New NFL Overtime rules!

[Stormtrooper]

During the past few years, there has been a lot of debate as to whether the NFL overtime rules are unfair to the team that loses the coin toss. Today, the NFL has decided to take a step in changing Overtime rules. As of right now, the new rules only apply for postseason play, but further discussions this off-season can add the new rules to the Regular Season, as well.

Here is a breakdown of the new rules:
If the opening possession of OT ends in a Field Goal, then the other team will get a chance to score and either extend the game with a Field Goal of their or, or win/lose it by scoring a TD or not scoring at all. If there is no scoring on the opening possession, then normal Sudden Death rules apply.

In my opinion, I love the change to the Overtime. The new rules help to reward a team to get a touchdown (on the opening possession), instead getting in Field Goal range, and then just setting up the kick. That being said, I do not know if adding it to the regular season is as good an idea. Currently, regular season games end in a tie, if the score is tied after OT. I would think that if this is adopted in the regular season, more games will end in a tie, because both teams will trade Field Goals, and then there wouldn't be a lot of time left to score again.

So what are everybody's thoughts on this rather monumental rules change?

 

[Mr. TM]

I like it, it brings it closer to what the CFL has, although not the same. Getting a field goal just seems to be a shitty way to end a game, and we saw that for New Orleons as they went on to the Superbowl.

However, does this mean that the team can score a touchdown off the bat and win? Still not a fan of that, but if the other team gets a chance to score a touchdown I like it. I think this is a step in the right direction of they keep possessions going, although it doesn't seem to be the case now.

As for regular season, when the NHL brought in the every team has a winner idea, I hated it, and I would hate it for the NFL in the regular season. I like the idea of a tie.

 

[simpsons_fanatic742]

I like the new rules as well, but apparently theres some other factors. If the team who loses the coin toss kicks an onside kick, recovers, and scores any points they win the game. This is because the receiving team lost their opportunity for possession. Also, the game can end on a safety. This is all according to Adam Schefter and Chris Mortensen on twitter. These are the exact tweet:

Adam_Schefter: An onside kick to start overtime is about the opportunity to possess. If you blow your opportunity to possess the ball, you can lose game.

mortreport: Opportunity to possess, good example is team loses coin toss but recovers an onside kick. Then kicks FG. Game over. Receiving team blew it.

 

[Stormtrooper]

I like it, it brings it closer to what the CFL has, although not the same. Getting a field goal just seems to be a shitty way to end a game, and we saw that for New Orleons as they went on to the Superbowl.

However, does this mean that the team can score a touchdown off the bat and win? Still not a fan of that, but if the other team gets a chance to score a touchdown I like it. I think this is a step in the right direction of they keep possessions going, although it doesn't seem to be the case now.

As for regular season, when the NHL brought in the every team has a winner idea, I hated it, and I would hate it for the NFL in the regular season. I like the idea of a tie.

A Touchdown does in fact win the game, right then and there. That is a fair rule. If you can't stop the opponent from reaching the End Zone in a must-stop situation, you don't deserve a chance to tie the game. Play some damn defense.

I like the new rules as well, but apparently theres some other factors. If the team who loses the coin toss kicks an onside kick, recovers, and scores any points they win the game. This is because the receiving team lost their opportunity for possession. Also, the game can end on a safety. This is all according to Adam Schefter and Chris Mortensen on twitter.

both of those make sense. The kicking teams takes a HUGE gamble in terms of Field Position by going for an onside kick, and the other team had a chance at possession. Also, I couldn't see any way a safety shouldn't end the game, since the scoring team gets the ball back.

 

[People's Champ]

I don't like the change. I was a fan of the OT rule the way it was. I don't care if both teams have an opportunity to score or not. That's what the first 60 minutes are for. If you can't stop the opposing team or score enough to win in regulation, then that's on you. And if you can't play defense in OT, tuff luck. I'm tired of hearing what's fair or not. These are pro players and get paid a hella of a lot of money to play this sport. They should be able to do their job.

 

[A.J.]

It is better then what they used to have. Though they could have kept the old format and just elimated the field goal. Defense is required to stop the offense as that is what they are paid for, but the league is very pro-offense. Still just the playoffs...don't get that as why have one set of rules for regualr season and then a new set of rules for the playoffs seems silly to me.

Personally, I wished they could have just added a 10 minute quarter after regulation. Then after 10 minutes who ever has the lead wins. If that dont work then we get another OT of 10 minutes. I want to see football be played and not some gimmick.

 

[Big Sexy]

Personally, I wished they could have just added a 10 minute quarter after regulation. Then after 10 minutes who ever has the lead wins. If that dont work then we get another OT of 10 minutes. I want to see football be played and not some gimmick.

