SAINT_MICHAEL

It's not a complicated rule, just a stupid one.

QBREES9

If it ain't broke don't fix it. It wasn't broke

SaintPauly

What if the team that wins the toss, doesnt' score, kicks offs, the other team throws an interception, and then the coin toss team hits a field goal? There are so many scenarios on this, that I don't see how on God's green earth this is going to work.

SAINT_MICHAEL

To answer this Paul. Once the team that received the kick and did not score, they would probably punt (kick off as you say). Once that happens, the next score by either team in any way would win.

SaintPauly

So basically, I am reading this right. That the team that loses the toss, has more of an advantage, than the team that wins. Because, unless the winning team scores a touchdown, the game is still going.

Saint_LB

Wow...I had a whole line of thinking on this topic, and then I thought back to 1971. I was in American Gov't. class and our teacher had us playing a game called, "Who can beat Nixon?" She said that one of our test grades would be determined by how we finished the game. I don't remember much about how the game was played, but I do remember that who became Nixon was decided at the beginning of the game by a coin toss, and if you lost the coin-toss you were Nixon because he had a decidable disadvantage during the game.

Guess who lost the coin-toss tournament. Right. So...I proceeded to tell the teacher that she could not do that. She said, "I cannot do what?"
I said, "You can't give me a test score that is determined in any way by a coin-toss." She said, "It's my class, and I can do whatever I want." At that point, I said, "You most certainly are the teacher of this class...that part is true. However, the part where you said you can do whatever you want is simply not true. If you decided that you wanted to kill everyone in here, could you do that?"

It was at that point that she invited me to go visit the asst. principal...which was what I wanted. He just happened to be the same guy that use to be the head football coach and someone I could relate to...not that it mattered in this case.

Anyway, Romping Ray backed me up, the teacher resorted to tears, and later a mental institution...and I didn't have to take a D- because I lost a game...which I did, btw.

Anyway, with all that in mind, and I know it was a lot...I still think that they should leave it alone. It's worked for all these years and people have had to live or die by it...so why change it now.

I think that we, as Saints fans, should be most offended because is it me or does it seem like they are making the change now because the team that got to and ultimately won the SB was not the team they wanted?

Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right!

Saint_LB

The NFL should be happy. It is my opinion that the best team in football won the SB. Period.

Show me somebody who disagrees, and I will show you someone who did not watch every Saints game.

stockman311

By the way, Saints fans should be ECSTATIC about this rule change. In overtime if the Saints win the coin toss, we get to take our ELITE QB against a completely worn out defense and win the game with a TD, which we score more of than any other team in the NFL by the way.

If the Saints lose the toss, we now know that a team has to go 80 yds against us to beat us. And if the other team only kicks a field goal, we know we can win the game with a TD or tie it with a FG.

I don't like the new OT rule. I love it. If I were the Rams, with a crappy QB, I would hate it. I'm sure the Viqueens voted against it because they are either going to have a QB that plays great early in games and craps his pants in the clutch, or they are going to have Tarvaris Jackson.

stockman311

If it were a punt, the NFL owners just shanked the overtime rules off the side of their foot.

The problem isn't the new sudden-death rule. The new rule is better than the old rule. Rock, paper, scissors was better than the old rule.

At least now a team won't be at the total mercy of something as silly and arbitrary as a coin flip. Under the just-passed OT rule -- hey, health care and NFL overtime reform all in the same week! -- you no longer can win the toss and then win the game on a field goal. The other team now gets a possession to match your field goal or beat you with a touchdown.

So far, so fair.

But for reasons that don't entirely hold up under interrogation, the NFL owners approved the new OT rules for the postseason, but not for the regular season. This is like serving dog food for dinner and beluga caviar for dessert.

The official explanation was player safety: The possibility of extended overtime could lead to more injuries.

Fine. I get it.

But what about the possibility of injuries during those near-worthless preseason games? If NFL owners are so concerned about player safety, then deep-six half of those exhibition games. But they won't because those games are financial rainmakers.

Anyway, you can't have it both ways. You can't say you're protecting your players in the regular season, but then not protect them in the preseason. And you can't have one set of overtime rules in the postseason and another set in the regular season.

For a league that prides itself on cutting-edge thinking and policy, the NFL outsmarted itself on this one.

Right intent, wrong execution.

The new rule still has acne, but not as much as the rule it replaced. The formerly Dumbest OT System Of All Time consisted of a coin toss, followed by the team that won the coin toss also winning the game nearly 60 percent of the time (since 1994).

Major college football doesn't have an actual playoff, but at least it has an overtime that gives each team a chance to score. So does the NBA, the NCAA tournament, the PGA Tour, Major League Baseball, the NHL, etc. So it was nice of the NFL owners to ditch the prehistoric OT policy and trade it in for something more logical.

Now the coin-toss-winning team has choices. And the other team has the possibility of chances. In the old days (pre-yesterday), you could win the toss, take the kickoff, drive 40 or so yards, kick a field goal and win the game. You can still do most of that, except that now the other team gets the ball back if you kick a field goal. If you score a touchdown on that first drive, the game is immediately over -- just like the old days.

If it were up to me, I'd still give each team a chance to score. But NFL commish Roger Goodell and the league's competition committee didn't ask for my input. But I'll give Goodell, the committee and the owners credit for doing something. The old system, by virtue of the coin-toss figures and the increasing accuracy of field goal kickers, was unfair.

But where the owners screwed up was by confining the new system to the postseason. And while there will be discussion to adopt the changes for the regular season at their next meeting, in May in Dallas, what's the point of buying a new car if you can't take it for a spin around the whole block? The NFL is keeping its car in the garage until the playoffs.

The owners and the committee will tell you it's because of the injury risks, that they were sensitive to the players' concerns. If so, that's a pleasant change.

But what about the risks to the integrity of the game and the playoff process? By limiting the new OT rules to the postseason, a team could be eliminated from the playoff chase by a coin toss and ensuing field goal -- the very scenario that prompted such league power brokers as Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian to switch sides and push for the rules change.

So NFL owners are essentially admitting the old rule was flawed, and the new rule is better; yet they're still keeping the old rule even though it could affect which teams can play under the new rule? How can so many smart owners make such a basic mistake?

If you can take a step forward and backward at the same time, the NFL just did it. It improved the postseason, but cheated the regular season. It created the likelihood of more controversy and established two sets of rules when one would have worked just fine.

It blew it.

NFL: The league took steps in the right direction by changing its OT rule, but it shouldn't have limited it to the postseason. - ESPN

Does this help any TR?

stockman311

Possession is not guaranteed. IF TEAM B onside kicks the ball and recovers AND then scores IN ANY WAY, the game is over.

And no, you have never personally seen any team defer and kickoff in overtime. It's happened one time in the history of the NFL since the current OT format has been in place.

Also, I didn't say they were trying to prevent a kickoff return from winning the game. I said they were trying to prevent a scenario where there is a kickoff, pass INT call, and FG to win the game.

Your one of those people that likes to talk to hear yourself speak aren't you?