NFL Discussing a Change to Overtime in Playoffs

by Richard Hill on Mar 21, 2010 7:45 PM EDT in New England Patriots News

As of now, overtime can be a very one-sided event- there could be a kick-off, a 30 yard return, a 20 yard play and a field goal. However, should the defense be pinned with a loss after a field goal? Due to the rise in kicker accuracy and strength over the past couple of decades, there has been recent discussion about changing the rules of playoff overtime to the following:

There will be a coin flip, as usual.

The team that receives the ball will have a chance to score a touchdown. If they score a touchdown, they win the game.

However, if the receiving team only manages to score a field goal, the opposing team gets a chance to receive the kick off and score their own touchdown or field goal.

This is after the NFC championship between the New Orleans Saints and the Minnesota Vikings was decided by a Saints march to a field goal. Not the most fair way to decide which team should go and represent the conference in the Super Bowl. If this new proposal gets passed (which needs 2/3rd of the teams to agree), overtime in the playoffs should be a lot more fair and there should be little room left for argument.

The rule change would provide a different facet to the overtime game. Now, it's "get as close to the end zone as possible, if not, we'll get a field goal." If the change occurs, the game changes. Should you go for 4th and 2 if you can get a field goal? Should you grab the field goal points and rely upon your defense?

I hope this proposal goes through. I want this rule change to apply to both the regular season and the playoffs, but the Players Association have voiced concerns about the extension of overtime raising the possibility of injury. It's an understandable concern, but, as a viewer, I would ant this rule to apply for the entire season.

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

End the discussion. No change.

This issue has been indulged several days too long. And while the refusal to change the system might seem callous, the system…works. It just so happens that Farve didn’t touch the ball in OT, which is how things should have turned out.

I’m glad the Vikings didn’t go, because they probably WOULD have become the first team ever to lose five Super Bowls.

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Mar 21, 2010 8:02 PM EDT reply actions

That would have to make Buffalo feel less shitty

2009 NY Phin PhansFantasy League Champion
2009 Best Regular Season Record in NYPPL.
2010 The Jim Mandich NewsFlash Award Winner.

by Patssuck456 on Mar 21, 2010 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions

You reckon the system works?

I’m not so sure about that. I like the idea of both sides at least having a chance of touching the ball on offence. It’s an anticlimax to a close game to have one side take a kickoff back their 20-25 yards or so, march down the field 45 yards and then boot a field-goal. Sure, there’s some skill involved, but if it is a game of, say, Brady-versus-Manning (like many good AFCCC playoff games before have been), having the one-FG-wins-all method means (a) that the stud QB won’t really be responsible for winning the game, and (b) the other stud QB won’t even touch the ball.

Everyone who saw it remembers those legacy-defining 90-yard marches down the field for touchdowns. Those are what people hope to see win playoff games. Nobody feels honoured to watch a 45-yard-max procession ended with a field-goal, with all the time in the world to line up and kick.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Mar 21, 2010 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions