New OT Rules

isnt this proposal just for playoff games? thats what i read from another article.

i thought the idea was good until i read this from the article above:

As the football analyst Brian Burke wrote in an email this weekend: "The second team with possession will have 33 percent more downs available to them on every series, without being concerned about the clock, and scoring becomes much more likely.'

i would like a change to the overtime rules for the playoffs, not sure about the reg season thoo.

McNabb is going to be confused again...or should we say "still"? :D

I do like the new proposals of score a TD or the other team gets a chance. It's closer to an ideal system. The college system can go on too long and it's more like a shootout in hockey than an OT because of the short distance needed to score. A lot of NFL overtimes are won by FGs, some even kicked on 1st-3rd downs to just get the game over with instead of using all downs and trying to score a TD. So, if the offense doesn't score a TD, I like giving the other team a chance. It's debatable if the other team should get a try after a TD on the opening OT drive, but if the first team was able to go all the way down the field to score a TD, they earned the win far more than a team that got maybe 2 first downs and a penalty to hit a FG.

I hope it passes. I guess the '2010 postseason' rule is going to make it a test, like MLB and instant replay experiments in the postseason. I believe it would be better to test something like this during the regular season for a few reasons: less chance of a bad rule costing teams in the playoffs...and it's very easy to have a postseason with no overtime games, even one or two is a small sample to test the effectiveness of a new rule or experimental rule.

I like the idea but here's a hypothetical situation that I think would need to be ironed out: Say the Redskins get the ball to start OT of a 21-21 game and drive down the field but get stuck at like 4th and 10 on the Giants' 20. Could they kick the FG to go up by 3 (this obviously wouldn't end the game since it's not a TD) and then hope to hold the giants to no score on their possession? This way the Skins scored first but it wasn't a TD so the game continues, but then after each team has had the ball the score is Skins 24-21. Game over?

Does that make any sense?

i think your right. that is what the critism i qouted above was reffering too. the skins get the ball first, drive down to the giants 20, kick a fg.

since it was a fg and not a td, the giants would get the ball back either having to:

1) kick a fg to cont playing (until someone scores a td) or
2) they score a td, game ends, giants win 26-24 or
3) the giants are not in field position to kick a fg, go for it on 4th down, dont convert, skins win 24-21

the criticism the i bolded above is that it may be unfair to teh skins to allow the giants to get the ball back knowing that if they are not in fg position, they can go for it on 4th down thus giving them the benefit of being able to rely upon an extra down to advance the ball and score.

I've never had a big problem with OT as it is. If you want the ball back stop 'em. If your D can't get it done, oh well.

Yup. If it's not broken fix it until it is.

I agree with Matty and Sammy's comments above.

If you didn't win it in regulation, you don't have much room to cry about how overtime went down.

And if you didn't stop the other team in overtime, blame your defense, not the rules.

Dumb concept all around. IF the team that wins the coin flip goes down and scores a TD it is game over. Not much of a change to be honest. Why is vying for a FG so bad. It is just as exciting if not more. If you really want to be fair about it just play another quarter and see who is ahead at the end of the additional 10- 15 minutes. The best concept for OT that won't drag on for another quarter is just adopt the NCAA OT rules. I don't see why they want to eliminate FGs to win an OT game.

I agree with BHA, screw overtime just have ties.

Playoffs remain same.

Peyton Manning still wouldn't be happy because Sproles scored a TD in that 2008 playoff game. :D

I agree with BHA, screw overtime just have ties.

Playoffs remain same.

Better yet, lets have ties in the playoffs and then have matches were 3 teams face off in a single game. Now that would be awesome...and confusing. Oh and no 3 point stances allowed.

i dont like that proposal. why not just play a 15 minute overtime and treat it like an extra quarter? whoever leads at the end wins. no need to get all fancy with "each team gets a posession unless they score a touchdown on the first drive".
The only problem I see with the additional 15 minutes is the additional time it will take and it running into other games. Then god for bid its a late MNF game that then goes into overtime. I say just let both teams O's have the ball once and then its done. Very easy and very fair.