Skip to content

Overtime proposal passes

The National Football League owners have approved a change in overtime, starting with the playoffs following the 2010 season, that will modify the sudden-death format and prevent a team from winning a game with a field goal on the opening possession.

The vote was 28-4, with the Buffalo Bills, Minnesota Vikings, Baltimore Ravens and Cincinnati Bengals voting against. It needed at least 24 votes to pass.

“It was really a good discussion in the sense that there’s been a lot of debate, both publicly and privately, over the rule — which is always good,” Competition Committee co-chair Rich McKay said in announcing the vote. “We’ve had this discussion for a number of years. We felt like this proposal, which we call ‘modified sudden death,’ was really an opportunity to make what we think was a pretty good rule — sudden death — even better.”

McKay stressed that the new overtime rule, which says the team receiving the kickoff can’t end the game on the first possession unless it scores a touchdown, will apply only to the playoffs.

“Part of the reason we have different rules is we have different consequences,” McKay said. “The consequences in the postseason are, go home if you don’t win. In the regular season, we have 15 other games.”

It’s the first major change in playoff overtime rules in the NFL since “The Greatest Game Ever Played,” when the Baltimore Colts beat the New York Giants in the 1958 NFL Championship Game.

UPDATE: Here’s a previous post explaining the “modified sudden death” overtime format. The rule could be expanded to include the regular season as early as May.

UPDATE II: Your questions answered regarding onside kicks, and safeties in the new format.

UPDATE III: NFL coaches are not happy with the changes.  Let us know if you approve.

Permalink 120 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
120 Responses to “Overtime proposal passes”
  1. D wins games says: Mar 23, 2010 3:27 PM

    Finally! Hopefully they will use it for the regular season after seeing how well it works.

  2. WarrenMoonGOAT says: Mar 23, 2010 3:27 PM

    i bet Florio just had an orgasm

  3. Zero says: Mar 23, 2010 3:28 PM

    Wow! They finally made a rule change that actually makes sense! Way to go!

  4. Supersuckers says: Mar 23, 2010 3:29 PM

    Unbelievale. This should be called “the Queen rule” due to the excessive whining by Minnesota fans after Favre hit Terry porter in stride. I thought the best idea from one of the posters on here was to eliminate overtime altogether. Tie’s can and still happen anyway. Would make the end of regulation alot more interesting.

  5. SixBurgh6 says: Mar 23, 2010 3:32 PM

    This is the end of football as we know it.
    Big mistake.

  6. Slow Joe says: Mar 23, 2010 3:32 PM

    Yes! Now put it in the regular season as well.

  7. Action Dan says: Mar 23, 2010 3:33 PM

    It’s a step in the right direction, but it should have been applied to the regular season, as well.
    And you can bet you’ll have at least one Week 17 “win and we’re in” team lose to an OT FG on the first drive.
    In a sport with only 16 regular season games, currently, everyone has the potential magnitude of a playoff game.

  8. jb1996 says: Mar 23, 2010 3:34 PM

    about time its a shame when pro leagues need to learn from college

  9. Louiebills says: Mar 23, 2010 3:35 PM

    It was just about time. Lets hope they approve it for regular season games soon.

  10. wryly1 says: Mar 23, 2010 3:36 PM

    So … a team that can’t win in regulation, or score first in OT, gets a 3rd chance to win???
    I guess they figure the games are to short – or they can sell more commercial time.

  11. Pier588 says: Mar 23, 2010 3:36 PM

    ☻☼CBS, FOX, ESPN, NFLN nbc – you can stop “praying to the dark Lord Sauron that Overtime remains intact”.

  12. FlourideSoldOut says: Mar 23, 2010 3:37 PM

    Its all your fault Flouride!
    Hate that your lawyer biased voice is so loud in the NFL landscape, you never even played the game. Well I hope your satisfied. You truly are the Bill Polian of the NFL media.

  13. realitypolice says: Mar 23, 2010 3:39 PM

    “Part of the reason we have different rules is we have different consequences,” McKay said. “The consequences in the postseason are, go home if you don’t win. In the regular season, we have 15 other games.”
    =======================
    Um……that’s pretty stupid. Many teams start playing must win games much sooner than the playoffs. You know the first time a team is eliminated in the last game of the regular season on an overtime where they don’t get to touch the ball, they will scream that the rule should apply to all games, and then next off season they will expand the rule.
    Why save us all the headache and change the rule for all games now?

  14. Mr. Irrelevant says: Mar 23, 2010 3:40 PM

    Let me guess, was Tom Benson one of the four owners who voted against changing it?

  15. kennethnoisewater says: Mar 23, 2010 3:40 PM

    Well, at least the NFL recognized what was for the greater good of the game. Now if only Democrats could do the same.

  16. OTCderivativeYourAss says: Mar 23, 2010 3:40 PM

    Vikings voted against it? Odd.

  17. ncsteeler says: Mar 23, 2010 3:40 PM

    This is a pleasant surprise. I would have prefered it apply to the entire season but I can live with this.
    I wonder what the reasons for the 4 no votes was.

