Monday, March 1, 2010

Overtime Rules

Lots of talk going on about a potential revision of the NFL overtime rules, with the idea of each team getting the ball once a real possibility.

Although three quarters of games in the overtime era have ended after just one possession, I'm okay with sudden death. Heck, ties never bothered me in the first place, and I never saw any need for regular-season overtime in the first place.

The main proposal to be considered when the Competition Committee meets later this month involves each team getting the ball once, unless the first team gets a touchdown. If the first team scores a field goal, the game would continue. And if Team B ties it, the next team that scores would win.

The change would only be made for the playoffs, which is something I'm also against. If you're going to alter the rules, make it consistent for the whole season.

I want to know what you guys think of the current sudden death overtime rules and whether they need changing at all. As I said, I'm not a tinkerer by nature. But you might be. How would you like to see the rule?

EP

15 comments:

  1. Ernie, Leave O.T. the way it is!! What is wrong with people?!?! The current system couldn't be more fair. Football has three parts - offense, defense and special teams. If you lose the coin toss then play good special teams and good defense and you'll get the ball back in good field position. If you let the opposing team take the opening kickoff of O.T. down the fields and score you deserve to get beat. First we have rule changes where you can't touch a WR., then we change the rules to where you can barely bump into a QB and now we're going to change O.T. What's next? Are we going to stop keeping score like they do in my 5 and 8 year old's ball games.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The rule is fine as is. Don't like OT? Win the game. Don't like the other team getting the ball first in OT? Stop their offense and make them punt. Mike Florio at Profootballtalk.com has been leading this campaign to change the rules and I'm baffled as to why. I hate to use any terms associated with the Raiders because they have become so dysfunctional as an organization and a team, but Al Davis said it best years ago, "Just win, baby". If you can't, it's not the rules "fault", it's the fault of your team and coaching staff. Just goes to show what one guy with a football blog can accomplish once he's become part of NBC Sports. Sad, really, that the NFL feels so compelled to kneel before it's broadcast partners on every little detail. Hope they name it the Florio/NBC Rule so at least they will be honest as to why they changed it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. IF ITS NOT BROKE DONT FIX IT . BOB FROM OLD TOWN

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think we should change it. Brian mentioned the rule changes that favor offense which is why I'm in favor of changing overtime rules. If the rules of the game were the way they were in the early 70's I'd be fine with the current system. But the modern NFL is built for offense. I think 70% or so of the teams that win the coin toss win the game - just doesn't seem fair in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The current structure while imperfect is the most fair and best way to do it. What the hell is wrong with sudden death, first to score wins?? Next u will tell me u like the college system.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think in the playoffs they should just play another quarter.

    If it takes 16 extra quarters, so be it. Perhaps then the coaches would have to rewrite "the book" and play OT differently.

    ReplyDelete
  7. if the rules are going to change for only the playoffs, then why not play a 10 minute quarter.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I believe OT being decided by a COIN FLIP is unfair. Sudden death is fine in my opinion, but make it a home team advantage where the home team gets to call possession first...not just a COIN FLIP"... I feel there needs to a rhyme or reason as to why a team gets a ball in a big spot...especially for the playoffs where team played 16 games to "earn" home field.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Simple answer: leave everything as is, but take field goals out of the equation. I could live with that. That way you keep the sudden death aspect, but remove some of the "cheap" wins.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The only change I would to the current OT rules would be to move the kickoff to the 35 yard line instead of the 30 yard line. This would make getting a FG on the first possession just a little harder.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Definitely leave it as is!!! I echo the above , "what's wrong with people?"!!! This is the NFL, not the US House of Reps (where each player would have an "opportunity" to score, only to have his "points" canceled)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Let it be known that I had mentioned this theory to Michael Eisen in his mailbag on Giants.com and he answered it. He said it was a novel idea (his exact response can be found here: http://www.giants.com/news/mailbag/story.asp?story_id=36170

    But my proposal is almost verbatim (sans it only applying to the playoffs) to what the NFL is talking about doing now. If this passes I'm taking full credit.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mykal - Let us know when the check clears. Then, the drinks are on you!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I would like a timed overtime period. Put 5 minutes on the clock, give each team 2 time outs and play it out.

    "Sudden death" is NOT "overtime" because "time" doesn't play into anything. You play a timed game and if it ends in a tie, common sense dictates you should play a timed overtime period.
    If the timed overtime period still concludes in a tie during the regular season, then the teams get a tie.
    In playoffs, you play 2 overtime periods and if that doesn't settle it: sudden death.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I actually like the college overtime.

    ReplyDelete