John Mara supports change to overtime rule

We firmly believe that the NFL must change the current overtime rules, before a Super Bowl is decided by a coin flip, a kick return, a pass interference penalty, and a 45-yard field goal.

Fortunately, one of the men who’ll make the final decision agrees.  Bob Glauber of Newsday reports that Giants co-owner John Mara, a member of the Competition Committee, fully supports the move.  Unfortunately, Mara doesn’t believe the measure has the votes.

“I still think it’s an uphill battle because you have to get 24 votes to change it,” Mara told Glauber.  “I don’t know if there are enough people around the league willing to change the current system.”

Per Glauber, the proposal emerged from the Competition Committee via a vote of 6-2, the same 75-percent success rate required for the rule to pass when presented to the full ownership.

We can’t understand why anyone in ownership would oppose it.  For every team, there’s an equal chance that they’ll be victimized by the current rule as there is that they’ll benefit from it.

And if the proposal doesn’t pass, we hope a list of the franchises voting “no” emerges.  For those teams, they’ll have no right to complain if they end up losing a playoff game in overtime based on a first-drive field goal.

34 responses to “John Mara supports change to overtime rule

  1. Mike, here is what I would like you to address in a future column: Why returns and penalties, integral parts of football, should be considered as invalid ways of winning a game.

  2. I understand the Mara’s frustration. I only wonder if changing the rules will make for better TV also? The NFL has succeeded in creating a product that translates to TV better than any other sport, in my opinion. Is this another case of someone trying to fix what really isn’t broken?. Then again, if it improves the game and the way it comes through my HDTV then I’m all for it.

  3. “We can’t understand why anyone in ownership would oppose it. For every team, there’s an equal chance that they’ll be victimized by the current rule as there is that they’ll benefit from it.”
    As a Viking fan, I don’t blame the rules, I blame the players for fumbling, throwing INT’s, missing tackles, and not covering tackling lanes during returns.
    You have 60 minutes to with the game and in overtime the team who loses the coin flip needs to play better special teams and defense.
    Anyone who argues for a change doesn’t understand that the NFL is about the THREE parts of football: offense, defense, and special teams.
    Childress understand this; that’s why the Viking off season a kickoff specialists?

  4. Shaun Lowrie says, “Mike, here is what I would like you to address in a future column: Why returns and penalties, integral parts of football, should be considered as invalid ways of winning a game.”………
    The answer is rather obvious but to answer Shaun’s question with an equally asinine questions, “Why aren’t kickers considered football players by their teammates?”
    His question attempts to disect the real issue by asking for justification on each element of the post, a rather elementary attempt to argue against a much needed change in the OT rule.

  5. 1. Shaun Lowrie says: March 21, 2010 11:39 AM
    Mike, here is what I would like you to address in a future column: Why returns and penalties, integral parts of football, should be considered as invalid ways of winning a game.
    You left out the coin flip …

  6. Alright, Florio, WE GET IT! You love the Vikings and couldn’t stand to see the Saints beat a team that would’ve ripped the pathetic Vikings secondary apart.

  7. Yes, all those things are ways of winning games in the first 60 minutes (with only your coin flip being the least relevant).
    What are the statistics for who wins in OT? I would have been fully behind reform except at one time it was something like 47% of the time the coin flip winning team won, 47% they lost, with 6% remaining a tie.
    I understand it has tilted a bit more in favor of the team winning the coin flip, but by how much?
    Why not back your argument with some data rather than telling us who has a right to complain and who doesn’t?

  8. I agree something needs to be done. At the same time, I don’t want a 1:00 game going into overtime and cut too far into a 4:00 game, because my favorite team normally plays at that time. (Yes, despite how sad sack my team is, I still like to torture myself and watch every single stinking minute of it.)

  9. If they do anything, I could handle first team to 6 points.
    Also, overtime being a continuation of the 4th quarter would be ok.

  10. My favorite suggestion so far is to just make the fourth quarter last longer if it’s tied. Just keep playing till someone scores. No coin toss, no kickoff, just keep going. Would make the end of the 4th quarter amazingly exciting, and “overtime” really just a continuation of the game.