  18. jcjets says: Mar 23, 2010 3:41 PM

    What about a play-in game against a division rival at the end of the season, which is essentially a playoff game?
    If you are going to do it, it should be consistant for all games.

  19. Jeff says: Mar 23, 2010 3:41 PM

    The Saints still won.

  20. jgreen1570 says: Mar 23, 2010 3:41 PM

    Lame.
    But still better than college overtime.

  21. WarrenMoonGOAT says: Mar 23, 2010 3:42 PM

    so what happens when a team gets a safety and a field goal game still isn’t over?
    WTH

  22. sdskelly says: Mar 23, 2010 3:42 PM

    Wow… this is awful. Horrible decision. How many hoops do you need to jump through to win in overtime? If you want the game that badly…THEN WIN IT IN REGULATION! This stinks.

  23. Buschman says: Mar 23, 2010 3:43 PM

    Should be the same in the reglar season. IN the NFL, every game matters.

  24. Good Lord No says: Mar 23, 2010 3:44 PM

    Why would anyone vote against it?

  25. copes cabana says: Mar 23, 2010 3:45 PM

    So what happens when the team that gets the kick throws an INT and the other team kicks a field goal?

  26. monet99 says: Mar 23, 2010 3:45 PM

    It is absurd that this applies only to playoffs. Good grief that is stupid

  27. aka1742 says: Mar 23, 2010 3:45 PM

    “The consequences in the postseason are, go home if you don’t win. In the regular season, we have 15 other games.”
    Um…that’s if it happens in Week 1. All the games count. If it’s just a trial run so be it but McKay is making it sound like the regular season isn’t as important as the playoffs. With the regular season there are no playoffs.

  28. WarrenMoonGOAT says: Mar 23, 2010 3:48 PM

    no one has been able to come up with a valid reason against sudden death
    so why the change now?
    if Brett Favre never choked this may not have even came up

  29. Boudin says: Mar 23, 2010 3:48 PM

    “Let me guess, was Tom Benson one of the four owners who voted against changing it?”
    good job… now go back and read the article, dingus.

  30. njcheesehead72 says: Mar 23, 2010 3:48 PM

    Just call it the “Brett Favre didn’t touch the ball” rule. That will pretty much sum it up.

  31. TheBaySay says: Mar 23, 2010 3:49 PM

    Republican party leaders quickly announced their total, unified opposition to the change, whatever it might be. “If it involves invading some country halfway around the world, we can talk,” said one Senator who asked not to be identified. “Otherwise, forget it.”

  32. TheDPR says: Mar 23, 2010 3:49 PM

    Vikings voted against it?!?
    How about some quotes from Ziggy on that?

  33. puckhoo says: Mar 23, 2010 3:51 PM

    # Supersuckers says: March 23, 2010 3:29 PM
    Unbelievale. This should be called “the Queen rule” due to the excessive whining by Minnesota fans after Favre hit Terry porter in stride. I thought the best idea from one of the posters on here was to eliminate overtime altogether. Tie’s can and still happen anyway. Would make the end of regulation alot more interesting.
    Wow, where to begin:
    1) The Vikings voted against it. Obviously wasn’t their screaming that did it.
    2) Then how do you finish up playoff games that end in ties? Send both teams to the next round?
    Good thinking pal.

  34. realitypolice says: Mar 23, 2010 3:51 PM

    Supersuckers says:
    March 23, 2010 3:29 PM
    Unbelievale. This should be called “the Queen rule” due to the excessive whining by Minnesota fans after Favre hit Terry porter in stride.
    =======================
    Yeah, that’s why the Vikings voted against it, stupid. Did you even read the article? And it was Tracy Porter, not Terry. Terry Porter played in the NBA.

  35. Pervy Harvin says: Mar 23, 2010 3:52 PM

    ncsteeler says: I wonder what the reasons for the 4 no votes was.
    ————————————————–
    Because the Vikings and their fans don’t whine about OT losses.

  36. Greg from Louisiana says: Mar 23, 2010 3:52 PM

    It is a testament to how many owners thought the Vikings should have gone to the Superbowl, Hell, the NFC championship was the Superbowl.

  37. realitypolice says: Mar 23, 2010 3:52 PM

    Mr. Irrelevant says:
    March 23, 2010 3:40 PM
    Let me guess, was Tom Benson one of the four owners who voted against changing it?
    ===================
    Um……no. Did you even read the article? Try again, but go slower and mouth the words this time.

  38. AlanSaysYo says: Mar 23, 2010 3:52 PM

    This is a smack in the face to the integrity of the game. If a field goal isn’t good enough to win a game, take it out of the entire game.
    We’ve gone from sudden death to a little less sudden death. Neither is an accurate representation of the game as it is played for the first 60 minutes.
    Sad to see that real football will be played with amateur rules during the postseason…

  39. vcufan01 says: Mar 23, 2010 3:53 PM

    Get ready to hear the phrase “Game-winning onside kick” tossed around from here on out….

  40. PurpleUrple says: Mar 23, 2010 3:53 PM

    Supersuckers says:
    March 23, 2010 3:29 PM
    Unbelievale. This should be called “the Queen rule” due to the excessive whining by Minnesota fans after Favre hit Terry porter in stride. I thought the best idea from one of the posters on here was to eliminate overtime altogether. Tie’s can and still happen anyway. Would make the end of regulation alot more interesting.
    ——————————————-
    Umm, you must not be able to read. The Vikings voted againt it.

