OT, Turnover Rule Changes Approved

[HoosierCat]

Per various twitter reports from the owners meeting. OT in the regular season will now use the same rules as the "new" playoff OT rules introduced last year. And all turnovers will automatically be reviewed, no need for a coach's challenge. No word on the other proposed changes yet.

Edit: Reedy: Also passed, loss of down for illegally kicking loose ball, too many men formation a dead-ball foul.

Edit 2: the owners rejected the proposed rule that replays would now all be handled from the booth; no more going under the hood for on-field zebras. I think that sucks. With all turnovers automatically being reviewed, now we'll have even more delays.

[ArmyBengal]

I'm happy with the overtime rule change and never understood the old sudden death way of doing things.

The only argument I have heard in support is, "This is the way it's always been done".

Well, that may be so, but that doesn't make it the best way to go about doing it.

[Sea Ray]

The OT rule is a small improvement over what they had but very small. As we saw in the Pitt/Denver game it didn't change much. I think both teams should be given a possession regardless. If after two possessions the game is still tied, then make it sudden death.

[HoosierCat]

Put me in the "fan of sudden death" category. To me, the point is to win the game in 60 minutes. If you can't do it, sudden death OT is the consequence. But I've been over-ruled...

[Stripes]

At least it's better than the absurd college OT.

I like both changes.

[redsbengalsbucks]

At least it's better than the absurd college OT.

I like both changes.

I like the college rule of escalating risks after each possesion.

[ArmyBengal]

I love college overtime and am glad to see the NFL getting closer to that.

While I don't think there is great need to be the same, I like this new set up.

[Sea Ray]

I have two big problems with the college setup. First of all it eliminates the punting and kickoff areas of the game. Secondly it can go on and on to the point of exhaustion for the kids. It usually shows itself on the defensive side. The offense can move the ball all over these tired defenders. Are 6 OT football games really what we want to see?

[Stripes]

I hate the arbitrary 25 yard line start. I hate starting it at any random spot like that. If they want to give both teams a possession, then have them both kick it off.

[derekshank]

College OT is the equivalent of the Hockey shoot off. It's exciting to non-hockey fans... but it's not hockey.

I'll admit that college OT is exciting, but it bothers me because it's not really football. It would be like deciding a tie basketball game with a 3-point shooting contest. That skill/situation might be a small part of the game... but it's not representative of the game as a whole.

I like this setup for the NFL. It gives teams motivation to get a TD rather than merely get in FG range... which was the primary weakness of the sudden death system.

[Sea Ray]

I like this setup for the NFL. It gives teams motivation to get a TD rather than merely get in FG range... which was the primary weakness of the sudden death system.

I disagree slightly. I think the primary weakness of the NFL system is that one team could win the toss, run down the field score and the game will be over before we even get to see one team's offense and defense. This change didn't do anything for that as the Pitt Denver game showed. The bit about motivating a team to score a TD rather than a FG solves a problem in lesser value

[derekshank]

I like this setup for the NFL. It gives teams motivation to get a TD rather than merely get in FG range... which was the primary weakness of the sudden death system.

I disagree slightly. I think the primary weakness of the NFL system is that one team could win the toss, run down the field score and the game will be over before we even get to see one team's offense and defense. This change didn't do anything for that as the Pitt Denver game showed. The bit about motivating a team to score a TD rather than a FG solves a problem in lesser value

I don't think both teams need a possession. In fact, I didn't have much of a problem with the sudden death format in the first place. Playing defense is a big part of the game of football... and if you can't stop the opposing team from scoring at will, you don't deserve to win.

Keeping a team out of FG range is significantly more difficult than keeping a team out of the endzone though... so the odds of getting a possession increases dramatically. But the point is still valid. If your defense isn't good enough to keep the opposing team out of the endzone on their first possession, you don't deserve to win. And giving each team a possession doesn't change that.

[Stripes]

I liked sudden death too, but despite the statistics that show it really wasn't a HUGE advantage for the winner of the toss, it was still unfair. If the offense did its job on the first possession, that team won the game instantly. If the defense did its job on the first possession, that team did NOT win the game instantly. I would have seriously supported that change -- sudden death with only one possession in which a defensive team making the stop is awarded the victory even with a tied score.

[HoosierCat]

If you absolutely have to change the rules, I would preserve sudden death. I would simply eliminate FGs in OT.

[Sea Ray]

Just because the Broncos executed a TD play in OT, I don't think that means that Pittsburgh shouldn't have been given the chance to do the same. If you're a team like Detroit that's heavy on offense but severely lacking on defense, the coin flip can make or break your game and I don't think that's right.