Reports conflict regarding Competition Committee vote on overtime

Earlier today, we pointed out that Bob Glauber of Newsday reports that the Competition Committee passed the proposed change to the overtime rules with a vote of 6-2.

But ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reports that it was an 8-0 outcome.

The difference is more than two votes.  Mort’s report suggests unanimity, and unanimity sends a strong message to the 32 owners.  And it would send an even stronger message to those who watch what the league is doing, since the failure to pass a proposal that came out of the Competition Committee in unanimous fashion would indicate that the supposedly influential Competition Committee isn’t so influential after all.

We’re trying to find out whether it’s 8-0, 6-2, or something else.  Stay tuned.

UPDATE:  It’s now 2-1 that the vote was 6-2.  Judy Battista of the New York Times says that Ozzie Newsome of the Ravens and Marvin Lewis of the Bengals opposed the measure

21 responses to “Reports conflict regarding Competition Committee vote on overtime

  1. I heard it was 7-1. Now we really have some investigating to do. Hmmmm?????? DOES IT REALLY MATTER?!?!

  2. Another sorry half measure by the NFL. Why not simply extend the game? In the event of a tie at the end of regulation, play continues as normal until someone scores. Simple and effective. So the No Fun League will never adopt it.

  3. Justice is served. Thank you Brett Favre and the Minnesota Vikings for bringing a terrible rule to light and for affecting change. He’re to hoping that PFT nation realizes who the real 2010 Super Bowl champions should be, the Minnesota Vikings. Thank you and God bless.

  4. The currant OT rule is good. To add playing time is to add injuries to players. Also, if this rule ever was applied to regular season games it would create more tie games.
    I think a good solution would be to move the kick-off up 10 yards. That would make more teams start from the 20 and be less of an advantage to have the ball first.

  5. @Cannon
    How the hell do you figure the Vikings should have won the Super Bowl? They lost the game within the confines of the rules in place. They were not robbed nor did they lose unjustifiably. In fact, if anyone robbed the game from you, it was the damn quarterback who threw the pick at the end of regulation! (I can’t remember his name at this moment)
    Even IF the Vikings made it to the Super Bowl, is it a forgone conclusion that they would have even won? Sure the Saints beat them but this isn’t geometry, the transitive property does not apply.
    I have no problem with the Vikings or Vikings fans but if they are anything like this guy I understand why they piss so many people off.

  6. just another good example of how your job is amazingly easy……why dont you look at these headlines your leaving for us today
    christ….make something good happen in football today so florio can pretend hes worthy of work and so hopefully the eagles trade mcskeezer

  7. Why let Brett choke it away in regulation when it’s so much funnier in overtime? You can change the rules afterwards crybaby Vike fans but your trophy case is still empty.

  8. While I’m ok with doublechecking more thoroughly the referee’s work in the playoffs I’m not in favor of actually having the rules change in the playoffs. Make it the rule for all games or not at all.

  9. @ATLien
    No, not at all.
    The problem with that is it would change the 4th quarter. Lets say there is 3 seconds left and the 49ers have the ball in place for a 53 yard field goal attempt. That is a little out of Joe Nedney’s range but in the current rule system there is not harm in trying it other than the unlikely return of the field goal. However in your proposed idea if the kick were missed and the game went into a 5th quarter than it would give the opposing team excellent field position. You would have a lot of teams playing for the tie and it would be boring. I think they should just add one chance to tie. So if the 49ers went down in overtime and scored a field goal, the opposing team returns a kick and then gets the chance to drive down and either tie or score a TD and win. If any change should occur I think that way makes the most sense.
    Frankly I like the overtime rules. Last time I checked the defenders are part of the team and if your defense can’t stop the other team from scoring on one drive, they probably wouldn’t win in any other set of rules any way. And for those that say its “decided by a coin flip” I believe that it is something like 6/10 times the team that gets the coin flip wins so that is hardly the case.

  10. ask Hasselbeck how easy it is for the offense to score on the opening drive in OT
    I completely agree with “this class sucks”
    also, with this new rule i think OT will take forever to finish (don’t follow college football, so I’m not sure how true this statement really is)

  11. For everyone claiming that it’s fair if one team kicks a field goal and then other team gets the ball and a chance to score….consider this…Team A wins the flip and takes the kickoff – they kick a field goal….Team B now receives a kickoff….are they EVER going to punt? NO – which gives them one extra down every 4 downs to get a 1st down and continue the drive…if Team A has 4th and 4 from their own 40 they will punt…if Team B after giving up a FG is in this situation (4th and 4) they will go for it – so I fail to see how this is a better solution.
    The NFL needs to leave its OT rules alone!

  12. @ Cannon
    “PFT nation” does realize who the champs should be…
    they reside in New Orleans!
    scoreboard, bitch. stop being bitter and move on from it. favre sucked it up (again) and tanked (again).

  13. Here is the reason the rule change is good, and should be for ALL GAMES and not just playoff games.
    With the new NFL rules leaning towards offense, a defense holding an offense to a field goal isn’t a loss; if anything, its a victory.
    I’m a Ravens fan. If we get to OT and lets say an offensive team, Pats and Colts come to mind, win the coinflip. If the Ravens hold them to a field goal in the ensuing drive, is that REALLY a loss?
    The idea of a field goal after a 0-40 yard drive deciding a game is gross, especially when the rules are designed to get yards on the board.
    Now, if you want the sudden death, go for the TD. No more boring chip shot field goals in overtime on 2nd and Goal. You’ll have the incentive to play for real.
    Football is about touchdowns. It shouldn’t be so heavily about fieldgoals in overtime.

  14. So, can we name this the ‘Favre Rule’ since we are doing it because of how MAD and ANGRY so many are that Favre didn’t win the NFCCG?

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.