Competition Committee proposals: end play when ball carrier's helmet comes off & sudden death overtime

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

The OT rule is dumb. If it isn't broke don't fix it. The stoppage of play when the helmet flies off of the ball carrier is good common sense. That guy gets whacked in the head with a helmet and you are asking for serious trouble, like a probable death, so I can understand that. I heard they want to protect Wrs more now from getting big licks on them. Now that is going to wussify the game. The NFL bigwigs need to chill. IF the wussify their product too much folks will go to the NHL!!!!

Come on dude? This is the Brave New World. That's been replaced with, "If it's not broken, eff with it until it is."

[MTK]

What's the NHL?

[MTK]

The more I hear about the reasoning behind modifying OT, I have to admit I'm coming around to the idea that it needed to be done. The team that wins the coin flip wins over 60% of the time, and since they moved the kickoff back all you need is a decent return and a couple of plays to get into FG range, and kickers are more accurate than ever.

Just approve it for the regular season too and let's move on. I think it's a change for the good.

[Monkeydad]

I really like the OT rule, but I think they're doing it backwards. If we're trying something new, why not try it out for the REGULAR season where there will be less harm done if the rule turns out to not work as expected, where the stakes are lower? Then, if it proves to be an improvement, make the decision later in the season to extend it into the playoffs. If there is some unforeseen problem with the rule, its better to test it out when games don't matter as much. Also, to try it out in the regular season will allow it to actually happen to see how it works...it could be years before we get a handful of postseason OT games to see how it works. We may not even see an OT game with the new rule in the year it was implemented.

[MTK]

The rationale is there's more at stake in the playoffs so they feel it's needed there more vs. in the regular season where less is on the line.

[Monkeydad]

I understand that, but shouldn't that be more of a reason to get an effective rule in place? There's not much a chance to test it without using it in the regular season.

[tryfuhl]

Shanahan is for the rule and not opposed to it being applied to the regular season as well

Redskins Insider - Shanahan 'kind of looking forward to' NFL OT rule change

...

But he said he likes the new overtime rule and said he talked about the issue at length with Daniel Snyder before the Redskins' owner casted his vote on Tuesday. Snyder was one of 28 owners who voted for the change.

"I don't think it would've passed with the coaches," Shanahan said. "Not many things do."

He pointed out that if coaches had their way, they might still be reviewing cut-ups on 16-millimeter film.

"One thing that you have as a commissioner - and I think you have to do it as a guy in charge - you know how people feel in certain situations about the game. And some times as a coach, you're the guy that they probably should talk to at the end of the conversation and not at the beginning," Shanahan said. "Because coaches, they get so tunneled into their game. They don't like change."

...

[tryfuhl]

Goodell wants all week 17 and most of week 16 games to be divisional games

Fantasy Football Breaking News - Rotoworld.com

[MTK]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Goodell wants all week 17 and most of week 16 games to be divisional games

Fantasy Football Breaking News - Rotoworld.com

I like that. Nothing better than those late season division games with something on the line.

Still, if nothing is on the line it's not going to stop teams from resting guys.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I like that. Nothing better than those late season division games with something on the line.

Still, if nothing is on the line it's not going to stop teams from resting guys.

Yeah, you could get a repeat of our stomping of Dallas to get us into the playoffs but really not meaning a lot to them (or did it determine if they got home field?)

Say it's the locked in number 1 vs the number 4.. who cares?

Decent idea though.. even if there aren't playoff implications it gives the fans
(I'd argue casual fans) of teams that won't make it to continue following their team.. increased tv ratings, attendance, etc

[over the mountain]

couple of points:

1) if team A tries an onside kick to start the OT, if team B recovers the ball, all team B needs to do is kick a field goal. the new rule only gives you the opportunity to posess the ball. you waived that opportunity by taking your chance on an on-side kick.

