Skip to content

More on the modified overtime proposal

Florio usually takes the overtime posts because, well, he hates it more than he hates a costly 12-men on the field penalty.

But he’s gone for the evening, and we already have an update to the modified sudden death rule the competition committee is considering for the playoffs.

Here’s how the proposal will look, according to NFL spokesman Greg Aiello.

Both teams would
be guaranteed a possession unless first team with the ball scores a touchdown,” Aiello tweeted. 

If the first team to get the ball
kicks a field goal,  the other team gets the ball. If it doesn’t score, the game is over.
  If the second team with the ball ties it with a field goal, the game continues until someone scores.”

So the proposal won’t be the first team to score six points wins, as we initially thought.  You can win on a field goal if you prevent the other team for scoring.

I don’t hate the old overtime as much as Florio, but this proposal is an improvement from the current system. It would add excitement, strategy, and some fairness to overtime. 

The only part we don’t understand: Why would the change be good enough for the playoffs, but not the regular season?

That part isn’t logical, but this proposal is a good to start to possible change.  Now it just needs to pass.

Permalink 53 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
53 Responses to “More on the modified overtime proposal”
  1. Old Manny of the Mountains says: Feb 27, 2010 6:33 PM

    I think its a good idea. And I didn’t really mind the current OT rules..
    But we all know Florio still won’t be happy because the NFL didn’t use HIS idea…

  2. The Wishbone says: Feb 27, 2010 6:37 PM

    The current system is great. It gives teams a reason to play for the win. Under this stupid proposal, they have more reasons to play for overtime. Congratulations, morons.
    This is the worst idea in the NFL since the second time Al Davis hired Art Shell to “coach”.

  3. cleveland_DAEWOO says: Feb 27, 2010 6:38 PM

    but what if the first team hits a FG and the second team scores a TD?

  4. Citizen Strange says: Feb 27, 2010 6:48 PM

    I have posted this before.
    The current overtime rules are fine. Sudden death is very exciting. I personally think the college OT system sucks.
    If something MUST be changed then eliminate the coin toss and have the team that scored last automatically kick off.
    This would give them more incentive to go for the win rather than the tie in regulation.
    That said I would guess that 100% of the coaches would STILL go for the tie so how bad can kicking the ball to start OT really be?
    This is much ado (or adieu per PFT) about nothing.

  5. mr_snrub says: Feb 27, 2010 7:01 PM

    Rabble! Rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble! Rabble.

  6. Deb says: Feb 27, 2010 7:09 PM

    Oh no, what an idiot I was to think they’d actually go with the one thing that made sense: first to six wins. Nah, they’re going to go with some convoluted nonsense. I mean, these are the people who came up with the Tuck Rule and an instant-replay system where we watch in sloooow mooootion each frame-by-frame movement as the receiver falls to the ground to see whether the ball moves a millimeter across his chest to indicate he didn’t have total ball control. Good grief.

  7. last starfighter says: Feb 27, 2010 7:14 PM

    # The Wishbone says: February 27, 2010 6:37 PM
    The current system is great. It gives teams a reason to play for the win. Under this stupid proposal, they have more reasons to play for overtime. Congratulations, morons.
    This is the worst idea in the NFL since the second time Al Davis hired Art Shell to “coach”.
    —————————————————
    Exactly right. Weenie coaching decisions will get even weenier. I have no problem with the current slightly inequitable OT rules because by not being able to close the deal in regulation, teams waive their right to “fair”. If a team is afraid of their odds in sudden death maybe they take more chances to win in regulation. If you aren’t good enough to win in regulation you shouldn’t be complaining about coin flips. Sudden death is very exciting. I doubt any rule change will pass

  8. dcowboy7 says: Feb 27, 2010 7:32 PM

    i like it…no more chippy FGs for the win.
    Now if u kick a chippy FG on 1st possesion & the other team score a TD u lose !!

  9. buzzbissinger says: Feb 27, 2010 7:33 PM

    Everyone on this thread seems to agree the current system works.
    Too bad for us they listen to Florio, King, Cowher and the like.
    Shouldn’t they (the NFL) listen to the fans?
    I guess I’ll have to cast my vote by not watching.