Those were my exact thoughts. The new rule is an improvement but it's far from perfect. Just add 10 minutes to the clock and play it out like the NBA does by adding an extra 5 minute quarter if the game is tied. If they did that then the coin toss and all that would be much less relevant and neither team could really complain.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I have a question.

One team wins the coin toss and drives for a field goal. The other team now gets the ball and starts a drive.

If they lose the ball on an interception or a fumble........the game ends then and there, right? The team that caused the turnover doesn't have to put their offense back on the field, do they?

 

[Stormtrooper]

It is better then what they used to have. Though they could have kept the old format and just elimated the field goal. Defense is required to stop the offense as that is what they are paid for, but the league is very pro-offense. Still just the playoffs...don't get that as why have one set of rules for regualr season and then a new set of rules for the playoffs seems silly to me.

1. Eliminating the field goal is more of a gimmick then what they did, and completely changes the game, moreso then what hey did now. Plus, if you eliminate the field goal, then there would be a hell of a lot less scoring, and a hell of a lot more tie games/multi-OT playoff games, which could cause injury due to fatigue.
2. They have always had different set of rules for the regular season and playoffs, being that the regular season can end in a tie, and the postseason cannot.

Personally, I wished they could have just added a 10 minute quarter after regulation. Then after 10 minutes who ever has the lead wins. If that dont work then we get another OT of 10 minutes. I want to see football be played and not some gimmick.

Those were my exact thoughts. The new rule is an improvement but it's far from perfect. Just add 10 minutes to the clock and play it out like the NBA does by adding an extra 5 minute quarter if the game is tied. If they did that then the coin toss and all that would be much less relevant and neither team could really complain.

1. This isn't any sort of gimmick, whatsoever. A gimmick is like the Shootout in the NHL. Adding a 2nd possession is not a gimmick, it is the game.
2. You cannot adopt an NBA style OT in the NFL, because the rate of scoring is so much lower, that there is a better chance of ending a period in a tie. Plus, the NFL has to worry about TV, and early games extending too far into late games, which hugely affects TV, to the point that the NFL can't allow it. Again, I bring back my injury/fatigue point also, in that you cannot have these guys keep playing forever, someone will get seriously hurt.

---------
Oh, and Mustang Sally, you are correct, the game ends when the second team turns the ball over.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Oh, and Mustang Sally, you are correct, the game ends when the second team turns the ball over.

Thanks for answering. But it makes me think of a possible ramification that the NFL Management Committee will have to address before it actually happens in a playoff game:

Say the first team scores a field goal and the other team receives the kickoff and starts a drive......and then the quarterback throws an interception and the defender who made it starts running with the ball. (Even as his teammates are yelling at him: "Fall down, asshole!")
The defender then fumbles as he's running with the ball and the other team recovers.

What is the ruling?

--Did the game end as soon as the interception was made, regardless of what happened in the following seconds as he was running?

or.....

--Does the game continue because the runback and fumble are considered a continuation of the play in progress, giving the ball and a new set of downs to the team that needs at least a field goal to keep the game going?


Hopefully, the NFL thought of this.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Thanks for answering. But it makes me think of a possible ramification that the NFL Management Committee will have to address before it actually happens in a playoff game:

Say the first team scores a field goal and the other team receives the kickoff and starts a drive......and then the quarterback throws an interception and the defender who made it starts running with the ball. (Even as his teammates are yelling at him: "Fall down, asshole!")
The defender then fumbles as he's running with the ball and the other team recovers.

What is the ruling?

--Did the game end as soon as the interception was made, regardless of what happened in the following seconds as he was running?

or.....

--Does the game continue because the runback and fumble are considered a continuation of the play in progress, giving the ball and a new set of downs to the team that needs at least a field goal to keep the game going?


Hopefully, the NFL thought of this.

I would think (and hope) the NFL would consider all scenarios when making a rule change (especially one this drastic). I would assume that since possession changed hands that would be the last play of the game. In football, if you turn the ball over and then get he ball back on the same play, you get a new set of downs to work with, regardless of the original line of scrimmage. Since that is the case, I would assume the game would end.

Of course, you shouldn't assume anything, so who knows.

 

[People's Champ]

Something that makes no sense is why put this change into effect ONLY for the playoffs? They understand that this rule change could change who would make the playoffs right? If this change is being made then it need to happen during the season as well. Its stupid to think that there will be two different sets of rules for the regular season and the playoffs. This was just dumb all around.

 

[BooCocky]

This rule was made for be the playoffs because they don't want injuries in the regular season. They're thinking the extra possession is disasterous. Which isn't the case, the nonsense Pre Season games are dangerous.

Anyways this rule is stupid. In my opinion if they're going to give them a chance to win, why don't they play like a 10 minute quarter and whoever is winning at the end wins. That makes sesne. This rule negated the opening drive FG. Not the TD therefore this rule needs some more work.