Will NFL overtime rules be changing in 2019?

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
50,498
ROD Credit 2025
21,518
Name
Burger man
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...-showing-serious-support-for-chiefs-proposal/

Will NFL overtime rules be changing in 2019? Cowboys showing serious support for Chiefs' proposal

The NFL's overtime rule could be undergoing a big change this offseason and that could all happen before the end of the month.

The league's 32 owners are scheduled to get together for their annual spring meeting starting May 20, and when that happens, one of the hottest topics is going to be overtime. Back in March, the Chiefs proposed a new rule that would have called for both teams to get an offensive possession in overtime, even if the first team to possess the ball scored a touchdown.

Unfortunately for the Chiefs, owners couldn't agree whether or not to approve the new rule, so the proposal was put on ice until May. This time around, the proposal might have a better shot of passing and that's because the Chiefs are now getting some serious support from the Dallas Cowboys.

During an interview with Pro Football Talk this week, Cowboys executive vice president Stephen Jones said that his team would likely be voting in favor of making the change. However, Jones, who's on the competition committee, couldn't say whether or not the rest of the members of the committee agreed with him.
"We hadn't had our [Competition Committee] call yet, which we will, so it's tough for me to know where the Committee's leaning," Jones said. "I certainly tend to lean toward the new rule. . . . I certainly watched every play of that Kansas City-New England game, and you kind of would have liked to have seen what would have happened if Kansas City got another shot at it, and then how the thing would have ended up. It was football, in my mind, the game at its best."

According to Jones, the push to pass the overtime proposal gained some "traction" back in March, but not enough for owners to vote on it.

"I certainly don't have a problem with guaranteeing each team a shot at it," Jones said. "It's certainly something that had some traction there in the room, and certainly saw some people who were very interested in it. But we'll get on a call there, take a long, hard look at it, and I'm sure membership's gonna get to see it."

For the overtime proposal to become a rule, 24 of the NFL's 32 owners will have to vote for it to pass. As things stand now, it looks like the Chiefs and Cowboys just need to convince 22 other teams to vote "yes" on the change.
 
I never liked the idea that a team could lose while never getting an opportunity on offense. I wouldn't mind giving both teams a shot at the ball. Go with sudden death if both teams tie after their first possesion. If its still tied at the end of OT go to the ten yard line with 4 downs for each team. That would be playoffs only though. I wouldn't want to do that during the regular season.
 
It sucks for the losing team but the system as it is works. To win in overtime you need a complete effort from all three phases of the team. So in theory the best ‘Team’ should win.

KC has a weak defense. They were the weaker team.

Going back and forth with scores keeps the players on the field longer, which weakens teams for the next round. It’s good the way it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetplt67
I've never liked this new overtime rule it's every bit as bad as a team kicking a field goal in the game being over.

So if they alter it I'm good with it
 
Funny how both losing teams on championship weekend cry foul and want the rules changed "so other teams don't have to suffer the same way we did".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Farr Be It
I never liked the idea that a team could lose while never getting an opportunity on offense. I wouldn't mind giving both teams a shot at the ball.

I'd like to see this too. One full quarter to duke it out, no sudden death. Even if they shorten the time of the quarter I'd like to se it be a little more fair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: james jack
I've always liked College OT rules. It's fun, exciting and it works. The current NFL OT rules just suck IMO.
 
The only thing that should change is that both teams should have at least one possession in post-season OT. First team to hold a lead after both teams have had the ball wins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ram65
I've yet to hear a good argument as to why the NFL shouldn't adopt college football OT rules. Get rid of ties. There's only 16 regular season games, dammit.
 
The college OT rule is just too much different than the rest of the game. Way too different.

The NFL OT rule better mirrors the real game. It's a much better way to continue the actual game and come up with a winner.

I think giving each team at least one possession makes a lot of sense. I wonder how the vote would go if it's put up for one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ram65
The college OT rule is just too much different than the rest of the game. Way too different.

The NFL OT rule better mirrors the real game. It's a much better way to continue the actual game and come up with a winner.

I think giving each team at least one possession makes a lot of sense. I wonder how the vote would go if it's put up for one.

I would guess that it will pass because I think every team owner has lost a game without a chance to win. Or even tie.

I could be wrong but what team hasn't lost a game under the old sudden death rule or the current format?

This is a no-brainer IMO.
 
I like the way it is. Think about it.

1) it was originally called, "sudden death", but we saw a "cheapness" to kicking a FG (especially to decide a title). I am in agreement here in that I like the idea of both sides having a shot. Think baseball, basketball, hockey, tennis, etc. Besides, a coin toss should not be that important.
2) seriously, you CANNOT stop them from scoring a friggin TD with your entire season on the line? You deserve to lose.
3) We are getting dangerously close to be being college ball. There always needs to be a difference (IOW, a step up).

It is amazing how quick we are to make changes when the wrong results occur. I guess the SB should've been chiefs/saints.
Would THAT. make everybody feel better?
Not me. Stop crying, you lost.
 
So I was chatting in PM's with @Selassie I and he had a great idea. He thinks, because he loves, Loves, LOVES kickers, that each teams kicker should engage in a kicking game of HORSE to decide the winner. He thinks that his idea is "really staying close to the spirit of the game".

What do you guys think? I told him to email the league and see if they would consider it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nighttrain
So I was chatting in PM's with @Selassie I and he had a great idea. He thinks, because he loves, Loves, LOVES kickers, that each teams kicker should engage in a kicking game of HORSE to decide the winner. He thinks that his idea is "really staying close to the spirit of the game".

What do you guys think? I told him to email the league and see if they would consider it.


Fuck kickers.
 
Give both teams a chance to get a TD in the playoffs. Then go from their with sudden death if they both score the same way. FG/FG or TD/TD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nighttrain
So I was chatting in PM's with @Selassie I and he had a great idea. He thinks, because he loves, Loves, LOVES kickers, that each teams kicker should engage in a kicking game of HORSE to decide the winner. He thinks that his idea is "really staying close to the spirit of the game".

What do you guys think? I told him to email the league and see if they would consider it.
That’s funny, I thought @Selassie I was an advocate for throwing all four team kickers in a pen with 3 hungry lions, and the team with the surviving kicker wins. (n)