The New NFL Playoff Overtime Rule
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Jan 6, 2011 12:00 PM CST
in Notes
Email
PrintImagine this... The Bears are in a hard fought playoff game and are tied after regulation. Chicago wins the coin flip, elects to take the ball and drives down into field goal range. Robbie Gould kicks a field goal, but the Bears don't win. The other team still get's a crack on offense. Did anyone remember that a new overtime rule was in place for the postseason this year? It completely slipped my mind until I saw a piece about it on the NFL Network earlier this week. I remember the new rule was snuck through during the off-season, and I didn't like the idea then and I don't like it now. I'm all for a change in the sudden death format currently used, and I don't mind the new rule, but to essentially give a virgin idea its test run during the playoffs is asinine.
If anything, it should have had it's trial during the regular season. Give the coaches some time to work out the strategy they'll implement, but now, in the most important games these teams will play, they have something new to be concerned with.
Much like the "tuck rule" will always be associated with Tom Brady, this new overtime format will always be linked to Brett Favre. Last season the Vikings and Saints were tied after regulation in the NFC Championship game. New Orleans won the overtime coin flip, took the ball, and drove down for the winning field goal. And the great Brett Favre never had a chance to work his magic in the playoffs. Boo freaking hoo.
Here's the new NFL OT rule from ESPN:
• Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner.
• If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball. If [that team] scores a touchdown on its possession, it is the winner. If the score is tied after [both teams have a] possession, the team next scoring by any method shall be the winner.
• If the score is tied at the end of a 15-minute overtime period, or if [the overtime period's] initial possession has not ended, another overtime period will begin, and play will continue until a score is made, regardless of how many 15-minute periods are necessary.
In college football, if a coach wins the overtime coin flip he always goes on defense first. Since both teams are guaranteed a possession the coach wants to know exactly what he'll need for the win. If his defense holds them to a FG, he knows his FG will send it to a 2nd overtime or a TD will win it for his team. In the NFL, the team that starts out on defense in overtime is only guaranteed an offensive possession if no TD is scored. Should an NFL team with a stingy defense elect to kickoff to start the OT? It's a tough decision, and one that shouldn't potentially be made for the first time in a do or die game.
From an Xs and Os standpoint, what is the correct way to play the new rule? Steve Wyche on nfl.com goes over some game planning aspects for special teams, for offenses, and for defenses that coaches now need to be wary of.
It's like not the situation with the Saints winning on their first possession happens all the time. It's only happened three times. That Saints win in 2009, the Titans over the Steelers in the 2002 Divisional playoffs, and oddly enough in the 2001 Divisional playoff "tuck rule" game won by the Patriots over the Raiders.
Back in March the owners approved the rule change by a 28-4 vote, and the Bears did vote for the change. So if the above scenario plays out and Robbie Gould kicks what would have been the game winner in years past, only to have their opponent get the ball back and win with a TD, I wonder how they'll feel then?
58 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
you can play the other side of that arguement as well.
What if the other team wins the flip goes down the field and kicks a field goal won’t you be glad that the bears would still get a chance to win? I don’t love the new rule but it’s definitely an improvement over the old format. I think ideally you get rid of the the whole fg or td thing and just say each team gets at leat one offensive posession and then it’s sudden death.
"I always tell people I want to live to be 150 and they say why would you want to do that. I say, well there's a few people I haven't made mad yet, I want to get them. "
-Mike Ditka
by garyfencikrapping on Jan 6, 2011 12:18 PM CST reply actions
I think the league is tired of seing teams positioning for 45+ yard FGs instead of going for TDs in OT.
Now the strategy has to be whether to attempt a 50 yard FG or go for a first down to get a better attempt or TD, knowing that your opponent still has a chance to win with a TD. What is more likely to happen is tied OTs.
I agree testing a new overtime rule during the postseason is asinine.
Makes you wonder if this guy has been in charge lately…
Personally I think it’s dumb to even have the new overtime rule… Is defense part of a team? If “Yes,” can the defense attempt to stop the other team’s offense from reaching field goal range? If “Yes,” the other team had a chance.
