Football Competition Committee approves OT proposal

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.

Mr. Arrowhead · 03-21-2010, 07:50 PM

its stupid that its only for the playoffs

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-21-2010, 07:56 PM

The owners better vote this down.

Leave it the way it is. I'm sick of hearing how it's not fair to the team that loses the cointoss. Play ****ing defense.

Losing the cointoss sure didn't hurt the Cardinals in their OT game against GB.

**Bowser** · 03-21-2010, 07:58 PM

Christ, this is as pathetic as Carl trying to get an extra team in the playoffs after his '05 team went 10-6 and didn't make it in.

**cdcox** · 03-21-2010, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Arrowhead

its stupid that its only for the playoffs

Yep. Every game matters. This isn't baseball. Amazing how clueless the owners are.

milkman · 03-21-2010, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

The owners better vote this down.

Leave it the way it is. I'm sick of hearing how it's not fair to the team that loses the cointoss. Play ****ing defense.

Losing the cointoss sure didn't hurt the Cardinals in their OT game against GB.

To be fair, the only reason it didn't hurt the Cards is that Aaron Rogers missed a wide open receiver.

But at the end of the day, I agree.

Leave the damn game alone.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-21-2010, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

To be fair, the only reason it didn't hurt the Cards is that Aaron Rogers missed a wide open receiver.

But at the end of the day, I agree.

Leave the damn game alone.

Matt Hasselbeck wants the ball and he's gonna score.

aturnis · 03-21-2010, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

The owners better vote this down.

Leave it the way it is. I'm sick of hearing how it's not fair to the team that loses the cointoss. Play ****ing defense.

Losing the cointoss sure didn't hurt the Cardinals in their OT game against GB.

Well, if they force a team to kick a field goal, they did play defense. In regulation, that is considered a victory for the defense 90% of the time. The only time it isn't a win is if it's in OT, or a last second victory FG.

If your defense forces the FG, good, you get another shot. If you want to win, score a ****ing touchdown mother ****ers!

Not condoning the rule change, just playing devils advocate for discussion sake. Really I could care less, it's the playoffs and won't be affecting the Chiefs for some time.

**DaFace** · 03-21-2010, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox

Yep. Every game matters. This isn't baseball. Amazing how clueless the owners are.

Yeah, that makes this seem a lot more half-assed.

**Buck** · 03-21-2010, 08:14 PM

They should test it in the Regular Season before voting on it for the playoffs.

Either way, no.

**cdcox** · 03-21-2010, 08:14 PM

Here's how I would make the OT rules for both regular season games and playoffs:

You win if you 1) score a TD that puts you in the lead or 2) you are leading at the end of an overtime quarter. FGs are worth 3 points, but they don't end the game.

**Bane** · 03-21-2010, 08:19 PM

No poll?WTF!

I wish they'd just leave it the fugg alone.IMO it's stupid to only do it in post season play if they do it at all.

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

****, why don't we just have a NFL version of a shootout with the kickers?

Seriously, all this time wasted on a rule there is nothing wrong with.

Lose the coin toss? Play defense and force a punt.

What's even more ridiculous is considering a change when a very, very small percentage of games are even affected. How many games went to OT last year over the regular season and playoffs?

Maybe six?

Out of around 275 games?

Leave it the **** alone.

They've already made a travashamockery out of the game by putting QB's in dresses and instituting this BS "defenseless WR" rule.

Instead of making new rules, how about hiring officials that can consistently call the game by the current rules?

**Buck** · 03-21-2010, 08:26 PM

They give the example of NO vs MIN in the article, but what about ARI vs GB?

-King- · 03-21-2010, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck

They give the example of NO vs MIN in the article, but what about ARI vs GB?

Because more games happen like NO vs Min than ARI vs GB.

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, 07:50 PM	#2
Mr. Arrowhead MVP Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wichita Casino cash: $10015708	its stupid that its only for the playoffs
Posts: 7,763

03-21-2010, 07:56 PM	#3
OnTheWarpath15 MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $4971115	The owners better vote this down. Leave it the way it is. I'm sick of hearing how it's not fair to the team that loses the cointoss. Play ****ing defense. Losing the cointoss sure didn't hurt the Cardinals in their OT game against GB.
Posts: 60,161

03-21-2010, 07:58 PM	#4
Bowser sorta mod-ish Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: KC North Casino cash: $3521616	Christ, this is as pathetic as Carl trying to get an extra team in the playoffs after his '05 team went 10-6 and didn't make it in.
Posts: 100,455

03-21-2010, 08:14 PM	#10
Buck Take a Chill Pill Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Carolina Casino cash: $8329900	They should test it in the Regular Season before voting on it for the playoffs. Either way, no.
Posts: 44,562

03-21-2010, 08:14 PM	#11
cdcox www.nfl-forecast.com Join Date: Sep 2000 Casino cash: $2421769	Here's how I would make the OT rules for both regular season games and playoffs: You win if you 1) score a TD that puts you in the lead or 2) you are leading at the end of an overtime quarter. FGs are worth 3 points, but they don't end the game.
Posts: 45,536

03-21-2010, 08:19 PM	#12
Bane C.H.I.E.F.S Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: **** your face Casino cash: $10005055	No poll?WTF! I wish they'd just leave it the fugg alone.IMO it's stupid to only do it in post season play if they do it at all.
Posts: 12,621

03-21-2010, 08:21 PM	#13
OnTheWarpath15 MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $4971115	**, why don't we just have a NFL version of a shootout with the kickers? Seriously, all this time wasted on a rule there is nothing wrong with. Lose the coin toss? Play defense and force a punt. What's even more ridiculous is considering a change when a very, very small percentage of games are even affected. How many games went to OT last year over the regular season and playoffs? Maybe six? Out of around 275 games? Leave it the ** alone. They've already made a travashamockery out of the game by putting QB's in dresses and instituting this BS "defenseless WR" rule. Instead of making new rules, how about hiring officials that can consistently call the game by the current rules?
Posts: 60,161

03-21-2010, 08:26 PM	#14
Buck Take a Chill Pill Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Carolina Casino cash: $8329900	They give the example of NO vs MIN in the article, but what about ARI vs GB?
Posts: 44,562