  11. leave the OT rules alone!!! 5 turnovers cost the viking the NFCCG.not the OT rules.Saints dont win that game we’re not talking about this nonsense.hey Chilly you lost that game by letting the INT leader of all time to throw the football.run the ball you win the game.lol .I myself are glad you didnt:-)

  12. @Shawn Lowrie
    I don’t think Mike has ever claimed returns and penalties aren’t valid parts of football or aren’t valid ways to win a game. His point is that in OT long returns are even more likely and in the currect system where you can win with just a field goal, winning the coin toss and getting a return is a big advantage. Add in that you could get a few questionable penalties like the Saints did in the NFC Championship and a team can win the game without earning much in OT.

  13. hummmmmmmmm do ya think the vikes could have beat the colts even if vikes would have won ??? nope don’t see that

  14. “John Mara supports change to overtime rule”
    ________________________________
    I guess Vikings fans will finally let the 2000 NFC Championship Game go now.

  15. Somebody’s gonna have to sit down and discuss this with McNabb if it ever changes, it took him like 8 years before he understood the OT rules before.
    I’m all for changing it though… If the two teams playing each other are offensive machines, the game essentially gets determined by a coin flip. It should be once the one team scores, the other team must score on the ensuing drive. If not, game over. A slightly more accommodating “sudden death” way to play. I just think it’s unfair to sentence a team to a loss, especially in the postseason, because a coin toss determined they wouldn’t even necessarily have the opportunity to possess the ball in the overtime period.

  16. @Raiders757
    This rule would only apply to the playoffs so you wouldn’t have to worry about a 1:00 game cutting into the 4:00 game. They space the games out more in the playoffs so it shouldn’t be a problem. They also don’t play 2 games from the same conference in one day in the playoffs so unless it was on a saturday when NBC covers the games you could just change the channel to the other game.
    I haven’t even mentioned the fact that the Raiders would have to make it a problem for you.

  17. If it does get voted down, I’d like to know the thought process as to why the owners voted no.

  18. Florio:
    You miss the whole point of the owners’ view on overtime.
    Explain, if you would, how your plan — or any plan besides what’s in place — puts one penny in the pockets of the owners.
    When you figure that out, tell the NFL owners. They’ll be eating out of your hand.

  19. But the coin flip does not determine the victor, is my point?
    The argument against the coin flip is that a team doesn’t necessarily have to drive all the way down the field to win the game, and that kick returns and/or penalties can lead to kickers determining an outcome.
    I am asking a question about why these particular events are seen as somehow unfair to the team defending the ball? You do realise that giving up a kick return, or not committing a penalty is still part of the game in OT?
    The overall point is this: The team that gets the ball in OT doesn’t get put in field goal range automatically by any stretch. Defensive players know that it is their chance to win the game for their team too you know?
    I just think that what is proposed may seem fair, but it’s watering down the essence of pro-football. There is no offence or defence, it is a team against another team. Different elements of a team may be on the field when a game is won or lost, but the win column doesn’t say ‘Baltimore Defence’ or ‘Minnesota Offence’.

  20. What’s wrong with this situation??: We firmly believe that the NFL must change the current overtime rules, before a Super Bowl is decided by a coin flip, a kick return, a pass interference penalty, and a 45-yard field goal.
    If special teams makes a great return and the refs continue to call this game as if no defender should ever be able to touch a reciever well then tough cookies, thats how the game ends.
    Several sources would state that the winner of the coin toss wins approximately 60% of the time, that doesn’t seem like a terribly unfair percentage to me.

  21. Paracelsus… it’s something like 57% of the teams that win the coin-toss win over-time…. but they conveniently don’t’ bother with breaking it down on how often that’s the 1st drive resulting in the win, or the team’s 2nd drive, etc…
    college football’s overtime sucks-ass — it’s arena football level and if it’s so exciting… then make the whole damn game that way. Same with the NHL and their 4 on 4 OT, if it’s such a positive thing, make the whole hockey match that way.
    the NFL’s overtime is just fine the way it is… teams don’t need or deserve equal chances to win a game. what’s next, stopping a play when a helmet comes off… oh…

  22. It seems silly to change it for the playoffs but not to do the same for the regular season.

  23. The only fair percentage to me is 50%. And sure, as a Jets fan, I LOVE IT when my defense is on the field. And I’d bet on them stopping the opening drive of overtime before field goal range against about 28 of the teams out there. But look at games like Green Bay vs Arizona in the playoffs. One score determined the entire outcome! Granted it was an OT turnover the led to the winning score… but in offensive shootouts like that, where teams just DON’T get stopped on offense, you’re leaving one team to almost certainly lose. Looking at it from the other perspective, the game could go on for 10 hours in an offensive shootout like that. There needs to be more leniency, but there also needs to be a definitive end to the game. I just hate that one team is given such an advantage to win the game. The two teams are obviously an even match and either can take the game. But the team who wins the OT coin toss has an undeniably large advantage when the game is decided by Sudden Death.

