Comments on: Competition Committee will propose "modified sudden death" for overtime

By: markass

markass — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:06:32 +0000

WOW, I want to see proof the NFL committee came up with this idea. I have my proof do they. I will take any test proving that this is my proposal. I sent it to Roger Gooddell, ESPN, and others way before it was ever discussed. Give credit where credit is due. BIG NFL FAN

By: 65TossPowerTrap

65TossPowerTrap — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:05:05 +0000

Horrible idea. Just make it a shortened “extra quarter” and let it play out till there is a winner. Still have a coin flip, but make it a 7min 30 second quarter, that way the game doesn’t take on the extended boredom of extra innings in baseball. Anything else would just be bastardizing the integrity of the game and cause more conflict.

By: covercorner7

covercorner7 — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:06:41 +0000

In the regular season it should just be a tie w/ no overtime. They had 4 quartes to win.

By: Florida727

Florida727 — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:29:17 +0000

and once again, EGO prevails…
College football got it right, but the NFL is too egomaniacal to accept that someone else has a better idea and they should implement it. Then again, I like the 20-yard deep endzones in the Canadian Football League, and multiple guys in motion. Something else that would add excitement to the game, which means the NFL will never incorporate it.
You want FAIR, implement the college system, (TV networks will just have to get over it) but I like the idea someone else posted about starting from the 40 or even 50-yard line.

By: notsosmart

notsosmart — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:05:45 +0000

How about in baseball when it appears a pitcher purposely throws at a batter, the batter goes to second base and the runners move up accordingly?

By: scottw

scottw — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:04:49 +0000

Some good incisive thoughts here.
If a team scored safeties on the opponent’s first 2 possessions, they’d be up 4-0 in OT but not have won.
If their opponent got the ball back and drove for a FG, they’d be behind 3-4 in OT (therefore behind on the scoreboard) but would have won with a lower score.
The NFL would have to change the TD or FG to win rule.

By: Lukacs

Lukacs — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:00:18 +0000

I like it and the kvetchers will learn to enjoy it as well. A touchdown is the right way to end an overtime. Even better: the “final possession” after a FG can be touchdown only – either win or lose. The less foolishness about falling down in the middle of the field, freezing the kicker, etc., the better.

By: _ROCKSTAR_

_ROCKSTAR_ — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:55:27 +0000

Just leave it as is. The proposal is gay.
ITS SUDDEN DEATH for a reason. Might as well give Lombari Trophies to every team at the end of the season just for playing.

By: SayItAin'tSoFlorio

SayItAin'tSoFlorio — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:34:40 +0000

I’m for leaving the rules the same as they’ve been since the game was invented. For those that argue that each team is deserving of a “chance”, just refer to the Packers-Cardinals playoff game. What “chance” did the Cardinals have? Oh… their defense scored.
If you insist on changing the rules, figure out some meaningful tiebreaker, rather than a coin flip, to determine who gets the ball first. I like turnovers, but that would often not be a solution (too much chance of being equal). So come up with something as a second (third, etc.) tiebreaker. Maybe there’s some other person that has a better idea on tiebreakers. Being the home team isn’t the worst idea either.

By: Jaysunmoore

Jaysunmoore — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:30:39 +0000

Win in regulation or get what you get. Quit crying about “fairness.” Coin toss & sudden-death scoring: nothing could be more exciting.

By: Other Bears

Other Bears — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:21:56 +0000

sluggers wrote:
Real easy solution. Leave the sudden death rules as is, but eliminate the coin toss and give the home team the ball first. Make first possession in OT an inherent benefit of “home field advantage”.
————————
That’s a great idea.
@Chicago Joe:
If the team gets a safety in the opening possession, they would then get the ball on the free kick and the other defense would get a chance to get a safety or a defensive touchdown. Makes sense, right?

