Stephen Jones supports changing overtime rule

Getty Images

The NFL’s owners will get together later this month, and they’ll revisit the proposal from the Chiefs to guarantee a possession for the team that kicks off to start overtime, even if the team that gets the ball first scores a touchdown. Cowboys COO Stephen Jones, a member of the Competition Committee, addressed the proposed change during a Thursday visit to #PFTPM.

“We hadn’t had our [Competition Committee] call yet, which we will, so it’s tough for me to know where the Committee’s leaning,” Jones said. “I certainly tend to lean toward the new rule. . . . I certainly watched every play of that Kansas City-New England game, and you kind of would have liked to have seen what would have happened if Kansas City got another shot at it, and then how the thing would have ended up. It was football, in my mind, the game at its best. I certainly don’t have a problem with guaranteeing each team a shot at it. . . . It’s certainly something that had some traction there in the room, and certainly saw some people who were very interested in it. But we’ll get on a call there, take a long, hard look at it, and I’m sure membership’s gonna get to see it.”

Jones mentioned the potential change as something that would be adopted for the playoffs. Although initially proposed for the regular season as well, Chiefs owner Clark Hunt suggested during a late-March visit to PFT Live that the rule, if adopted, would apply to the postseason only.

And that would be acceptable. Regular-season games already are long enough. Besides, a rule guaranteeing a second possession would incentivize milking the clock on the opening drive with the goal of leaving the opponent with little or no time to match a touchdown.

63 responses to “Stephen Jones supports changing overtime rule

  1. Just goes to show ya, if you cry long enough, owners cave in.

    signed.. New Orleans Saints

  2. Enough already. KC wins that game you don’t hear a peep out of anyone.

    Give it a couple years and Brady and Belichick will be gone so you can resume football and stop proposing rule changes.

  3. Standard operating procedure for the past 18-19 years:
    1. Hem and haw about how we don’t take rule changes lightly;
    2. Sacrifice any proposed rule change related to video/technology that would ensure accuracy of gameplay/officiating, at the altar of “slowing down the game”;
    3. Enact rule change to counteract method in which Patriots most-recent playoff win was achieved.
    Rinse & repeat

  4. This is a really dumb proposal, I keep hearing after these OT loses fans whining about losing it on the coin toss and demanding to have a possession. The game has never been lost on the coin toss, it’s always been lost because the defense decided not to do their job. Take the Pats-Chiefs game which seems to have started this, it’s already been repeated countless times but the Chiefs had 3 different 3rd and 10s forced and failed to stop the Pats every single time, including a penalty on what would’ve been a game clinching INT. People should stop complaining and expect their defense to do what they’re paid to do.

  5. Owners didnt cave in, they simply dont want their fanbase or franchise getting knobbed by shady officials. Everyone is quick to bash the Saints and the fans until it happens to your team

  6. God, let’s just give everyone a participation trophy and call it a season. What a bunch of babies. Enough already, man up and play defense if you lose the toss.

  7. Yeah just play defense in an offensive game. That would be like basketball having the first team scores wins in overtime. So if you have a horrible defense like the bucs and you play your heart out all game. Then the game comes down to a coin flip who ever wins has a the greater chance to wing the game. If you give the other team a chance who cares at that point about the game being longer you are in overtime and excited. Why should one team have to play defense only and could lose the game because of a coin flip. How many times does the opening possession team score a touchdown not that often. But when it does happen even if your not a fan of that team you feel cheated.

  8. Simple, defer when you win the coin toss. If the first possession team scores a FG you know you need a TD to win. If they don’t score a field goal all you need is one yourself. The point is no matter what they do, the team that wins the coin toss will always have the advantage.

  9. Yes. That AFC Championship in which the dastardly Patriots got the ball in OT because they won the coin toss was just so unfair. Lets not mention the NFC Championship in which the Saints won the coin toss and got the ball first and they could not get the job done and turned the ball over to the Rams (who did get the job done !)

    How about not keeping score and everyone is a winner?

  10. He’s not even a owner and doesn’t get a vote. Who cares what this golden spoon kid says

  11. I love the calls to play defense, HELLO! All the rules now are made to have the offense score by skewing rules towards receivers, QB’s etc. Amazing how all the want to be experts on here forget that when it’s convenient. …….

  12. I honestly think the current version is the best, minus the shortened quarter. It should be 15 minutes like the rest of the quarters.

  13. “a rule guaranteeing a second possession would incentivize milking the clock on the opening drive with the goal of leaving the opponent with little or no time to match a touchdown.”

    Maybe, but I’m not too sure how many 10 minute drives there are in a game, but I can’t imagine many. In the end, teams are still going to try to score regardless of the time left on the clock.

  14. Something tells me if KC won that toss and won it on their opening drive… nobody would’ve had a problem with it. This Patriot hate is getting old. This coming from a life long fins fan. Don’t change the rules, just beat them. Brady converted 3 3rd and 10’s on that drive in OT. Stop him, get the ball back and go win the game

  15. “I certainly watched every play of that Kansas City-New England game, and you kind of would have liked to have seen what would have happened if Kansas City got another shot at it, and then how the thing would have ended up. ” I’m SURE he would have felt exactly the same way if KC had gotten the ball first and scored. SMH.

