New OT Rule passed

[wolfer]

I've seen a lot of Q&A on the subject, and I find this interesting:

 

Q. What happens if the team that received the kickoff scores a field goal and recovers an onside kick?

The game ends; the team that scored the field goal wins.

 

I bet Sean Peyton wouldda kicked the FG on the Vikes, then pulled the onside kick attempt to win it right then and there.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I've seen a lot of Q&A on the subject, and I find this interesting:

 

 

 

I bet Sean Peyton wouldda kicked the FG on the Vikes, then pulled the onside kick attempt to win it right then and there.

 

Except Sidney Rice would have recovered it. Of course the Vikes would have fumbled somewhere in their next drive...

[MTSuper7]

I've seen a lot of Q&A on the subject, and I find this interesting:

 

 

 

I bet Sean Peyton wouldda kicked the FG on the Vikes, then pulled the onside kick attempt to win it right then and there.

'

Why wouldn't you take a chance with the onside? You have, what, a 30% chance of winning the game outright, and if you don't recover, you still have a very good shot at not giving up a TD which puts you back into sudden death with possession of the ball. Seems dumb a game can end by recovering an onsides kick...

Edited March 24, 2010 by MTSuper7

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Yeah, if the point is to give the other team a possession, they never would have had possession in the case of a recovered onside kick.

[gbpfan1231]

I guarantee the Vikings will lose in the playoffs next year because of this new rule forever.

Fixed

[hooknladder]

i hate this rule

check this out.....here's where it gets goofey

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nine-point overtime win is possible under new rules

Posted by Mike Florio on March 24, 2010 1:07 AM ET

So what happens under the new overtime rule if the team that receives the kickoff to start the process scores a field goal, kicks off, and forces a turnover?

 

It's not as simple of a question as you might think.

 

A reasonable argument could be made that, because the other team's possession ends at that point, the game ends at that point as well, with the defense leading (and winning) by three.

 

But this isn't the same thing as a failed two-point attempt. The play is still alive and, in theory, the defensive team can return the ball for a touchdown, extending the final margin to nine points.

 

We ran the concept by the league office, and outgoing V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira said (via spokesman Greg Aiello) that the play would indeed continue until completion. So the team that scored the field goal on the first drive could score a touchdown and win by nine.

 

Which could be relevant, hypothetically, to some of the folks who watch football games.

 

Here's where it gets even more intriguing.

 

If the defensive team turns the ball over while returning the turnover, the team that started the play on offense can then recover the ball and take it to the end zone for a touchdown, winning the game by three. If the offensive team fails to score a touchdown on that same play, the game ends.

 

The obvious message to the defense in such circumstances? If you force a turnover, get down or out of bounds. The game is won as soon as the play ends; any effort to extend the play will only increase the risk of the other team getting the ball back and unleashing a Stanford band finish.

[Delicious_bass]

+1

 

I thought the rule, as it was, was a joke. Sure, you can say that 22 out of 27 times, both teams got the ball. To me, that means the other five times, one team got screwed. People can say that those teams "should have stopped the other team", or whatever... That argument doesn't hold water. If it did, you could use the same format (first to score wins) in baseball and basketball as well. After all, the other team "could have stopped them," right? I'm not buying it... the NFL needed to do something to fix what CAN be an unfair rule. The college format isn't perfect, but it made far more sense than what the NFL had in place. I look at this as progress, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out, when it actually comes into play.

I get what you're saying, but I gotta disagree with you when you compare it to baseball and basketball. In baseball, the game is set up so both teams get an equal number of outs. The only deviation is obviously when the home team is leading going into the bottom of the 9th. And in baseball, you can only score when batting. So it truly would not be fair to flip a coin to see who bats first and then say first team to score wins. In that scenario, one team may truly never have had a chance to win. Basketball is more similar to hockey in the way the play goes back and forth. Obviously, scoring happens a lot more frequently in hoops so it makes sense for basketball to just add an OT period and let the teams continue to play under the rules of regulation time. Chances are good someone will score more than the other and/or stop the other one to win.

 

This new rule just seems too gimmicky to me and I'd rather see it stay the way it was. I've always said, if a team is not good enough to win in regulation then it has to take its chances with OT. Dont want to take your chances? Win the game outright in regulation. In football, stopping your opponent from scoring is 1) a hugh part of the game and 2) easier than scoring yourself. If a team is not good enough to kickoff, limit the return, force the opponent to punt(or turn it over), and get the ball back for its offense to have a crack, then its not good enough to win. I dont think anyone "deserves" a chance with the ball in OT. If you dont win the coin toss, you earn your chance with the ball or you deserve to lose IMO.

 

 

Even though I disagree, I still like your avatar.

