NFL Looking at Tinkering with OT (Again...)

[EaglesRocker97]

I think the NFL opened Pandora's Box a few years back when they decided to modify OT. Now, every year, some team comes up with a harebrained scheme to change OT in the interest of "fairness," and the NFL seems willing to switch things up every other year or so. Honestly, I think the original OT format was just fine. Play the game in OT like it normally is. The reality is, life isn't fair, and no OT scheme will ever be considered 100% "fair" by all parties. Every solution will be imperfect, but the original scheme at least offered simplicity and consistency. Look at the latest insanity being proposed, ostensibly in the name of "eliminating confusion"

Also, in general, F the Ravens.

 

Quote

Wild NFL rule change could be coming to overtime games if owners vote through Ravens' proposal, per report

After tweaking its overtime rules multiple times over the past 10 years, the NFL might soon be making another change to the rulebook, except this time around, the rule change would potentially revolutionize how OT games are played. 

According to Pro Football Talk, the Ravens have proposed a rule that is based around a "spot-and-choose" concept. Under this rule, which would add some serious spice to overtime, one team would choose the yard line where the overtime drive starts and the other team would choose whether they want to play offense or defense. 

For instance, if Team A and Team B were playing in overtime and Team A won the coin toss, it would pick any spot on the field where the first drive of OT would start. If it picked the 10-yard line (90 yards away from the end zone), then Team B would get to choose whether it wanted to play offense or defense. The overtime in this proposal would be a 10-minute sudden-death period, which means the first team to score would win the game (If no one scores, the game ends in a tie).

If Team B starts with the ball on its own 10-yard line and promptly goes three-and-out, that most likely would set up Team A with solid field position and Team A would only need a field goal to win. 

 

Not only would the proposal add an extra element of excitement to overtime, but it would also negate the advantage that any team would get from winning the OT coin toss. Less than 4% of games went into overtime last season (10 out of 256) so if the league is going to make a dramatic change, overtime seems like the spot to do it. 

The Ravens have actually sent in two proposals that includes their "spot-and-choose" plan. In one proposal, the game would continue in a sudden death format after the initial "spot-and-choose" takes place to start the extra period. In the other proposal, the overtime period would be seven minutes and 30 seconds long and the team winning after the clock hits zero would be the winner of the game. In this proposal, the entire 7:30 would be played out in each overtime game no matter what. (If no one is winning, the game is a tie). 

According to NFL.com, the league is also considering a rule that would simply change the current overtime format back to sudden death. With three proposals on the table, it sounds as if the NFL is definitely giving some serious thought to changing the rules for overtime.

For a proposal to become an NFL rule, it has to get a "yes" vote from 24 of the league's 32 owners at the next league meeting, which is currently scheduled for March 30-31 (If owners can't decide whether they like a new rule or not, they will sometimes table the vote until their spring meeting in May). 

If any of these OT proposals end up getting voted through, it would mark the third big change to overtime over the past nine years. 

Back in March 2012, the NFL modified overtime with a rule change that guaranteed both teams a possession as long as the team that received the overtime kickoff didn't score a touchdown on its opening drive. Before that rule was instituted, NFL overtimes were sudden death, which means that the first team that scored won the game whether those points came by field goal, safety or touchdown. The rule change in 2012 was actually implemented for playoff games in 2010, but the NFL didn't make it the rule for all games until two years later.

In 2017, the NFL shortened overtime from 15 minutes down to 10 minutes for preseason and regular-season games. 

Changing overtime won't be the only thing the owners talk about at the end of March. There's also a proposal that would give teams the option of attempting a fourth-and-15 play in the fourth quarter instead of trying an onside kick. To read more about that equally wild proposal, be sure to click here. 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2021-nfl-free-agency-mock-draft-jameis-winston-to-bears-aaron-jones-to-dolphins-ryan-fitzpatrick-to-saints/

 

[Madriver]

Was just about to post this. 

This is brilliant IMO. I love the idea of a team choosing whether to be offense or defense in OT. Of course, if you have an injured or sucky kicker, he could shank it and then let's say it hits either 40...not really much of a choice there.

But otherwise, if a team kicks it to the 10...wow. Could be really exciting.

[UK_EaglesFan89]

Ok I kind of get it. So you wouldn't pick to start on the oppositions 1 yard line as they would then pick to play offense. Would be interesting to see how it all plays out. 

