Football Competition Committee approves OT proposal - Page 3

Mr. Laz · 03-21-2010, 07:39 PM

Report: Competition Committee approves OT proposal

Posted: March 21st, 2010 | Frank Tadych | Tags: Bill Polian, Brad Childress, Jeff Fisher, John Mara, Marvin Lewis, NFL Annual Meeting, Ozzie Newsome, Rich McCay, Rick Smith, Stephen Jones, Zygi Wilf
The latest out of the NFL Annual Meeting Sunday is that the competition committee has voted to approve the proposal for the overtime rule changes, according to the Boston Globe. The modified overtime rule will be voted on by league owners this week.
We don’t have confirmation yet on how the eight-member committee (Titans coach Jeff Fisher, Falcons president Rich McKay, Cowboys COO Stephen Jones, Bengals coach Marvin Lewis, Giants president and CEO John Mara, Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome, Colts president Bill Polian and Texans GM Rick Smith) voted, although Newsday’s Bob Glauber and Judy Battista of the New York Times report is was 6-2, with Battista noting Lewis and Newsome opposed.
In order to pass, the measure needs 24 of 32 votes (75 percent success) when it’s presented to full ownership.
Here are some of the stances we’re reading teams taking on the proposed overtime rules:

Polian supports the changes, according to the Globe, citing the statistics since 1994.

The Lions are undecided about the new overtime proposal, according to Tom Kowalski of Mlive.com.

Jud Zulgad of the Star Tribune reports that while Vikings coach Brad Childress is undecided, indications are owner Zygi Wilf isn’t in favor of the change.

Mara also supports the modified rule, but isn’t optimistic it will pass among owners.

As a co-chairman of the committee and one of the minds behind the proposal, Fisher supports OT changes.

Owners scheduled to vote on change to playoff overtime rules

Associated Press
NEW YORK -- NFL owners will vote next week whether to allow each team a possession in overtime in the playoffs if the team that wins the coin toss kicks a field goal on the first series.

Previously, the game would end whenever either side scores, as happened in the NFC Championship Game in January, with the New Orleans Saints beating the Minnesota Vikings on Garrett Hartley's kick. But NFL competition committee chairman Rich McKay says a trend has developed showing too strong an advantage for teams winning the coin toss to start overtime.

La Canfora: Some big talking points

The most intriguing items on the competition committee's agenda at next week's ownership meetings involve player safety/concussions and overtime changes, Jason La Canfora writes.

If the team that falls behind by three points on the first series also kicks a field goal, then the game would continue under current sudden-death rules.
The proposal is only for the postseason.
"Statistically, it is pretty clear there has been a change," McKay said. "When sudden death was put in for 1974, it clearly worked very well and was a good system. It brought excitement and effectively broke ties. From '74-'93 you had a 50-50 (breakdown) in who would win between those who won toss and who lost the toss.
"Changes occurred over time, and the numbers have changed to 59.8 percent winning the coin toss and winning the game. The team that loses the coin toss wins 38.5 percent. We are trying to put in a system that emphasizes more skill and strategy as opposed to the randomness of the coin flip."
McKay credited the advancements in field-goal accuracy and skills of return teams for the hefty switch in statistics. The competition committee found that since 1994, when the kickoff was moved back 5 yards to the 30, teams winning the OT coin toss won 34.4 percent of the games on the first series. They kicked field goals 26.2 percent of those times, an increase from 17.9 percent in 15 years.
"I would say this is something that's been on our radar for a number of years and been talked about a lot," McKay said. "In the last four or five years, we have not proposed anything because we thought if there weren't enough votes (among the 32 owners), we should not propose it. This year, the statistics are so compelling we need to get the discussion going."
Rest assured there will be plenty of discussion; 24 votes are needed to adopt the change.
The players union strongly has supported the current overtime setup because it fears another system could lead to more injuries. McKay said the competition committee has "not spent a lot of time with them" on this proposal, but it will make the players association aware of the recommendation.
Vikings kicker Ryan Longwell never had a chance to try to win that game in New Orleans, under the current rule. But Longwell said Tuesday that he wasn't lobbying for a change.
"Personally, I like it the way it is," Longwell said in a text message. "If you get the ball, go score. If you don't get the ball, stop 'em."
Questions have been raised whether altering overtime is something that must be collectively bargained with the union, but the NFL says it would simply be a rule change the league can unilaterally enact.
Another recommendation to the owners, who will hold their meetings in Orlando, Fla., beginning Sunday, centers on expanding protection for defenseless players, most notably receivers. McKay said a recent rule change helped, but there are cases where receivers already have made a catch and still are defenseless when they are hit in the head area.
The proposal will offer those players protection from hits to the head until after the catch is made and the receiver has an opportunity to protect himself.

