The Overtime Rule was Amended Once, in 2011 ...... Should It Be Amended Again ???
 

o


Regarding the overtime rule which was being debated hotly throughout the country after yesterday's Chiefs-Bills-playoff game, the NFL DID make a major rule-change to make it more fair for the team that loses the coin-toss. Prior to the 2011 season, the first score of any kind ended the game ...... whether it be a field goal, a touchdown, or a safety. When it was pointed out that it was extremely easy to get a couple of first-downs and get your team into field-goal range, the NFL made it so that you needed to score a touchdown to end the game, and that if the team receiving the overtime kickoff scored a field goal, then the opposing team would have 1 possession of their own to either equal that field goal to continue the game, or win it outright with a touchdown.

Part of the reason for that rule change a decade ago was because of the 2009 NFC Championship game between Saints and the Vikings, when Drew Brees got his team into field goal range and they won it when their kicker booted the ball through the uprights ...... leaving Brett Favre and his Vikings cohorts nary a chance to take the field on offense themselves.

So to be fair to the NFL, they DID make a significant change to their original overtime rules ...... winning (and ending) a game by scoring a touchdown is significantly less cheap than just getting your team to your opponents' 30 or 35 yardline with a couple of first downs and kicking a field goal.


So, there is no question that the 2011 rule change ....... which forces the team receiving the opening kick to score a touchdown to end the game instead of just kicking a field goal ...... is considerably more fair than it was previously. The question is, should the NFL amend the overtime playoff rule again to make it so that the two teams play an entire 15-minute 5th quarter, or should they leave it the way that it is now ???

o

Teams are not encouraged to be balanced. They are encouraged to be dominant in one direction or another. A possession for each side would make sure that teams strength at least has a shot in the game.

They have the worst overtime rules of any sport.

I think it should be each team gets one possession, then sudden death after that.

o


Very interesting ...... and if the rules were changed that way, it would actually encourage teams that won the coin-toss to kick away first rather than receive. The team that kicks away first would know what they needed after the opposing team's possession. If they gave up a touchdown, then they would obviously be in 4-down territory for their entire first possession. On the other hand, the team that received the ball first would have harder decisions to make (like whether or not to go for it on 4th-and-short.)

o

Buffalo stops them they only need a fg.

o


(ONE WEEK LATER)


The Chiefs were again involved in an overtime playoff game.

The Chiefs again won the overtime coin-toss.

This time, the Chiefs lost the game ...... and there is not nearly as much discussion in the media about the overtime rules this week, as compared to last week.

o

Probably because both teams had a possession.

o


I'm sure that that was the reason why ...... but the controversy should be no less of an issue just because it worked out that way in this one particular instance.

This is why I like it when teams complain about the officiating after a win, because it takes away the sour grapes accusations that often accompany said complaints after a team loses.

If the overtime rules were a huge and pressing issue one week ago, then they should be a huge and pressing issue now, regardless of what happened in the most recent overtime game.

o

o


Colts, Eagles, Titans Propose New NFL Overtime Rules for 2022

(By Cody Benjamin)

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/c...hange-in-2022/

o