  10. Kong says: Feb 27, 2010 7:35 PM

    Overtime exists for the purpose of ending the game while trying to avoid a tie. Period.
    They’ve already played 60 minutes. Why shouldn’t the coin flip be a factor at that point considering neither team could effectively take advantage of enough opportunities to pull ahead in regulation?
    Sudden death isn’t fair? Play better during regulation. Where does this end? Five full quarters? Six? There needs to be an incentive to ensure the game is played at a high level. Sudden death overtime serves that purpose.
    However, what about doing away with field goals all together in overtime? Keep the sudden death format but only allow touchdowns.

  11. jimicos says: Feb 27, 2010 7:38 PM

    “You can win on a field goal if you prevent the other team for scoring.”
    ——————————-
    Can someone who works for this site please ACT like they passed high school English?

  12. Horned Hell says: Feb 27, 2010 7:43 PM

    Why not just treat the transition from the 4th quarter to Overtime the same as you do the 3rd quarter to the 4th quarter. Switch sides of the field and keep on playing. No coin flip arguments and you keep it sudden death.
    Problem solved.

  13. lboogie25 says: Feb 27, 2010 7:51 PM

    What, the first four quarters aren’t fair enough? If one team played better, there’d be no need for overtime. What is with this fairness bullish all over the place? It’s already fair!

  14. malgorthewarrior says: Feb 27, 2010 7:52 PM

    please read this comment pft and talk about this idea-
    in overtime you have to win by at least 4
    similar to the rule they are considering, but better in my mind.
    think about it

  15. Nathan says: Feb 27, 2010 7:54 PM

    Why would the change be good enough for the playoffs, but not the regular season?
    Simple.
    Because they don’t want OT games to last a really long time and push over into the start of the next game in the TV timeslot.
    They have contractual obligations to air the start of the games, and there would be an uproar if long OTs started happening frequently but the end of the games weren’t being televised.

  16. Eric Q says: Feb 27, 2010 8:01 PM

    Way to take up Florio’s slack, Rosenthal! I like the proposal!!!!

  17. ClownBurger says: Feb 27, 2010 8:11 PM

    The current system is a bore with too much power given to the coin toss.
    College OT is a blast, but should NOT be used in the NFL.
    This new idea, is an improvement IMO. Sounds like fun to me.

  18. Uncle Leo says: Feb 27, 2010 8:26 PM

    Rock, Paper, Scissors….

  19. jd dirtybird21 says: Feb 27, 2010 8:48 PM

    I like the new idea. It will force an offense who won the coin toss to actually TRY and use a tougher strategy. Rather than giving up at the opp. 30 yard line and just run the ball until you get to the 25 to kick the game winning field goal, you take the risk of giving your opponent an extra possession by making that decision. If you go for the TD which is much tougher, you get the win, BRILLIANT. I like sudden death, but the opposing quarterback who didn’t get on the field should get a shot at possession.

  20. afiresnake says: Feb 27, 2010 8:53 PM

    Oh man, Florio hates the new proposal, because if it is put in place, he needs to find another topic which will generate him some hits for his polemic postings.
    Well, maybe something about Terry Bradshaw?

  21. Display Name says: Feb 27, 2010 8:57 PM

    “Both teams would be guaranteed a possession unless first team with the ball scores a touchdown,” Aiello tweeted.
    ================================
    Ok, so does that mean that since the Packers were the first team with the ball in their game vs. Arizona and they (The Packers) didn’t score a Touchdown on their first possession that they’d get the ball back after the Interception returned for a TD by the Cardinals? The Cardinals weren’t the first team with the ball, the Packers were.

  22. ThreeIfByAir says: Feb 27, 2010 9:04 PM

    I love the new idea — except the part where the game is over when the first team scores a FG and the second team doesn’t. It should be first-to-six period. The second team should still be able to punt and hope the first team doesn’t score a second FG.
    If you get to the end of the OT period and six points haven’t been scored, but one team has scored more than the other, then they win — but the only effect of the sixth point is to end the game before the OT period is over. (You could potentially decide that OT periods are shorter, if you choose.)

  23. DirtMcGirt24 says: Feb 27, 2010 9:29 PM

    So a team wins the toss, takes possession and is tackled in the end zone for a safety. They kick off, the other team scores a field goal to go up 5, having scored twice. But no, the game is not over, because they manner in which they scored isn’t good enough due to the arbitrary rules. For giggles they force another stop, take possession and score another field goal, going up 8. Nope, still no victory.
    Why would they kick the field goal, you ask? Because if they had to go for it on 4th and 10 due to the new arbitrary scoring rules and didn’t convert, they’d give up the ball on the 41 yard line. So, like football coaches and players have done for years, they take the 3 points and kick off.
    Except, unlike in previous years, they’re now up 8 points IN OVERTIME and still haven’t won the game.

