Seahawks Insider

League passes overtime proposal

Post by Eric Williams on March 23, 2010 at 12:50 pm with 26 Comments »
March 23, 2010 4:06 pm

Looks like the overtime rule for the playoffs will be changing moving forward, as the NFL owners voted 28-4 to adopt the competition committee’s proposal to change overtime only for the postseason.

The four teams voting against the proposal were Baltimore, Cincinnati, Buffalo and Minnesota.

I don’t like the change to overtime, but I understand why they feel like the percentages fall to heavily toward the team that wins the coin toss. What do you think? Do you like the new proposal? Let us know in the comments section.

Categories:
NFL Meetings
Leave a comment Comments → 26
  1. Great change..it’s about time. Sick and tired of teams getting a good return on the kickoff, driving 30 yards, then kicking the game winner. At least the touchdown to end it requires a little more effort and relies less on one lucky play. During the middle of the offseason, the idea of longer games sounds pretty good.

  2. I also think they should change the number of points for field goals over 50 yards from 3 – 4.

  3. ChrisHolmes says:

    Not in favor of the change, but we’ll see how it shakes out.

  4. I think they should have changed it to this:

    OT Period starts if game tied after 4 quarters
    Game ends IF – clock expires (leading team takes victory) OR, first team to gain a 7 point lead in OT.

    Also, Isn’t it fitting everyone gets a chance, especially after the health care travesty just passed?

  5. i should be more clear, it’s like a full quarter unless someone scores a TD. so if SEA goes up against GB by 3 points in over time, the game would continue to be played just like a typical quarter.

  6. Dukeshire says:

    I had no problem with the system the way it was, regardless of the percentages. Also, I don’t understand why it’s good for the playoffs but not being used in the regular season. Are field goals somehow more valuable in the regular season? Whatever.

  7. Dukeshire says:

    Why would you require a team to win by 7?

  8. Some teams give up lots of yards between the 20’s, but then give up very few TD’s. The 2005 Seahawks were in that mold. This change will no longer put teams that play that sort of “bend but don’t break”defense at a disadvantage in OT. I like it, I think it is more fair than the old OT rules.

  9. If you’re not good enough to win in 4 quarters, then I don’t care if you get screwed on the coin flip. You should have done enough to prevent your team to even have to go to OT in the first place.

  10. nighthawk2 says:

    I think it sucks. I liked the sudden death rule, if you can’t cover a kick well, or your defense can’t stop the other team, that’s too bad. This rule was pushed in by the bad teams. This isn’t rinky-dink college football where you have 6 overtimes and 66-63 scores, it’s supposed to be professional football.

  11. don’t like it…they should just play like an extra 7-10 minutes or something. if it is still tied, go to double overtime. if the players get tired…boo hoo.

  12. Southendzone says:

    I remember the stats not supporting the perception that the coin toss is as important as people make it out to be.

    Does anyone have the stat for What % of teams winning the coin toss win the OT with a FG on their opening posession? I could swear I’ve heard it and it was barely over 50%. If this is the case and the coin flip is not truly such a huge factor then I don’t see a need for this rule change.

  13. Pat_riot says:

    It’s a step in the right direction, not perfect by any means.. but it’s good to see the NFL owners loosen up on sticking with an overtime that is archaic and just plain boring to watch (not to mention, though I am, not being that fair). Hopefully this will open up discussions for making further changes.

    .. Maybe they should take a page out of hockey’s playpook, and have a “kick off” .. first one to miss a field goal loses.. haha.. that was a joke by the way.

  14. Pat_riot says:

    Southendzone.. I could be wrong but I think I heard Clayton say it was 61% on the radio last Saturday…

  15. Not against a change in OT rules but why so complicated. If the receiving team scores, it kicks off. That way each team has at least one possession.

  16. subtlesquire says:

    I have preferred the college overtime system since it was changed. I feel it is far more exciting because it is a fair test for both teams. Letting the outcome of a well played game, most OT are excellent games, end with the arbitrary nature of a coin toss just feels wrong. Rock, paper, scissors would be more entertaining than a coin toss.

  17. langfordhawk says:

    I found it interesting that Minnesota, the last team to get burned and possibly the straw that stirred the drink, was one of four teams to vote against it.

  18. langfordhawk says:

    Should this also pass to the regular season, and it likely will, imagine all the records with the astrisks…..Marshall catches 35 balls in one game (but it was a 6 quarter game…etc)

  19. Is it like the end of a tennis match where ya gotta win by two (FGs), or if team A gets a FG in OT and team B gets a chance to match but doesn’t in their next drive, then team A wins?

    If team A gets a FG, then team B gets a TD, does team A get a chance to match team B’s TD? If not, then that seems unfair.

  20. College OT is truly unexciting gimmicky garbage – just like soccer with the free kicks or whatever. Pro Football had it right before this change.

  21. Duke: I’d set it up so 7 or more ends the quarter immediately. If I go up by 2, 3 or 6, the quarter continues to play until it ends on the clock. so I.E, OT starts at 20-20, then goes to 23-20, then a touchdown, 23-27. At end of the quarter, the team with 27 obviously wins, but if they were to kick a field goal at 27 to go to 30, that would give them a 7 point lead, then game over.

  22. I just say this, Minnesota vote against.

  23. Dukeshire says:

    Yeah, I understand, I’m just curious why 7 points? Not say, 6. 2 field goals or a TD without the untimed extra point?

  24. And what happen if team that win coin toss chose to kick ball and make onside kick, get ball and make FG. Do they still play another one?

  25. A step in the wrong direction.

  26. Here’s my $0.02 on the issue…

    For those complaining that the “old” system wasn’t fair, each team had 60:00 to win the game “fairly”. If a team loses by a FG on the first drive of OT, then they should blame their offense for not scoring enough points (in regulation), or their defense for giving up too many points, but they should not blame the rule.

    This is going to lead to more teams playing it safe in the final minutes and being satisfied with going into OT, a la college football. And while I love college football, their OT system lacked the sense of urgency that the NFL’s system HAD, which I loved.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0