If the league really wants to take kickers out of the equation or “give an equal chance”, how about just seeing who puts the ball in the endzone first, no field goals past the fourth quarter? “Defense, here you go, stop them from crossing this line or you lose. That’s your chance.”
by Steven Schweickert on Jan 6, 2011 12:21 PM CST reply actions
I'm with you
So defense only wins championships when it isn’t OT?
There are three phases to the game. If your special teams and defense suck, too bad, you should have scored more in regulation.
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
by Adam T on Jan 6, 2011 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Right on! [allow me to be the crabby old guy]
but the trend to make sport more offensive is simply, well…offensive. The very reason I cannot watch the NBA today.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we have a full tank of gas, 1/2 pack of cigarettes...it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.
My suggested change...
…was simply to disallow FGs when the ball is spotted inside the 25- or the 20-yard line. If you want to kick a 37+ or 42+ yard FG to win, bully for you. But if you make a long play to get down to the opponent’s 5 or 10, guess what? You gotta punch it in.
But whatever the case, I’m adamantly against the college football rules. Play on the whole field, and make it sudden death after the first possession. Don’t take punts and punt returns out of the equation.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 6, 2011 1:08 PM CST up reply actions
I agree that testing something in the playoffs is insane.
At the same time though, it’s tough to say that testing it in the regular season and then reverting to the old OT rules would be fair.
Here’s an idea that the NFL doesn’t like because it’s not their own idea: USE COLLEGE FOOTBALL RULES!!! They’re fantastic.
No, they're terrible.
They remove Special Teams play, one of the three phases of football. Never like that.
My variant on the rules? Stop the clock. Ensure that each team has the same number of possessions. Game ends when both teams have the same number of possessions, and one team has more points. Pick-6’s, fumble-6’s, and TD returns count as a possession for the team that scores.
Don't worry about it...
IF… are at a tie at the end of regulation…there are two good for the Bears…
1. If we lose the coin flip our defense should be able to hold the opponent to a FG or less…
2. If we win the coin flip Hester will just return the kick for a TD and bang we win…
Unreasonable people make life difficult...
by WisBearsFan34 on Jan 6, 2011 12:57 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
*two good "outcomes" for the Bears...
Unreasonable people make life difficult...
by WisBearsFan34 on Jan 6, 2011 12:58 PM CST up reply actions
I agree...
for some weird reason I have this sneaking suspicion, that Seatlle is going to beat New Orleans…I know rediculous that sounds, but I just have a feeling…
I think that GB beats Philly…we play & beat Seattle at home…ATL beats GB at the GA-Dome, and We beat the birds at their place and beat Baltimore in Super Bowl 45…31-21
Unreasonable people make life difficult...
by WisBearsFan34 on Jan 6, 2011 3:46 PM CST up reply actions
I didn't think the rule needed to be changed...
…and I agree, it’s not a particularly grand idea to implement the change in the postseason. But that being said, I don’t have huge problems with how they changed it.
The NFL should definitely NOT use the college football rules. Why? Because it reduces the field to 1/4 its length, removes punting from the equation, and completely changes the psychology of the defense. Why would Bears fans want to take punting out of an OT, when we have the most explosive and dangerous punt returner of all time?
I don’t really think the new rules will affect the Bears’ strategy in OT. If we win the coin toss, we will choose to receive (unlike the college football philosophy), because we have Hester, Manning, and even Knox to return the kickoff. Even if we kick a FG, and then we give up a FG, we receive another kickoff and it’s true sudden death.
If we lose the coin toss, we kick it deep, and depend on our defense for a stop or a turnover, in which case, if we then kick a FG, we win.
Even if we give up a FG, we can then receive a kickoff, and then Hester or Manning can work their magic as usual.
If we give up a TD on the first possession of OT and lose – well, in that situation, we would have lost anyway, so there’s no difference whatsoever.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 6, 2011 1:01 PM CST reply actions
Really, the only strategy which will change...
…is if a team makes a long play to get within the opponent’s 15- or 10-yard line, they’ll actually try to punch the ball in (on their first possession of OT, of course), rather than just running a play to center the ball and kick the FG. And that is actually probably a good competitive change.
