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?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by feltdizz
Bookmarks