[EagleJoe8]

It’s interesting, but I still hate eliminating the KO. I agree with @EaglesRocker97. I liked the original OT just fine. 
 

Im also not crazy about the proposed 7:30 time limit. The current gripe is that a TD on the opening drive doesn’t allow the opponent a possession. As it is now, I’ve seen occasions where the first team pretty much uses up all of the 10 minutes as it is now. With only 7:30, the first team could easily drain that down leaving the 2nd team no chance to respond, and now you’re in the same boat. 

[FranklinFldEBUpper]

Tinkering for the sake of tinkering. It's pointless.

[Bwestbrook36]

7 hours ago, EagleJoe8 said:

It’s interesting, but I still hate eliminating the KO. I agree with @EaglesRocker97. I liked the original OT just fine. 
 

Im also not crazy about the proposed 7:30 time limit. The current gripe is that a TD on the opening drive doesn’t allow the opponent a possession. As it is now, I’ve seen occasions where the first team pretty much uses up all of the 10 minutes as it is now. With only 7:30, the first team could easily drain that down leaving the 2nd team no chance to respond, and now you’re in the same boat. 

Where is walleyhorse to tell us overtime should be like the NBA? 

[EaglesRocker97]

14 minutes ago, Bwestbrook36 said:

Where is walleyhorse to tell us overtime should be like the NBA? 

Are we sure he's not behind this proposal? It seems like just the kind of cockamamie scheme he'd cook up 

[Bwestbrook36]

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Are we sure he's not behind this proposal? It seems like just the kind of cockamamie scheme he'd cook up 

It's a possibility!! He finally got his ideas to the top!!

[xzmattzx]

On 3/6/2021 at 3:10 AM, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Ok I kind of get it. So you wouldn't pick to start on the oppositions 1 yard line as they would then pick to play offense. Would be interesting to see how it all plays out. 

Wouldn't people just pick the 50 yard line, so that it's even for the other team to pick offense or defense?

[EagleJoe8]

57 minutes ago, xzmattzx said:

Wouldn't people just pick the 50 yard line, so that it's even for the other team to pick offense or defense?

Not at all. What team wouldn't love to start a drive at midfield? Only need 20 yards to get in FG range.

[xzmattzx]

31 minutes ago, EagleJoe8 said:

Not at all. What team wouldn't love to start a drive at midfield? Only need 20 yards to get in FG range.

True.  But then wouldn't the team picking the spot always pick the relevant 1 yard line, so that if the team picks offense, it has to have a 99-yard drive, or if it picks defense, the opposing team only needs 1 yard?

[eaglesfan0075]

Conceptually, this proposed format is actually really interesting. It brings in an additional layer of strategy, and makes you debate what is more valuable, starting on offense/defense or opponent's field position?

It would be funny though if a team got confused with the new rules and picked defense after the 1st team picked the 1 yard line 😂

Hopefully that's not us, because we've been known to not understand OT rules in the past:

 

[EagleJoe8]

4 hours ago, xzmattzx said:

True.  But then wouldn't the team picking the spot always pick the relevant 1 yard line, so that if the team picks offense, it has to have a 99-yard drive, or if it picks defense, the opposing team only needs 1 yard?

That’s why the first team would pick the yard line first, and then the second team picks offense or defense.

[EagleJoe8]

The more I think of this, the more it hits me something doesn’t make sense. Maybe I’m missing something here.

Obviously, all yard lines 1-49 have two on the field. So the team winning the coin toss to pick the yard line, (Team A for the sake of argument) would have to specify their own or the opponent’s yard line, (again assuming no one ever picks the 50). 
 

In this case, why isn’t Team A always picking Team B’s 1 yard line every time? Forcing them to drive 99 yards, or if they’re dumb enough to pick defense, allowing you to start OT on their 1. 
 

I feel like there is something I’m missing here. 

[UK_EaglesFan89]

4 hours ago, EagleJoe8 said:

Obviously, all yard lines 1-49 have two on the field. So the team winning the coin toss to pick the yard line, (Team A for the sake of argument) would have to specify their own or the opponent’s yard line, (again assuming no one ever picks the 50). 

Good point. They'd have to do that before the opposition picks offense or defense. Hmm...

[FranklinFldEBUpper]

6 hours ago, EagleJoe8 said:

The more I think of this, the more it hits me something doesn’t make sense. Maybe I’m missing something here.