  24. The only fair percentage to me is 50%. And sure, as a Jets fan, I LOVE IT when my defense is on the field. And I’d bet on them stopping the opening drive of overtime before field goal range against about 28 of the teams out there. But look at games like Green Bay vs Arizona in the playoffs. One score determined the entire outcome! Granted it was an OT turnover the led to the winning score… but in offensive shootouts like that, where teams just DON’T get stopped on offense, you’re leaving one team to almost certainly lose. Looking at it from the other perspective, the game could go on for 10 hours in an offensive shootout like that. There needs to be more leniency, but there also needs to be a definitive end to the game. I just hate that one team is given such an advantage to win the game. The two teams are obviously an even match and either can take the game. But the team who wins the OT coin toss has an undeniably large advantage when the game is decided by Sudden Death.

  25. smithopher:
    But look at games like Green Bay vs Arizona in the playoffs. One score determined the entire outcome! Granted it was an OT turnover the led to the winning score… but in offensive shootouts like that, where teams just DON’T get stopped on offense, you’re leaving one team to almost certainly lose.
    ********************************************
    Not sure what your point is. The game would be the same under the proposed system too. When you say that one team will almost certainly lose… well I can guarantee that a team will lose mate. It’s ironic that a game where you could say that neither team deserved to lose without touching the ball was actually determined by a defensive play that would render any changes useless.

  26. The proposed rules are moronic. But, since Florio’s argument is about “inequity” being exposed in a Super Bowl, let’s pass the rule changes as part of a grand set of changes affecting the Super Bowl and making the game fair.
    Add cold weather cities to the Super Bowl rotation.
    Just like we’re ignoring the majority of recent playoff games where the kicking team won in overtime (2007 Giants over Packers, 2009 Cardinals over Packers), we can ignore the fact that cold weather teams have won a majority of recent Super Bowls (3 Patriots, 2 Steelers, 1 Giants). But then we can all claim that we’ve made the game more “fair” even though the facts beg to differ.

  27. The NFL worrying about OT equality is like a woman concerned about a bad hair day while her 3 feet wide ass is jiggling like a bowl of jello.
    How about getting rid of 62 year old fat, half-blind officials throwing phantom flags while they are 15 yards out of position?
    When the NFL begins to pay attention to it’s REAL problems, then us REAL fans will know they are serious in putting out a fair product.
    OFFICIATING is the real problem and the league knows it.

  28. “And if the proposal doesn’t pass, we hope a list of the franchises voting “no” emerges. For those teams, they’ll have no right to complain if they end up losing a playoff game in overtime based on a first-drive field goal.”
    Most of them have enough class that they won’t spend the next six years whining about it, unlike many Viking fans I could name…

  29. Two things here… firstly, no Super Bowl has ever gone into OT and if one Super Bowl ended where the kicking team loses without getting a chance to ‘touch the ball’ what’s the big deal? Secondly, I said this previously but i’ll say it again.. it’s completely equal the way OT is now. Unlike other sports like Baseball, both teams have a chance to score on every single play. The offense can throw a 30 yard TD and the Defense can also pick off an ill-advised pass across the body and take it for 6.
    The game isn’t just about offense, there’s defense and special teams as well and they are all just as important. You can’t possibly believe that having two high octane offenses and shoddy defense is a reason to change the game. If you can’t play defense then you deserve to lose.
    So where does it end? Why is this one thing unequal when other things aren’t… what if the other team doesn’t have a good kicker should we change the rules so that if a team with a bad kicker wants to kick a game winning kick they get to move the ball up 10 yards? Or should we change the forward pass rules for a team with a strong running game but no passing game? Maybe make it so that teams can’t blitz the QB if the QB sucks? Maybe allow them to have more players on the field?
    In football every single play gives BOTH teams the opportunity to score. Just look at the 108 yard FG return a few years ago. Instead of one team getting 3 points the other team got 7.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.