Rating: (0 votes - average)

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?

Tobias-Reiper

ummmm...no.
Let us break it down by parts here...

WRONG!
The game can be decided by a kickoff return.
Proposal to change OT rules in playoff games passed by 28-4 vote
..and I quote:
"Should the team winning the toss immediately score a touchdown, then the game is over."
Kick off return for a TD qualifies as immediately.

WRONG!
I've personally seen the Lions, Ravens, Eagles, and Bears win the coin toss and elect to kick. Pretty sure others have done the same depending on field condition, weather, how the offense or defense is playing, etc...and BTW, teams don't "choose to take ball". Teams defer the kick off. That's what the rule says. There is no guaranteed possession on a kick off, which is part of what I was asking originally.

I put those 2 together for a simple reason: of the 53% of teams that won the coin toss and ended up wining the game, not all of them won the game on their first possession, which means that the team that lost the coin toss and ended up losing the game DID HAVE A POSSESSION or at least a chance of getting possession of the ball (again, since possession is not guaranteed)

How about we put hard numbers to the percentages,to make things clear?So the team that won the coin toss has won 53% of OT games. That's 53 out of 100. Of those 53, only 70% have been won by field goals. The ones won by TDs wouldn't be affected by the new rule, so 70% of 53 is 37.
So, only 37 out of 100 OT games were won on a FG kicked by the team that won the coin toss. Hmm.. don't look that lopsided to me anymore. BUT WAIT! There's more... of those 37 games out of 100 that were decided by a FG , how many games were won by the team that won the coin toss on their first possession? All of them? I don't think so. I would venture to say that maybe 20-25 out of 100, the team that gets the ball first in OT scores a FG on their first possession.. Even at 37%, it is not that big of a deal. Besides, they won the coin toss. Guess now teams would like to lose the coin toss.


And again, my original question was:
Does the new rule guarantee possession of the ball or at least the chance of getting possession of the ball for both teams?

I thought my question was very simple:

As I understand the rule:
Team A wins coin toss. If they get the first possession in OT (that means, team B kicked the ball, and team A took possession of the ball, and team A's offense took to the field) team A cannot win in OT by kicking a field goal...
SO
What happens when team A wins the coin toss, but team B onside kicks and recovers the ball? If team B gets the first possession in OT, do they need to score a TD as well, or can they just score a FG and win, without the team that won the coin toss getting a possession?

'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

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?

stockman311

I'll make it simpler for you since you still don't get it.

IF Daddy takes Jr. and Sally to the Fair to play a game and win a prize, this is how it would play out.

Daddy tells both Jr. and Sally that in order to win the prize, lets call it a "Bubbie" that they will both have to throw a ball at 7 bottles. Daddy will flip a coin to decide whether Jr. or Sally get to throw first.

If Jr. calls heads and the coin lands on heads, Jr. gets to decide whether he goes first or Sally goes first.

Jr. wins the toss, and because Jr. has a big arm and thinks he can knock down all 7 bottles with the ball, Jr. decides to go first. Sally gets to verbally mock and ridicule, make faces, and pop ballons while Jr. is throwing his ball.

1) Jr. throws his ball and knocks downs 7 bottles. Jr. wins!!! Sally is sad, but she obviously didn't do enough to break Jr.'s concentration, so tough luck Sally.

2) Jr. throws his ball and only knocks down 3 bottles. Not good enough Jr! Sally did a better job of distracting you while you were throwing your ball. Now Sally gets to throw her ball and Jr. gets to bug the crap out of Sally while she throws. Sally knocks down all 7 of her bottles!! Good job Sally! You win the Bubbie, because Jr. just didn't do enough to break your concetrantion.

3)Sally only knocks down 3 bottle on her throw. Uh oh! Dilema! Daddy doesn't want to stay at the fair all night and keep blowing money on this game while Jr. and Sally trade ties all night. So because Jr. won the toss he gets another chance to throw the ball first. If he knocks down at least 3 bottles on his toss Jr. wins. It's his prize for winning the coin toss. Jr. throws and knocks down 3 bottles!!! Hooray!! Wins the Bubbie!

4)Jr. misses on his second throw. Oh NO!! Sally now has the chance to win by knocking down three bottles! She did it!!! YAY!!

Now Daddy doesn't have to sit at the fair for an hour while Sally crys about the fact that because Jr. knocked down three bottles on his first throw, she didn't even get a chance to throw and win the Bubbie. Hooray!! Everyone is happy except for Jr. who liked the old way of doing things where he got to throw first and knock down three bottles only. The fair owner is happy because there are more happy people at his fair, and Daddy is happy because now he doesn't have to listen to Sally ***** in the backseat of the car on the entire ride home, and Bubbie is happy because he now belongs to his rightful owner. An owner that fairly won him, and didn't win him by the flip of a coin and a measely three bottles knocked down.

YAY!!!!!!

Tobias-Reiper

Really? Only once? And I didn't see it? And which game would that be?

You posted :
I think "make it less likely" and "trying to prevent" kind of mean the same thing, unless my understanding of the English language isn't as good as I thought, but then it is my 3rd language, so it is possible I don't spic-ae de Inglish as good as I thought.


Ok, so you say possession is not guaranteed and if team B onside kicks the ball and recovers and then scores in any way, the game is over. Where did you read that? Or is that you are just assuming that's how it is going to work?

'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

stockman311

Listen, I don't assume anything. I speak (both written and verbal) to national, regional, and local NFL writers on a weekly, and some weeks daily occasion. If I say something is a fact, you can take it to the bank.

CantonLegend

and on a daily basis you talk to me.......just in that little time it takes to read my posts it makes everybody smarter

CantonLegend

yea well now you know my secret

Tobias-Reiper

Ok. I believe you. So in re my question, who told you this?

Choupique

I think they should either throw darts or let the quarterbacks duke it out in the middle of the field.

I thought it was a interesting statement that the Minnieeesooooota owner was against it. Strange.