NFL owners decide not to change regular season overtime

[PatsChamp88]

NFL.com Blogs Blog Archive Owners table vote to extend overtime rule

IRVING, Texas — NFL owners decided not to vote Tuesday at the NFL Spring Meeting on extending the new overtime rule changes to the regular season.

The new rules, which could allow both teams possession in overtime, will only apply to the postseason.

Didn't see this posted already but I think it's really dumb that they only applied the new overtime rule to post season instead of the regular season first or at least across the board (reg/post season).

 

[jah]

NFL owners...

 

[stinkypete]

I still see nothing wrong with the current sudden-death format. If your special teams and defense fail you and you lose by first possession field-goal, what business do you have earning the W? There are 3 aspects to the game, and there's no injustice in being placed in a position where one of those 3 groups (O, D, ST) have to gut out the win or prevent the loss.

 

[PatsChamp88]

I still see nothing wrong with the current sudden-death format. If your special teams and defense fail you and you lose by first possession field-goal, what business do you have earning the W? There are 3 aspects to the game, and there's no injustice in being placed in a position where one of those 3 groups (O, D, ST) have to gut out the win or prevent the loss.

Me either but that fact remains when it counts most (the playoffs) a first possession field goal won't win it outright.

 

[Deus Irae]

Me either but that fact remains when it counts most (the playoffs) a first possession field goal won't win it outright.

What needs to happen:

Colts/Patriots in the AFCCG, and the game goes into overtime.

Manning & Co. get the ball first.

Colts move down the field but have to settle for the field goal.

Patriots get the ball and win with a touchdown.



If that happens, the rule will be repealed before the end of the next business day.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I have the impression that the NFLPA was opposed to the change and that the owners/Goodell decided not to pursue it this year as some sort of a gesture related to the contract negotiations.

 

[PatsChamp88]

What needs to happen:

Colts/Patriots in the AFCCG, and the game goes into overtime.

Manning & Co. get the ball first.

Colts move down the field but have to settle for the field goal.

Patriots get the ball and win with a touchdown.



If that happens, the rule will be repealed before the end of the next business day.

Sad but true :nooo: but seriously I would enjoy that outcome just to throw it in Polian's face.

 

[Ruby2]

It's an obvious conspiracy initiated by Goodell to benefit the Jets.

 

[PatsChamp88]

It's an obvious conspiracy initiated by Goodell to benefit the Jets.

You can't go into overtime when you already lost...

 

[brdmaverick]

This is a shame, I want to see more TDs in OT instead of the anticlimactic field goal.

A few questions about the new rule though......


Question: If a team converts a successful onside kick in OT, will they need a FG or a TD to end the game?


Another question:
Team A receivers the ball and kicks a field goal.

On the ensuing drive, team B throws a pick, but the defender then fumbles it away to be recovered by team B. Is the game over, or does Team B still get a chance to tie/win?


Last one:
If Team A receives the ball, scores a field goal, and then converts a successful onside kick, is the game over?

 

[Synovia]

I still see nothing wrong with the current sudden-death format. If your special teams and defense fail you and you lose by first possession field-goal, what business do you have earning the W? There are 3 aspects to the game, and there's no injustice in being placed in a position where one of those 3 groups (O, D, ST) have to gut out the win or prevent the loss.

This argument is patently ridiculous, for exactly the reasons you listed. There are 3 phases of the game. Even if a team comes out and stops the opponents kick return short at the 25, and then gets them to go 3 and out, and the opponent puts up an average punt, the team that started out on defense first still has worse field position than the other team ever has. That team is still more likely to LOSE than the team that won the toss.


The current sudden death rules are terrible not because one team can win without the other seeing the ball, but because the odds are so heavily tipped towards the team that has the ball first (>60/<40).

 

[Synovia]

I wish they'd just made the rule the simplest one:

If you have possession of the ball, and the lead, you win.

 

[Wolfpack]

This argument is patently ridiculous, for exactly the reasons you listed. There are 3 phases of the game. Even if a team comes out and stops the opponents kick return short at the 25, and then gets them to go 3 and out, and the opponent puts up an average punt, the team that started out on defense first still has worse field position than the other team ever has. That team is still more likely to LOSE than the team that won the toss.


The current sudden death rules are terrible not because one team can win without the other seeing the ball, but because the odds are so heavily tipped towards the team that has the ball first (>60/<40).

This past season was split 50/50 with regards to the team winning the coin toss winning the game. The playoffs were also split 1-1 in the same manner.

This rule is nothing more than trying to fix something that ain't broke because Mr. Wonderful, Brett Favre, didn't get a chance to throw another INT in overtime.

 

[Wolfpack]

I wish they'd just made the rule the simplest one:

If you have possession of the ball, and the lead, you win.

Actually, the simplest rule was the way it used to be. Your suggestion here could take forever to resolve.