Overtime rule tabled indefinitely

Getty Images

Many of you (OK, several of you . . . OK, some of you . . . OK, one of you . . . OK, no one yet) have asked when the proposed reduction in overtime from 15 minutes to 10 minutes will be presented again to the league’s owners for a potential vote. Some in the media have suggested that it definitely will happen in May. A league source tells PFT that there’s currently no timetable for reintroducing it.

With nine teams opposed to the measure, the league needs only one to flip. As the source explained it, the measure will be back on the table in May if that happens before then.

If it doesn’t, the proposal will continue to reside on the back burner, with no vote taken because if that happens the “no” vote would prevail.

So how will a team end up changing its position? The most direct way would be to lobby the nine holdouts until one of them sees things differently. The more complicated way entails old-fashioned horse trading, with one or more of the teams that oppose the proposal being offered something else on a wink-nod basis.

Is that proper? It doesn’t matter. It’s how things happen in any organization that requires votes to be cast in order for things to get done.

12 responses to “Overtime rule tabled indefinitely

  1. Can someone please explain what problem is solved by making overtime 10 minutes instead of 15?

    I think the larger issue with overtime is if it gives both teams a fair shot at winning a game in overtime. Example, currently one team is given an opportunity to have a game winning TD drive by winning a lucky coin flip, while the other has to earn an opportunity with a defensive stop.

    I don’t see what “problem” this 10 minute overtime solution actually resolves.

  2. The more complicated way entails old-fashioned horse trading, with one or more of the teams that oppose the proposal being offered something else on a wink-nod basis.

    Is that proper? It doesn’t matter. It’s how things happen in any organization that requires votes to be cast in order for things to get done.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    not if integrity is involved

  3. Good overview, Florio—though you miss one angle.

    While ppl might lobby behind the scenes to get a ‘Yay’ vote, one important angle to consider is there could be a few very strong ‘Nay’ voters who do not want the OT to pass.

    Knowing that they are only one vote from seeing this bill pass, some opposition can lobby behind the scenes too, looking to persuade ppl to come back to their side, thus putting more of a buffer between the two side—and ultimately possibly leading to the vote never to see the light of day again.

  4. I honestly don’t have an issue with the OT rules as they are right now. There’s nothing inherently unfair about flipping a coin. Each team has an equal shot at winning a coin flip. And if you lose it you have plenty of chances to stop the other team from scoring a touchdown. I don’t know how there would be an easy way to get rid of coin tosses in OT without bastardizing the game.

  5. To me, these “out of the blue” discussions about OT and shortening the game have nothing to do with the American audience. Could it be that the NFL is looking to dial in the European viewing audience with these potential changes?

Leave a Reply

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