Playoff Overtime Rule Change Approved
by texwestern on Mar 23, 2010 4:50 PM CDT
in Green Bay Packers News
Email
PrintAs Clutch16 noted in a FanPost, the NFL owners passed the new overtime playoff rule this afternoon. Everybody has heard the The vote was noticeably lopsided, with a final tally of 28-4. As NFL.com notes, the four teams to vote against the rule were the Bengals, Bills, Ravens, and Vikings. Despite being on the wrong end of the situation this rule is designed to eliminate, Vikings' owner Zygi Wilf voted against the rule. I found his comments on the matter to be interesting.
"You need consistency of the regular season and the postseason," Wilf said.
While I like the rule change itself, I think he makes a good point. Regular season overtimes can determine playoff teams and their seeding or matchups. Why are we letting those results be subject to the problems that are plaguing the playoff games themselves? I understand putting this rule in on a trial basis, but shouldn't we be trying out new rules in the preseason rather than the postseason?
In any case, I like the rule. If I were an owner, I would have voted in support of it on the condition that its expansion to the regular season would be proposed next year. What are your thoughts?
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
instead
of working on some rule change———why doesn’t the league and its owners work on solving the labor disagreement.
just thought that would be a more pressing topic at last weekends meetings.
both sides are dumb-asses if there’s no football in 2011..the nfl will lose fans.
They've been discussing it.
Keep in mind that this is the Owners’ meetings. 1: The NFLPA is not a part of the discussions this week. 2: The rule change is one of several agenda items, and among those items is the CBA.
In other words, nothing will get done on the CBA this week regardless of whether or not the rule change is considered.
"Career highlights? I had two. I got an intentional walk from Sandy Koufax and I got out of a rundown against the Mets." - Bob Uecker
Seems like an unnecessary change to me
This has been a pet peeve of a select few media people (Peter King, I’m looking in your direction) and basically no one else. Defense is part of the game too. Unfortunately the Cardinals proved that. Should they have been forced to have a possession so our D would have a chance to get a turnover?
It’s not the worst thing in the world making this change but I don’t think it helps anything. Think of it this way, did losing in OT to Philly in the 2003 playoffs feel better then losing in OT to Arizona in this years playoffs because the game wasn’t lost on the first possession? Do you think Seahawk fans feel better about losing to us in the 2003 playoffs in OT because they had already had a possession before Al Harris won the game? Would Vikings fans be fine with losing to the Saints in OT as long as they had a possession in OT, even if it was just a 3 & out?
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
I find the argument for changing OT rules unconvincing
At least, as put forth by Florio over on PFT.
Claiming it is unfair when only one team possesses the ball in OT ignores the fact that
- Both teams had 60 minutes of regulation to establish a lead
- The other team has their defense out there in OT. Seriously, if a team can’t get one stop when it’s crucial to do so… how is that unfair?
There has never been a football game that was just one play, one coin toss, one drive. Every game is the culmination of 60 minutes of regulation with (in some cases) additional overtime play.
If you look at the NFC Championship game, the top three reasons the Vikings lost are 1) turnovers, 2) turnovers, and 3) turnovers. To hold up the events of overtime as the determining factor of the game is to dismiss the events of regulation as irrelevant and immaterial.
I’m not really opposed to a first-to-6 modification of the OT rules, but from what I’ve heard, the problems with the current rules have been way, way overstated.
If they are going to change OT
The only acceptable change to me is to just play another 10 minutes of gametime. That way you have to play both offense and defense to win the game. And if a team has a 9+ min drive to win then you clearly didn’t deserve to win anyway.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
Overtime
The NFL is going to study the new OT rule for two months and may enact it for the regular season this year as well.
Maybe since y’all are division rivals you will help me spread into common use this rule’s appropriate name… the “crybaby viqueen fans rule”.
I’m actually far less against the rule — although I’m not actually in favor of it either — than I am the reason for the change. Poor widdle Bwett didn’t get his coronation and the world has come to an end. Bite me.