By: Mark0226

Mark0226 — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:07:46 +0000

sluggerss says:
Real easy solution. Leave the sudden death rules as is, but eliminate the coin toss and give the home team the ball first. Make first possession in OT an inherent benefit of “home field advantage”. In baseball, the home team has the benefit of being the last team to bat in extra innings. Its an inherent advantage of being at home.
======
Love this idea. BEST idea ever mentioned on this topic. Takes away the “lost the game on a coin flip” argument. It is “fair” for the home team to get this advantage. The away team knows in advance that they will NOT get the ball first, so they may think twice before playing for OT. Instead of kicking that game tying extra point or FG, they may decide to go for two or first down.
In fact, why not take this one step further and eliminate the coin flip at the beginning of the game too, just like baseball. They don’t flip a coin to decide who is first at bat. In this case, football should follow suit.
Put it on the board. Sell this idea to the NFL Competition Committee.

By: Hauschild

Hauschild — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:03:52 +0000

It’s ridiculous, really.
All people are really trying to accomplish here is something than will never come to fruition – somebody eventually has to lose.
That’s the whole problem with this new rule because what ardent supporters argue is fairness, but really what they want is for both teams to win. As strange as that sounds, that’s basically what it boils down to.
One of the reasons NFL football is so great is because it is full of suspense. Changing the overtime rule diminishes the suspense (at the expense of so-called “fairness”) and it is a blatant example of “tinkering” with a machine that “ain’t broke”. And, when a guy does that, he directly compromises the foundation the game was built upon.

By: Caldon

Caldon — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:39:53 +0000

The union would have no say in this, they are already required to play up to a full quarter after regulation if needed.

By: GoodGuyAttorney

GoodGuyAttorney — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:37:45 +0000

This is nuts. Take the following scenario: The receiving team (Team A) has driven to the 3 yard line of Team B. Team A has a fourth and goal at the 3 yard line. Team A would go for the TD rather than kick the field goal. First, Team A knows that if they kick the FG Team B will return a kickoff to the 29 yard line (average) with a chance for a short drive to kick a tieing FG. If Team A scores the TD the game is over. If Team A doesn’t get the TD they know that Team B gets the ball on their own 3 yard line and has to drive 60+ yards to kick a FG to win. BUT if Team A stops Team B somewhere inside the 20 they will get the ball right back again almost in FG range. Team B will also be forced to play more conservative from their own 3 yard line because they know they are now in sudden death and can’t risk a turnover like they might survive in a “real” game. Once Team A returns a punt they have a very short drive to kick a FG to win (since both teams have had a possesion). It could create all sorts of hard decisions on Tema A’s coach and/or causes Team B to be put in really “unfair” field position.
This is a very bad resolution to a very real problem.

By: Veritas Amber

Veritas Amber — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:17:11 +0000

Why not reduce the overtime timing to say eight or ten minutes and play till that time expires?

By: ChicagoJo

ChicagoJo — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:14:44 +0000

BenRapistberger, there are plenty of times when a team is encouraged to go for a FG and not a touchdown. 4th down for one, or at the end of a game when 3 points will win it. Awesome handle.
It’s first to 6, or it can end like a college game if one team scores 3 and then the other team turns the ball over without scoring. I’m not crazy about that. Why not just let the clock run out if one team goes up 3 and the other team can’t score?
The Bears beat the Titans in overtime in 03 or 04 on an an Alex Brown safety and it was one of the most thrilling overtime endings I’ve ever seen (right behind Mike Brown’s back to back pick 6s).
It kind of sucks that under this rule, you can score a field goal and a safety in OT and still lose if the other team scores a TD next. they should make it 4 points, not 6. Any team that gets 2 safeties in OT deserves a win.

By: leatherneck

leatherneck — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:12:23 +0000

This is not enough, but it’s a positive step.
Modified sudden death should extend to all regular season games, and should not end on an opening-possession touchdown. The other team should have a chance to respond.

By: July 4 1776

July 4 1776 — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:11:58 +0000

As a major Vikings fans I have little to no complaints with the overtime rules. I see no problems with the way the rules are currently and see no reason to change them. Do I think we could have won with a chance with the ball again? Hell Yes! But I also think we would have won had AP held on to the ball on 1st and Goal at the 5 or some questionable calls in the overtim….never mind another story. My point is the only thing that I would be OK with is a change in the coin flip itself. Id be Ok with it being based on something that happens in the game, maybe like who has more yards or something. Then again it wouldn’t matter if they changed nothing. The rules are just football.

