NFL-Overtime rules for playoff games modified by league

[IE]

The NFL has changed the rules governing its overtime playoff games, eliminating the chance for a team to win with a field goal on their first possession, a league spokesman said on Tuesday.

Starting next season, the team with the first possession in overtime would have to score a touchdown to end the game. But if they only manage a field goal then the opposing team will get a chance to end the game by scoring a touchdown.

If both teams score field goals on their first possession, or fail to score, then classic sudden-death rules would come into effect, with the next team to score winning the game.

Last season, the New Orleans Saints advanced to the NFL?s championship game after winning the coin toss in overtime and nailing a 40-yard field goal on their first drive, ending the Minnesota Vikings? season.

NFL owners voted 28-4 in favour of the proposal, according to the league?s website. www.nfl.com

In the college version of American football, both teams are allowed at least one possession in overtime.

The vote was 28-4, with Baltimore, Buffalo, Cincinnati and Minnesota voting against the change, according to NFL Network.

Of note:

Statistics have shown that since 1994, when kickoffs were moved back five yards to the 30-yard line, the team winning the overtime coin toss has won 59.8 percent of the 244 OT games, whereas the team losing the coin toss has won only 38.5 percent of those games. Moreover, with more domed stadiums and the improvement in field-goal kicking, 72.5 percent of OT games have been decided by a field goal during that 16-year period, compared to only 25.4 percent being decided by a touchdown.

 

[kegray1]

Is it just me or is this rule stupid.

Just guarantee that each team gets 1 chance with the ball before a final similar to NCAA except keep the kickoff and play from there rule.
No starting on the 35 like NCAA.

Oh well this is kind of better than before but why do it half ass.
So a team can return the kickoff for a td and the game is over.
Or they can return it to your 1 yard and then have to settle for a FG and the game goes on.
FOOLISH RULE in my opinion.

 

[TouchdownJesus]

I agree its not "perfect" but it is a lot better. I'd say first one to 5 points wins (rewarding a safety) but this is pretty close to the same thing.

I hate to hear people say to just play another quarter or even worse a 10-minute quarter. How is that better?

If you are going to "keep playing the game of football" then you'd have to play an entire half. A team could get the ball and sustain a long time consuming drive, kick a FG and win or get 2 possessions compared to 1, etc.

I think this rule is "good enough" and honestly think that their should be no OT in reg season, just let it stay a tie.

 

[gjn23]

maybe it's me......but what the hell was wrong with the old rule???

it was a problem because 18% of the time the team that won the toss scored on the 1st posession and the game was over????

but now, if that team scores a td, the game is STILL over???

so we're worried about correcting 10-12% of the games that go to OT??

dont want to "risk" a coin flip to "decide the game"

how about these ideas:

1) STOP SOMEBODY ON DEFENSE IN OT
2) WIN THE GAME IN REGULATION
3) GO FOR 2 when you tie the game at the end of reg instead of kicking the PAT
4) go for the TOUCHDOWN at the end of regulation instead of playing for the game tying fg
5) stop someone on defense in regulation to prevent the tie
6) do something on offense in regulation to prevent the other team from getting the ball back and tying you in regualtion

everyone is bitching and moaning about the queens and colts losing playoff games the last 2 years without touching the ball

THEY BOTH HAD THE BALL TO WIN THE GAME IN REGULATION AND COULDNT CLOSE THE DEAL

(super favre throws a pick vs queens kicking a fg and super payton couldnt convert 3rd and 2 to end the game with 3 kneel downs to win the game in reg)

so they went to OT and lost the coin flip.....big deal....they still couldnt close the deal in OT, this time on defense.

personally, now i think OT is going to be a joke.

 

[kegray1]

The intersting thing about this rule will be when a team takes the opening drive down in the red zone and comes up with a 4th and 3 or something.

The temptation to go for it and continue on to score the td or play it safe and kick the fg.

I think many would go for the td and then hope the defense can stop them from driving the 50 or 60 yards to get in FG range and end the game should they fail on 4th.

 

[Nolsfan]

What happens when the first score of OT is a safety? :00hour :mj07:

 

[gjn23]

it's over

but what i dont get is

why doenst the team who gave up the safety or allowed the defensive td get a chance to get their OWN safety or defensive touchdown???

i mean if we're trying to legislate fairness and equality, then why not give their defense a chance (and yes i realize that 4 kneel downs will happen, but maybe there's a fumble/td like joe pisarchak)

 

[TouchdownJesus]

Safety ends the game. Its about letting both offenses get the ball and if one offense doesn't need it, no sense prolonging the game. All that could happen is an onside kick and that would be stupid.

I've never really minded the current sudden death, but as the game has advanced, I think this change is good.

You've got high-powered offenses with rule advantages. Kickers have become very accurate from long range and the biggest thing is where you kickoff from. Even with a long kick, the coverage is further away and the chance for really good field position and a short field to FG range.

One thing I thought about was to have a team kickoff from midfield. They could onside kick, squib kick, or just easily get a touchback and at least other team is starting from 20. Or just start them there to begin with.

Overall, I really like the rule. Props to the league for improving.

 

[gjn23]

Safety ends the game. Its about letting both offenses get the ball and if one offense doesn't need it, no sense prolonging the game. All that could happen is an onside kick and that would be stupid.

I've never really minded the current sudden death, but as the game has advanced, I think this change is good.

You've got high-powered offenses with rule advantages. Kickers have become very accurate from long range and the biggest thing is where you kickoff from. Even with a long kick, the coverage is further away and the chance for really good field position and a short field to FG range.

One thing I thought about was to have a team kickoff from midfield. They could onside kick, squib kick, or just easily get a touchback and at least other team is starting from 20. Or just start them there to begin with.

Overall, I really like the rule. Props to the league for improving.

you're gonna hate the rule the first time you've got an under beat by 11 points....only to see the game go into OT and 12 points are scored!

:scared

 

[bleedingpurple]

you're gonna hate the rule the first time you've got an under beat by 11 points....only to see the game go into OT and 12 points are scored!

:scared

Yeah I didn't think about that aspect of it.. The league was do to change this overtime rule.. The overtime was in affect from the time defenses were more dominant and the rules did not benefit the offenses like they do now.. I find it amazing that the Vikes voted against it because of last season.. And I do agree with you, it would of been nice for the Vikes to have had a chance in OT to get the ball but if they take care of the damn ball in regulation, they win period.

 

[TouchdownJesus]

Yeah, from a betting aspect it will be significantly different. But then again look at college OT. You can have a scoreless game end up going over the total...

 

[hedgehog]

I like the idea of a 7:30 quarter after regulation, no sudden death, then if its still tied then sudden death:shrug:

 

[The_Culprit]

I think I like it? Not too sure.