NFL OT playoff rule passes

[patmoran2006]

Buffalo, Minnesota, Baltimore, Cincinnati were the only four teams that voted "no".

Personally, I dont think the Bills should even be allowed a vote in anything that has to do with playoffs.

At any rate, the rule is changing. FG wont win it anymore on first possession

[Pinkerton Security]

Buffalo, Minnesota, Baltimore, Cincinnati were the only four teams that voted "no".

Personally, I dont think the Bills should even be allowed a vote in anything that has to do with playoffs.

At any rate, the rule is changing. FG wont win it anymore on first possession
I dont know the exact rule change and cant find a good article on it very quickly...

so basically the team to receive the ball first in OT has to score 6 in order to win on the first possession? Is that it?

[Ron Burgundy]

I like it. It's not perfect, but it's better.

[Dicknoze69]

so basically the team to receive the ball first in OT has to score 6 in order to win on the first possession? Is that it?

They have to score a touchdown on the first possession yes. If the team kicks a FG with their first possession, the opposing team gets the ball. If that team then kicks a field goal, it becomes sudden death. If that team scores a touchdown, they win.

It's a system designed to ensure that both teams get a possession, while also placing a premium on touchdowns instead of field goals.

[patmoran2006]

A little surprised the Vikings voted no, since if this rule was adopted last year they would've gotten the ball back in the loss to the Saints.

[patmoran2006]

They also said they're going to revisit it again, and the rule may also extend to the regular season.

[Dujek]

It's bull****.

Since 1994 only 34% of OT games have been decided on the first possession, and only 22% are decided by a FG in the first possession. This only passed because the NFL wanted Favre in the Super Bowl this year and are pissed that the Saints won fair and square.

A completely needless rule change, if your defense can't man up and force a three and out in the first possession then you deserve to lose.

[streetkings01]

It's bull****.

Since 1994 only 34% of OT games have been decided on the first possession, and only 22% are decided by a FG in the first possession. This only passed because the NFL wanted Favre in the Super Bowl this year and are pissed that the Saints won fair and square.

A completely needless rule change, if your defense can't man up and force a three and out in the first possession then you deserve to lose.Since the NFL changed the kickoff placement, teams that received the ball first have won more than 58% of the time. They were talking about it on sirius radio last week.......I like the rule change!

[Pinkerton Security]

They have to score a touchdown on the first possession yes. If the team kicks a FG with their first possession, the opposing team gets the ball. If that team then kicks a field goal, it becomes sudden death. If that team scores a touchdown, they win.

It's a system designed to ensure that both teams get a possession, while also placing a premium on touchdowns instead of field goals.

This is a bigger change than I thought I guess...if a team kicks a FG the first possession, the 2nd team will have to take a more chances and basically turns their entire time with the ball into 4-down territory. However in the past the 2nd team wouldnt have even had a shot, sooo idk...i guess we'll see how it plays out (not us specifically, as in Bills fans lol)

[Dujek]

Since the NFL changed the kickoff placement, teams that received the ball first have won more than 58% of the time. They were talking about it on sirius radio last week.......I like the rule change!

That's true, but that's within statistical norms of a 50/50 split.

And as I said, they only win on the first possession 34% of the time, so for the majority of the games both teams get the ball anyway.

This is a bull**** rule to keep the Favre ball-lickers happy.

[OpIv37]

Every time I hear a rule change like this, I can't help but wonder how that rule will eventually be either used or misinterpreted to screw the Bills.

Of course, in this particular case, the Bills would have to MAKE the playoffs before it became an issue....

[mrbojanglezs]

wow pat moran is full of zingers

[BillsSabresB.C.T. Fan]

WGRZ sports Ed Kilgore:


The idea I really like for several reasons, is to simply play a 5th quarter, resuming where the 4th quarter ended. If the Bills, for example, had the ball at the Jets 45 yard line when the game is tied at the end of regulation, the overtime quarter opens with the Bills having the ball at the Jets 45. In hockey, a power play carries into the overtime, and I think that's only fair.

Were this rule adopted, it could certainly change strategies in tight games; a team gaining possession in the 4th quarter with the score tied wouldn't have to take risky chances to get into field goal range based on the clock. Going back to that NFC title game; maybe Brett Favre doesn't have to force the long throw over the middle if he knows the Vikings will still have great field position in overtime, or at the very least could have the Saints in poor field position.

It simply makes the outcome more fair, since we know the coin toss is such a huge advantage to the team winning the flip.


Here's where the strategy would really get interesting. If you pick up in the 5th quarter with the ball inside the opponent's 20 yard line, do you go for the td, or go for three? The other team then has the chance to either tie it again, or win it. After each team has a possession, the next team scoring ANY kind of point wins the game.


http://www.wgrz.com/sports/story.aspx?storyid=75509&catid=4

[RockStar36]

They should use NCAA overtime rules, but that would make too much sense. Of course, NCAA should have a playoff, so both systems are horribly flawed.

[Ron Burgundy]

That's true, but that's within statistical norms of a 50/50 split.

And as I said, they only win on the first possession 34% of the time, so for the majority of the games both teams get the ball anyway.

This is a bull**** rule to keep the Favre ball-lickers happy.

Almost 60% is within a 50/50 statistical split?

DISCLAIMER: I could give a **** about Brett Favre.

[Dujek]

Almost 60% is within a 50/50 statistical split?

DISCLAIMER: I could give a **** about Brett Favre.

Given the size of the sample, yes.

[wmoz11]

A little surprised the Vikings voted no, since if this rule was adopted last year they would've gotten the ball back in the loss to the Saints.

But who cares what happened last year? They're just as likely to go down and be the team to kick the FG to "win" it next year.