By: CapsLockKey

CapsLockKey — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:11:54 +0000

“If anything just make the team that scored last in regulation automatically kick off in overtime.”
So what if the team that scored last happened to do it at the 3:00 remaining mark? That’d give the other team a huge competitive advantage in that they’d get a guaranteed two possessions in a row.

By: JD

JD — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:59:07 +0000

Think rules similar to college should be played out. Instead of getting it on the 25 yard line though, it should be a regular kickoff.
So if a team gets the kick off, takes it to the house, that team will then kick off, providing the other team with a chance to tie. If they don’t, they lose, if they do, it starts again. Same for fieldgoals, team has to match or score or they lose.
Maybe throw in something like after each team scores 2 TDs each, they have to go for two. Yes, all similar to college rules.
As for the safety, if a team forces a safety, that team wins automatically.
Or maybe even implement a whole other quarter, or half a quarter.
As for the comment “Football is too brutal and violent to drag out an extra four and a half hours just to make sure that each offense gets 50 snaps from center or whatever. I would rather overtime literally be decided by a coin flip with no further play than to lengthen it”.
Are you really a football fan?

By: bigrig

bigrig — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:58:48 +0000

The real reason the NFL doesn’t want to change the OT rules is that the networks don’t want the games dragging into their Sunday night lineup of programs.
As much as advertisers pay to run their products on Sunday afternoon, they pay even more for Sunday night primetime. Follow the money people.
Oh, and what happens if the kicking team records a safety since technically they never had a possession?

By: ZombieRevolution

ZombieRevolution — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:57:47 +0000

“We strongly believe that the current system must change. Though we prefer a system that guarantees a possession for both teams even in the event of a touchdown, the proposed rule is far, far better than the current one.”
It’s amazing how long the system worked with as few actual complaints as there has been from a minority of people and they feel the need for a change. Florio is an ex lawyer- he loves rules and changing things.

By: WarrenMoonGOAT

WarrenMoonGOAT — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:45:51 +0000

some of u seem to forget that Kickers and Field Goals are apart of the game…so sorry if u don’t like to see a man kick the ball for 30 or 40 yards but when its necessary to win a game that may be 12-14 and your team is losing and theres 4 seconds left on the clock, what are u going to wish that your team doesn’t kick and go for 6 instead?

By: D-Swell

D-Swell — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:36:23 +0000

Why not just have the first drive start from the 20-yard line rather than with a kickoff? That neutralizes the field position advantage but keeps the overtime rules simple.

By: KILLER FIN

KILLER FIN — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:35:18 +0000

STUPID!!! The losers should have prevented O.T. to begin with!!!

By: Hap

Hap — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:30:20 +0000

Oh, so both teams get a possession ONLY IF the 1st team kicks a FG ?
That’s not the answer.

By: jimicos

jimicos — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:28:40 +0000

Dead horse: Are you still beating me?

By: five_seven

**five_seven** — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:25:51 +0000

Terrible. Stupid. Leave OT alone!
If your D can’t stop the other team’s O from scoring, you deserve to lose the game. That’s the way it works during regulation OR in OT. Period. That’s why we keep track of those pesky numbers that they use for “scoring”.
Please don’t do this, NFL. Freakin’ college overtime sucks…it’s like a tedious track meet that never ends. I turn off most college games that go to OT. Force both teams to have the ball in OT? Yet another example of justifying mediocrity.
By the way, under the current NFL rules, your D can score on that first possession as well…

By: Dewey Axewoond

Dewey Axewoond — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:23:40 +0000

Almost forgot:
Do not think the rules of games in the playoffs should be any different than the regular season.
In general: More football = BETTER.
NOTHING should be done just because the poor wittle BiQueens and Bwetty didn’t get the ball in OT.
Boo hoo, sniff sniff, blubber sob.
While I like the proposal, if they just left everything the way it is now, I’d be fine with that, too.
Despite all the namby-pamby rule changes being proposed, defense should still count for SOMETHING, right? Play both sides of the ball.
Stop someone, dammit.