For those who can't remember the uncapped FA rules, this link's for you.
Uhhhh
The Vikings never asked for this change and, if you read this post, actually voted against it. Now Vikings fans were annoyed with the way OT unfolded but understood that OT would never had happened had the Vikings held onto the ball and took care of business.
Ski-U-Mah!
by CrazyCollegian on Mar 24, 2010 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions
I’m well aware Wilf voted against it, although his argument was, ahem, “interesting”. And the players didn’t exactly have much class after that game, but at least they admitted that they lost.
No, the fans were the ones that went berserk. Which is why I called it the crybaby viqueen fans rule. The fans is the critical part to make the sarcastic nickname accurate.
Although I do have to quibble about “held onto the ball”. There was exactly one unforced turnover that entire game. All the other turnovers (and all of the internally recovered fumbles as well) were all forced by the Saints, either by confusing Brett into throwing a pick or getting their hands on the ball and punching/poking/ripping it out. It wasn’t like they just handed them off to the wrong team or something.
For those who can't remember the uncapped FA rules, this link's for you.
Sorry, one unforced Viking turnover. The saints also had one of them as well.
For those who can't remember the uncapped FA rules, this link's for you.
LOL
You mean the NFL ACTUALLY listens to it’s fans?!? Child please…. :p
Sarcasm aside the biggest gripe Vikings fans, including myself, had with the NFC championship game was the officiating in OT. Which after a long , hard look and months of therapy, wasn’t really valid. Sure there are calls in OT that I find “iffy” but the Vikings screwed themselves in the end. While the Saints’ D did do its job well, the Vikings have had issues with ball security, AP especially, all year (Chicago Bears game anyone?). There have been many OT games in past seasons that have had the same controversy surrounding them. This game happened to be the most recent and more profiled, thus being the catalyst for change.
Personally I prefer the college OT rules over the previous NFL rules. The current change, as I agree with Zygi, needs to expand to the whole season not just in the play-offs.
Ski-U-Mah!
by CrazyCollegian on Mar 24, 2010 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions
takes a big man to admit that the calls (in hindsight) were “iffy”…glad you came around though. We all go through some kind of stages of feeling cheated in close games.
Thanks
I am still made about that “P.I” called in OT though…. :P
I guess that one of the “joys” of being a football fan.
Ski-U-Mah!
by CrazyCollegian on Mar 24, 2010 5:44 PM CDT up reply actions
I like...but I don't like.
I didn’t have a problem with the current system. Its sudden death, frickin deal with it. Sometimes it benefits you and sometimes it doesn’t. To say its broke is to say that you don’t have a good defense. Go out there and stop them!
I don’t mind the change they made though…but I am with Ziggy, I want it the same all season. I do NOT like special changes just for the playoffs. I think that is a big mistake. PLUS by doing it all season it gives coaches time to test out strategies and stuff. You might see some bad strategy cost a team a game now…
Clearly a decision being lobbied by the networks
How many times have I seen Fox cut off games that were down to the wire because they didn’t have permission to show it beyond a certain length? And extended playoff during the regular season would hurt them pretty bad, I reckon.
This was a good decision in terms of any change being better than nothing, but sudden death OTs aren’t terrible, IMO; it just forces teams to consider keeping up tougher defense.
"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." - Vince Lombardi
Boooo
What a stupid rule no more sudden death with a field goal? This will make coaches play more conservative in the 4 quarter and make it less interesting for the fan not only in the OT but in the last 10 minutes of regulation too!!
Bad Move NFL!!
by greenbay packers backer on Mar 24, 2010 10:17 AM CDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Matthew Stafford spends $15,000 to win auction package, then gives it to a young fan’s family
- Tim Tebow allegedly asked Broadway actress to remove scantily-clad Twitter photo
- Erin Andrews reportedly dating ‘Gossip Girl’ actor Chace Crawford, who also happens to be Tony Romo’s brother-in-law
- Madden ’13 will include ‘Tebowing’
- Deep Posts: Winslow not wanted in Tampa Bay?