-King- · 03-21-2010, 08:48 PM

Moot point anyway

Quote:

McKay said that a two-possession proposal previously had been made by the Competition Committee, but that it obtained only 18 votes. McKay added that there also was a prior attempt to move the kickoff point, presumably from the 30 back to the 35. It also failed.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...vertime-rules/

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-21-2010, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugeater

There's really no way to make it totally fair, but that would at least help to offset whatever advantage the coin toss winner has.

The current system is as fair as it gets, IMO.

The team that wins the coin toss has a chance to score, and the team that loses the coin toss has a chance to stop them from scoring and give the ball to their offense.

It's good enough for the first 4 quarters.

**DaFace** · 03-21-2010, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Actually, all this BS started when the Chargers beat the Colts in OT several years back and Manning never saw the field.

To which I say, tough shit. Field a better defense.

The issue, as I see it, is that they've passed rule after rule designed to promote offense in the game. Take those away, and I agree that the OT rules are fair. As it is, it's too lopsided toward the offense to let the game end without both teams having a shot.

**dirk digler** · 03-21-2010, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KcChiefsKing

Defenses only have 50 yards to defend though. Kickers can kick from 50+ yards these days. Even if a kick return is only 20 yards, then the offense doesn't really need to do that much work to get to field goal range. Just 40-50 yards. It really isn't fair to put a defense in that position IMO.

50? More like 20-30. IIRC the average field position is around the 30 yard line.

**dirk digler** · 03-21-2010, 08:52 PM

Polian has this right

Quote:

"No matter where you came down on the subject," Polian said, "whether you were a pure two-possession guy or a status quo guy, as I was going in, when you saw the statistics broken down from 1994-2009, and you saw the team winning the toss winning 60 percent of the time, and then you saw the accuracy of field-goal kickers, both in distance and accuracy over that period of time, it's obvious that it's game that from 1994 on is very different than what we had prior to 1994," he said. "[Before that], essentially, there was no difference between team winning the toss and losing it."

As Competition Committee co-chair Rich McKay pointed out during a Wednesday conference call, the increase in first-drive field goals traces to the movement of the kickoff point from the 35 to the 30.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-21-2010, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaFace

The issue, as I see it, is that they've passed rule after rule designed to promote offense in the game. Take those away, and I agree that the OT rules are fair. As it is, it's too lopsided toward the offense to let the game end without both teams having a shot.

Disagree.

If there weren't many examples of teams winning an OT game on defense, or making a defensive stop and then scoring on offense, maybe I'd feel differently.

Ultimately, the percentages aren't that far apart, and it effects less than 3% (average of 6-8 OT games a year) of games over the course of the regular season and playoffs.

-King- · 03-21-2010, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaFace

The issue, as I see it, is that they've passed rule after rule designed to promote offense in the game. Take those away, and I agree that the OT rules are fair. As it is, it's too lopsided toward the offense to let the game end without both teams having a shot.

Exactly.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-21-2010, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

50? More like 20-30. IIRC the average field position is around the 30 yard line.

Quit giving up big returns.

Titty Meat · 03-21-2010, 08:54 PM

This is ****ing stupid.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-21-2010, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Polian has this right

Polian should consider fielding a better defense.

**Bugeater** · 03-21-2010, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

The current system is as fair as it gets, IMO.

The team that wins the coin toss has a chance to score, and the team that loses the coin toss has a chance to stop them from scoring and give the ball to their offense.

It's good enough for the first 4 quarters.

Honestly, I could care less if it's fair or not, like I mentioned in the last thread on this subject I'm tired of seeing coaches playing for overtime instead of the win. All I'm saying is if they feel they HAVE to do something I'd rather see them move the kickoffs than do this stupid shit. I don't really have a problem with the way it is now.

**dirk digler** · 03-21-2010, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Quit giving up big returns.

You realize they moved kickoff's back to promote more kickoff returns because they were exciting?

-King- · 03-21-2010, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

50? More like 20-30. IIRC the average field position is around the 30 yard line.

Even if the average position is at the 30, it would still make teams go more than 30 yards.

From the 30, if you go 30 yards, then it would be about a 57 yard field goal. Only 1 or 2 kickers can realistically make that really.

**DaFace** · 03-21-2010, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Disagree.

If there weren't many examples of teams winning an OT game on defense, or making a defensive stop and then scoring on offense, maybe I'd feel differently.

Ultimately, the percentages aren't that far apart, and it effects less than 3% (average of 6-8 OT games a year) of games over the course of the regular season and playoffs.

OK, so this is the underlying question: do you disagree that both teams should have an equal chance of winning a game that goes into overtime? It sounds like your answer is "yes," and that's OK. I think they should, but if we can't agree on that one, the details don't really matter - we'll have to agree to disagree.

**Buck** · 03-21-2010, 08:57 PM

The best playoff game I ever saw was the NFC Divisional game between the Rams and Panthers when the Panthers won in the 2nd OT.

That used the current rules.

