04/26/24
March 24, 2010
NFL Approves New Playoff Overtime Rule: By a 28-4 vote, the NFL approved the new playoffs overtime rule that gives each team at least one possession in the extra period unless the team that wins the overtime coin toss scores a touchdown. The "no" votes came from Baltimore, Buffalo, Cincinnati and Minnesota. Barring a change, the Vikings are now the last team that will ever lose a playoff game on a field goal without touching the ball. Some coaches, including Sean Payton of New Orleans, think the NFL snuck the vote while they were away from the meetings.
Given the new rule, if everything else is equal does it make sense to receive the ball if you win the overtime coin toss?
posted by rcade at 12:30 PM on March 24, 2010
This is still WTF territory for me. The NCAA's setup may not be super, but it's fair.
posted by ursus_comiter at 12:38 PM on March 24, 2010
This is fair. In overtime, you have to stop the other team from scoring a TD, or you lose. If they only get a FG, or don't score at all, you get the ball with a chance to tie or win. I like the idea that if your defense can't keep the other team out of the endzone, you don't deserve a possession...
posted by MeatSaber at 12:59 PM on March 24, 2010
Where it gets weird for me is after both teams score a field goal. At that point, the next field goal wins it. So the o/t rule is really "first team to score a touchdown or two field goals", right?
I don't get why the return to sudden death after the first posession.
posted by fabulon7 at 01:12 PM on March 24, 2010
I don't get why the return to sudden death after the first posession.
Because NFL games are long enough as it is.
posted by grum@work at 01:21 PM on March 24, 2010
So the o/t rule is really "first team to score a touchdown or two field goals", right?
No, if the second team doesn't score a field goal (or a touchdown), the first team wins with one field goal.
posted by bender at 02:42 PM on March 24, 2010
Why did they make it so complicated? Why not just say, "Each team shall be guaranteed one possession in overtime?" This would mean:
If you receive the opening kickoff and fumble it away, you have had one possession.
If you run the opening kickoff back for a touchdown, the other team still has its chance.
If you run one play from scrimmage, and have a fumble or interception run back for a touchdown, game over.
The big driver behind the overtime rule is not any worry about injury or anything else on the field. It is the TV networks who need some sort of time certainty so they can adhere to schedule. Perhaps it would be better to have a shortened period, 5 or 10 minutes, to end a tie game. Limit time outs to one per team, do away with commercial breaks on change of possession, and the time required to play 10 minutes is reduced.
posted by Howard_T at 03:45 PM on March 24, 2010
I'm surprised the Lions didn't vote against it. They should like the system the way it is. Several Thanksgivings ago, the OT coin toss got totally screwed up by the officials (who made it worse by refusing to listen to any objections about it). Detroit was mistakenly awarded the ball and quickly went on to beat Pittsburgh. The Steelers were robbed.
That was priceless. Poor Jerome Bettis. But come on these days the Lions need all the help they can get. Besides, this is the same team that won the coin toss and decided to take field position rather than the ball.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 04:44 PM on March 24, 2010
I'm fine with the change, because at least it's something. Nothing worse than seeing a team win the coin toss in overtime, get over mid-field, then kick a long field goal. Let them kick their long field goal, then if the other team can respond with a TD, they win.
Better than what they had.
posted by dyams at 05:34 PM on March 24, 2010
I like Golic's input. He just thought they should play one 10 minute abbreviated quarter. If nobody scores, they do it again. In his opinion, they play the whole game based on time, why not base the overtime on the same principle?
But I'm with Dyams. At least it's better than what they had.
posted by smithnyiu at 06:11 PM on March 24, 2010
If you run the opening kickoff back for a touchdown, the other team still has its chance.
The NFL didn't want that. If you score a TD, 1st possession or not, GAME OVER.
So the o/t rule is really "first team to score a touchdown or two field goals", right?
Like bender said - if the second team doesn't score a field goal (or a touchdown), the first team wins with one field goal.
Also, if there is a safety on the 1st possession - GAME OVER.
The NCAA's setup may not be super, but it's fair.
It's fair, I'll grant you, but it's also horrible. No punting or kickoffs, field position is not a factor - it is like throwing out 25% of football. Also with NFL kickers, starting at the 25 yard line means you're already well within FG range.
I was fine with the old sudden death rules - the highest scoring playoff game I can remember (Packers vs. Cardinals) ended on a defensive TD. I just think you need to nut up and play some D. But I get it, with the NFL encouraging offense, offense, offense via rule changes and making kickers kickoff from the 30 for less touchbacks and kickers just being more & more accurate, meant the OT coin toss was becoming more & more important in determining who will win the game.
posted by MrNix67 at 06:15 PM on March 24, 2010
No, if the second team doesn't score a field goal (or a touchdown), the first team wins with one field goal.
Yep. I'm dumb. But I still think this system is more complicated than it needs to be.
posted by fabulon7 at 07:22 PM on March 24, 2010
I understand they may now consider this for the regular season. Gee, you think they could have killed two birds with one stone.
They should have just adopted the NCAA rule: two-point conversions on TDs starting with the third possession. I would have suggested the CFL rule -- two possessions maximum -- but this is America: heaven forbid there be a tie.
posted by jjzucal at 07:23 PM on March 24, 2010
jjzucal, how exactly do you handle a tie in an elimination tournament like the playoffs? Who moves on to the next round?
posted by apoch at 04:39 AM on March 25, 2010
Isn't sports supposed to prevent you from having to think? My head hurts from trying to decipher this Di Vinci coded OT rule.
Where's Tom Hanks when we need him?!!
/paging Robert Langdon
posted by BornIcon at 10:49 AM on March 25, 2010
I'm flummoxed by the number of people acting like this is a complicated rule. It's simple: The team that loses the overtime coin toss is guaranteed one possession unless they give up a touchdown.
Commissioner Goodell took a shot at the kvetching owners: "There are 32 clubs and 32 votes, and [this] may not come as a news flash, but the owners have the vote."
posted by rcade at 11:10 AM on March 25, 2010
I could be wrong but I do believe that this is the first time that the word 'flummox' has been used on SpoFi.
Write that down
posted by BornIcon at 12:07 PM on March 25, 2010
Weedy beat me to it.
posted by rcade at 12:35 PM on March 25, 2010
Nice catch rcade! Well played.
posted by BornIcon at 12:41 PM on March 25, 2010
I like the change; as much as I enjoyed the Saints' run to a Lombardi Trophy, I would have liked to see them D up against Adrian and Brett one more time.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 12:23 AM on March 26, 2010
So.. could this be considered the Brett Favre rule?
posted by BornIcon at 06:54 AM on March 26, 2010
I think it should be Buffalo as one of those no votes.
You have to enjoy Rex Ryan's quotability on this topic.
I didn't get a clear sense of the individual team reasoning behind all four of the no votes.
I'm surprised the Lions didn't vote against it. They should like the system the way it is. Several Thanksgivings ago, the OT coin toss got totally screwed up by the officials (who made it worse by refusing to listen to any objections about it). Detroit was mistakenly awarded the ball and quickly went on to beat Pittsburgh. The Steelers were robbed.