  41. Joeyjoejoeshabadooooo says: Mar 23, 2010 3:54 PM

    this has tainted the New Orleans Saints Superbowl win.

  42. Ray says: Mar 23, 2010 3:55 PM

    Stupid change. I feel it’s overtime, first team to score wins,end of story!

  43. copes cabana says: Mar 23, 2010 3:57 PM

    TheBaySay,
    Leave your politics at home.

  44. pkrlvr says: Mar 23, 2010 3:57 PM

    I love how some packer fan still finds a way to bitch about the vikings even though they voted against it.
    You gotta love the respect Favre has. Everyone watching that game wanted to see him in beat the Saints in OT and instead got disappointed. Now we’ve got a rule to insure that we see him should this happen again. LOVE IT.

  45. Hauschild says: Mar 23, 2010 3:57 PM

    It’s typical nowadays. It’s mind-boggling how so many people make stuff up and then deem it “of the utmost importance to change”. Then the idiots change it, and life of those affected by the change is absolutely no better than it was prior to the change, and in most cases worse, once the damage is eventually assessed.
    Does this sound familiar?

  46. u-sir-r-n-idiot says: Mar 23, 2010 3:58 PM

    “Unbelievale. This should be called “the Queen rule” due to the excessive whining by Minnesota fans after Favre hit Terry porter in stride. I thought the best idea from one of the posters on here was to eliminate overtime altogether. Tie’s can and still happen anyway. Would make the end of regulation alot more interesting”
    by,
    supersuckers
    *you sir are an idiot.*

  47. Chapnasty2 says: Mar 23, 2010 3:59 PM

    Terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE! OT was fine the way it was, if you couldnt win in 4 quarters and didn’t get the ball on a 50/50 coin flip and still couldnt stop the other team you didn’t deserve to win. This is BS!

  48. Tomthebombtracy says: Mar 23, 2010 4:00 PM

    Had that ’58 game ended with one posession, it would have changed the way OT was introduced later. The Colts stopped the Giants who had gotten the kickoff. Because the Vikes coulda/shoulda won in reg, the pain of the first posession T win by the Saints was diminished.
    The worst case is when a team scores on a tying drive at the end of reg, then wins the coin toss and scores on the first posession such as happened in a to the Steelers in Atlanta in the reg season. Not touching the ball after having the lead, then losing in two straight posessions sucked.

  49. 2 Dimes and a Nickel Back says: Mar 23, 2010 4:01 PM

    @supersuckers
    “Unbelievale. This should be called “the Queen rule”
    Yeah because the Vikings were 1 of 4 who didn’t vote for it….?
    Oh way, I forgot that Vikings fans have a direct line to the 28 owners who did vote for it. My bad…

  50. leatherneck says: Mar 23, 2010 4:01 PM

    As a Vikings fan, I can say that the Vikings lost to the Saints. The Saints are world champions. There is no dispute. The Vikings just lost the game.
    As a football fan, I have been in favor of changing the overtime rule to something like what the owners have just done I’m glad this happened. But it has no effect on the past, only future games.
    Eventually, I would like to see a pure “guaranteed possession” rule and it should apply to the regular season, too.
    This is a good move by the owners. It’s another rule tweak to make the game more interesting in the future.

  51. funi says: Mar 23, 2010 4:02 PM

    So does that mena they will now push back the late afternoon games start time to 4:30 incase a early game goes into OT? So when a MNF football game goes into OT, into won’t end until 1:00am?? Loves to see those ESPN ratings then.

  52. littlejimmy says: Mar 23, 2010 4:03 PM

    anything to keep Farve happy I guess,,”the Farve rule”..the Saints still won!!! and the Viqweens D couldn’t stop the Saints when it counted in OT…so we get a new rule for Brett.
    Brett, thank you so much for throwing that INT, and giving my Saints a trip to the SuperBowl. You will forever be a hero to us Saints fans. WHO Dat..WE DAT!! Vikweens..lmao!

  53. 3 yards and a cloud says: Mar 23, 2010 4:03 PM

    I think they should have changed the rule to either no field goals in overtime or eliminate sudden death and play another 15 minute quarter.
    I don’t like eliminating part of the game, i.e a field goal to win it. I wouldn’t really like eliminating field goals altogether either.
    What’s the difference between kicking a field goal with :07 on the clock in the 4th quarter and kicking a field goal with 14:53 on the clock in OT?
    Other than :14 and the obvious 4th quarter requires regular rules. Practically speaking they are about the same thing.
    Dumb change. Anti-NFL.

  54. u-sir-r-n-idiot says: Mar 23, 2010 4:04 PM

    Supersucker_
    you sir are an idiot.