Oh, yes! They will be mine

Edited March 24, 2010 by Delicious_bass

[budlitebrad]

Forget a coin toss. Just keep playing after the end of the 4th quarter and keep it sudden death.

[Jrick35]

I am all for trying to improve the rules for OT, and just like the instant replay rules I am sure that the NFL will tweak this rule as they see a need. But here is what I don't understand about the new OT rule, why does the team that kicks off for the ot period not get a possession if the receiving team scores a TD?

 

If the receiving team scores a fg and then the other teams also kicks a fg then they just keep playing after that and at that point it becomes sudden death, right?

 

Why not do the same thing if both teams score a TD?

 

Just wondering what the logic is behind the idea that a TD prohibits the other team from getting at least 1 posession.

[Big John]

I am all for trying to improve the rules for OT, and just like the instant replay rules I am sure that the NFL will tweak this rule as they see a need. But here is what I don't understand about the new OT rule, why does the team that kicks off for the ot period not get a possession if the receiving team scores a TD?

 

If the receiving team scores a fg and then the other teams also kicks a fg then they just keep playing after that and at that point it becomes sudden death, right?

 

Why not do the same thing if both teams score a TD?

 

Just wondering what the logic is behind the idea that a TD prohibits the other team from getting at least 1 posession.

My thinking is that is is a lot harder to get a TD than a FG in OT, which the FG is more often scored, and the immediate TD would merit the win.

[Jrick35]

My thinking is that is is a lot harder to get a TD than a FG in OT, which the FG is more often scored, and the immediate TD would merit the win.

 

So ultimately the rule boils down to 1st TD wins, not that both teams deserve at least 1 possession in OT.

[MrTed46]

supposedly passed 28-4

 

I think this is how the rule works now:

 

If first team recvs ball and scores a TD the game is over....If the team that recvd the ball 1st only scores a FG then they kick off to the other team....if that team scores a TD the game is over...but if they only score a FG then the next team to score wins....99.9999% sure that is how it works now

 

EDIT: this is only for PLAYOFFS right now and not the reg. season

 

Holy poopy this is something I proposed!

[keggerz]

So ultimately the rule boils down to 1st TD wins, not that both teams deserve at least 1 possession in OT.

not at all...but it does allow for the 1st TD to end the game......If I had to guess I would say that the majority of games will be decided by a single FG being scored in the OT period...there will be a good portion that end due to a TD and then to a smaller amount the FG, FG, FG scenario.

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

Wasnt broke. Shouldnt have tried to fix it

 

 

What ??? it was the stupidest rule the NFL has ever had ,,,, so yes i think it was broke and needed to be fixed ,,,, that part is still up for debate

[Delicious_bass]

What ??? it was the stupidest rule the NFL has ever had ,,,, so yes i think it was broke and needed to be fixed ,,,, that part is still up for debate

I am glad you could,,,,support your opinion,,,,and elaborate on your view(s). Well done

 

By the way,,,,I think,,,,you are,,,,a f*in dumb,,,,ass

 

Another moran,,,,for the,,,,ignore list

[Gopher]

This new rule just seems too gimmicky to me and I'd rather see it stay the way it was. I've always said, if a team is not good enough to win in regulation then it has to take its chances with OT. Dont want to take your chances? Win the game outright in regulation. In football, stopping your opponent from scoring is 1) a hugh part of the game and 2) easier than scoring yourself.

 

I agree completely, but your statement does nothing to justify OT being decided by a coin flip. It it did, then why not just draw straws to determine the winner, and be done with it?

 

If a team is not good enough to kickoff, limit the return, force the opponent to punt(or turn it over), and get the ball back for its offense to have a crack, then its not good enough to win. I dont think anyone "deserves" a chance with the ball in OT. If you dont win the coin toss, you earn your chance with the ball or you deserve to lose IMO.

 

I have a problem with that argument as well. In a defensive game with little scoring, that might make a little bit of sense. However, there have been plenty of NFL games where neither team could stop the other. Deciding those games on a coin flip is ridiculous. Chiefs-Colts from a few years ago is a perfect example... I think there was one punt in the entire game. If it goes to overtime, whoever "wins" the coin toss wins the game, basically. I honestly can't think of another rule, in all of sports, that makes less sense than that.

 

My comparison to baseball and basketball was intended to be a bit extreme, just to get the point across... Nothing should be decided on a "first to score" basis unless both teams have a relatively equal chance at being the first to score (which is why I have no problem with hockey's OT, for example). Giving one team the ball, in a first-to-score-wins format, doesn't make sense in a sport like football, where possession of the ball changes so infrequently.

 

I don't necessarily love the rule that has been approved, as it's not exactly cut and dry simple, but in this case, I'll gladly take a rule that is somewhat "gimmicky" over one that makes no sense.

