if you score a TD on the first possession, it's over, but you don't need to be the first team to score 6 points in OT in order to win. If the first team kicks a FG and the second team is unable to score...game over...no one needs to get to six. If there is a safety on the first possession...game over...no one needs to get to six.

papillon
03-24-2010, 10:17 AM
Accept ties in the regular season and play a 15 minute quarter in the playoffs and if that should not yield a winner play sudden death from the exact point that the overtime period ended.

Pappy

feltdizz
03-24-2010, 10:35 AM
[quote=feltdizz]So after Peyton Manning gets the ball first and drives down for a perceived game winning FG then lose when the Colts D gives up a TD because of the new rules I bet you we go right back to the old rules. LOL...

People have been complaining about the OT rules long before Manning ever came into the league.

Talking about it for 20 years but changed it 2 years after Manning was knocked out without a touch in San Diego. For weeks all they talked about was the MVP not getting a touch.

I don't like it and I think if Manning loses an OT game due to the new rule we will hear ESPN and all the experts scream about the change.

Man you just don't get it, do you?

People will use whatever leverage they can to further their argument. The OT rules weren't changed because Manning didn't get to touch the ball. But Manning is a big name so when he doesn't get to touch the ball in OT the people who want the OT rules changed will use his name as LEVERAGE to make their case.

:roll:[/quote:3lmpejwm]

it pains you to agree with me...

If Peyton was used as LEVERAGE it implies he was the primary reason the rule was changed.

I know it hurts... but thank you for proving my point. :Cheers

SteelAbility
03-24-2010, 01:15 PM
I like the simple idea of continuing on with the flow of the game for another full quarter and no sudden death. You pick the game up just the same as you would going from the 1st to the 2nd (or 3rd to the 4th). Still tied after that quarter? Keep going. Same format until a quarter ends with a team ahead. But only for the playoffs.

In the regular season I am in favor of just ending with the tie after the 4thQ. After all, there is a "next week" to think about.

Ghost
03-24-2010, 03:44 PM
Hate having different rules for regular season vs. playoffs. How many teams miss the playoffs b/c of one loss (which could come in the old rules). A regular season game the last game of the year where the winner is in and the loser is out is less important than a playoff game?

One set of rules fro the entire season. If it's important enough to fiddle with fro the playoffs then it's importantant enough for week 3.

SteelAbility
03-24-2010, 04:57 PM
Hate having different rules for regular season vs. playoffs. How many teams miss the playoffs b/c of one loss (which could come in the old rules). A regular season game the last game of the year where the winner is in and the loser is out is less important than a playoff game?

One set of rules fro the entire season. If it's important enough to fiddle with fro the playoffs then it's importantant enough for week 3.

But if you allow ties in regular season (as they do now after one quarter of OT), then there has to be differences between regular season and playoffs, since somebody has to advance in the playoffs.

stlrz d
03-24-2010, 07:45 PM
[quote=feltdizz]So after Peyton Manning gets the ball first and drives down for a perceived game winning FG then lose when the Colts D gives up a TD because of the new rules I bet you we go right back to the old rules. LOL...

People have been complaining about the OT rules long before Manning ever came into the league.

Talking about it for 20 years but changed it 2 years after Manning was knocked out without a touch in San Diego. For weeks all they talked about was the MVP not getting a touch.

I don't like it and I think if Manning loses an OT game due to the new rule we will hear ESPN and all the experts scream about the change.

Man you just don't get it, do you?

People will use whatever leverage they can to further their argument. The OT rules weren't changed because Manning didn't get to touch the ball. But Manning is a big name so when he doesn't get to touch the ball in OT the people who want the OT rules changed will use his name as LEVERAGE to make their case.

:roll:

it pains you to agree with me...

If Peyton was used as LEVERAGE it implies he was the primary reason the rule was changed.

I know it hurts... but thank you for proving my point. :Cheers[/quote:3savomyj]

It doesn't pain me because I don't agree with you and your conspiracy theories. "Leverage" as in "attention".

Putting Manning's name in something that has been on-going since before he was even in the league merely brings attention to it...or so the people who use his name believe anyway.

It's really a very simple debate tactic and I'd think a simple mind would have no trouble grasping that simple concept.

Ghost
03-24-2010, 08:14 PM
Hate having different rules for regular season vs. playoffs. How many teams miss the playoffs b/c of one loss (which could come in the old rules). A regular season game the last game of the year where the winner is in and the loser is out is less important than a playoff game?

