NFL may change OT rules for playoffs

[Auggie]

Associated Press / 02-27-10

INDIANAPOLIS -- 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.

Under the current rules, the first team to score wins.

The competition committee will discuss the new concept with teams and players at league meetings March 21-24 in Orlando, Fla., when it could come to a vote. At least two thirds of the teams would need to agree to the changes for new rules to be adopted.

<snip>

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.

LINK: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4953182

If they really want to be fair, both teams should have an opportunity to a score a TD in overtime. Otherwise, isn't there still too much importance on the luck of the coin flip?

I'll still argue, too, that if a team can't win in four quarters they must accept (what I call) the penalty of playing under sudden death rules. Play to avoid OT, not to welcome it.

[JonLP24]

1. I'm fine with that kind of change

both teams should have an opportunity to a score a TD in overtime. Otherwise, isn't there still too much importance on the luck of the coin flip?

If I'm reading this right the first team that scores a TD wins right? If so then it is more then fair because odds are with a team that has the ball at or around 30 yard line which is a common starting field position is more likely to give the ball to the other team via or punt or kick a FG than score a touchdown.

Personally I would leave things alone. I think (I did the research before, it's posted in the thread about the Vikes-Saints OT game) 15 games went to overtime this season, 5 were won on the first possession, and the team that won the toss won the game 8 times(out of 15).

[Auggie]

2. I'd leave things the way they are too

Yes, the proposal states the first team to score a TD wins. That's not all that different from current rules. I think it would add great excitement to allow the other team a chance to score a TD too.

I don't care for the field goal proposal in determining the winner. Under conservative play, the following scenario could play out: Team A wins the coin toss, moves the ball to Team B's 30, kicks the field goal. Team B does the same. Team A then must kick another field goal to win. Three field goals, game over. Yawn.

[Condem]

4. Totally agree.

Must be getting tips from the BCS.

[wilt the stilt]

3. Makes you love the simplicity of baseball

rules for exrta innings and completion of the game doesn't really change. Both sides get equal chances. Baseball is really a better thought out game. The only real change is the DH and we all know that stinks.

[Auggie]

6. Yeah -- simple. I've heard it called beautiful as well.

[El Supremo]

7. I'll have to throw a yellow flag on your DH opinion.

What? No penalties (not hardly anyway) in baseball? That sucks.

:sarcasm:

[PVnRT]

21. Actually, there are

Balks, catcher interference, etc.

[naaman fletcher]

5. They should do it the way it is done in college.

Much more exciting. Now the coin is the most important determinant of who wins in overtime.

[Captain Hilts]

9. Not as much as we think, but the best kicker is a disproportionate plus for winning. nt

[Captain Hilts]

8. ANYthing is better than the system they have now, which is horribly unfair. nt

[madinmaryland]

10. I haven't really heard the players complaining about sudden death OT.

It's a rule, and that's the way the play the game. PERIOD.

It is the fans and the sports writers/pundits that are whining about sudden death OT.

[Auggie]

11. Excellent observation

[Onceuponalife]

12. There's no reason to change anything.

Stupid idea.

[Renew Deal]

13. They should change it for the entire season

If they're going to change it.

[KamaAina]

14. Oh for Pete's sake

Pierre Thomas, not even the Saints' regular kick returner, ran the kick at the start of OT out to the 39. Then Brees and the offense moved it, barely, into FG range, where Hartley, the goat of the Tampa Bay game which would have clinched home field, actually made an FG to win it.

And NOW they're going to make a special "Saints-Vikings rule"??!! :wtf:

[Awsi Dooger]

15. More evidence that Goodell is a jackass

There's no reason to change anything. As Auggie indicated, once you fail to avoid overtime you have no beef on the rules in place. I thought the American hockey team was disadvantaged by 4 on 4 in overtime due to all the open ice and superiority of Canadians in a free flowing situation. They failed to score a third goal in regulation, so tough silver.

If you change this rule it's going to spill over to the end of regulation. That's what no one seems to grasp. A heavy favorite can conservatively play for overtime if it knows it can't be bested by a quick FG in overtime.

Minnesota did get a chance at the ball in overtime against the Saints. They dropped an easy interception on a tipped ball. Two weeks earlier the Cardinals got their hands on an Aaron Rodgers pass and waltzed into the end zone.

This proposal hardly eliminates inequities. Let's say the team with first possession is in FG range but knows that won't end the game. So it forces a pass and turns the ball over. If I'm reading this correctly, then the second team merely needs a FG to win the game. What kind of idiocy is that? That scenario essentially rewards a team for making one big play and then advancing to FG range. We already have that.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. They Should Leave The Rule As Is

This is a solution in search of a problem. The number of games this actually affects is so small as to be irrelevant.

I like your take: The penalty of not winning in regulation is to take the chance of losing the coin flip.
GAC

[joeybee12]

17. Great, now NFL O/T games can last a whole week like college ones! n/t

[hughee99]

18. I can't ever recall watching an NFL overtime playoff game

wishing it would just end. Having said that, I don't see a problem with the current system. Half the game is defense, if you lose the coin toss and your defense can't make a stop, you should lose.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. What Hughee Said!

I've been saying the same thing. Geez, lots of people still believe that defense wins championships. If your defense isn't good enough to stop the other team from making ONE drive for a score, then maybe that team shouldn't win the game.
GAC

[Iggo]

19. They sure seem to have gone a long way...

...to essentially say "First team to score 6 in OT wins."

[1gobluedem]

22. Will it be called the Favre Rule?

:crazy: