Art Rooney II seems to be in favor of proposed OT tweak

Getty Images

Steelers owner Art Rooney II covered a lot of ground on a Friday conference call with reporters. Like many old-guard owners, he seems to be reluctant to embrace change on issues of potential tweaks to the rules. In one very important area, however, Rooney seems to be on board.

Mark Kaboly of TheAthletic.com interpreted Rooney’s remarks on the proposed rule change from the Chiefs regarding overtime as a “hint” that he supports it.

The Chiefs want both teams to be guaranteed a possession in overtime, even if the team that possesses the ball first scores a touchdown. The current rule has allowed the Patriots to win a Super Bowl two years ago and to gain a berth in the Super Bowl two months ago by winning the toss at the outset of overtime, taking the ball, and scoring a walk-off six-pointer.

The issue presents a clash of those who argue for fairness and the play defense! crowd. During Friday’s PFTOT, a compromise was proposed. I’ll post something on it later in the day, possibly while moving through the airspace between West Virginia and Arizona, where the NFL annual meetings will soon be underway.

34 responses to “Art Rooney II seems to be in favor of proposed OT tweak

  1. On this new rule, do the teams that get the first touchdown kick extra points? If they do, then second team has the following advantages: have four full downs every series to get a first down, will go for two to win game knowing other team can go drive down for a field goal to win game. You bastardize strategy of the game on each of the first two possessions and you set up a one-play tie breaker, the 2-point conversion to end the game. Is that what you really want? You know KC wouldn’t have kicked the XP, knowing all Brady would need would be a 40-yard drive to set up game winning field goal.

    It is also absolutely ridiculous that all of these rule changes are made after the Patriots win Super Bowls playing under the current rules. Of course, the Steelers, Colts, and all of the other franchises the Patriots have brutalized the last 20 years want these changes. It’s a loser’s mentality to do this.

  2. This should be summarily rejected by NFL owners. The only NFL teams that will benefit from this rule change are the handful or so of those with a powerhouse offense, like the team—coincidentally enough—proposing this change.

  3. Think it through. Patriots win coin toss. They TD because 3 times at 3rd and 10 was not enough for the KC defense, This rule passed KC get a TD drive then the Patriots kick a FG to win. Congrats, you added 1 drive and the coin toss was still pivotal. Make the kicking team decide who must go for 2. That or make the team that score last kick – so either they are OK with it or go for 2 in regulation.

  4. The NFL is so afraid of the pats they will try to come up with everything possible to keep them from winning I guess. It hasn’t worked for them in the 20 years they have been trying, and I doubt this one will work any better lol…….

  5. You must realize that the pendulum has swung from the good defense beats good offense days. Rules changes favoring offense plus more sophisticated offenses mean that if the offense executes well it will score a TD. In the past most but not all of the OT coin flip winners chose to receive because they wanted control. But today none would choose to receive because everyone believes, correctly IMO, that the odds overwhelmingly favor the first team with the ball.

  6. The NFL will do something to address this. Recall how many tweaks and bends and twists they did to accommodate Peyton Manning’s quest for a championship. It worked (twice), the money poured in, interest in the product remained high.

    Patrick Mahomes is the new must-win player celebrity (not knocking him for that) so the NFL will do what it has to do.

  7. You can’t legislate fairness. As the first poster pointed out, the team that wins the toss, gets three downs to make a first down, the second team gets four. Is that fair? Both conference games went into over time. One team won the toss and won, the other lost the toss and loss. That’s 50%, or the perfect parity the league wants. There is no perfect system, so learn to play some defense.
    And if the Pats lost the toss, there is no doubt they would have stopped KC from scoring a touchdown.
    Then you give Brady four downs to win the game.

  8. It is also absolutely ridiculous that all of these rule changes are made after the Patriots win Super Bowls playing under the current rules. Of course, the Steelers, Colts, and all of the other franchises the Patriots have brutalized the last 20 years want these changes. It’s a loser’s mentality to do this.

    Typical hypocritical Pats fan. We’re the roles reversed you be for the changes and to argue otherwise is folly. Pats fans are the what’s good for us is not good for you……immature.

  9. Sure. Both teams score a TD on their first processions…then they’ll be a cry about the team scoring on the 3rd procession of OT not being fair!!!
    Give Andy Reid his participation trophy he earns every year…and be done with the discussion.

  10. When you know you need to score a touchdown to extend the game it changes the game. The advantage might be slight, but it is real. The second team to get the ball has four downs on every series if they are down by seven.

  11. These teams are acting like the (D)s who are crying about changing the electoral college and construction of the Supreme Court because they lost an election. Here is some advice: Got over it and do better next time

  12. winning the coin toss does not win you the game. NOT having a defense that can get off the field when you need it most loses you the game.

  13. Under the “unfair” pro rules the team receiving the OT kickoff wins something like 52% of the time, while in the “more fair” college rules where both teams get a possession in OT the team that gets the ball 2nd wins about 57% of the time.

