New NFL Rule For Overtime

[King Colt]

Buffalo NEW YORK (EON – NFL owners are set to gather next week for a brief series of meetings, and at least two new rules changes are expected to be approved.

 NFL.com, owners will vote on a motion that had previously been tabled to shorten overtime periods from the current 15 minutes to 10 minutes.

As reported by Yahoo Sports, the reason for the shorter OT proposal is unclear, but it is expected to receive the three-quarters approval vote needed. If social media is an indication, fans are not in favor of the change, believing it will lead to more tie games.

NFL overtime rule changeB

The proposal was originally raised at the owner’s meetings in March, but was tabled at the time . It will be discussed again at next week’s meetings, where Battista says it will get approved. For a proposal to become an NFL rule, it has to get a “yes” vote from 24 of the league’s 32 owners.

CBS Sports adds:

The downside here, by the NFL’s own admission, is more ties. “There’s no question that when you shorten that overtime period, the potential for ties does increase,” Dean Blandino told ProFootballTalk in March. “And I don’t think we feel that ties are necessarily a bad thing. They’re certainly great for tie-breakers when it comes to postseason. But ultimately you want to have a winner in the game.”

Prior to 2012, any player placed on injured reserve was forced to miss the entire season, but that changed with the designated for return rule.

[crazycolt1]

I don't have a problem with games that end in a tie. Teams and the league done just fine before the rules were changed.

[ReMeDy]

I hope there's no more QB's, like McNabb, who aren't aware games can end in ties, otherwise we're having a lot more of this:

 

 

[AZColt11]

Boo.  To me, they didn't address the REAL problem with the O.T.  And that is both teams not having an opportunity to possess the ball.  I think it's absurd you can decide something so significant as a Superbowl without both teams possessing the ball in O.T.

[crazycolt1]

40 minutes ago, AZColt11 said:

Boo.  To me, they didn't address the REAL problem with the O.T.  And that is both teams not having an opportunity to possess the ball.  I think it's absurd you can decide something so significant as a Superbowl without both teams possessing the ball in O.T.

While I understand your point very clear teams have their defense also. To win or lose games in overtime it may come down to the defense to do their share in winning a game. The overtime rules now does not allow a team to win the game with just a field goal and IMO that makes it OK by me. If the teams defense gives up a TD to lose the game then it was on the defense.

[Narcosys]

Wait what?

 

How does shortening OT mean more games will end in a tie?

 

Do they mean more tied games at the end of regulation will end in a tie? That's different. 

 

But honestly,  I would like to see how many OT games go more than 10 minutes. 

[aaron11]

6 hours ago, Narcosys said:

How does shortening OT mean more games will end in a tie?

how does it not mean that?

 

over time is sudden death after the first possession, so shorting the period will bring more ties

[aaron11]

13 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

While I understand your point very clear teams have their defense also. To win or lose games in overtime it may come down to the defense to do their share in winning a game. The overtime rules now does not allow a team to win the game with just a field goal and IMO that makes it OK by me. If the teams defense gives up a TD to lose the game then it was on the defense.

the rules favor offense though.  plus there is the whole deal with defenses getting tired more quickly than offenses.  

 

for the record i dont like ties, and wish they would do something to get rid of them

 

my idea that will never happen is to have a FG shoot out at the end of over time.  if both kickers make it, move it back 5 yards.  if both miss move it up.

 

i know some would hate that idea, but thats how i feel about ties

[2006Coltsbestever]

13 hours ago, AZColt11 said:

Boo.  To me, they didn't address the REAL problem with the O.T.  And that is both teams not having an opportunity to possess the ball.  I think it's absurd you can decide something so significant as a Superbowl without both teams possessing the ball in O.T.

I agree, I think both teams should get the ball no matter what. That should be the only change.

[Valpo2004]

7 hours ago, Narcosys said:

Wait what?

 

How does shortening OT mean more games will end in a tie?

 

Do they mean more tied games at the end of regulation will end in a tie? That's different. 

 

But honestly,  I would like to see how many OT games go more than 10 minutes. 

 

I'm not sure how much it's going to affect it but it stands to reason that if you have a game that is tied and both teams are having a difficult time scoring.  Taking 5 minutes of game time away would make it less likely that one of those teams actually does score and win the game.  