  16. Does anyone care that huge advantage for the second team, if this rule is enacted?

    The first team cannot win on their first possession. But the second team can win in many ways. Safety, Pick6, Field goal, if the first team didnt score, TD if the first team scored an FG, TD+2pt if the first team scored a TD+ep. PLUS the second team will know to go for it on fourth down if they are behind.

  17. This may appear to make things fairer but in reality it doesn’t, in fact it won’t change a thing. As the NFL OT rules stand the team possessing first win 55% of the time, in college football where both teams are guaranteed a possession the team getting the ball second win 55% of games. The current system isn’t fair but neither are any realistic alternatives and for that reason I would keep things as they are.

  18. I wish there was a groundswell of support for a tie. NO OVERTIME. You win, lose or tie and ALL games end after 4 quarters. The solution is SO SIMPLE.

  19. It’s not that the Chiefs had to force a punt. The game would have gone on if KC held them to a FG. The Chiefs failed. The Chiefs also failed to hold the Patriots to a FG on every one of those 4th quarter TD drives. They would have won if just one of those TD drives were FGs.

    Stop crying for the Chiefs.

  20. Why add incentive at all with an OT? Go back to ending at four quarters. A tie is a tie. Make the play in regulation time and not jockey for OT. If a playoff ends in a tie use a college playoff format or just keep playing full quarters until someone wins like hockey does. The prospect of a theoretical never ending game might make them end in four quarters.

    Wait – will never work. Might bleed over into the “Heidi” movie time slot and TV would cut over.

  21. Love it! Next championship game the Patriots get scored on first in OT but then comeback to tie it and win. Then followed by another rule change to prevent that from ever happening again!

  22. whysosenestive445 says:

    He’s not even a owner and doesn’t get a vote. Who cares what this golden spoon kid says
    =============================================

    He’s executive VP of the Cowboys and a member of the competition committee, big guy.

  23. How about fixing the current rules so that offenses no longer have a huge advantage over defenses and then you wouldn’t need these stupid overtime rules?

  24. Get rid of overtime in the regular season all together. If the teams are tied when the clock expires you end in a tie.

  25. It is ridiculous how many rules have been changed directly because of the Patriots winning history. However, I also find it flattering (as a Patriot fan) that other teams are so intimidated by that winning history that they grab at any straw to try to thwart them and stop their drive.

  26. OK, I keep reading play defense is you lose the coin toss. So in an offense first league, the team wins the toss, drives for a TD, legit or penalty assisted…why not let the other team have a possession and your team has to play defense? Stop them and win the game! You take away any coin flip nonsense and you WON it playing defense! What a concept!!

  27. I get the sentiment for avoiding OT at all, but in the playoffs someone has to move on and someone has to go home. Even if there was no regular season OT, they would still need some sort of OT rule for the playoffs. I think it’s fine as it is.

  28. What blows my mind is, that they think 5 less minutes of OT when a team averages less than 1 OT game a season, helps player safety.

    Are you freaking kidding me? If that extra 5 minutes is so torturous on. 53 man roster, the whole sport should be dismantled because the other 60-70 minutes of game action must be causing irreversible harm by the moment…

  29. “It was football, in my mind, the game at its best.”

    No it wasn’t. A team failing to score a single point in the first half and then wanting extra chances at the end to win is not “football at its best”.

    Team shouldn’t be incentivized to go to overtime. If teams know they can go to overtime with no chance whatsoever of not having another chance to win and score, then get ready for a lot more overtime games with no drama at the end of regulation.

    Overtime shouldn’t be a reward, it should be a punishment. You couldn’t get it done in 60 minutes? Well now it gets more treacherous. That’s drama. That’s fun for the viewer. And in this year’s championship games, both a coin toss winner and loser won.

    Every bit of softening added to the end of the game will weaken everything that leads up to it.

  30. Defense is still part of the game, right? Getting a defensive stop when you absolutely have to get one is still something a part of the game, right?

    Except not in overtime, eh? Don’t worry if your defense fails – you’re still in it!

    Maybe we should start counting offensive possessions during the entire game to make sure each offense gets their “fair ups.” (yes – I used a playground reference on purpose because this is silly) Yeah, that’s the ticket. And we can hand out two Lombardi’s after the Super Bowl because everyone gets a trophy – we can just make one a little bit bigger than the other.

  31. So on their first OT possession, if both teams don’t score (or score the same amount), aren’t we in the same scenario? The coin flip winner still has the advantage as they can win without the other team having a chance to answer.

  32. Maybe Clark Hunt should focus on hiring a real head coach that focuses on all the parts of the game instead of just offense then starts crying and calling unfair because his defense sucks.

    Both teams do have equal chances one on offense and one on defense, it is 100% the coach’s and GM’s faults if their defense sucks. A real owner would go down after the the OT game if their defense had looked that bad and fired the coach on the spot in locker room in front of everyone for failure to coach the entire team.