[Delicious_bass]

I agree completely, but your statement does nothing to justify OT being decided by a coin flip. It it did, then why not just draw straws to determine the winner, and be done with it?

 

 

 

I have a problem with that argument as well. In a defensive game with little scoring, that might make a little bit of sense. However, there have been plenty of NFL games where neither team could stop the other. Deciding those games on a coin flip is ridiculous. Chiefs-Colts from a few years ago is a perfect example... I think there was one punt in the entire game. If it goes to overtime, whoever "wins" the coin toss wins the game, basically. I honestly can't think of another rule, in all of sports, that makes less sense than that.

 

My comparison to baseball and basketball was intended to be a bit extreme, just to get the point across... Nothing should be decided on a "first to score" basis unless both teams have a relatively equal chance at being the first to score (which is why I have no problem with hockey's OT, for example). Giving one team the ball, in a first-to-score-wins format, doesn't make sense in a sport like football, where possession of the ball changes so infrequently.

 

I don't necessarily love the rule that has been approved, as it's not exactly cut and dry simple, but in this case, I'll gladly take a rule that is somewhat "gimmicky" over one that makes no sense.

You seem to be convinced that whomever wins the coin flip almost automatically wins the game. I just heard a stat about the % of teams who get the ball first and win on that first possesion(cant recall exactly what it is now) and its not as high as you might think. My point was(and continues to be) that if a team cant take care of business in regulation, it has to take its chances in OT. If its not good enough in all aspects of the game(ie special teams & defense) to win in OT, then it didnt deserve to win. Period.

[Jrick35]

You seem to be convinced that whomever wins the coin flip almost automatically wins the game. I just heard a stat about the % of teams who get the ball first and win on that first possesion(cant recall exactly what it is now) and its not as high as you might think. My point was(and continues to be) that if a team cant take care of business in regulation, it has to take its chances in OT. If its not good enough in all aspects of the game(ie special teams & defense) to win in OT, then it didnt deserve to win. Period.

 

When two NFL teams can play 60 minutes of hard fought football without being able to decide a winner how can a victory between those teams that is decided by an OT period that does not afford both teams at least one posession be fair.

 

Lets use a hypothetical example to examine your position. A 2009 Colts v Saints regular season OT game.

 

With these two teams it would be reasonable to think whichever team wins the toss is most likely going to be able to score at least a FG. Let's assume for our example that the Saints win the toss and they drive to a FG and win the game without the Colts ever having a posession in the OT period.

 

Are you really going to make the argument that the Colts were not "good enough" to win?

 

Because had the Colts won the toss they most likely would have won too. Which means the Saints wouldn't have been "good enough" to beat the Colts which means that your theory allows for both teams involved in an OT game to be both "good enough to win" and "not good enough to win" at the same time.

 

I like Basketballs OT. A shorter than normal period and when that is over if the teams are still tied, do it again. The NFL could do something like that. In the regular season make the OT period 8 minutes(or whatever works) and they play the entire 8 minutes and then if the teams are still tied, NOW go to sudden Death. And in the playoffs rather than ever going to Sudden Death they could just keep playing 8 minute periods until someone wins.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Jrick35

[rattsass]

What ??? it was the stupidest rule the NFL has ever had ,,,, so yes i think it was broke and needed to be fixed ,,,, that part is still up for debate

Yeah, heaven forbid that we end a game of football by playing ACTUAL FOOTBALL. You know. Offense, defense, special teams. The NFL has decided that the QUARTERBACKS are the game, and those kickers, special teams, and defenses are just taking up space and getting in the way. I guess they took care of all that nonsense now.

[Delicious_bass]

When two NFL teams can play 60 minutes of hard fought football without being able to decide a winner how can a victory between those teams that is decided by an OT period that does not afford both teams at least one posession be fair.

 

Lets use a hypothetical example to examine your position. A 2009 Colts v Saints regular season OT game.

 

With these two teams it would be reasonable to think whichever team wins the toss is most likely going to be able to score at least a FG. Let's assume for our example that the Saints win the toss and they drive to a FG and win the game without the Colts ever having a posession in the OT period.

 

Are you really going to make the argument that the Colts were not "good enough" to win?

 

Because had the Colts won the toss they most likely would have won too. Which means the Saints wouldn't have been "good enough" to beat the Colts which means that your theory allows for both teams involved in an OT game to be both "good enough to win" and "not good enough to win" at the same time.

 

I like Basketballs OT. A shorter than normal period and when that is over if the teams are still tied, do it again. The NFL could do something like that. In the regular season make the OT period 8 minutes(or whatever works) and they play the entire 8 minutes and then if the teams are still tied, NOW go to sudden Death. And in the playoffs rather than ever going to Sudden Death they could just keep playing 8 minute periods until someone wins.