At least one long play won’t decide the outcome. The only tragedy will be if the first long play of the OT was by the Bears. But if the Bears could punch the ball in the end zone on a regular basis, it’d be a moot point anyway.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 6, 2011 1:05 PM CST up reply actions
read the Wyche article
He talks about strategy stuff in regards to all 3 phases… and I’m sure coaches are racking their brains trying to go through every possible scenario
If you go in the bathroom, turn off the lights, and say "Da Coach" 5 times while facing the mirror... Ditka will appear and slap the wussy right out of you.
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Jan 6, 2011 1:48 PM CST up reply actions
I agree in part.
Hamstringing Hester in overtime is a negative for the Bears. But, when it comes down to it, in OT you just want the game decided in a fair manner. Offense vs Defense at it’s purest, each teams with equal shots, in a real grind it out to win scenario. I think it’s great. Players only last so long. This as a format I think works well and is as entertaining as anything in sports I can think of.
Why am I awful at writing?
I was referring to college rules and not the new NFL system.
Welcome to the club!
Are you interested in a leadership role? We currently have need for a treasurer and a historian.
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
A couple of simple systems that potentially ensure "fairness"...
1) 15 minute overtime period. No sudden death. Winner leads after 15. If not, play another 15. Continue until winner. (I don’t like this one, really)
2) Ensure that both teams have the same number of possessions. If a team has more points after both teams have the same number of possessions, that team wins. Pick-6s, fumble-6s, and return TDs count as possessions.
Those don't ensure 'fairness' to the winning team...
…which has to move on the following week and play another game, against an opponent that only played 60 minutes, or possibly even had a bye week.
At some point the game has to finish, and the NFL is too brutal to ask the players to keep playing – especially in places like Chicago and Philadelphia, outdoors in January.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 6, 2011 4:15 PM CST up reply actions
During the first 4 quarters... there is no guarantee that each team has an equal number
of possessions…
So, why make that a guarantee during OT?
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
I mean... this isn't baseball. Both teams don't get to bat.
If you’re going to guarantee equal possessions, then why does 4 quarters of game play end because of a clock?
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
They're seperate systems.
One’s basically the NBA system, but modified b/c of possession times.
The other is a modified version of the NCAA system to include Special Teams play.
They’re not meant to be used together.
Brett Favre rule.
Maybe it will retire soon too.
If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.
I remain a pessimistically hopeful Bears fan.
and then un-retire.
rinse, lather, repeat until your head explodes.
-------
cheekymonkeyart.com | follow me on facebook and twitter
What if he goes to Quebec???
Unreasonable people make life difficult...
by WisBearsFan34 on Jan 6, 2011 3:47 PM CST up reply actions
It is?
If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.
I remain a pessimistically hopeful Bears fan.
Call me crazy
But I like sudden death overtime. If teams don’t like it, win the game in regulation. Yes, I feel that way when the Bears lose too…They should have when in the planned 60 minute game. If you can’t, well….Leave it as a tie, or make it sudden death. For the playoffs, it has to have a resolution, so sudden death it is.
I would take OT out of the regular season at all. Win, Lose, or Tie. Its a 60 minute game.
Corey Wootton, the Favre Slayer.
Two even teams.
Two teams playing evenly.
Give them an even shot to win.
Five foot three seems to thrive on his misery...
Well GEE GOLLY BILLY
Why don’t we take away the kickoff and spot the ball on the 1 yard line. Force a team to go 99 yards to win the game. If they get sacked for a safety then the game is over. Now that would be Manly.
by Jonathan Heun Jr on Jan 6, 2011 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I like this comment
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.
I remain a pessimistically hopeful Bears fan.
this is a non issue
every team knew about the rules change governing this.
that most fans forgot about it is irrelevant.
i agree with awfullyquiet give them an even shot to win.
"I am a sinner who does not expect forgiveness. But I am not a government official." - Francis Wolcott
new ot rules
I’ll admit I liked the old rules better, but I’ll give the new rules a chance first. Hopefully we won’t need OT to decide our games, though.
I hate sudden death.