    Is anybody who is proposing NFL OT rules changes aware of how math works?

  14. I couldn’t care less if they change the rule or not. However, I do get a LOL at some of the Pats’ fans thinking this is all because the Chiefs lost to THEM. In all honesty, you don’t think they would have proposed this change if they lost to any other team?

  15. I don’t see a problem with it. The Chiefs have an incredible offense, and would likely score if given the chance. Patriots defense may have stopped them, however, because they were coming on strong there at the end of the season and into the playoffs. Though, what’s lost in these discussions is that the Patriots still have Brady who may be the GOAT. Could Brady muster a second scoring drive? Probably. It was the second of two great games between the Chiefs and Patriots last season.

  16. Is it me or do these rule changes get purposed after that team lost to the Patriots lol chiefs,colts and steelers.Since they cant beat them in 4 quarters or overtime they gonna keep trying to extend the game and they call us Raider fans whiners haha.

  17. When are teams that lose in OT going to quit whining? The Vikings lost to the Saints in OT and cried enough for the league to change the rules, now the Chiefs are doing the same thing. Maybe you couldn’t stop the offense when the game is on the line.

  18. 100% chance that if this rule gets changed, the pats will play an over time game, give up 7 to the other team after the other team wins the coin toss (and instead of the game being over and the pats losing, the game continues). Then Brady marches down the field, gets 6, and then gets a 2 point conversion and wins the game. All of you people will then be clamoring for the old rule to come back, the one that would have made the Pats lose. It’s laughable

  19. Next rule change,

    Games will not end with NE in the lead. Each opponent will be given a chance to score. If they score on that series they try again from their 20. Repeat until they win or go out on downs. No game clock. No time limit. No flags allowed on the pats opponent during this play. All penalties against NE are 15 yards and 1st down.

    I know, it’s not much and they’ll still win the afc east

  20. Pats fans always find a way to make this about them. The current rule is dumb. No neutral fan wants to watch 60 minutes of great playoff football decided by one possession (awarded by a coin toss), regardless who the winning team is.

  21. I the goal to have more scoring? Or to have the most fair system possible?

    Right now the team winning the OT toss wins 52% of the time.

    The only possible solution that could lead to an exactly 50/50 chance would be to just flip the coin and skip the OT altogether.

  22. If Rooney is supporting this rule change because of a specific team/incident, it’s more likely to be Pittsburgh’s loss to Denver in the playoffs a few years ago than anything happening between the Patriots and Kansas City. Sorry to disappoint Pats fans who think everything is about them. I doubt Rooney is trying to thwart a specific team because that’s kind of victim mentality is too bizarre for words. Any team can be in this position, including the Pats. In fact, the Pats usually win their games in regulation.

    It’s an interesting discussion, but I wish they’d spend less time monkeying with the game on the field and more time focusing on how to ensure it’s officiated properly. Replay officials should be the priority.

  23. Lifelong Steeler fan, since Dan Rooney past away, we have been a trainwreck. I personally think Art II doesn’t have a clue about real football.

  24. The Chiefs led 21-17 and 28-24 in the waning moments of the game and failed to stop Brady. That by my count makes 3 opportunities to win the game by holding the Patriots to a darn FG. But on all 3 drives they gave up TDs.

    Sorry. Chiefs get no support for me.

  25. God forbid teams decide the game and not a coin toss, have never like sudden death, you play your assets off for 60 minutes and a team wins a coin toss and you lose. Many times in a game a team makes a bad play or misses a tackle or an offside by inches (Ford) but it costs them a game with time in the clock? I wouldn’t care if the change was only during playoffs and super bowl.

  26. Not a question of fairness, rather, of entertainment. As a television product, it would be fun to watch two teams duel to the bitter end of a game that allows the “losing” team to match a touchdown in OT.

    That’s what this is about, anyway – what the owners think TV viewers want. I am sure they feel as if the “casual” fan who watches playoff games would be more entertained by more drives, in the end. I’d expect some type of change to happen – if not for 2019, shortly thereafter.

  27. bkinacti0n says:
    March 23, 2019 at 4:14 pm
    Pats fans always find a way to make this about them. The current rule is dumb. No neutral fan wants to watch 60 minutes of great playoff football decided by one possession (awarded by a coin toss), regardless who the winning team is. –

    Probably because any time the pats win we hear cries for rules changes. Colts, Ravens colts again come to mind. Heck after schooling Baltimore with legal plays not only did they change the rules they framed a guy for something the other team was guilty of as well. The guy who allegedly told the coaches the ball was soft confirmed that never happened.

    That’s why.

  28. One thing I like about the current rule is that it encourages teams to try and win in regulation since they don’t know if they’re gonna get the ball.

  29. Here’s an idea it’s called playing Defense. You know the same thing both the Pats and Rams displayed this last Super Bowl.

Leave a Reply

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