  55. Supersuckers says: Mar 23, 2010 4:04 PM

    realitypolice says:
    March 23, 2010 3:51 PM
    Supersuckers says:
    March 23, 2010 3:29 PM
    Unbelievale. This should be called “the Queen rule” due to the excessive whining by Minnesota fans after Favre hit Terry porter in stride.
    =======================
    Yeah, that’s why the Vikings voted against it, stupid. Did you even read the article? And it was Tracy Porter, not Terry. Terry Porter played in the NBA.
    ———-
    The Terry Porter post doesn’t count. I was below hard-deck. The organization voted against it. I would be willing to put a small to midsize wager that if you polled all the viking fans they would have voted for it in a landslide.

  56. artielange says: Mar 23, 2010 4:06 PM

    Mr. Irrelevant says:
    March 23, 2010 3:40 PM
    Let me guess, was Tom Benson one of the four owners who voted against changing it?
    ——————————————————
    I heard he missed the vote because he was busy getting fitted for his Super Bowl champions ring.

  57. WarrenMoonGOAT says: Mar 23, 2010 4:07 PM

    puckhoo says:
    March 23, 2010 3:51 PM
    2) Then how do you finish up playoff games that end in ties? Send both teams to the next round?
    well has it ever happened before?… no
    so i’m guessing it would just go an extra quarter

  58. forkenstein says: Mar 23, 2010 4:07 PM

    And the first time a team scores a TD in OT and the other team doesn’t get to touch it, we’ll be back here again listening to people cry about how unfair the system is. People aren’t going to be happy until all the things that make football unique are gone.

  59. 8man says: Mar 23, 2010 4:09 PM

    I don’t get this. What’s wrong with just playing a full 15 minutes in OT?
    So if the other team gives up a touchdown, they don’t get the ball at all. Like it’s some kind of punishment for letting your opponent drive the field on you. Stoopid.
    So you got the ball first in OT, it’s 4 and 2 at your opponent’s 28. Do you attempt a 45 yard FG or go for the first down and a possible game ending TD, knowing full well they aren’t going to punt on their ensuing possession?
    This sounds like something the arena league would come up with.

  60. Pay This Man! says: Mar 23, 2010 4:13 PM

    So what happens if Team A (the receiving team in OT) plays it conservative and kicks a field goal rather then pushing for the TD to avoid risking a turnover.
    And then Team B runs back the ensuing kickoff??
    Team B Wins? Or does Team A get another chance?

  61. dolphan85 says: Mar 23, 2010 4:13 PM

    So what happens when the team that gets the kick throws an INT and the other team kicks a field goal?
    ——————–
    The game over. The first team had a chance, and lost it on the INT. At this point the other team can win with any score.

  62. Slim says: Mar 23, 2010 4:14 PM

    Guarantee there will not be an OT playoff game next year.

  63. WarrenMoonGOAT says: Mar 23, 2010 4:16 PM

    can someone address the situation when there is a safety and a field goal or two field goals from the same team who first had possession in overtime…
    man this is bogus
    this eventually eliminating the importance of having a Kicker
    say its 21-21 Raiders against the Chargers in San Diego 12:10 seconds left on the clock and Sebas is going for a 67 yard field goal and he makes it in OT…and the raiders win, that would be epic. due to the distance and would greatly benefit teams with a great kicker, because it makes up for the lack of offense they may have.

  64. Mountaindont says: Mar 23, 2010 4:18 PM

    ATTENTION DONAVAN MCNABB!! THERE ARE NEW OVERTIME RULES !!

  65. Beast says: Mar 23, 2010 4:18 PM

    It’s funny how they started making a big deal out of this after my 8-8 Chargers beat out a hot indy team in OT in the playoff’s..lmaoo..so stupid.

  66. The Wishbone says: Mar 23, 2010 4:18 PM

    It’s a sad day for football. Either stay with sudden death or go with a timed period. This is gonna be even worse than the college overtime.

  67. sdffa11 says: Mar 23, 2010 4:19 PM

    lets say an OT game in week 17 has playoff implications and the team that wins the toss chooses to receive and marches down the field to kick a field goal. then what?

  68. sugarlips says: Mar 23, 2010 4:22 PM

    You can just go ahead and rename this the “Give Brett Another Chance” rule.
    Catering to their “superstars”, another step in the ultimate pussification of the NFL.

  69. Dewey Axewoond says: Mar 23, 2010 4:27 PM

    AlanSaysYo says:
    March 23, 2010 3:52 PM
    This is a smack in the face to the integrity of the game. If a field goal isn’t good enough to win a game, take it out of the entire game.
    We’ve gone from sudden death to a little less sudden death. Neither is an accurate representation of the game as it is played for the first 60 minutes.
    Sad to see that real football will be played with amateur rules during the postseason…
    _______________________________
    +
    Hauschild says:
    March 23, 2010 3:57 PM
    It’s typical nowadays. It’s mind-boggling how so many people make stuff up and then deem it “of the utmost importance to change”. Then the idiots change it, and life of those affected by the change is absolutely no better than it was prior to the change, and in most cases worse, once the damage is eventually assessed.
    Does this sound familiar?
    ___________________________________
    =
    My thoughts EXACTLY.

  70. robothero says: Mar 23, 2010 4:29 PM

    You guys are idiots if you think that the rule doesn’t include provisions for onside kicks, safetys and interceptions.