2) rex ryan said if he won the coin flip in OT he would:

kick off, have his D get a stop, then go down the field and kick a field goal for the win. this may very well be the best coaching strategy i have heard re. the new OT rules.

3) that article linked either in this thread or the old one really did a fine job of trying to explain a complex aspect of how this new rule actually does not give fair advantage to both teams. under the new rules, the team that gets the ball second on offense (if first team kicks a fg) is at an advantage b/c they will have 4 downs at their disposal to get either a FG or TD compared to the original team that had to call plays under the traditional 3 downs to get 10 yds or punt scenario.

4) of the 27 or so playoff games that went into OT, only 3 would have been effected by this rule.

5) I believe (no solid source) that opposition to this new OT rule change came from 4 teams (1 owner bills? didnt want any change) who wanted to just add another quarter of play. to traditionalists, this represents the best way of not having the problem of this new rule changing the way coaches make play calls (see point 3 above).

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

couple of points:

1) if team A tries an onside kick to start the OT, if team B recovers the ball, all team B needs to do is kick a field goal. the new rule only gives you the opportunity to posess the ball. you waived that opportunity by taking your chance on an on-side kick.

Will they consider the onside kick an actual possession? If you don't recover it it's the same as a regular kickoff, just much shorter, no?

2) rex ryan said if he won the coin flip in OT he would:

kick off, have his D get a stop, then go down the field and kick a field goal for the win. this may very well be the best coaching strategy i have heard re. the new OT rules.

that's pretty much what teams do now if they get the chance, must be nice to just command a stop by the D

[D'BOYZ]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

couple of points:


3) that article linked either in this thread or the old one really did a fine job of trying to explain a complex aspect of how this new rule actually does not give fair advantage to both teams. under the new rules, the team that gets the ball second on offense (if first team kicks a fg) is at an advantage b/c they will have 4 downs at their disposal to get either a FG or TD compared to the original team that had to call plays under the traditional 3 downs to get 10 yds or punt scenario.

Yes and no with this point... it might look that the team that has the second offense has a bigger advantage because it can play all 4 downs but it isn't really first if team one scores a TD game over team 2 doesn't get the ball back (a little advantage to the first team)

Now lets say team 1 scores a FG ok team 2 it's in sudden death they need to move the ball at least 40 yards in avg to score a FG and tie the game yeah they can use all 4 downs to do this but if they don't convert game over, miss FG game over and even if they use the 4 downs to go and make a FG now we enter Sudden death... so team 2 kicks and team 1 needs only a FG to win the game.

I think it's equal to both teams... let's say your the coach of team number 2 you're at the 20(of team 1) 4th and 2 would you kick a FG and tie the game and go to sudden death knowing team 1 gets the ball or play for it and try to go for the first down so you can get a TD and end the game... the 4th down play will be used Early but I don't see a lot of coaches playing the 4th down once they get in FG range to tie the game.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by D'BOYZ

Yes and no with this point... it might look that the team that has the second offense has a bigger advantage because it can play all 4 downs but it isn't really first if team one scores a TD game over team 2 doesn't get the ball back (a little advantage to the first team)

Now lets say team 1 scores a FG ok team 2 it's in sudden death they need to move the ball at least 40 yards in avg to score a FG and tie the game yeah they can use all 4 downs to do this but if they don't convert game over, miss FG game over and even if they use the 4 downs to go and make a FG now we enter Sudden death... so team 2 kicks and team 1 needs only a FG to win the game.

I think it's equal to both teams... let's say your the coach of team number 2 you're at the 20(of team 1) 4th and 2 would you kick a FG and tie the game and go to sudden death knowing team 1 gets the ball or play for it and try to go for the first down so you can get a TD and end the game... the 4th down play will be used Early but I don't see a lot of coaches playing the 4th down once they get in FG range to tie the game.

Nice to see you sober again.

[53Fan]

As far as injuries go, this is good to see.

NFL, NFL Alumni Association establish neurological care plan for retirees - ESPN