Overtime changes set for vote
The NFL’s competition committee will make a number of rule-change recommendations to the league’s owners next week in Orlando, many of which, quite frankly, nobody really cares about. But there are a couple that will be worth following.
Overtime changes set for vote
Paul Domowitch, Daily News NFL Columnist
The NFL’s competition committee will make a number of rule-change recommendations to the league’s owners next week in Orlando, many of which, quite frankly, nobody really cares about. But there are a couple that will be worth following.
One is a proposed modification of the current overtime system (for postseason games only) that would give both teams a possession opportunity if the team that won the coin toss scores on a field goal rather than a touchdown on its first possession. If the team that won the coin toss scores a touchdown on its first possession, the game would be over. If both teams kicked field goals on their first possessions, the game would revert to the old sudden-death formula.
The proposal would need the approval of 24 of the league’s 32 teams to be adopted. Atlanta Falcons president Rich McKay, who is co-chair of the competition committee along with Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher, said he has no sense for whether the owners will green-light it.
But he said the dramatic improvement in field-goal accuracy in the league has given the team that wins the overtime coin toss a big edge.
``From 1974 to 1993, it was literally 50-50 as far as winning the coin toss and winning the game,’’ McKay said. ``Since ’94, the numbers have changed dramatically. Teams that win the (overtime) toss have won 59.8 percent of the time and teams that lose it win just 38.5 percent of the time.
``In our minds, we’re trying to rebalance the advantage that’s been gained since ’94 based on field goal accuracy being greatly improved and drive-start position being improved.’’
A couple of other times, the competition committee has proposed modifying the overtime system. Both times it was shot down. One proposal would have guaranteed both teams at least one possession even if the first team with the ball had scored a touchdown. The second proposal suggested moving the kickoff from the 30 to the 35-yard line in overtime.
In a proposal much more likely to be passed, the competition committee will propose an expansion of the rule protecting a defenseless receiver.
Currently, a defender is prohibited from launching himself into a receiver with his helmet, face mask, shoulder or forearm until the receiver has possession of the ball and both feet on the ground. The competition committee has proposed changing the language of the rule to prevent that kind of hit until the receiver has a chance to protect himself.
``We’ve seen cases where players have caught the ball and have had no opportunity to protect themselves in any way before he’s become a runner,’’ McKay said.
``If you look back at (the hits on) defenseless receivers and where we were in ’94, we’ve come a long way. But there’s more we’d like to limit.’’
To read our previous posts on a busy day with the Eagles, click here.
Comment removed.
That's a good change to the OT process. I've always thought the college system would make a lot of sense for the pros.— sirnelson- Be sure to inform McNabb.— Pheagles
Nah, the college system is silly. Maybe if they moved the ball back to the 50, it could work. But for the pros, I'm really tired of OT games being won by a FG on the 1st possession. I still want both teams to have 1 possession each, but this is a move in the right direction.— verve- I'd like this change for the whole season and in the playoffs give each team a possesion, that would be the fair way to do it! Just sayin'...— DJ
- To go to a hit to a defenseless receiver without the football to a hit on a receiver that has completed the catch and is (wait, OK, NOW is) in a position to "defend himself" is about an arbitrary and debatable call as you might have on the field. Almost as bad as calling unnecessary roughness when hitting a receiver in position to make a tackle after an interception.— Bazalite
- first team to score 6 points...or the team that's winning at the end of 15 minutes— retzlaff
- wish they would revise interference to have a15 yard infraction for interference and then for blatant interference place the ball at the spot of the infraction.— retzlaff
- Why wouldn't they make that change to a 16-game regular season where every game matters so much?— Sgerat
- Why not expand the hash marks to college width? How does it make sense that kicking in the NFL is easier than in CFB?? If it's tougher to make field goals the OT problem is solved. And please give the refs more arbitrary decisions to make. I'm sure they'll continue to make consistent and fair calls. Can't wait.— sla6yer
- I agree with Sgerat, the OT rule change , if adopted, should be for all games in the regular season too! Those games can determine whether you make the playoffs or not. College OT games are much more exciting the in the NFL.— The Marco Islander
- If they make any changes, be sure to send Donovan his own personal copy.— fillyfan
- I agree with those who posted that it does not make sense to adopt a new rule/policy only for the postseason. As for the rule, I don't care for the college OT that takes special teams out of the mix. Retzlaff's ideas of either "first one to score 6" or whoever is ahead after 15 minutes (I think I prefer the 15-minute one) is pretty good.— MG44