[Mr. Pink]

Stupid, unnecessary, ridiculous rule change.

And the college rule is even worse.

Last I checked defense was just as important as offense, but apparently not when it reaches an extra period where you change rules around as you see fit.

At least it's not as idiotic as what hockey does.

[YardRat]

I'm willing to give this and any other changes a chance, as long as the college rules are never adopted. Kilgore's idea is part stupid (just extending the game from the same ball spot and possession) and part brilliant (a set period of time for OT play).

[mikemac2001]

i kinda like it but it might suck........atleast they are trying it out...i think it might make teams go for TD's more in OT which i do like.

[naugem]

I think it's a good rule change.
It'll make OT more interesting, as now the teams will have to make crucial decisions instead of just playing for the FG.
Strategy-wise that's more interesting.

[RockStar36]

Stupid, unnecessary, ridiculous rule change.

And the college rule is even worse.

Last I checked defense was just as important as offense, but apparently not when it reaches an extra period where you change rules around as you see fit.

At least it's not as idiotic as what hockey does.

How is the college rule worse?

I assume you're talking about regular season hockey.

[Mr. Pink]

How is the college rule worse?

I assume you're talking about regular season hockey.


I dislike anything that really turns the game into a gimmick to decide it's outcome.

Yes, regular season hockey...I'd much prefer it go back to the ties system than what it is now.

[Mr. Pink]

Actually, it's also the fact that they change around rules that effect the outcome of a game. I'm not sure which of the two is worse, the gimmick or rules change.

[Philagape]

I like the change, but here's where it backfires: What if a team takes the opening kickoff for a TD? Some would say that's even cheaper than a FG

[Turf]

So they adopted my suggestion, win by 4, but with 1 major flaw. As I see it, if the first team kicks a FG, then the other team has to get a FG on their first possesion or they lose. So they get to play 4 downs even in their own territory to keep getting 1st downs which is unfair and wrong. The team that took the lead did not have 4 downs to get that lead. You listening Mikey? NFL? It's not right.
Both teams should play until one wins by 4 or leave it as is.

[Turf]

Think about it. After the other team kicks a FG, Peyton Manning gets 4 downs to move the ball down the field. Once in FG position, they can try and hit the endzone and win the thing outright. THIS IS A BAD BAD RULE. It needs to be amended ASAP.
Should the other team who is behind get 4 downs to move the ball down the field into FG position and once there, get a first down inside the 5, then score a TD rather easily against a tired defense? Hello, anyone home?
This rule is very poorly thought out and ill devised. The only way to amend this is to allow only one 4th down conversion.

[Crisis]

should just keep playing 10 minute quarters until someone wins for the playoffs

keep current system for reg season

[TMu11]

I personally like the fact that the NFL is looking to change the way OT's are played. However, I think the way they changed it is downright idiotic.

You're going to give the opposing team the ball after they kick a FG, so they can win the game with a TD? ridiculous.

Let's say the first team with possession does NOT score, TD or FG, and the ball is in turn given to the other team. At that point can THEY win with a FG?

This will completely change strategy, as any team will now choose to kickoff overtime, rather than receive. I think they could have done much better with the change. God forbid we see more bad officiating in Ot that will completely dismantle any teams chances (i.e. Buffalo)

[Throne Logic]

So they adopted my suggestion, win by 4, but with 1 major flaw. As I see it, if the first team kicks a FG, then the other team has to get a FG on their first possesion or they lose. So they get to play 4 downs even in their own territory to keep getting 1st downs which is unfair and wrong. The team that took the lead did not have 4 downs to get that lead. You listening Mikey? NFL? It's not right.
Both teams should play until one wins by 4 or leave it as is.

Um, yes to it's much like the win by 4. But, please note, both teams get 4 Downs. It's up to them how they use them.

[streetkings01]

That's true, but that's within statistical norms of a 50/50 split.

And as I said, they only win on the first possession 34% of the time, so for the majority of the games both teams get the ball anyway.

This is a bull**** rule to keep the Favre ball-lickers happy.Actually its not....

244 overtime games played from 1994-2009
146 games were won by the team who received the ball first
94 games were won by the team that didn't receive the ball first
4 games ended in a tie

Thats not close to 50/50 split

[Mike]

There is one element that I like that most people do not like:

The second team has to go for it on forth down....when down by a FG - this is obvious but....

The team that gets the ball first also has this choice, beceuase they know if they punt the ball away all it will take is a FG to beat them, so maybe they too take more chacnes...

....maybe they even play for a TD to just end the game...

If you are at the 50, in OT, faced with 4th and inches what do you do? Lets say you are a Team like the Cards or Siants (great on offense bad on defense) and are playing the Colts or Pats in the SB... do you really kick it away to Manning/Brady or go for the inches?

[Mr. Pink]

There is one element that I like that most people do not like:

The second team has to go for it on forth down....when down by a FG - this is obvious but....

The team that gets the ball first also has this choice, beceuase they know if they punt the ball away all it will take is a FG to beat them, so maybe they too take more chacnes...

....maybe they even play for a TD to just end the game...

If you are at the 50, in OT, faced with 4th and inches what do you do? Lets say you are a Team like the Cards or Siants (great on offense bad on defense) and are playing the Colts or Pats in the SB... do you really kick it away to Manning/Brady or go for the inches?

Punt because if you go for it and miss, you've then given the opposition 4 downs to get to your 40 and with a kicker with a strong leg...you've just given them the game.

It's easier to stop a team from gaining 40 yards than 10. You play the percentages.

It's playoffs, it's one and done. You make that call as the coach, you're criticized the entire offseason for pissing away the entire season on a 4th down call.