Overtime proposal PASSED!

[Kevin Greene]

Safety wins in new overtime

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on March 23, 2010 4:24 PM ET

MDS and I have wondered over the last few weeks what happens if there is a safety in the now accepted overtime format.

We assumed a safety would win the game, and Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times confirms that's correct.

Yes, it's strange that two points could win the game if an initial possession field goal can't. But it would be far, far stranger to keep playing.

The idea here is that both teams get a chance for the ball and overtime is still sudden death if the first team on offense doesn't score six points. That would be the case when a safety happens.

If a safety occurs, both teams will have had a chance to score. The team had offense started with the ball instead gave points to the other team. It makes no sense to give that team another chance, just to perform a free kick down 2-0.

..

[Mr. Scot]

Remember X-Clown? Yeah, won't happen anymore.

Shitty proposal.

This would have had no effect on X-Clown.

[grateflday]

I like the attempt to fix overtime BUT I do NOT like this format. It borders on gimicky. I guess its better than whats in place.

[MadHatter]

I thought so at first, but it makes some sense, actually.

The idea is to give each team the chance to score. The offense has a chance to score because they are on the field. If the defense forces a safety, in effect, they just scored and the offense failed. While that sort of contradicts the FG thing, safeties aren't nearly as easy to get as FG's (as cheap).

In the case anyone wonders if I was stupid enough to ask if that applied to the overtime rules from before, I was actually just asking if the quotes posted on earlier pages were referring to before or after the new rules.

Also, it's stupid to only pass this for playoff games.

Same logic as a pick 6 winning the game. Offense had a chance...turned the ball over...other team scores.

Both teams had an opportunity to score and the first offensive team did not score a TD.

[Ccat]

yeah i see. I like the new rule. In regular season a tie is accepted, so that's most likely why the new rule doesnt apply to regular season yet. If they change it to no ties are acceptable, which I think they should, then I think they'll apply the new rule to regular season.

This new rule doesn't have anything to do with ties. Ties couldn't happen in playoff games previously, so nothing has changed with that. The new rule is just supposed to keep the team that wins the coin toss from winning with a cheap FG on their first drive.

[Wither]

..

That's exactly what I said.

[Hawk]

like it....don't like though that it is playoffs only.

[88 Bronco]

If the NFL would stop making rules to limit the defense, OT games might be more exciting.

[The Saltman]

Coaches aren't happy about this :sad:

Jay Glazer tweets: "Coaches and execs were supposed to be in the room. It was supposed to be done tomorrow, not today. These coaches are beside themselves."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/23/coaches-arent-happy-with-rule-change/

[cookinbrak]

This new rule doesn't have anything to do with ties. Ties couldn't happen in playoff games previously, so nothing has changed with that. The new rule is just supposed to keep the team that wins the coin toss from winning with a cheap FG on their first drive.

This. It has nothing to do with "both teams getting a chance to score", it means that the team that wins the coin toss can't settle for a FG. It will change gameplans dramatically.

[Miaoww]

This would have had no effect on X-Clown.

And why not? Unless my memory fails me, rather than walking off the field in elated triumph, the Panthers would have had to set up for a kickoff and a defensive series.

[Ccat]

And why not? Unless my memory fails me, rather than walking off the field in elated triumph, the Panthers would have had to set up for a kickoff and a defensive series.

After both teams have had a chance on offense, this new rule makes absolutely no difference. Both teams had opportunities to score in that game.

[grateflday]

This. It has nothing to do with "both teams getting a chance to score", it means that the team that wins the coin toss can't settle for a FG. It will change gameplans dramatically.

I think I agree with this. The part I dont like is the plan is kind of gimicky like I stated earlier. The strategy in OT is now not to just play the game, its gonna be "do I go for FG" or "TD" but if i go for FG then I .... and..... .but If i elect to kick and the other team has to settle for a FG then I know what we HAVE to do on offense...... etc etc. It is just kind of silly. Why not just have them play like 5 more minutes and give each team time outs so the other cant just run out the clock and go for a FG.

[Mr. Scot]

After both teams have had a chance on offense, this new rule makes absolutely no difference. Both teams had opportunities to score in that game.

Correct. The only situation this really affects is a team scoring with a field goal on the first series. Once both teams have had the ball, it's sudden death.

X-Clown came after a full overtime period had been completed. But heck, even if it had happened on the first series, an opening TD ends the game, so it still would have been the end of the game.