 

14 hours ago, AZColt11 said:

Boo.  To me, they didn't address the REAL problem with the O.T.  And that is both teams not having an opportunity to possess the ball.  I think it's absurd you can decide something so significant as a Superbowl without both teams possessing the ball in O.T.

 

This is the real problem with OT in the NFL and I'm quite frankly unsure why it hasn't been changed.  

 

Games ending in a tie doesn't bother me too much.  It's not necessary to keep going and going and going until someone breaks the tie.  

 

If we're really dead set against games ending in a tie then they should just handle overtime like college football does. 

 

To be fair quite frankly college football overtime is one thing that college football just does better then the NFL.  

[NewColtsFan]

 

I could be wrong, but I believe the overtime rule for possession works this way.....

 

If the first team to possess the ball goes down and scores a TD,  then the game is over.

 

BUT.....

 

If the first team to possess the ball kicks a field goal,  then the opposing team gets a possession to either score a TD and end the game,  kick a tying field goal and extend the game,  or not score which would end the game.

 

So,  in many (most?) instances, both teams DO get a chance at possession of the ball.

 

If I'm wrong,  I'm sure someone will come along and correct me....     butt his is my understanding....

 

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

I wonder if this will affect play-calling and coaching for overtime.  It probably depends on the coach.  A conservative coach that is OK with a tie might like OT being shortened, hoping for less injuries.

 

But a coach that is not OK with a tie will probably be a little more aggressive since they have 5 less minutes to try to win.

 

Or it may have no affect on any of the games whatsoever.  We'll see.

[2006Coltsbestever]

25 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I could be wrong, but I believe the overtime rule for possession works this way.....

 

If the first team to possess the ball goes down and scores a TD,  then the game is over.

 

BUT.....

 

If the first team to possess the ball kicks a field goal,  then the opposing team gets a possession to either score a TD and end the game,  kick a tying field goal and extend the game,  or not score which would end the game.

 

So,  in many (most?) instances, both teams DO get a chance at possession of the ball.

 

If I'm wrong,  I'm sure someone will come along and correct me....     butt his is my understanding....

 

 

You are correct. I would still like to see both Offenses get a chance but they don't if the team scores a TD that gets the ball first.

[Superman]

So, Dean Blandino drove the bus on this proposal, then quit, and now they're going to approve it. 

 

Meanwhile, we still have one possession overtime games. 

 

Smart.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

So, Dean Blandino drove the bus on this proposal, then quit, and now they're going to approve it. 

 

Meanwhile, we still have one possession overtime games. 

 

Smart.

 

Yeah it feels like they forgot the most important change needed...

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Yeah it feels like they forgot the most important change needed...

 

I don't understand. They have resisted the two possession overtime (which is the most common sense thing in the world, IMO) because 'we want that excitement of knowing the game can end with just one play!' which is absolutely not compelling in any notable way (again, IMO). 

 

Yet, they are ready to enact this change that has the potential to increase the number of games that end in a tie, which is the most anticlimactic way possible for a game to end. 

 

I'm missing something.

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't understand. They have resisted the two possession overtime (which is the most common sense thing in the world, IMO) because 'we want that excitement of knowing the game can end with just one play!' which is absolutely not compelling in any notable way (again, IMO). 

 

Yet, they are ready to enact this change that has the potential to increase the number of games that end in a tie, which is the most anticlimactic way possible for a game to end. 

 

I'm missing something.

Yeah I think both Offenses should at least get a crack at it no matter what. It would've been awesome had the Falcons got a chance on Offense in the SB, Matt Ryan cant play Defense. It wasn't just the SB, I have always felt like this. A coin flip deciding on who gets the ball first shouldn't decide a game and it does if the team who gets the ball scores a TD. I remember when the Chargers beat us 23-17 in OT in the 2008 Playoffs, I was so pee'd off Peyton didn't get a chance to respond - season over!

[Lucky Colts Fan]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't understand. They have resisted the two possession overtime (which is the most common sense thing in the world, IMO) because 'we want that excitement of knowing the game can end with just one play!' which is absolutely not compelling in any notable way (again, IMO). 

 

Yet, they are ready to enact this change that has the potential to increase the number of games that end in a tie, which is the most anticlimactic way possible for a game to end. 

 

I'm missing something.