Obviously, all yard lines 1-49 have two on the field. So the team winning the coin toss to pick the yard line, (Team A for the sake of argument) would have to specify their own or the opponent’s yard line, (again assuming no one ever picks the 50). 
 

In this case, why isn’t Team A always picking Team B’s 1 yard line every time? Forcing them to drive 99 yards, or if they’re dumb enough to pick defense, allowing you to start OT on their 1. 
 

I feel like there is something I’m missing here. 

I think the point is that Team A picks the number but doesn't get to choose which side of the field. The other team then picks which side of the fifty, as well as offense or defense.

The whole thing is silly.

[EagleJoe8]

17 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

I think the point is that Team A picks the number but doesn't get to choose which side of the field. The other team then picks which side of the fifty, as well as offense or defense.

The whole thing is silly.

That is crazy. You give Team A no choice but to pick the 50. What team in their right mind wouldn’t pick the opponents side of the 50 to start a drive? Especially in OT. 

[Dawkins 20]

2 hours ago, EagleJoe8 said:

That is crazy. You give Team A no choice but to pick the 50. What team in their right mind wouldn’t pick the opponents side of the 50 to start a drive? Especially in OT. 

Exactly. This whole thing is dumb, unless I'm still understanding it incorrectly. There's absolutely no reason for the team picking the spot on the field to pick anything other than the 50. 

[EagleJoe8]

Just now, Dawkins 20 said:

Exactly. This whole thing is dumb, unless I'm still understanding it incorrectly. There's absolutely no reason for the team picking the spot on the field to pick anything other than the 50. 

And even that is crazy considering you have a short distance just to get in FG range. 
 

I almost feel like there is something I’m not seeing here. 

[xzmattzx]

10 hours ago, EagleJoe8 said:

That’s why the first team would pick the yard line first, and then the second team picks offense or defense.

That's what I'm saying. The team picking the yard line first would always pick the 1 yard line that makes the other team pick giving you the ball 1 yard from the end zone, or forces a 99-yard drive.

[EagleJoe8]

52 minutes ago, xzmattzx said:

That's what I'm saying. The team picking the yard line first would always pick the 1 yard line that makes the other team pick giving you the ball 1 yard from the end zone, or forces a 99-yard drive.

Yeah I got to thinking more about it after I responded. There seems to be something we’re missing with that proposal. Any way you look at it, a drive would start at the opponents 1 yard line, or the 50 yard line. 

[Wallyhorse]

My view on this has not changed:

Go with a modified version of the college rule where teams start on the opponent's 40 yard line (as opposed to the 25 in college).  That would eliminate any possibility of ties and assure both teams get an equal number of possessions (other than where the team going first in an OT has a TD scored against them by the defense where the other team has already won the game on such).  One twist I would have is if a team going first in an OT period scores a TD in fewer than four plays, the other team has that many plays to get the equalizer.

I would also require teams to go for two starting with the SECOND OT period instead of the third as is done in college. 

[green22]

My understanding is, Team A picks the yard line the offense gets the ball at, and that isn't tied to a particular team or side of the field. Like, if Team A picks that the offense will start at its 'Own 10', Team B has to decide whether they want to be the offense with the ball at their Own 10, or if they want to be the defense with Team A starting at its Own 10.

I'm not sure how they decide which direction each team is defending (i.e. who gets to play with the wind), but that's the only way this makes sense to me.

[EagleJoe8]

2 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

My view on this has not changed:

Go with a modified version of the college rule where teams start on the opponent's 40 yard line (as opposed to the 25 in college).  That would eliminate any possibility of ties and assure both teams get an equal number of possessions (other than where the team going first in an OT has a TD scored against them by the defense where the other team has already won the game on such).  One twist I would have is if a team going first in an OT period scores a TD in fewer than four plays, the other team has that many plays to get the equalizer.

I would also require teams to go for two starting with the SECOND OT period instead of the third as is done in college. 

No Wally no!

This is football, not horse.  

[EagleJoe8]

2 hours ago, green22 said:

My understanding is, Team A picks the yard line the offense gets the ball at, and that isn't tied to a particular team or side of the field. Like, if Team A picks that the offense will start at its 'Own 10', Team B has to decide whether they want to be the offense with the ball at their Own 10, or if they want to be the defense with Team A starting at its Own 10.

I'm not sure how they decide which direction each team is defending (i.e. who gets to play with the wind), but that's the only way this makes sense to me.

That actually does make the most sense.