March 29, 2007

NFL Competition Committee won't change overtime,: but at least they tackled the tough issue of guys spiking the ball after non-scoring plays. Another rule change this link does not address is that home teams can no longer be penalized for excessive crowd noise.

posted by olelefthander to football at 12:49 PM - 18 comments

Has anyone else watched the NFL Network's coverage of the owner's meeting? It was really the first time when I thought that it was too much coverage for me. I did like hearing Joe Gibbs impassioned plea as to why penalizing players for spiking the ball was getting out of hand - the game is supposed to be fun.

posted by bperk at 01:27 PM on March 29, 2007

The reluctance to change overtime seems to come from the coaches adopting the philosophy of "better the devil you know than something you don't know". One suggestion I had read was to have a 7 1/2 minute overtime, not sudden death, in which the team last in possession of the ball would have to use its "end of the game" strategy. This, of course, supposes that one team has not scored twice without the other having scored. The other system, one that I would like to see, would be identical to the college system, but with the ball placed on the 40 or 45. Thus, without managing at least one first down, any field goal attempt would be a risky proposition. This one will never fly, because the forces of TV do not like unpredictability. Can you say "Heidi"?

posted by Howard_T at 02:27 PM on March 29, 2007

But what's so fundamentally wrong with ties? *ducks*

posted by igottheblues at 03:00 PM on March 29, 2007

Howard, Nice Heidi reference. To my dad, a life-long silver and black fan, that day will live on in infamy forever.

posted by brainofdtrain at 03:06 PM on March 29, 2007

I like the attitude some players have against dancing in the backfield after making a sack, or posing like a body builder over the quarterback, or fancy touchdown celebrations. I have heard more than one recently say to the effect: they don't dance and celebrate because they expected to be in the endzone or expect to sack the QB. I just enjoy a blue collar approach to football. Hey it can be fun and you can do what you want, but I like it when they act like it's all part of the job, and not like they won the Powerball.

posted by sumokenobi at 04:46 PM on March 29, 2007

but I like it when they act like it's all part of the job, and not like they won the Powerball. When they've recorded their 10th sack of the year, they might as well have with the fat contract they'll get. I can't stand it when a someone does a little jig after tackling a RB- after a 15 yard gain. That drives me ballistic.

posted by jmd82 at 04:58 PM on March 29, 2007

This whole spiking the ball thing is another "racial" issue or "Ageism" issue if you so desire. Its two things here, young vs. old culture and a black vs.white culture issue. Now, young whites and blacks get along alot easier these days as our cultures become thanks to more awareness and an intertwining of peoples, especially for us whites who have been and are the majority, acceptance/understanding of the black culture is becoming more common as the years progress. But when its old white vs. young black, you get rules about not spiking and not celebrating after TD's. Personally, I miss number 85's celebrations. Oh well, the money's where the powers at. Nobody mentioned though that they finally got rid of that dumb ass rule where if the QB unintentionally throws it off one of his lineman its a penalty. It was bad enough he was throwing an incompletion, they then added on a yardage loss as well! That rule should have been axed back in the day when the NBA added the 3-point line

posted by dezznutz at 05:08 PM on March 29, 2007

I think pro football would be great with a college-style overtime. I do like the twist on it Howard mentions, starting the offense further away so you're not guaranteed a field goal attempt. Fans would love it and ratings would go even higher. Not to jump topic, but it's like an NCAA Div. I football playoff. It would make even more money if they would do it. And I'm with you all the way, jmd, I love to ridicule guys celebrating after a play "won" by the other side.

posted by olelefthander at 05:47 PM on March 29, 2007

I agree with the lefthander. The college overtime system is a fantastic system and I would love to see it implemented in the NFL.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:34 PM on March 29, 2007

How about the ol' "it's the 1st play from scrimmage, and I just tackled the RB for a 2 yd loss, and then the power ball dance." C'mon you have 3 quarters and 14:47 left on the game clock! I would like to see the marathon game again where it just went on until one team was a ahead at the end of an OT. Kansas City anyone?

posted by bavarianmotorworker at 07:21 PM on March 29, 2007

Howard, either of those options would be nice, some sort of timed OT period, or the NCAA version, backed up to the 40 or 45. I would prefer the latter, it just sounds more suspenseful to me, just like it is in college. However I am not sure if we'll ever see it in our lifetime!j/k One more thing how the hell did race get drug into this?