  71. TheBaySay says: Mar 23, 2010 4:30 PM

    Copes cabana – not a problem. Just responding to kennethnoisewater who posted earlier. Wantin’ to have that fair and balanced thing goin’ on, y’know.

  72. AJD says: Mar 23, 2010 4:32 PM

    pkrlvr says:
    “You gotta love the respect Favre has. Everyone watching that game wanted to see him in beat the Saints in OT and instead got disappointed. Now we’ve got a rule to insure that we see him should this happen again. LOVE IT.”
    Yeah, now Favre can throw two game-killing interceptions. LOVE IT!

  73. realitypolice says: Mar 23, 2010 4:33 PM

    The Terry Porter post doesn’t count. I was below hard-deck. The organization voted against it. I would be willing to put a small to midsize wager that if you polled all the viking fans they would have voted for it in a landslide.
    ======================
    A Top Gun reference!?!? You sir, should consider yourself redeemed.
    No doubt you would be right about the second part.

  74. footballrulz says: Mar 23, 2010 4:34 PM

    So, what happens if, in OT:
    Coin toss winner is stopped, punts, other team kicks a FG
    or
    Coin toss winner gets tackled in the end zone for a safety & then opposing team kicks a FG
    or
    Coin toss winner turns the ball over and opposing team scores a FG.
    I would assume, since both teams have touched the ball the game is over. OR does one team have to score six points?

  75. bluestree says: Mar 23, 2010 4:36 PM

    “pkrlvr; You gotta love the respect Favre has. Everyone watching that game wanted to see him in beat the Saints in OT and instead got disappointed. Now we’ve got a rule to insure that we see him should this happen again. LOVE IT”
    Holy crap are you in la la land!
    (I did want BF to get the ball back, so he could throw one more devastating pick! That’s not respect my friend, that’s contempt. Most of America was just rooting for the Saints.)

  76. spdy3450 says: Mar 23, 2010 4:38 PM

    WarrenmoonGOAT, actually if I understand it correctly the game would end as soon as the safety occurs. The field goal rule only applies to the team that plays offense first.
    Personaly I prefer the old system where playing defense matters but it’s not the end of football as some of you are screaming about. No biggie

  77. Adam_Bears_Fan says: Mar 23, 2010 4:38 PM

    This is a horrible move.
    Why not extend this to the last minute of regulation play then? You can’t win the game in the last minute on a field goal without giving the other team another chance to score. Better yet, eliminate field goals altogether.
    Or to pussy this down even more, insure each team has the exact same number of possessions!
    What’s next? No tackling? National Flag Football League?
    As a long time fan of the Bears I’ve had to endure a lot of bad football, but even that pales in comparison to this boneheaded move.
    The game will go on, but this is move in the wrong direction.

  78. purpleguy says: Mar 23, 2010 4:40 PM

    to avoid the sour grapes mantra, I wonder if Wilff only voted against once he knew the modification would pass.

  79. DSMERGS says: Mar 23, 2010 4:41 PM

    It is amazing how stupid some of the viking haters sound….read before you speak. You might just learn something.

  80. monger says: Mar 23, 2010 4:43 PM

    What a stupid ass rule. It’s sudden death only if you score a TD. What happens if you receive the kickoff, and on your first posession, the defense scores a safety? It’s not a TD.
    So if you score 6 points in OT it’s a sudden death win. If you score 2 points in OT it’s a sudden death win. But if you score 3 points it’s NOT a sudden death win. STUPID RULE.
    A better change is just take some of the air out of the K balls and move the kickoff yard line up to compensate. No rules change necessary, and the fraction of first possession wins goes back to nearly 50% and little punters and kickers are less important to the game as it should be.

  81. Pier588 says: Mar 23, 2010 4:43 PM

    kennywithahoseuphisnose -
    “Well, at least the NFL recognized what was for the greater good of the game. Now if only Democrats could do the same.”
    Meanwhile, at a bar in Haiti – “W” (worst ever) wants to declare war on the NFL as a sovereign domestic business “for the greater good of the game”.
    And “Slick Willy” Clinton states “the league has way more important issues to address such as NFL team cheerleaders wearing way too many clothes while cheering on game days”.

  82. HC says: Mar 23, 2010 4:44 PM

    Of the 57 comments so far, one person gets it and the rest don’t. The reason for the OT change is television – and since they’re the ones with the money the rule was changed. They don’t like overtime in the regular season because it screws up their schedule. They don’t mind in the playoffs because all they have to do is shorten their post-game show.

  83. Ilovefoolsball says: Mar 23, 2010 4:48 PM

    Funny that the Vikings voted against it. I guess they had to appear as if they weren’t the whiners that they were. Good for them. Now maybe they can give some pointers to their fans, the biggest whiners in all professional sports.

  84. Drat says: Mar 23, 2010 4:53 PM

    This is crap. If the problem was caused by the kickoff being moved back to the 30 just move it back up. some math nerd can calculate a yard line where it will come out about 50-50. Cripes.
    There are a lot of questions. “Can’t end the game on the first possession.” What if you kick a FG on the first possession? Then stop your opponent and kick a FG on the second possession? Or are FGs on 1st possessions just not allowed? But they are otherwise? What if teams winning the toss start to choose to kickoff? Will they win 60% of the time, without having the pressure to score a TD? In all cases, the strategy changes, the game is different.
    STUPID.

