DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL owners to vote on new OT rule

Quote:

---

have changed to 59.8 percent winning the coin toss and winning the game. The team that loses the coin toss wins 38.5 percent

---

Quote:

---

Imagine all of the chances for the coach to be called an idiot, no matter what choice he makes .........

---

Quote:

---

Good idea but make it for the regular season too. It might be years before we see this new rule actually used.

If the players are too worried about getting injured, then tell your coach to take bigger risks at the end of regulation. Or win big every game.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Good idea but make it for the regular season too. It might be years before we see this new rule actually used.

If the players are too worried about getting injured, then tell your coach to take bigger risks at the end of regulation. Or win big every game.

---

I don't see how you can change the rules just for the playoffs and not the Regular Season.

Change the rules to be for all season and I'm happy.

---

(To expound, this is one of the things that's wrong with baseball. There will always be a possible advantage in the World Series the way they play the DH.)

I probably won't be happy whatever they decide to do. Everything has a way of getting holes punched in it. In this particular case then, I would leave regular season ties alone. You can't have overtime rules one way here, and another there. It's a sheer wonder at all that the NFLPA hasn't negotiated on "extended or further unnecessary" play during the regular season games as it is.

I don't know what the answer is, but this one is not good.

Maybe the coin toss ain't so bad, but I would like to see it where if I lose the toss and my team stops you from scoring -- then I should win.

I.E.,....because I "lost" the toss, I have to stop you AND score,...by the same token the other team shouldn't have to score and then stop me either,....however this idea says that if I give up a TD, I lose. That's a crock.

If I stop you and score a safety, I can STILL lose after the "everyone-should-get-a-chance" dilemna has been satisfied ? That's not too swift,....

What would be some good ideas ?

a.) Leave regular season games alone. Ties can hurt in the standings. This would change 4th quarter "outcomes" and "intensity levels."

b.) Timed overtime -- 7 & 1/2 minutes, half of a normal period.

c.) If a team goes up by TWO "separate" scores, including a safety, they win. (i.e., 5-0 or 6-0 on two FG's,..."one" separate TD is not "enough" IF the other team has not had an opportunity to possess the ball yet.) If the ball has been exchanged, then ANY score wins.

d.) Ignore Rule "b", if Rule "c" happens. If Rule "b" ends with a tied (or no) score, Answer Question "e."

e.) Is this regular season or a playoff ? If a playoff, repeat process. Regular season, the game is tied.

f.) No OT timeouts

Quote:

---

I'd prefer to keep it simple.

Either give each team at least one possession in overtime or remove the kick off and give the team winning the toss the ball on the 20 and make them drive it down to score. If the opposing team isn't going to get an opportunity to play offense their defense should at least not have to play with a short field.

---

Quote:

---

Imagine this senario .....

Team A is down by 3, and they have the ball with 5 seconds left in the 4th on the opponent's 5 yard line. There is no overtime in the regular season.

Team B plays later that evening.

Team A makes the playoffs with a win.

They make the playoffs with a tie and a loss by Team B later that evening.

They do not make the playoffs with a tie and a win by Team B.

They do not make the playoffs with a loss. In the event of a Team A loss, Team B makes the playoffs, and Team A goes home.

Imagine all of the chances for the coach to be called an idiot, no matter what choice he makes .........

---

Oh I'm imagining alright....Team A is the Browns their opponent is an Anderson lead Cardinals, Team B is a Quinn lead Broncos.

Browns go for it and are denied, Broncos win later, Superbowl ends up being Anderson vs Quinn.

Quote:

---

This is stupid, IMO - especially changing the rules for the playoffs and not the regular season. Also, is it just me or...

Quote:

---

have changed to 59.8 percent winning the coin toss and winning the game. The team that loses the coin toss wins 38.5 percent

---

That doesn't add up to 100%? Oh, I guess that might be McNabb not knowing a game can end in a tie. At first I just thought there were playoff numbers.

---

Quote:

---

I wish NFL would go to college OT rules.

---

Quote:

---

i think mike greenberg from mike and mike had a great idea.

first to 6 points.

if you score a touchdown on the first posession, game over, if you only get a field goal, the other team has a chance to answer.

i don't like the current system, i definitely don't like the thought of the college system, and even this one isn't all that great. better but not great.