posted by jojomfd1 at 11:58 PM on March 29, 2007

I think I must be a little crazy to say this, but the college/NFL rule switch I'd like to see would be the one-foot/two-feet inbounds reception rule. I recognize that it takes more skill for receivers to catch the ball and touch both feet to the field before going out of bounds, but it starts to come down to a size-of-the-field vs. size-of-the-players issue. The way I see it, when receivers have to touch both feet inbounds, the field is effectively rendered smaller than when they only have to touch one. The NFL is full of big fast players who already crowd the field, making it much smaller than the college gridiron. If receivers only needed one foot in, the game might spread out just a fraction more, and break a little differently, favoring out-patterns and making it slightly easier for a trailing team to manage the clock with time running down, which might make for more exciting and elegant finishes. Of course, the same rule would apply to a DB intercepting the ball, but part of the excitement of college football is due to wild plays taking place in more open space than there is in the NFL. It's a bit like the difference between the NHL and international hockey rinks. The big rink allows players to skate more freely and allows for more finesse and a less bruising game (though I like the NHL just fine). I don't think my proposal would change the NFL quite that much, and I honestly don't know whether I think it's a good idea, but it's something I've wondered about for years, and I've always felt it was a bit backwards. Like I said, my idea's crazy but it just might work (to do what exactly, I don't know; I like the NFL just fine, too). I won't even start in on distance between the hash marks, but I think they've got those backwards, too.

posted by Hugh Janus at 12:47 AM on March 30, 2007

Just eliminate FG attempts in OT altogether. The result? More bonus football!

posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:10 AM on March 30, 2007

All these displays by the players, on both sides, are the things that cause the players and fans alike to get all worked up and in some cases fights/riots and unwanted behavior occurs. We all know it is a game and it is suppose to be one of having fun, sportsmanship, etc...but the last few years it has gotten completely out of hand. In your face behavior should be held to a small roar. We all know about the Raider Fans , fanatics, and some real crazy individuals. All these sports are suppose to be for the fan enjoyment. But tell me you enjoy going to a game that if you say something that some moron fan doesn't like he is going to push your face in for you. And in some of these games, pros and college, you take your life in your hands just going to the game. The whole thing comes down to control. The NFL wants to control everything because that means money and the bottom line in the NFL is MONEY.........The NFL & NCAA are two peas in a pod. Control and Money runs everything. So trying to get the NFL to change something like the overtime rules, as bad as it is and completely unfair to both teams, is like trying to get blood out of a rock. Or better yet get Al Davis to change his offensive ideas. The best thing to do is to go back to the original rules regarding OT and that is keep playing until someone wins the game. Another quarter until someone wins the game. I don't believe that there has been that many games going beyond maybe two OT's in the last 50 years. Hell, TV and the NFL would make more money if the games went on extra time. More commericals, etc...

posted by ucla512 at 09:46 AM on March 30, 2007

I think I must be a little crazy to say this, but the college/NFL rule switch I'd like to see would be the one-foot/two-feet inbounds reception rule. Not crazy at all. CFL does it this way and it's great. Makes for some terrific end zone plays.

posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:03 AM on March 30, 2007

Plus the CFL end zone is almost 2 kilometres long. That also helps.

posted by fabulon7 at 01:19 PM on March 30, 2007

Plus the CFL end zone is almost 2 kilometres long. That also helps. Twenty yards actually, but hey, at least there's room to move around, and those pesky field goal posts do involve themselves in plays now and then.

posted by tommybiden at 09:54 PM on March 30, 2007

I like the idea of letting games end in ties if there's no winner at the end of regulation. It's not like college, where a tie may derail title hopes. Absent that, some sort of timed overtime with a guarantee of at least one possession per team (but not the college version -- retain kickoffs and punts, which apparently is something the owners got hung up on). If the current system is to be retained, my suggestion would be to get rid of the wholly arbitrary coin flip and award the typical coin flip winner's rights (either choosing to receive or what end to defend) to the team that scored more touchdowns in regulation or, if the teams scored the same number of touchdowns (which is quite likely), to the team that had the most yards from scrimmage during regulation. That approach might create incentives for teams to try to pick up yards towards the end of the game (with corresponding greater chances of a turnover or a score) instead of merely running out the clock to force overtime.

posted by holden at 08:21 AM on April 01, 2007

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.