  85. PeopleSmarterThanMe says: Mar 23, 2010 4:53 PM

    a dark day for football.
    btw Florio, the vikings still lost.

  86. CsanBoySmith says: Mar 23, 2010 4:56 PM

    Health Insurance Reform passes and NOW THIS!!!!!

  87. Mrsteve says: Mar 23, 2010 5:02 PM

    The MN Vikings voted no because they like the rest of the NFL & all the fans across the country even in the big easy knew that the Saints were stopped short on 4th & 1 and also got a pass interference call that sealed the victory when there was no PI at all. It wasn’t the OT rule that caused that victory it was bad officiating.
    Holding on almost every offensive play, late hits, hits to knees & head, defensive holding, offsides not called. A TD called when the RB was clearly out of bounds.
    It’s easier to say lets change the OT rule than to publically admit the refs are the reason the Saints won.
    Yes sour grapes.

  88. joelhawksfan says: Mar 23, 2010 5:06 PM

    Wow, some people really don’t comprehend what they read do they.
    -The Vinkings voted AGAINST the rule change.
    -A field goal can win the game in overtime, if it is followed by a defensive stop.
    This is a good change. I agree that is should have just been applied to the regular season as well.
    I don’t see how you can say that this ruins the game. Are baseball and basketball ruined because they aren’t a sudden death overtime? (and please don’t tell me that baseball IS sudden death, because it ISN’T… just think about it before you post something).

  89. goodellBLOWS says: Mar 23, 2010 5:09 PM

    Goodell is ruining football !
    He was spotted leaving several owners rooms late last night! I heard that snyder actually paid 4 a hummer, as did j.jones, but jones couldn’t get it up. Jones says he’s gonna put it up on his big-ass-jerry-tron for all 100,000 attendees @ his 1st MMA event 2 see!
    “Sudden death” ot was fine the way it was! Even the vikings owner voted aganst it!!!!!!
    Thanks 4 changing the NFL draft 2 a freaking Thursday!
    You might as well put MNF on tuesdays now, u freakn DOUCHEBAG!
    Oh yeah, just wait until he moves the superbowl 2 london later this decade!!!!! Its coming!
    Everyone should just drop their season tickets, get direct tv, & order the Sunday ticket!
    Goodell BLOWS!

  90. realitypolice says: Mar 23, 2010 5:10 PM

    HC says:
    March 23, 2010 4:44 PM
    Of the 57 comments so far, one person gets it and the rest don’t. The reason for the OT change is television – and since they’re the ones with the money the rule was changed. They don’t like overtime in the regular season because it screws up their schedule. They don’t mind in the playoffs because all they have to do is shorten their post-game show.
    ==========
    Of course. That’s why it’s already being reported that the the owners will most likely expand the rule to the regular season during their May meetings.
    The most cynical answer isn’t always the right one.

  91. buddycianci says: Mar 23, 2010 5:11 PM

    Chapnasty2 says: March 23, 2010 3:59 PM
    Terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE! OT was fine the way it was, if you couldnt win in 4 quarters and didn’t get the ball on a 50/50 coin flip and still couldnt stop the other team you didn’t deserve to win. This is BS!

  92. Ralph says: Mar 23, 2010 5:13 PM

    What I really love about this site is the affirmation that opinions really are like hemorrhoids, sooner or later every A*hole gets to have one.
    So much stupidity wrapped up into one little basket, y’all should be proud to display yourselves like this.
    IMHFO they should do away with overtime in the regular season. IF you haven’t done enough to win the game in regulation, you don’t deserve the win.
    I understand the playoffs require that one of those teams wins the game, so overtime rules are required. As long as everyone is subject to the same rules, why does anyone really care what they are? Winners are always gonna say it counted, losers are always gonna feel like they got the short end of the poop stick.

  93. Bob Nelson says: Mar 23, 2010 5:15 PM

    Why can’t things just left alone?
    Football has just gone downhill since they got rid of leather helmets and gets worse every year.
    Florio will not be happy until all tackling and blocking is eliminated.

  94. Supersuckers says: Mar 23, 2010 5:19 PM

    puckhoo says:
    March 23, 2010 3:51 PM
    # Supersuckers says: March 23, 2010 3:29 PM
    Unbelievale. This should be called “the Queen rule” due to the excessive whining by Minnesota fans after Favre hit Terry porter in stride. I thought the best idea from one of the posters on here was to eliminate overtime altogether. Tie’s can and still happen anyway. Would make the end of regulation alot more interesting.
    Wow, where to begin:
    1) The Vikings voted against it. Obviously wasn’t their screaming that did it.
    2) Then how do you finish up playoff games that end in ties? Send both teams to the next round?
    Good thinking pal.
    ———–
    No the organization voted for it. Poll the fans and its a landslide the other way. Obviously in the playoffs you dont end a game in a tie. they dont do it now!! They could implement this goofy idea for the playoffs then.