I think it’s just anticlimactic.
But I don’t really like this any better. And I really don’t like that it’s starting in the playoffs.
The winner should be decided by Ditka, and Ditka alone
On a non-Ditka related note, I think this is being over analysed. Most of the time the best team will come on top anyway and you are never going to make everyone happy.
Golic on Mike and Mike doesn't like it either from what I remember.
Him and Dilfer both agreed and want to see a full 15 minute OT. I actually like that idea. He said something along the lines of the players being men and not fragile little kids. They could handle an extra 15 minute quarter for OT.
WILDCARD BITCHES!!! YEEEEHHHAAAAA!!!!!
This is how it should be..
but alas, I doubt they will change it to this..so long as the players association has anything to say on it. Nonetheless I think the rule is a step in the right direction, but yea..it shouldn’t be implemented solely in the playoffs.
This is the way it should be....
Sort of. They should have just done a coin flip and the winner chooses what they want. The OT would be 10 minutes long. At the end of those 10 minutes, whoever has the most points wins. If it’s a tie, do another 10 minutes session.
Why is this so difficult.
It gives both teams the opportunity to have the ball, most likely. There is definately strategy involved with running the clock down and picking up first downs. Do you take the ball first and hope to score. Or do you take it second and hope your defense can stop them in the first few minutes of OT. OT should not be ended as soon as points are scored, that is the opposite of the way to play football. There should just be a time limit and whoever has the most points at the end of that time wins.
In basketball, it isn’t the first team to score in overtime wins, or if one team scores a 3, the other team has to score a three to keep it going. No… they have an extra period to end the game.
by I Have Bearsititis on Jan 6, 2011 4:07 PM CST up reply actions
Bad idea.
That gives one team an 8+ minute drive, and leaves the other in Two Minute Warning mode. Do not like. 15 minutes at least ensures that each team gets the chance at 1 meaningful possession.
Okay...
When I talk to the commish this week, I’ll let him know.
My point was that it should be time-limit based, not based on a certain point in time when someone scores. And an 8 minute drive would be huge. If the D was that bad, they should lose.
by I Have Bearsititis on Jan 6, 2011 4:38 PM CST up reply actions
Alright just hear me out...
Players are pretty tired after 60 minutes of football.
Players are probably pretty hungry…
EATING CONTEST. LOCAL FOOD.
Here is my dilemma
It says that both teams are guranteed a possession if the first team kicks a FG, well what if the team that just kicked FG decides to go for an onside kick and recovers it? Is the game over? I dont know if they thought of this scenario
on espn they said the game would be over.
each team just needs a “chance” at a possession. not an actual possession.
by Uncle Stanley McGoober on Jan 6, 2011 4:34 PM CST up reply actions
I guess the real wording is
the “opportunity to possess the ball”
by Uncle Stanley McGoober on Jan 6, 2011 4:34 PM CST up reply actions
i completely forgot about this rule change.
thanks for the heads up.
I think with these new rules I’d still choose to take the ball first every time simply cause you aren’t guaranteed a possession if you don’t. Really the only upside I can think of is it makes it so a team can’t just take a few plays lining up a field goal when they get it into range. This forces teams to remain aggressive.
---AC 00 00 00 - Believe
Here's one
College rules, but each possession starts like after a safety, so special teams are still part of it. If you return the ball to your 40, you start from there. If you return it to their 20, you start from there.
You alternate possessions, but each starts with a punt.
Hmmm
Just another thing to encourage Jay Cutler to take more shots downfield!
"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
here is one scenario. saints win toss, elect to have the ball, brees throws, harris intercepts, runs back for a touchdown. both teams have had a possesion. BEARS WIN
sounds good to me
If you go in the bathroom, turn off the lights, and say "Da Coach" 5 times while facing the mirror... Ditka will appear and slap the wussy right out of you.
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Jan 7, 2011 8:38 AM CST up reply actions
The '85 Bears would've allowed the opponent first posession in OT.
But since they usually crushed the opposition, we’ll never know. Think I’ll watch My DVD’s of the ‘85 run this weekend, since there’s no Bears game.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on Windy City Gridiron
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