 

They could even take a page from the college game and say no PAT,  2-pt tries only for OT.

 

It's one thing to be mad when your team loses, but when your team loses and it doesn't feel FAIR because you didn't even get to touch the ball in OT...

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

A team not getting to touch the ball in OT just made me think of something.

 

Theoretically, a team could go an entire game without its offense getting to touch the ball.  If the other team completes successful onside kicks the entire game, they keep the ball the entire game...

 

It'll never happen, I just thought that was interesting.

[NorthernBlue]

In a way, I understand why they end games after a TD on the first drive in OTs. It is a tad more exciting that the game can end in one play, but also, they do need to get the game finished eventually. I don't agree with it, but I can live with the rule IN THE REGULAR SEASON.

 

But seriously, how do we NOT have contentious OT (where both teams get a chance to posses the ball at least once) in the PLAYOFFS? I mean come on, it's the freaking post season, and some teams can literally have their season over because of a coin toss. The biggest example of the rule sucking in playoffs, even more than the super bowl, was the Cardinals Packers Divisional game in 2015. Aaron Rodgers throws a hail mary to tie the game in the very end, and then he literally does not get the ball again, as Arizona scores on the first possession of OT. Still a great game, but wow that's a dumb way for your season to end if your Aaron Rodgers and the Packers.

 

And it's not like the game would be getting too long anyways. Literally NOBODY would tune out of the super bowl this year (or any other playoff game for that matter), if there was guaranteed two possession OT.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 minute ago, NorthernBlue said:

In a way, I understand why they end games after a TD on the first drive in OTs. It is a tad more exciting that the game can end in one play, but also, they do need to get the game finished eventually. I don't agree with it, but I can live with the rule IN THE REGULAR SEASON.

 

But seriously, how do we NOT have contentious OT (where both teams get a chance to posses the ball at least once) in the PLAYOFFS? I mean come on, it's the freaking post season, and some teams can literally have their season over because of a coin toss. The biggest example of the rule sucking in playoffs, even more than the super bowl, was the Cardinals Packers Divisional game in 2015. Aaron Rodgers throws a hail mary to tie the game in the very end, and then he literally does not get the ball again, as Arizona scores on the first possession of OT. Still a great game, but wow that's a dumb way for your season to end if your Aaron Rodgers and the Packers.

 

And it's not like the game would be getting too long anyways. Literally NOBODY would tune out of the super bowl this year (or any other playoff game for that matter), if there was guaranteed two possession OT.

 

Yeah, I bet Steelers fans wish that had been in effect back in the days of Tebow...  

[crazycolt1]

22 minutes ago, NorthernBlue said:

In a way, I understand why they end games after a TD on the first drive in OTs. It is a tad more exciting that the game can end in one play, but also, they do need to get the game finished eventually. I don't agree with it, but I can live with the rule IN THE REGULAR SEASON.

 

But seriously, how do we NOT have contentious OT (where both teams get a chance to posses the ball at least once) in the PLAYOFFS? I mean come on, it's the freaking post season, and some teams can literally have their season over because of a coin toss. The biggest example of the rule sucking in playoffs, even more than the super bowl, was the Cardinals Packers Divisional game in 2015. Aaron Rodgers throws a hail mary to tie the game in the very end, and then he literally does not get the ball again, as Arizona scores on the first possession of OT. Still a great game, but wow that's a dumb way for your season to end if your Aaron Rodgers and the Packers.

 

And it's not like the game would be getting too long anyways. Literally NOBODY would tune out of the super bowl this year (or any other playoff game for that matter), if there was guaranteed two possession OT.

I guess not having a defense that don't give up a winning play or drive would be the answer to that.

[NorthernBlue]

3 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I guess not having a defense that don't give up a winning play or drive would be the answer to that.

Okay but here's the thing, if a teams strength is their offense (like Atlanta), it's kind of nonsense that because of a coin toss, they don't get to have a chance to showcase it, instead being forced to have their defense try to win the game for them.

 

I know I know, if you're team has a weakness, that's your fault. In football, in order to win the game, you have to exploit the other teams weaknesses, but sometimes in OT, weaknesses get exposed by a coin, rather than the other team. 