  95. Sports Fan says: Mar 23, 2010 5:21 PM

    Why have kickers or field goals at all? put the ball on the 20 yard line and play form there, eliminate special teams as well no need for kickoff coverage or field goal kickers, only need punters.

  96. superfan99 says: Mar 23, 2010 5:25 PM

    Why not just eliminate Field Goals in overtime all together? Wouldn’t that be a less complicated way to achieve the same result?

  97. Pervy Harvin says: Mar 23, 2010 5:27 PM

    Ilovefoolsball says: Funny that the Vikings voted against it. I guess they had to appear as if they weren’t the whiners that they were. Good for them. Now maybe they can give some pointers to their fans, the biggest whiners in all professional sports.
    ————————————————–
    Dude, isn’t about time you go hit the RawHide 2010 Club for your nightly snorkling session? Feel blessed you escaped with the victory. If we see you guys first game, we will knock that championship cockiness right out of you. Now hit the fairy bar!!

  98. Pier588 says: Mar 23, 2010 5:35 PM

    TheBaySay – great posts.
    Copes cabana – how about some equal time with your political correctness in policing PFT? Why didn’t you give those same “raspberries” to – kennywithahoseuphisnose – for starting the political input generated in this thread instead of jumping TheBaySay for responding with a “like in kind” response?

  99. FinFan says: Mar 23, 2010 5:35 PM

    Kinda stupid it should be changed for the entire season not just playoffs.
    Wait until the wildcard contenders complain they missed playoffs because their wildcard contenting game was basically playoffs for playoffs. People will bitch.

  100. God's Own Silver and Blue says: Mar 23, 2010 5:43 PM

    “As a Vikings fan, I can say that the Vikings lost to the Saints. The Saints are world champions. There is no dispute. The Vikings just lost the game.”
    You obviously weren’t around here when all the ‘Queens fans were rending their garments and pooping their didies after LOSING that game. We heard every excuse in the book from ‘Queens fans about why their team got schooled.

  101. HC says: Mar 23, 2010 5:47 PM

    HC says:
    Of the 57 comments so far, one person gets it and the rest don’t. The reason for the OT change is television – and since they’re the ones with the money the rule was changed. They don’t like overtime in the regular season because it screws up their schedule. They don’t mind in the playoffs because all they have to do is shorten their post-game show.
    ==========
    realitypolice says:
    Of course. That’s why it’s already being reported that the the owners will most likely expand the rule to the regular season during their May meetings.
    The most cynical answer isn’t always the right one.
    ==========
    If the rule does get expanded to the regular season, it will happen with a blessing from the networks, or a concession to them. It’s naive to think they have had no input in the discussion. Meanwhile a mind-boggling percentage actually believe this rule change is all about Brett Favre . . .

  102. spliffbunker says: Mar 23, 2010 5:48 PM

    I like this idea so much at first glance that I wish they wouild use in the regular season at least on a one year trial or in pre-season when you have got extra guys on the roster that want a chance to play
    could end up the best rule change since 1994 when they finally put in the 2 point conversion
    interesting old school nostalgia for ties…
    Minnesota went 3-8-3 in 1967…bet that was a fun year for everyone involved…

  103. MrHumble says: Mar 23, 2010 5:49 PM

    LMAO…further proof of the rednecks that are allowed to post. They read the original article and call it the “Favre rule”, “Vikings rule” etc. etc. and yet the Vikings were one of the four teams voting against it…….proof that the rednecks can’t post, they can’t even freakin’ read!
    I’m not a Vikings fan, but I gotta give them the “balls award” for voting against it when it was them that got jobbed by the officials first and then the current OT rule in the NFC Championship game. I have always said the Saints have a “tainted SB win” and this vote supports that with 24 other owners saying “enough of this chit, we want the best teams in the SB”.

  104. HC says: Mar 23, 2010 6:01 PM

    Sports Fan says:
    Why have kickers or field goals at all? put the ball on the 20 yard line and play form there, eliminate special teams as well no need for kickoff coverage or field goal kickers, only need punters
    ==========
    superfan99 says:
    Why not just eliminate Field Goals in overtime all together? Wouldn’t that be a less complicated way to achieve the same result?
    ==========
    Did you guys even read what the rule change was? If the receiving team drives for a FG, the game continues for at least one more possession – that’s it, nothing else changes. You’re making the rule change a lot more complicated than it actually is.

  105. Pier588 says: Mar 23, 2010 6:02 PM

    CsanBoySmith – copes cabana sez “Leave your politics at home.”

  106. Opinionated Fool says: Mar 23, 2010 6:05 PM

    The new rule sucks, and let’s admit, it was only created to avoid the situation where a “star” QB (read: Peyton Manning et al.) might not have the opportunity to play in OT due to the chance of a coin flip (and, uh, his team’s defensive mistakes). Awww….
    That being the case, why not just have a Punt, Pass & Kick contest featuring both team’s star QBs? That way, the star QBs will never be left out of contributing to his team’s win or loss. Cuz it really is all about the offense (defense doesn’t count, special teams don’t count) and the QB is the star of the offense.
    What a bunch of pussies, these NFL owners!

