NFL changes overtime rules in the playoffs

by Josh Kirkendall on Mar 23, 2010 4:48 PM EDT in Analysis

The NFL found some of their senses. Only some. But baby steps are good. Progress is welcome. In a 28-4 vote Tuesday, the NFL owners elected to change the overtime format. Yes. Good job, ol' boys. However, it's only for the playoffs and, naturally, Mike Brown was one of four that voted against it, saying of the current system:

“I’ve looked at it for many years and I like it the way it is,” Brown said. “I think it’s dramatic. Everything is on the line from the start. That’s exciting and I don’t think it needs tinkering.”

For Christ sake. Who cares about excitement? Let's just give each team at least one possession of the football and let 'em hammer it out. I've never been a fan of the current overtime system. I understand the argument for sudden death. For example, I understand that it's the other team's job to stop the offense from scoring and allow your offense to have at least one possession. This doesn't include suspect pass interference calls that are, for the most part, irreversible with referees in bad positions making terrible judgment calls that they shouldn't make.

The change is simple. The team that receives the opening kickoff in overtime is forced to score a touchdown if they want to prevent the other team from having a possession. If that team only scores a field goal, the other team will get a chance at a possession. This will only apply to overtime with a chance to discuss the overtime rule for the regular season in May.

We're sure there's more subtle differences that'll need to be addressed and discussed. But we do applaud the NFL for actually voting for change.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Marvin's opposition was better voiced.

“I’ll spot you the field goal and take my chances and try to score a touchdown.”

Pretty much, defenses just have to hold the other team to 3 and give their team a chance to win. If they’re gonna do 2 possessions, they should have just gone the college route and not this stupid in the middle garbage. It won’t work as well as they think and I wonder if teams will just opt to Kick Off in OT rather than risk scoring a FG and still losing the game?

by jsl413 on Mar 23, 2010 5:30 PM EDT reply actions

my problem with this is that they’re waiting until the playoffs to even test it. Why not do it in the regular season? If it gets 6 or 8 chances throughout the year people will have a basis for saying they like or don’t like it. If you wait until that one (maybe) playoff game to try your experiment and it sucks, there will be a massive uproar.

I think the old system could have been tweaked just a tad (moving kickoffs back out a bit so the opposition doesn’t start near midfield would be a good start) and been fine, but this system doesn’t look terrible on paper. It will give fans a lot more to bitch about and put more coaches on the hot seat, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

As for Marvin’s quote.. how long has it been since the Bengals had what anyone would call a “score at will” offense? Would you have felt good about the 2009 (or ’08, or ’07) Bengals chances if they had just one drive and had to score a td?

by indesignkat on Mar 23, 2010 5:50 PM EDT reply actions

They are supposedly considering adding it to the regular season at the May meetings. If they are going to go this route, and of and by itself I have no objection to the rule itself, then they really should test it before it determines a super bowl participant. After all, isn’t that the point of this whole can of worms, to prevent a super bowl from ending on a first-possession FG?

The rule itself actually does have merit. The explanations put forth by Florio and other whiny crybaby Viqueen fans, however, do not. The primary reason I hoped it wouldn’t pass is not because the rule is a horrible idea — it’s not — but because it would make Florio continue to be a crybaby and that’s fun to laugh at.

For those who can't remember the uncapped FA rules, this link's for you.

by FriarBob on Mar 23, 2010 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions

New NFL Overtime Rule

It should apply to the regular season too! *(what if the last regular season game decides wether you advance or not)? – otherwise, pretty good rule.

by Framirs on Mar 23, 2010 5:51 PM EDT reply actions

Jeanty signs

bq* http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/23/rashad-jenty-to-return-to-bengals/

by whodeyocho on Mar 23, 2010 6:57 PM EDT reply actions

Thx

Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.

by Josh Kirkendall on Mar 23, 2010 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions

I have decided I am against the change

As I watched some of the owners meeting on NFL Network, I ralized I am against this rule change. I don’t see a better way than sudden death and this is why: Everyone talks about the fairness of the coin toss deciding the game, but now what we will have one day is a game decided in overtime by a missed kick. That will be a very unexciting ending in comparison to the made kick or TD. I don’t want to watch a team lose because the shank a kick in OT, I would rather watch a team win with an exciting made kick.

by jim0ijk on Mar 23, 2010 8:02 PM EDT reply actions

One

whens the last time you’ve seen an OT game end with a TD?

Two, and i’m speaking from experience(Giants fan), there is nothing, NOTHING, more exciting than watching your team win because of a missed FG. Once again, now and always, thank you Mr. Norwood.

i guess your not like me. i’ll take a game ending on a football play(missed FG) over chance(coin flip) from here to eternity.

by wilddre22 on Mar 24, 2010 1:10 AM EDT up reply actions

I still think a tie at the end of regulation in the regular season should just stay a tie. Both teams had 60 minutes, neither exerted enough dominance to win, game over.

by Todd G on Mar 24, 2010 7:55 AM EDT up reply actions