Football Competition Committee approves OT proposal - Page 2

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.

**Bugeater** · 03-21-2010, 08:29 PM

I would've liked to have seen them move up the kickoffs and see what effect that had before doing some stupid shit like this, but whatever.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-21-2010, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck

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

Or the Giants picking off Favre to win the NFC Championship?

Or Hasselbeck being pick-sixed by GB?

Last I checked, football is a team game, and the defense is part of the team.

**Bugeater** · 03-21-2010, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KcChiefsKing

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

Nope, we went through this in the last thread, only 1 out of 3 OT games end without the coin toss loser ever getting the ball. That means that more often than not the coin toss loser gets the ball at least once.

**Bane** · 03-21-2010, 08:36 PM

So basically all this crybaby BULLSHIT stems from Lord Favre not going to the Super Bowl?So WTF would be the big topic now if Lord Favre had made it,then threw that same int and Indy won? What the fugg ever.

-King- · 03-21-2010, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugeater

I would've liked to have seen them move up the kickoffs and see what effect that had before doing some stupid shit like this, but whatever.

Move them up? Why? If they moved them up, people like David Beulher and Janakowski would kick the ball into the first row of the stands.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-21-2010, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bane_58

So basically all this crybaby BULLSHIT stems from Lord Favre not going to the Super Bowl?So WTF would be the big topic now if Lord Favre had made it,then threw that same int and Indy won? What the fugg ever.

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.

-King- · 03-21-2010, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugeater

Nope, we went through this in the last thread, only 1 out of 3 OT games end without the coin toss loser ever getting the ball. That means that more often than not the coin toss loser gets the ball at least once.

True, but I'd rather a guaranteed possession after a Field goal.

**Bugeater** · 03-21-2010, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KcChiefsKing

Move them up? Why? If they moved them up, people like David Beulher and Janakowski would kick the ball into the first row of the stands.

Ok, then the opponent gets the ball at the 20 and no chance at a return. Part of the argument against the current system is that if the receiving team gets any type of return then they only have to get a couple first downs to get in FG range.

**Bugeater** · 03-21-2010, 08:44 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.

Or find a way to win in regulation and not let it come down to a coin toss.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-21-2010, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugeater

Ok, then the opponent gets the ball at the 20 and no chance at a return. Part of the argument against the current system is that if the receiving team gets any type of return then they only have to get a couple first downs to get in FG range.

And that argument is stupid as well.

Don't allow a big return.

Simple as that.

Why should a team with an exceptional ST unit be penalized by not getting to return a kick?

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-21-2010, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugeater

Or find a way to win in regulation and not let it come down to a coin toss.

Absolutely.

-King- · 03-21-2010, 08:45 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.

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.

**Bugeater** · 03-21-2010, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

And that argument is stupid as well.

Don't allow a big return.

Simple as that.

Why should a team with an exceptional ST unit be penalized by not getting to return a kick?

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 03-21-2010, 08:48 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.

Are they part of the ****ing team, or not?

If you can't keep a team from gaining 50 ****ing yards, you don't deserve to win.

**dirk digler** · 03-21-2010, 08:48 PM

This rule isn't what exactly what I would propose but it is alot better than the antiquated OT system they have now. Since they have moved kickoff's back and tailored the rules in favor of the O it is only fair that both teams get a chance on offense to score.

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, 08:29 PM	#16
Bugeater The Maintenance Guy Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Renovated Bugeater Estate Casino cash: $6232680	I would've liked to have seen them move up the kickoffs and see what effect that had before doing some stupid shit like this, but whatever.
Posts: 70,443

03-21-2010, 08:36 PM	#19
Bane C.H.I.E.F.S Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: **** your face Casino cash: $10005055	So basically all this crybaby BULLSHIT stems from Lord Favre not going to the Super Bowl?So WTF would be the big topic now if Lord Favre had made it,then threw that same int and Indy won? What the fugg ever.
Posts: 12,621

03-21-2010, 08:48 PM	#30
dirk digler Please squeeze Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Clinton, MO Casino cash: $3054644	This rule isn't what exactly what I would propose but it is alot better than the antiquated OT system they have now. Since they have moved kickoff's back and tailored the rules in favor of the O it is only fair that both teams get a chance on offense to score. Last edited by dirk digler; 03-21-2010 at 08:53 PM..
Posts: 66,374