  107. PatricktheDookie says: Mar 23, 2010 6:06 PM

    What if there’s a safety?

  108. wingman says: Mar 23, 2010 6:08 PM

    I still think that the NFL owners have it wrong. Lets look at it this way… if the team recieving the overtime kick-off does not score than the defense did it’s job…than give the win to that team. But the only true fair way is to have each team have at least one possession than it becomes a crap shoot after that.

  109. Joeyjoejoeshabadooooo says: Mar 23, 2010 6:27 PM

    what if there is a safety?

  110. Bious says: Mar 23, 2010 6:36 PM

    Over-time rules went from straight-forward to confusing and idiotic
    Brilliant
    Brett Favre rule…typical

  111. BDMurrayJr says: Mar 23, 2010 6:40 PM

    All they did here with this rule is give the advantage from the receiving team to the kicking team. It’s much easier stop a team from scoring a touchdown than a field goal. Kick the ball first, stop the opposing team from a TD, and kick a field goal. After stopping the team who drives first, you’ll even have better field position than a regular kickoff in most situations. This rule makes no sense. Nothing was accomplished.

  112. realitypolice says: Mar 23, 2010 7:02 PM

    HC Says-
    If the rule does get expanded to the regular season, it will happen with a blessing from the networks, or a concession to them. It’s naive to think they have had no input in the discussion.
    ===============================
    I’m sure the league keeps the networks in the loop, but you’ve got the tail wagging the dog. The league makes the rules, not the other way around. Do you think the networks would keep the black out rule if they had enough power to get rid of it? Do you think the Who would have played at half time of the Super Bowl if the networks were making the decision?
    What are the networks going to do? Walk away from the most popular sport in the country?

  113. bunbun says: Mar 23, 2010 7:03 PM

    The only reason for this rule change is more revenue gained by more commercials.

  114. Colts18 says: Mar 23, 2010 7:30 PM

    As a colts fan i see both sides of this argument, but im still not sure how to think about this rule change. i feel that everyone will like it as long as there team isnt the one to drive down the field and kick a field goal, only to lose on a kick return directly after.

  115. VaNorseman says: Mar 23, 2010 8:22 PM

    Oh, and the team that probably would have really benefited from this rule had it been in place a couple of months ago. . .the NFL’s best team in 2009, your Minnesota Vikings. I guess the rumors of the Vikings “whining” about the rule sort of go up in smoke now. . .unless you ask the people in the comment section of the post from Pro Football Talk linked above. Honestly, can anybody read the comments of any post at PFT without the annoying sound of banjos running through their heads?
    Nice quote Daily Norseman! I think the last comment is about all you Green Gay Tail Packer fans

  116. HearYe_HearYe says: Mar 23, 2010 10:03 PM

    I hate to say it, but it’s stuff like this that has made me realize I don’t like football anymore.
    It’s not that I think there’s anything “bad” about this rule in and of itself. It solves a problem. But the fact that there was a problem in the first place is the whole problem, because it shows what is intrinsically wrong with football as a sport: It can take place only within the confines of a gazillion meticulous rules. Only with these rules can the game actually function. That doesn’t quite make football scripted, but it definitely makes it conscripted.
    In other words, football just isn’t very “pure.” People like to use the war metaphor to describe the game, and I used to love that analogy. But I’ve realized it’s actually the opposite. War isn’t choreographed by some meticulous framework. War is basically “two opponents try to destroy each other.”
    A football game, on the other hand, can exist only within a framework that’s been molded and tweaked by outsiders down to the tiniest nooks and crannies. Once I had that realization, the whole thing just became a lot less fun for me. It was kind of depressing to realize, but you’re kind of stuck with it once your brain “goes there.”
    Baseball, basketball, even games like soccer and hockey — they just seem a lot more pure and natural in what they’re all about.

  117. Flying Monkey says: Mar 23, 2010 11:20 PM

    You don’t change a rule by diminishing the role of the kicker!
    What’s next? Kicker can’t win a game with under a minute to play in the fourth quarter? Why not, what’s the difference?
    This change is a slap in the face to a team that has invested in a quality kicker! It’s a horrible fix to a problem.
    Go back to the drawing board and create a better solution. Or better yet, leave it alone.
    If not, just get rid of Adam Vinateiri and his ilke all together Goodell.

  118. cwinckler says: Mar 24, 2010 7:35 AM

    This rule simply put says the NFL is admitting the Vikings were robbed of a Super Bowl…

  119. Sports Fan says: Mar 24, 2010 9:39 AM

    HC Says:
    Did you guys even read what the rule change was? If the receiving team drives for a FG, the game continues for at least one more possession – that’s it, nothing else changes. You’re making the rule change a lot more complicated than it actually is.
    ==================================
    Yes I did read the rules did you?
    The contest would still end with a touchdown by either team on the opening possession. But if the team that receives the overtime kickoff caps its first drive with a field goal, it must kick off to its opponent.
    The opponent would then win the contest with a touchdown or tie it with a field goal. If both teams kick field goals, play would continue under the current sudden-death rules.

  120. BDMurrayJr says: Mar 25, 2010 2:42 PM

    Roger Goodell is an ass-clown.

Leave a Reply

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