    Stupid question if both teams score and get extra points do we start over and make sure both teams have equal access to offense? It would be highly unfair if the first team got the ball and scored and not give the second team a fair chance to score, if it is not unfair then why do it at all!

  33. Chill_Donahue:

    Making perfectly good sense is frowned upon in this establishment. Stop it.

  34. rutledge3197 says: “It’s cute how the NFL is the only sport that changes the game in OT for the postseason……. actually it’s pretty pathetic”
    ——————-

    Pretty sure hockey has a shootout to end a tied regular season OT, whereas the playoffs is sudden death until a winner…

  35. I hate the patriots as much as the next guy. yet, i still think this would be stupid to do. If the chiefs defense had shown up they could of won. They had them against the ropes so many times and yet allowed those 3rd and long conversions. Just like everyone if the Chiefs had won no one would be batting eye.

  36. luvkcchiefs says:
    May 3, 2019 at 12:05 am
    I love the calls to play defense, HELLO! All the rules now are made to have the offense score by skewing rules towards receivers, QB’s etc. Amazing how all the want to be experts on here forget that when it’s convenient. …….

    ————

    Then how did the Pats defense shut down the Rams in the SB? Or why did the Pats defense shout out KC for the first half of the AFCCG?

  37. luvkcchiefs says:
    May 3, 2019 at 12:05 am

    I love the calls to play defense, HELLO! All the rules now are made to have the offense score by skewing rules towards receivers, QB’s etc. Amazing how all the want to be experts on here forget that when it’s convenient. …….

    =========================================================================

    Most possessions do not lead to touchdowns. But I get what you’re saying…

    If at first your Chiefs do not succeed, cry cry again.

  38. The team answering the first touchdown MUST go for 2, unless the first team only ended up with 6 afterwards.

    In other words, if the first TD scored 7, then the try after the second touchdown will win or lose the game, eliminating a second possession.

    (Nah, that sucks, too, but if we’re looking at ways to ruin OT more….)

  39. So exactly what’s wrong with the way it is now, making teams show they can play both sides of the ball in overtime = IT’S PERFECT!

    I think the “track meet” mentality should end with regulation just as it does now! Does anyone else notice that ONLY the one dimensional teams complain about the overtime rule?

  40. All this because Andy Reid didn’t have the guts to call another pass by Mahomes from the Patriots 21 yard line to win the game on the spot, and instead sent out the FG unit to play for overtime. Anyone who thinks rule changes can prevent Andy Reid from being Andy Reid is sure to be disappointed.

  41. How about the entertainment factor? College rules make for better entertainment. Winning a game bc of the coin toss is like kissing your sister…not really a win but more a game of keep-away. Both teams should have the opportunity to get the ball and win or lose on the basis of hard fought play.
    That AFC games was one Hell of a game, and as a fan, I felt cheated that both teams didn’t get the opportunity to have the ball…and I didn’t have a dog in the race.
    LOL, everything isn’t always about the Patriots but I have to admire the fact that so many people seem to think that way, another win for NE!

  42. How about fixing the current rules so that offenses no longer have a huge advantage over defenses and then you wouldn’t need these stupid overtime rules?
    ————————–
    You watched SB VIII, right? Oh… and that other conference final that went to OT where the defense showed up, you saw that too, right?

  43. Not for nothing, but I think the Chiefs are a bunch of crybabies. When Tim Tebow and the Broncos defeated the heavily favored Steelers on the first play in OT several years back you didn’t hear the Steelers whining to change the rules.

  44. One of the things you hear all the time is “never give Tom Brady an extra chance. Indeed history is full of cases where the rules have given Tom Brady an extra chance that he then takes advantage of and then everyone is mad afterward. If they make the rule change that means Tom Brady is always guaranteed an extra chance. And everyone will be mad afterward.

  45. Someone tell me if I’m wrong but didn’t the Saints win the OT coin-toss and lose the game?

    >>>>Well there goes that “whoever wins the coin-toss wins the game” theory!<<<<

  46. clssylssy says:
    May 3, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    How about the entertainment factor? College rules make for better entertainment.
    __________________________________________________________

    And NFL rules are more about having the better team move on!

    The Chiefs could have stopped the Pats and forced a punt or caused a fumble or intercepted a pass or even held them to just a FG then they’d have gotten the ball, there were many options, but the fact is they couldn’t do any of them yet some people think the Chiefs should have gotten yet another chance to move on? They had more than enough opportunites to get the win!

  47. Any way you shake it, the coin toss winner will have an advantage. This proposal will give the second team with the ball an advantage, but the advantage would be similar to what you have now, and both teams would have the ball. It’s a pretty fair solution.

  48. Stephon Jones.. In order for this rule to apply to the Cowboys they have to make the playoffs regularly. The odds increase the more chances you have. Once in a blue moon is not going to cut it.

  49. The league has changed more rules to benefit the Pats (and especially Brady) than rules in response to “all of their winning.”

Leave a Reply

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