You know what? You're right. You've convinced me. I have seen the light as they say. Call it an epiphany.

 

So let's just do this...starting this fall, each team gets the ball on offense for exactly the same number of plays in a game. We wont keep time anymore. We'll just count the plays and make sure each team gets equal opportunity with the ball. And we'll do away with punts and kickoffs. When its your turn to have the ball, you just get it at the 20 yard line and its 1st and 10 from there. We cant have some clown returning a kick screwing up our plan for total equality after all. And the coaches will use the same playbook. Cant have those sneaky bastards calling some trick play and hosing up the works. The officials will each have 5 penalty flags they can and must throw on each team. We cant have descrepancies in penalties goof this utopia up. All teams will make the playoffs. Its awfully unfair to leave some of them out of the fun. After the SuperBowl, the winning team gets the Lombardi trophy and all of the other teams get a mini-Lombardi trophy(same shape, just smaller and a matte finish) for participation. Finally, a totally fair and equal way to play football! I am so excited I cant wait for September

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2010 by Delicious_bass

[Jrick35]

You know what? You're right. You've convinced me. I have seen the light as they say. Call it an epiphany.

 

So let's just do this...starting this fall, each team gets the ball on offense for exactly the same number of plays in a game. We wont keep time anymore. We'll just count the plays and make sure each team gets equal opportunity with the ball. And we'll do away with punts and kickoffs. When its your turn to have the ball, you just get it at the 20 yard line and its 1st and 10 from there. We cant have some clown returning a kick screwing up our plan for total equality after all. And the coaches will use the same playbook. Cant have those sneaky bastards calling some trick play and hosing up the works. The officials will each have 5 penalty flags they can and must throw on each team. We cant have descrepancies in penalties goof this utopia up. All teams will make the playoffs. Its awfully unfair to leave some of them out of the fun. After the SuperBowl, the winning team gets the Lombardi trophy and all of the other teams get a mini-Lombardi trophy(same shape, just smaller and a matte finish) for participation. Finally, a totally fair and equal way to play football! I am so excited I cant wait for September.

 

Well that sounds like a fun idea.

 

I think you know I never called for a game of complete equity in terms of time of posession or number of plays.

 

The fact that a game is 60 minutes long pretty much guarantees that each team will at least have an opportunity to posess the football. It's not like 1 team plays offense for 60 minutes while the other team plays defense for 60 minutes, now is it? How many games would the defensive team win in that scenario?

 

So all I am saying is it would be nice to see each team get at least 1 posession, that's all, that's it. No total equity of any kind just at least 1 posession each, after that whatever happens happens. Other sports do it, why not football?

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

Yeah, heaven forbid that we end a game of football by playing ACTUAL FOOTBALL. You know. Offense, defense, special teams. The NFL has decided that the QUARTERBACKS are the game, and those kickers, special teams, and defenses are just taking up space and getting in the way. I guess they took care of all that nonsense now.

 

From your reply I cant figure out if we are on the same page or not ?

 

I post was saying simply that I think playing a "playoff game" and deciding a season on the 1st team that scores without the other team having a chance to touch the ball is and has been a stupid rule that was broke and needed to be fixed. As far as I know the NFL is the only sport that used a rule like that ?

[rattsass]

From your reply I cant figure out if we are on the same page or not ?

 

I post was saying simply that I think playing a "playoff game" and deciding a season on the 1st team that scores without the other team having a chance to touch the ball is and has been a stupid rule that was broke and needed to be fixed. As far as I know the NFL is the only sport that used a rule like that ?

I'm sorry, I'm just royally pissed about this new rule. Your last sentence says it all. There are actually two major sports that use sudden death, the NFL and the NHL. And in my opinion both leagues have the most enjoyable overtimes in all of sports. The NFL was different than the other sports

 

NFL overtime games under sudden death were great because the game ALWAYS ENDED ON A SCORE. Now the possibility exists that a game will end on a loss of posession. Real freaking exciting. I just think the new rule was reactionary and ill-conceived. The NFL is the dominate sport for a reason. if it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

And I still fail to see how losing a coin toss and allowing the other team to drive the length of the field in overtime is unfair. Coin tosses are fair, and teams pay all those defensemen for a reason. Well, they used to...

[Bier Meister]

And I still fail to see how losing a coin toss and allowing the other team to drive the length of the field in overtime is unfair.

 

 

 

not really the length of the field...... usually 40-50 yds to get into fg range.

[Big John]

NFL overtime games under sudden death were great because the game ALWAYS ENDED ON A SCORE.

...or a rare tie.