[AZColt11]

21 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

While I understand your point very clear teams have their defense also. To win or lose games in overtime it may come down to the defense to do their share in winning a game. The overtime rules now does not allow a team to win the game with just a field goal and IMO that makes it OK by me. If the teams defense gives up a TD to lose the game then it was on the defense.

I get that.  It's a long game and surely they had plenty of time to do their part.  BUT, and this is where I don't like "fate" deciding things, it DOES determine which unit gets to be on the field.  Did not all three units contribute to that point?  So I think all 3 units should get at least one chance in the O.T. as well.  Letting a coin flip decide who is on the field is the problem I have with it.  And as you said, if the offensive team scores the TD the defense never gets their chance and they had just as much influence on the game up to that point.  If both teams are tied following the first possession THEN I have no trouble with sudden death at that point because all 3 units for each team will have had their chance..

[crazycolt1]

39 minutes ago, NorthernBlue said:

Okay but here's the thing, if a teams strength is their offense (like Atlanta), it's kind of nonsense that because of a coin toss, they don't get to have a chance to showcase it, instead being forced to have their defense try to win the game for them.

 

I know I know, if you're team has a weakness, that's your fault. In football, in order to win the game, you have to exploit the other teams weaknesses, but sometimes in OT, weaknesses get exposed by a coin, rather than the other team. 

If a teams weakness is their defense a coin toss is not the reason they lose the game. In order to win games in this league you need a balanced team. If there is one thing I have learned from being a long time Colt fan there are lots of ways to lose a game and offense has zero to do with it. Colts lost a bunch of playoffs due to the lack of defense and or special teams play. If your team losses a game in overtime over not stopping the other team from scoring then you lost the game in the first place by letting them score the same as your offense.

[AZColt11]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

If a teams weakness is their defense a coin toss is not the reason they lose the game. In order to win games in this league you need a balanced team. If there is one thing I have learned from being a long time Colt fan there are lots of ways to lose a game and offense has zero to do with it. Colts lost a bunch of playoffs due to the lack of defense and or special teams play. If your team losses a game in overtime over not stopping the other team from scoring then you lost the game in the first place by letting them score the same as your offense.

OK but what if you are the home team?  The VISITORS get to call the coin toss, correct?  So then it is COMPLETELY out of the home teams' hands.  They don't get to call the coin, they don't get to influence which way it bounces.  And 90% of the time the team that wins the coin toss is taking the ball for obvious reasons.  So if you are the home team, and the coin toss doesn't go in your favor, you are most likely putting your defense out there because of "fate".  I just don't like it.  Never have.  Of course, it wouldn't matter as much if their offense got at least 1 crack at it regardless.

[crazycolt1]

4 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

A team not getting to touch the ball in OT just made me think of something.

 

Theoretically, a team could go an entire game without its offense getting to touch the ball.  If the other team completes successful onside kicks the entire game, they keep the ball the entire game...

 

It'll never happen, I just thought that was interesting.

I remember a Colt-Titan game where Jeff Fisher must have tried 3 or 4 onside kicks. Manning  scored on just about every time the Colts touched the ball. I would have to look that game up but the stats of that game were unreal.

[crazycolt1]

8 minutes ago, AZColt11 said:

OK but what if you are the home team?  The VISITORS get to call the coin toss, correct?  So then it is COMPLETELY out of the home teams' hands.  They don't get to call the coin, they don't get to influence which way it bounces.  And 90% of the time the team that wins the coin toss is taking the ball for obvious reasons.  So if you are the home team, and the coin toss doesn't go in your favor, you are most likely putting your defense out there because of "fate".  I just don't like it.  Never have.  Of course, it wouldn't matter as much if their offense got at least 1 crack at it regardless.

While I understand your point of view not having a defense cost games. It always has and never is going to change.

I never had a problem with games ending in a tie. It has shown the injury factor rises in overtime games.

[AZColt11]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

While I understand your point of view not having a defense cost games. It always has and never is going to change.

I never had a problem with games ending in a tie. It has shown the injury factor rises in overtime games.

Well, the other thing about it I was just thinking is it's not all about offense.  What if your best unit is your defense and the other team wins the toss but defers and your offense is on the field first? If your offense turns the ball over or takes a sack or something and the other team takes over the ball in FG range then your defense didn't really even get to contribute.  They can just march the ST out there and win it.