03-21-2010, 07:39 PM
Mr. Laz Don't Tease Me Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: KS Casino cash: $11047037	Competition Committee approves OT proposal Report: Competition Committee approves OT proposal Posted: March 21st, 2010 \| Frank Tadych \| Tags: Bill Polian, Brad Childress, Jeff Fisher, John Mara, Marvin Lewis, NFL Annual Meeting, Ozzie Newsome, Rich McCay, Rick Smith, Stephen Jones, Zygi Wilf The latest out of the NFL Annual Meeting Sunday is that the competition committee has voted to approve the proposal for the overtime rule changes, according to the Boston Globe. The modified overtime rule will be voted on by league owners this week. We don’t have confirmation yet on how the eight-member committee (Titans coach Jeff Fisher, Falcons president Rich McKay, Cowboys COO Stephen Jones, Bengals coach Marvin Lewis, Giants president and CEO John Mara, Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome, Colts president Bill Polian and Texans GM Rick Smith) voted, although Newsday’s Bob Glauber and Judy Battista of the New York Times report is was 6-2, with Battista noting Lewis and Newsome opposed. In order to pass, the measure needs 24 of 32 votes (75 percent success) when it’s presented to full ownership. Here are some of the stances we’re reading teams taking on the proposed overtime rules: Polian supports the changes, according to the Globe, citing the statistics since 1994. The Lions are undecided about the new overtime proposal, according to Tom Kowalski of Mlive.com. Jud Zulgad of the Star Tribune reports that while Vikings coach Brad Childress is undecided, indications are owner Zygi Wilf isn’t in favor of the change. Mara also supports the modified rule, but isn’t optimistic it will pass among owners. As a co-chairman of the committee and one of the minds behind the proposal, Fisher supports OT changes. Owners scheduled to vote on change to playoff overtime rules Associated Press NEW YORK -- NFL owners will vote next week whether to allow each team a possession in overtime in the playoffs if the team that wins the coin toss kicks a field goal on the first series. Previously, the game would end whenever either side scores, as happened in the NFC Championship Game in January, with the New Orleans Saints beating the Minnesota Vikings on Garrett Hartley's kick. But NFL competition committee chairman Rich McKay says a trend has developed showing too strong an advantage for teams winning the coin toss to start overtime. La Canfora: Some big talking points The most intriguing items on the competition committee's agenda at next week's ownership meetings involve player safety/concussions and overtime changes, Jason La Canfora writes. If the team that falls behind by three points on the first series also kicks a field goal, then the game would continue under current sudden-death rules. The proposal is only for the postseason. "Statistically, it is pretty clear there has been a change," McKay said. "When sudden death was put in for 1974, it clearly worked very well and was a good system. It brought excitement and effectively broke ties. From '74-'93 you had a 50-50 (breakdown) in who would win between those who won toss and who lost the toss. "Changes occurred over time, and the numbers have changed to 59.8 percent winning the coin toss and winning the game. The team that loses the coin toss wins 38.5 percent. We are trying to put in a system that emphasizes more skill and strategy as opposed to the randomness of the coin flip." McKay credited the advancements in field-goal accuracy and skills of return teams for the hefty switch in statistics. The competition committee found that since 1994, when the kickoff was moved back 5 yards to the 30, teams winning the OT coin toss won 34.4 percent of the games on the first series. They kicked field goals 26.2 percent of those times, an increase from 17.9 percent in 15 years. "I would say this is something that's been on our radar for a number of years and been talked about a lot," McKay said. "In the last four or five years, we have not proposed anything because we thought if there weren't enough votes (among the 32 owners), we should not propose it. This year, the statistics are so compelling we need to get the discussion going." Rest assured there will be plenty of discussion; 24 votes are needed to adopt the change. The players union strongly has supported the current overtime setup because it fears another system could lead to more injuries. McKay said the competition committee has "not spent a lot of time with them" on this proposal, but it will make the players association aware of the recommendation. Vikings kicker Ryan Longwell never had a chance to try to win that game in New Orleans, under the current rule. But Longwell said Tuesday that he wasn't lobbying for a change. "Personally, I like it the way it is," Longwell said in a text message. "If you get the ball, go score. If you don't get the ball, stop 'em." Questions have been raised whether altering overtime is something that must be collectively bargained with the union, but the NFL says it would simply be a rule change the league can unilaterally enact. Another recommendation to the owners, who will hold their meetings in Orlando, Fla., beginning Sunday, centers on expanding protection for defenseless players, most notably receivers. McKay said a recent rule change helped, but there are cases where receivers already have made a catch and still are defenseless when they are hit in the head area. The proposal will offer those players protection from hits to the head until after the catch is made and the receiver has an opportunity to protect himself.
Posts: 95,626

03-21-2010, 08:54 PM	#39
Titty Meat Inmem 2.0 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: My house Casino cash: $2317558	This is ****ing stupid.
Posts: 75,051

03-21-2010, 08:57 PM	#45
Buck Take a Chill Pill Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Carolina Casino cash: $8329900	The best playoff game I ever saw was the NFC Divisional game between the Rams and Panthers when the Panthers won in the 2nd OT. That used the current rules.
Posts: 44,562