  24. DirtMcGirt24 says: Feb 27, 2010 9:32 PM

    “If the first team to get the ball kicks a field goal, the other team gets the ball. If it doesn’t score, the game is over. If the second team with the ball ties it with a field goal, the game continues until someone scores.”
    And in this scenario, where both teams kick a field goal, the team who wins the toss still has pretty much the same advantage they’d have under current rules – score and win, and having that advantage because they won the toss.

  25. bigtrav425 says: Feb 27, 2010 9:42 PM

    The current OT is a SHAM! Bout damn time they get rid of it!

  26. JimmySmith says: Feb 27, 2010 10:08 PM

    Keep the old rules, just because the Vikings choked doesn’t mean you have to re write the OT rules.

  27. FootballOnly says: Feb 27, 2010 10:16 PM

    It may not be perfect yet but it’s a definite improvement over the current bullshit way.

  28. polishkingski says: Feb 27, 2010 10:16 PM

    ask the players what they think. if they feel 60 minutes is good enough with a coin flip to decide first possession, first score wins then so be it. they don`t want to play any longer then they have too. anybody see pam oliver lately?

  29. VikingsFan987 says: Feb 27, 2010 10:38 PM

    If a team can’t play defense, that’s there problem. The rule is fine as it is.
    Check out sidelineblogger.com for more.

  30. LovinBlue says: Feb 27, 2010 11:22 PM

    Wonder if an on-side kick would be allowed if the first team scores a FG.

  31. covercorner7 says: Feb 27, 2010 11:31 PM

    Regular season ties should not have overtime.

  32. blitzed says: Feb 27, 2010 11:40 PM

    how about a 7 or 8 minute OT and whoever scores the most points wins …. still tie ,repeat the 7 or 8 minute quarter …. pretty simple ….. why does all this extra goofy crap gotta be dreamed up for something so simple …. IDIOTS !!!!!

  33. JoeFlaccosUniBrow says: Feb 28, 2010 12:16 AM

    @buzzbissinger says:
    Shouldn’t they (the NFL) listen to the fans?
    I guess I’ll have to cast my vote by not watching.
    You are FOS! You will be watching football next year, new OT rules or not.
    Football is king and they know it….you know….I know it.
    So STFU and pass me the Doritos come week 1.

  34. PossibleCabbage says: Feb 28, 2010 12:48 AM

    Really, “first team to six wins” is a better rule. Why? Because it can be explained in one sentence in a way that everybody will understand it immediately. No need to make this complicated.

  35. turkeyfunk says: Feb 28, 2010 1:21 AM

    keep the rules exactly the same, just say that the winner of the coin toss gets the ball at the 20 yard line (i.e. no kick off). check out these numbers:
    Stats on Overtime Coin Tosses (1974-2003)
    The NFL has had 325 overtime games since the rule was adopted in 1974. The results:
    Both teams have had possession 235 times (72.3%).
    The team that has won the toss has won 169 times (52.0%).
    The team that has lost the toss has won 141 times (43.4%).
    223 games were decided by a field goal (68.6%).
    86 games were decided by a TD (26.5%).
    One game was decided by a safety (0.3%).
    There have been 15 ties (4.6%).
    Source: NFL
    *It seems fair but these numbers are somewhat misleading because in 1994 a rule changed moved the kickoff back 5 yards to the 30 yard line (those numbers were based on data from 1973-2003). Since then, it’s been about 60%. Prior to the rule change, the coin toss had no predictive value for deciding who would eventually win the game. Since 1994, the coin flip winner has a clear advantage.

  36. zoinks says: Feb 28, 2010 1:48 AM

    If a defense can’t do their job (i.e. prevent the opposing offense from scoring), then they don’t deserve to win.
    Period.