---

Quote:

---

Impact of return teams would be much less special if revamped OT format is approved: NFL Insider
By Tony Grossi, The Plain Dealer
March 20, 2010, 7:39PM

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The new overtime rule up for a vote at NFL owners meetings this week in Orlando, Fla., penalizes the Browns, who had the best overall special teams in the league in 2009.

"Absolutely, it does," said Browns President Mike Holmgren. "My initial reaction is don't change it. But I'll listen to what they have to say."

Holmgren will cast the Browns' vote on all matters in place of owner Randy Lerner. The proposed change in the overtime format is the most controversial topic at this year's meetings.


The present sudden-death format -- first team to score, wins -- is under fire from those who believe the coin toss to decide who gets first possession has become too important.

The proposed change would go like this:

• If the team with first possession kicks a field goal, it then would kick off. The second team has one possession to tie the game or win it with a touchdown. If Team B fails to kick a field goal, Team A wins. If Team B ties it with a field goal, the overtime proceeds in sudden-death fashion.

• If the team with the first possession scores a touchdown, the game is over.

• If the team with first possession does not score a field goal, Team B can win the game with a field goal on its possession.

The league has consistently vetoed any tweaks to the NFL's unique, sudden-death overtime format. But whenever something happens in the postseason, the league overreacts. This proposal was a reaction to the NFC Championship Game, in which New Orleans kicked a 40-yard field goal on its first possession in overtime to defeat Minnesota.

The Saints won the coin toss beginning overtime and took over at their 39 after the kickoff. The Saints advanced 39 yards in nine plays before kicking the field goal. Critics of the old format howl that the Vikings -- and Brett Favre -- never touched the ball in overtime. (The Vikings' defense, however, failed to stop New Orleans on two third downs and one fourth down play on the winning drive.)

The proposed format change would only be used in postseason. But if it passes and if it is favorably received, it's only a matter of time before it would also be used in regular-season games.

The coin toss has become more important because of two changes since overtime was adopted in 1974. Both have to do with improved kicking. In 1994, the kickoff was moved (for all games) from the 35-yard line to the 30 because too many kickoffs were going into and out of the end zone for touchbacks. Also, field-goal percentages have risen to all-time highs. Last year, kickers made 81.3 percent of all field goals.

From '74 to '93, teams that won the coin toss won the game in overtime 46.8 percent of the time. Teams that lost the coin toss won the game the exact same percentage of time.

Since the changes in '94, the coin-toss winner has gone on to win in overtime 59.8 percent of the time. (But only 26.2 percent of the time has a team won on its first possession with a field goal.) The coin toss-loser has won 38.5 percent of overtime games since '94.

"What's happened, as a result of the efficiency of the return game, or because of the kickoff yard line, coupled with the accuracy of the field goal kickers, you've now created an advantage, almost a 20 percent advantage, for the team winning the toss," said Rich McKay, chairman of the league competition committee.

"Now, if you get a good return, you get one completed pass or pass interference and a 52-yard field goal, and the game's over. In our mind, that wouldn't have happened as much prior to '94."

If you're the Browns, your special teams will either pin back the receiving team on its opening possession or Josh Cribbs will set up a score on the Browns' first possession. The Browns were first in the NFL in 2009 with an average drive start after kickoffs of 31.4-yard line. They were 13th in holding opponents to the 25.8 after kickoffs.

So the rule neutralizes the one advantage the Browns hold over everyone else.

Holmgren has another problem with the format change.

"For example, [with the old format], if you get down to the 10-yard line, you kick the field goal and win the game," he said. "The new rule, you'd have to go for the touchdown. First [down] at the 7? Most teams now just don't want to lose the ball. But [with the new format], you're down to fourth and goal from the 2, what do you do?

"There's all these decisions now, it's a whole new thing. To change the rules or how you think in an overtime as opposed to a regular game, guys aren't for it. I don't think. But it might pass because I think the league is for it."

Owners usually defer to their coaches on rule changes -- except on controversial ones like this one. Coaches initially disliked the instant replay review system and the two-point conversion. After years of failed votes, owners sent their coaches out of the room during the vote and passed both provisions.