One set of rules fro the entire season. If it's important enough to fiddle with fro the playoffs then it's importantant enough for week 3.

But if you allow ties in regular season (as they do now after one quarter of OT), then there has to be differences between regular season and playoffs, since somebody has to advance in the playoffs.

The only difference should be a playoff must have a winner, obviously. But completely different ruls on how to get a winner - keeping the old way for regular season and then a completely different way for the playoffs sucks.

Ghost
03-24-2010, 08:16 PM
Not sure why anyone would use Manning as the conspiracy theory. If anything they should name this new rule the Farve rule - the NFL changed the rule because he didn't get to touch the ball against New Orleans. All the NFL d!ck sucking of Farve led to the change. It's so obvious....

stlrz d
03-24-2010, 09:30 PM
Not sure why anyone would use Manning as the conspiracy theory. If anything they should name this new rule the Farve rule - the NFL changed the rule because he didn't get to touch the ball against New Orleans. All the NFL d!ck sucking of Farve led to the change. It's so obvious....

The argument against the NFL OT rules have been going on long before Favre became the darling of the NFL.

Ghost
03-25-2010, 08:10 AM
Not sure why anyone would use Manning as the conspiracy theory. If anything they should name this new rule the Farve rule - the NFL changed the rule because he didn't get to touch the ball against New Orleans. All the NFL d!ck sucking of Farve led to the change. It's so obvious....

The argument against the NFL OT rules have been going on long before Favre became the darling of the NFL.

You're not good with sarcasm....

stlrz d
03-25-2010, 08:23 AM
Not sure why anyone would use Manning as the conspiracy theory. If anything they should name this new rule the Farve rule - the NFL changed the rule because he didn't get to touch the ball against New Orleans. All the NFL d!ck sucking of Farve led to the change. It's so obvious....

The argument against the NFL OT rules have been going on long before Favre became the darling of the NFL.

You're not good with sarcasm....

Usually sarcasm is indicated by :roll: or since one can't "hear" another's tone (or see facial expressions) on a message board. :)

feltdizz
03-25-2010, 10:11 AM
Not sure why anyone would use Manning as the conspiracy theory. If anything they should name this new rule the Farve rule - the NFL changed the rule because he didn't get to touch the ball against New Orleans. All the NFL d!ck sucking of Farve led to the change. It's so obvious....

I use Manning because ESPN analyst were crying for 3 weeks about the MVP not touching the ball in San Diego. Regardless StlrzD needs to lighten up... I thought a LOL would show sarcasm but the eye roll, it's the eye roll.

he does agree with me but needs words like attention and leverage added to make it pure and right. I wonder why the DB rules were relaxed after the Colts WR's were manhandled by the Pats? Conspiracy? I roll.....

RuthlessBurgher
03-25-2010, 10:22 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again...why in the world would anyone use the "Peyton Manning never touched the ball against the Chargers in the playoffs" argument to help pass this rule change? In that game, the Chargers scored a TD on the opening drive of OT. Under this new rule, that would still end the game, and Peyton still would not have touched the ball in OT. This only prevents a FG on the opening drive of OT from winning the game. A TD on the opening drive is an automatic game-winner.

JTP53609
03-25-2010, 10:33 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again...why in the world would anyone use the "Peyton Manning never touched the ball against the Chargers in the playoffs" argument to help pass this rule change? In that game, the Chargers scored a TD on the opening drive of OT. Under this new rule, that would still end the game, and Peyton still would not have touched the ball in OT. This only prevents a FG on the opening drive of OT from winning the game. A TD on the opening drive is an automatic game-winner.

and as it should be, if you give up a touchdown in OT on the opening drive, than you deserve not to win....
If I remember right, the vikings had 2 maybe 3 chances to get off the field in OT last year in the nfc championship. I remember 2 third and longs and one was like a third and 12 or something and the vikings did not stop it, not to mention they had a chance to win the game in the closing minute, they did not lose the game bc of overtime...

Sugar
03-25-2010, 12:25 PM
:nono They should have just left it alone. The rules were fine as they were.

cruzer8
03-25-2010, 12:52 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again...why in the world would anyone use the "Peyton Manning never touched the ball against the Chargers in the playoffs" argument to help pass this rule change? In that game, the Chargers scored a TD on the opening drive of OT. Under this new rule, that would still end the game, and Peyton still would not have touched the ball in OT. This only prevents a FG on the opening drive of OT from winning the game. A TD on the opening drive is an automatic game-winner.

Because they're stupid?