  37. Mark0226 says: Feb 28, 2010 1:48 AM

    This is a ridiculous proposal. After the first team scores a FG, the second team now gets 4 downs to get 10 yards instead of only three that the first team got. The first team cannot go for it on 4th and 7 on their own 40 yard line, but the second team MUST go for it or lose. THIS is NOT fair to the first team.
    The current system works and is FAIR to both teams because 1) they all know the rules before the game starts. If they don’t like OT, avoid it during the first 60 minutes, 2) each team has equal change (50-50) to win the coin toss, 3) there are three phases to the game, Offense, Defense, and Special Teams. If you lose the coin toss, make sure your special teams doesn’t give the other team a short field, and make sure your defense doesn’t allow the other team to get within FG range, unless it’s Nate Kaeding in the playoffs.
    The ONLY proposal that makes any sense is to move the kickoff back to the 40 yard line instead of the 35. Of course, this takes away special teams out a little, but forces a longer field.

  38. Roger Goodell's a tool. says: Feb 28, 2010 2:15 AM

    Well this is gay as shit.
    If you can’t win the game in the first 60 minutes, tough shit.
    Gay ass Florio and Peter King (patriots homer) whining about this bs. Get over yourselves homos.

  39. newman says: Feb 28, 2010 2:19 AM

    This is the exact plan that Bill Simmons proposed. He’s going to be ecstatic. Unless he doesn’t get credited, in which case he’ll be intolerable.

  40. Little Tommy says: Feb 28, 2010 5:21 AM

    Now let’s talk about those last 2 or 3 meaningless games of the season for early division clinchers!

  41. Little Tommy says: Feb 28, 2010 5:23 AM

    Oh no, what an idiot I was to think they’d actually go with the one thing that made sense: first to six wins. Nah, they’re going to go with some convoluted nonsense. I mean, these are the people who came up with the Tuck Rule and an instant-replay system where we watch in sloooow mooootion each frame-by-frame movement as the receiver falls to the ground to see whether the ball moves a millimeter across his chest to indicate he didn’t have total ball control. Good grief.
    **********************************************
    You’re spot on Deb. Nicely said.

  42. PeteM says: Feb 28, 2010 7:23 AM

    They can change overtime, they can change what constitutes possession, they can change force-out plays…but the Tuck Rule remains in tact!
    THAT’S why the NFL sucks!!!

  43. Brady-mancrush says: Feb 28, 2010 7:37 AM

    buzzbissinger says: Everyone on this thread seems to agree the current system works.
    Not me….I am excited

  44. paullar says: Feb 28, 2010 7:54 AM

    Here’s a solution that only takes one possession. Find the spot on the field where if the recieving team only has a 50% chance of scoring a field goal. Is it their own 20, 15, 10, etc. But if you give the offensive team the ball (without a kickoff) at a spot on a field where they’re as likely to have to punt then drive down for a field goal, more teams will choose to play D first. Once the team winning the coin toss starts choosing O and D at a 50/50 rate, you’ve got a fair solution. Right now the problem isn’t one possession, its that 99% of teams winning the OT coin toss choose to take the ball.

  45. FlourideSoldOut says: Feb 28, 2010 8:30 AM

    Florio is the Bill Polian of the overtime rules. Whatsahmatah Flouride, they don’t play the way you want to, your team doesn’t get the ball?
    Remember Defense can score too. What happens if there is a pick six, does the team that got intercepted get the ball back?
    Sometimes I just hate that you and your ball washer Rosenthal have such a loud voice in the NFL media world, you two have a tendency to come off as a couple wankers. You never played the game, in essence you got no authority to say anything, oh wait I forgot you got “sources”.
    Let the people who actually play the game decide how it will be played, stick to chasing Lord Farve and your police blotter, its what you do best.

  46. blitzed says: Feb 28, 2010 9:15 AM

    How about a 7 or 8 minute OT ….. whoever scores the most points wins …. pretty simple …. if it’s still tied ,it either ends in a tie or you play another extra 7 or 8 minutes til there is a winner…. was that so hard ??

  47. edgy1957 says: Feb 28, 2010 10:23 AM

    What the hell does fairness have to do with anything? What’s next, QBs can ask the officials to keep the bad guys from the other side from blitzing?
    My proposal is simple:
    # Regular season overtime would be a full 15 minutes and only one overtime would be played. The team with the most points would win the game; otherwise, tie game.
    # The first playoff overtime would be a full 15 minutes. The team with the most points would win the game.
    If a second overtime is needed, it would also be a full 15 minutes. The team with the most points would win the game. It would be a continuation of the previous overtime and no coin flip would be needed. Teams would change sides of the field.
    If a third or more overtimes are needed, they would be a full 15 minutes. A coin flip would be used to determine which team gets the ball in the third overtime but all other overtimes would start with the last team in possession of the ball where they had it in the previous overtime and teams would change sides of the field after each overtime. Sudden death rules apply for all overtimes from the third overtime on.