It could happen on this change because Commissioner Roger Goodell favors the change.

Brownie bits: The Browns still consider offensive line a high priority in the draft. The departure of Rex Hadnot and Hank Fraley in free agency leaves them without an experienced backup center behind Alex Mack. They do not have a strong interest in Seattle guard Rob Sims, a Macedonia native, who is a restricted free agent. ... When Philadelphia released former No. 1 pick Shawn Andrews, an accomplished lineman, the natural assumption was that Browns GM Tom Heckert, who was GM when the Eagles drafted Andrews, would be interested. It's not so. Heckert is well-versed in Andrews' off-field issues with depression and injuries.

Wimbley chatter: The Arizona Cardinals were among the teams interested in trading for former Browns linebacker Kamerion Wimbley. The big holdup with them, like other teams, was Wimbley's contract. Wimbley has voided the final year of his deal through performance incentives. There are buyback provisions built in, but as things stand, 2010 is his last year under contract. The fact he can be a free agent in one year hurt his marketability. Arizona coach Ken Whisenhunt did not want to give up a high draft pick for Wimbley without a longer-term deal in place.

© 2010 cleveland.com. All rights reserved.

---

Quote:

---

Owners approve change to playoff overtime format
March 23, 2010
CBSSports.com wire reports

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The NFL has changed its overtime rules for playoff games.

Starting next season, if a team wins the coin toss and then kicks a field goal, the other team gets the ball.

If the game is still tied after that, play will continue under the current sudden-death rules. Should the team winning the toss immediately score a touchdown, then the game is over.

Team owners voted 28-4 on Tuesday in favor of the proposal at the NFL meetings. The new rule applies only for postseason games.


Welp, I'd be a lot happier if this was for the regular season too. Heck, we may not see an OT playoff game for 3-5 years. Oh well.

I wonder if they were truly worried about the possibilities of more injuries if they had imposed this on the regular season too. I think it's more guarding themselves from player complaints at the next CBA meeting. They would have been upset that by extending the average number of "work hours" without adjusting their pay. So, this saves the NFL from giving something up on their side during negotiations.

Anyway, since they corrected the "unfairness" of playoff OT...what are they going to do to fix the "unfairness" of regular season OT? That is afterall where most of the OT games are played. They should just move the kick up during regular season games.

---

Quote:

---

And just when McNabb figured out the old OT rule ...

---

Quote:

---

Just clicking

Quote:

---

Wimbley chatter: The Arizona Cardinals were among the teams interested in trading for former Browns linebacker Kamerion Wimbley. The big holdup with them, like other teams, was Wimbley's contract. Wimbley has voided the final year of his deal through performance incentives. There are buyback provisions built in, but as things stand, 2010 is his last year under contract. The fact he can be a free agent in one year hurt his marketability. Arizona coach Ken Whisenhunt did not want to give up a high draft pick for Wimbley without a longer-term deal in place.

© 2010 cleveland.com. All rights reserved.

---

that last part about wimbly,, maybe that's why we didn't get more for him?

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2010/03/impact_of_return_teams_would_b.html

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Just clicking

Quote:

---

Wimbley chatter: The Arizona Cardinals were among the teams interested in trading for former Browns linebacker Kamerion Wimbley. The big holdup with them, like other teams, was Wimbley's contract. Wimbley has voided the final year of his deal through performance incentives. There are buyback provisions built in, but as things stand, 2010 is his last year under contract. The fact he can be a free agent in one year hurt his marketability. Arizona coach Ken Whisenhunt did not want to give up a high draft pick for Wimbley without a longer-term deal in place.

© 2010 cleveland.com. All rights reserved.

---

that last part about wimbly,, maybe that's why we didn't get more for him?

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2010/03/impact_of_return_teams_would_b.html

---

That's probably it. We got what we could before we were forced to allow him to walk with nothing to show for it. I'm sure Al Davis had that all figured out.

---

Quote:

---

A change in the OT stuff for the regular season will come along soon, IMO. It might not be this year, or maybe even next year, but I just have a feeling that eventually, some really big and important regular season games will come down to OT and that will push this over the edge.

---