NEW OVER TIME RULE for NFL

[croixflats]

1st posesion touchdown wins.

1st posesion a field go is made the other team has a chance to score a touchdown to win or a field goal to tie

The second posesion a field goal wins with no chance for the other team to score. I think

[LMITOUT]

So everyone P's and moans about how the Vikes were allegedly screwed in the Saint's OT game, yet the Vikings were one of the four teams who voted against overtime reform.

You can't make it up.

[croixflats]

I saw that, I had to ask if I heard it correctly. Like you say "You cant make that up"

[PierBridge]

What are you guys talking about?

I would have voted against it also it sounds silly to me but oh well.

[PierBridge]

Just for the play-offs I see...I'm OK with that.

[Whisker Trout Slayer]

The reason they voted no is because they knew that it was going to pass, so they voted no so they don't look like a bunch of sore losers.

[LMITOUT]

LOL

[JBMasterAngler]

College OT is still better.

[mr_jman]

Seems like rule changes happen AFTER a Minnesota team gets the downside of these things.

First this rule change that would have changed the Vikings game..... AND

The infamous baseball coin flip that would have seen the Twins host the White Sox in the 2008 game 163!

I still like the college style but I do like adding the kick off rather than just starting on the 25. I also think just putting 10 or 15 minutes on the clock and playing an ovetime till the clock runs out no matter how many points are scored would keep it interesting... oh well!

[zepman]

Vikings wanted to take the kick-off out of the equation and have the teams start at the 20 yard line...no kick-off. That's why they voted no.

[JBMasterAngler]

Don't forget that gopher football played an important role in getting play reviews in college after we got screwed out of 2 wins in the '01 season

[bucketmouth64]

I think that each team should have one posession from their 20 yard line. Whoever scores the higer value wins. Yes, I know this is flawed by taking the punting out of the question. So teams have 4 downs to move the ball. If tied after one possession then they should do regurlar sudden death...coin flip...kick off...first team to score wins.

[PierBridge]

So I'm assuming deferring or playing defense first will be the norm now.

EDIT...wait you lose instantly on TD so maybe not!

[Jim Uran]

Other rules passed also, including a 10 sec run off for a booth review in the last minute of the second and fourth quarters... That's kind of dumb.

[pinkfloyd4ever]

Not directed at you Leech, but that is an insane new rule. Ten second run off if the replay booth calls for a review? What if the review occurs at 8 seconds, with a team down by two and the review confirms a first down catch occurred at the 11 yard line? The team with the ball is kind of penalized for confirming a correct call

I like the new OT rule, but I also liked Golic's take on NFL Live, put 5, 7, 8 or 10 minutes on the clock and winning team at the end wins

[Mimic Shiner]

I agree, I can see major problems associated with this 10 second runoff with a review rule, unless there are other stipulations about it that weren't released yet. By the way it sounds if a team has a timeout available and wants to use it they can, but if none available and your team is coming down the field to spike the ball under 10 seconds, and they decide for a review, it's basically over. At least that's how it sounded to me.

[Jim Uran]

Correct, I forgot to add the time out thing, but still that late in the game you are lucky to have a time out left.

[goblueM]

my thoughts on the matter

A) it is ridiculous not to have consistentcy between the regular season and the playoffs. put it in the regular season too

Why not just set it so that if the first team (Team A) scores on their first possesion, Team B gets one possesion to try to tie or go ahead. If they tie it reverts to sudden death. If they don't score, or go ahead, either way it is game over.

If Team A doesn't score on their first possesion it automatically becomes sudden death after Team B takes over on offense.

Simple and fair i think

[LMITOUT]

my thoughts on the matter

Why not just set it so that if the first team (Team A) scores on their first possesion, Team B gets one possesion to try to tie or go ahead. If they tie it reverts to sudden death. If they don't score, or go ahead, either way it is game over.

If Team A doesn't score on their first possesion it automatically becomes sudden death after Team B takes over on offense.

If I'm understanding you correctly, that IS how the new OT rules work for the most part. If Team A scores only a FG it essentially does become sudden death.

[goblueM]

except if the Team A scores a touchdown on their first possesion, its game over. Team B doesn't get a chance. I don't agree with that. Why cut it off at a FG?

I still think the other team needs to touch the ball on offense regardless of how much the first team scores on its posession

[LMITOUT]

I still stand by the thought that defense is part of the ENTIRE game, not just in regulation. Stop Team A and Team B gets to touch the ball. Simple as that.

This is why I believe they put in the FG-doesn't-win caveat because it gives the defense a chance to stop them, instead of two 10 yd passes, a long FG attempt, and game over.

Moving the kick-off ahead 10 more yards would be the best solution and forget all the goofy rules they just enacted. The statistics show that the further back Team A starts on offense after the kickoff, the less chance they have at scoring on that initial drive. Taking a touchback and the ball at the 20 almost makes it a 50/50 proposition whether they'll score or not, and it also mitigates some of the concerns of the coin-flip winner getting the ball first.

[lawdog]

I will start by saying I don't like the current rule. I will also add that its already different for playoffs vs. regular season as after 15 minutes in the regular season it ends a tie and it never can in the playoffs. That being said, I think this rule is better than what we currently have but not as good as the college/high school type system. Their explanation is a valid one too, field goals are hardly missed anymore compared to what they were when the OT rule was implemented the way it was and so like Pier said, a couple passes and a kick and its done LAME!!! My preference would be a college OT with starting at the 40's but at least this gives the team a chance to get the ball if they get a defensive stop. Puts more emphasis on the play and less on the coin toss! Not perfect at all, but better...

[goblueM]

i hate the college overtime.

it completely takes the field position aspect OUT of the game. And field position is a HUGE part of football

the offensive and defensive playbooks completely change when you are inside the 30 yard line. i can't stand watching it

[james_walleye]

Your right LMIT it should be part of overtime, AND FOR BOTH TEAMS! Both teams should be forced to make a stop, not just the team who loses a cointoss. No game should end without both teams having to put their offenses and defenses on the field. If moving the kickoff 10 yards make it a 50/50 proposition on scoring or not that still isnt right. Both teams defenses should see the field in every OT situation.

[LMITOUT]

It's really quite simple, if the other team stops them then the team who got the kickoff first will have to put their defense on the field. Viola...both defenses and offenses will have had their chance.

I don't understand how 50/50 isn't as even as you can make it...........