  48. edgy1957 says: Feb 28, 2010 10:24 AM

    What the hell does fairness have to do with anything? What’s next, QBs can ask the officials to keep the bad guys from the other side from blitzing?
    My proposal is simple:
    # Regular season overtime would be a full 15 minutes and only one overtime would be played. The team with the most points would win the game; otherwise, tie game.
    # The first playoff overtime would be a full 15 minutes. The team with the most points would win the game.
    If a second overtime is needed, it would also be a full 15 minutes. The team with the most points would win the game. It would be a continuation of the previous overtime and no coin flip would be needed. Teams would change sides of the field.
    If a third or more overtimes are needed, they would be a full 15 minutes. A coin flip would be used to determine which team gets the ball in the third overtime but all other overtimes would start with the last team in possession of the ball where they had it in the previous overtime and teams would change sides of the field after each overtime. Sudden death rules apply for all overtimes from the third overtime on.

  49. sadnfiw says: Feb 28, 2010 1:31 PM

    KEEP IT SIMPLE!
    exactly the way it is now except NO FIELD GOALS allowed.
    easy. simple.

  50. Deb says: Feb 28, 2010 1:36 PM

    @turkeyfunk …
    That’s it!!! Thank you!!! Somewhere in the back of my mind I knew that when I was a little girl OT was exciting and you never knew who was going to win. Then as I got older, something changed to give the team that won the coin toss an advantage. I always thought it looked like they didn’t have to move the ball as far to kick a field goal–and that’s it!
    What braintrust decided to move the kickoff spot?? They could solve this whole problem easily by just moving it back! Duh!

  51. edgy1957 says: Feb 28, 2010 3:15 PM

    Look, the kickoffs were moved from 40 to 35 yards the same year that they instituted overtime and all they did was move it 5 yards 20 years later. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it go to the 25 down the road. Had there been OT before 1974, you might have actually seen an increase in the chances for the coin flip winner and then a gradual lowering as the kickers got better at putting the ball into the endzone so I’m not surprised to see an increase after 1994.

  52. Strick says: Mar 1, 2010 12:24 PM

    Aaron Rodgers was FACEMASKED!

  53. Supersuckers says: Mar 2, 2010 2:52 PM

    edgy1957 says:
    February 28, 2010 10:23 AM
    What the hell does fairness have to do with anything? What’s next, QBs can ask the officials to keep the bad guys from the other side from blitzing?
    My proposal is simple:
    # Regular season overtime would be a full 15 minutes and only one overtime would be played. The team with the most points would win the game; otherwise, tie game.
    # The first playoff overtime would be a full 15 minutes. The team with the most points would win the game.
    If a second overtime is needed, it would also be a full 15 minutes. The team with the most points would win the game. It would be a continuation of the previous overtime and no coin flip would be needed. Teams would change sides of the field.
    If a third or more overtimes are needed, they would be a full 15 minutes. A coin flip would be used to determine which team gets the ball in the third overtime but all other overtimes would start with the last team in possession of the ball where they had it in the previous overtime and teams would change sides of the field after each overtime. Sudden death rules apply for all overtimes from the third overtime on.
    ———-
    If you think something like that would be approved by the players union then you are out of your mind. The union really does not want to see any changes due to injury concern. And rightfully so. There is more to this then just the fairness of the overtime to be considered. Television production is structured so that generally the last ad that needs to be aired is at the 2 minute warning. generally there are no ads aired in OT because the network wants to get the game over with to move on to the next game or programming that airs ads. they structure it this way so they get all allocated ads aired during a roughly 3 hour television broadcast. your proposal could potentially be showing alot of exciting NFL football with no ads being aired. On the business end of the game it would be pointless time on the air. A waste. Keep it like it is or play a 8 minute period. if tied after 8 minutes game is a tie. this would satisfy everyone. Networks semi happy they can move on to airing ads, union is happy because it shortens some OT games, fans are happy because both teams will get a possesion.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!