 

I just don't see what the big deal is about giving one extra possession in a game that is already on average 3 hours long.  I think all units should contribute, THEN go to sudden death.

[NorthernBlue]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

If a teams weakness is their defense a coin toss is not the reason they lose the game. In order to win games in this league you need a balanced team. If there is one thing I have learned from being a long time Colt fan there are lots of ways to lose a game and offense has zero to do with it. Colts lost a bunch of playoffs due to the lack of defense and or special teams play. If your team losses a game in overtime over not stopping the other team from scoring then you lost the game in the first place by letting them score the same as your offense.

Okay but if the other team would have lost anyways had you WON the coin toss, then it becomes apparent that really the coin toss decided the game. Now we wouldn't know this had both teams been able to possess the ball at least once. 

 

I mean, think of it like this. What if you got a complete shootout of a game. Score is tied 38-38 heading into OT. Then some team wins the toss and then marches down the field and scores a quick one. Game over. The other team didn't even get a chance to match, and in this case, the coin toss pretty much decided the game.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, NorthernBlue said:

Okay but if the other team would have lost anyways had you WON the coin toss, then it becomes apparent that really the coin toss decided the game. Now we wouldn't know this had both teams been able to possess the ball at least once. 

 

I mean, think of it like this. What if you got a complete shootout of a game. Score is tied 38-38 heading into OT. Then some team wins the toss and then marches down the field and scores a quick one. Game over. The other team didn't even get a chance to match, and in this case, the coin toss pretty much decided the game.

That is your point of view but If your defense wasn't strong enough to avoid a shootout in the first place you don't deserve to get a win.

If you want both teams to have a possession then just go ahead and bring in the collage rules. IMO that is the difference between collage and the pros. Play with big boy pants on.

My personal opinion is do away with overtime games during regular season. Then go to sudden death in the playoffs.

[Synthetic]

 

They've completely screwed overtime rules up. And it all goes to the whining and moaning from the Minnesota Vikings after being sore losers from the 2009 NFCCG. Decreasing minutes of overtime isn't going to help either. 

 

If you don't want ties, just bring back sudden death. It works better, since if your defense can't get stops, you don't deserve a shot with your offense on the field. 

 

 

[rock8591]

IMO we don't need games to be extended any more than they are. Agreed on the defense being a weakness, too bad for you.

[shakedownstreet]

Whatever fairness schmairness both teams deserve possession blah blah blah

 

If a team doesn't win the game in regulation, then they can just flip a coin so far as I care

[crazycolt1]

8 minutes ago, shakedownstreet said:

Whatever fairness schmairness both teams deserve possession blah blah blah

 

If a team doesn't win the game in regulation, then they can just flip a coin so far as I care

To each their own but this constant whine 'it isn't fair' crap has been getting old for a long time.

You either have the team to win, or you lose. Fairness has nothing to do with it. The NFL is not little league where everyone gets a participation trophy.

[shakedownstreet]

19 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

To each their own but this constant whine 'it isn't fair' crap has been getting old for a long time.

You either have the team to win, or you lose. Fairness has nothing to do with it. The NFL is not little league where everyone gets a participation trophy.

 

There's 60 minutes on the clock in regulation. If you couldn't get the job done within that time frame, then too **** bad. Go ahead and cry about your teams lack of execution, but not the 'unfair' rules. I liked the former sudden death OT

[oldunclemark]

I liked ties

[bananabucket]

31 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

I liked ties

 

I did too.  Before the skinny ones became fashionable.

[AZColt11]

15 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

That is your point of view but If your defense wasn't strong enough to avoid a shootout in the first place you don't deserve to get a win.

If you want both teams to have a possession then just go ahead and bring in the collage rules. IMO that is the difference between collage and the pros. Play with big boy pants on.

My personal opinion is do away with overtime games during regular season. Then go to sudden death in the playoffs.

So did the other team, who's defense also sucked, deserve to win the game more because they won the crummy coin flip?  Just asking.

[RockThatBlue]

On 5/19/2017 at 0:45 AM, AZColt11 said:

Boo.  To me, they didn't address the REAL problem with the O.T.  And that is both teams not having an opportunity to possess the ball.  I think it's absurd you can decide something so significant as a Superbowl without both teams possessing the ball in O.T.

College football overtime >>>>>>>NFL overtime.