Owners meeting: OT changes and a Khan update

by Ryan Van Bibber on Mar 22, 2010 12:10 PM CDT in 2010 St. Louis Rams offseason

NFL owners gather today for the first of a three day annual meeting -- you know, the thing that pushed Bradford's workout back from 3/25 to 3/29 -- in which they will decide on a few things.

Leading off the morning is an address from Commissioner Roger Goodell focused on the state of the labor negotiations...or lack thereof. As you know, the league is without a cap this season and staring down the barrel of a lockout next year. Anxiety is high, and though Goodell is unlikely to reveal any news or a new stance from the league, what he says could offer plenty of opportunity to read between the lines.

Highlighting the actual voting agenda is the proposed change to the overtime rules for postseason play. Under the proposal, teams cannot win a game on the opening possession by kicking a field goal, a la the NFC Championship this year. It takes the approval of 24 of 32 owners, and attempts to change OT before have come up short.

The St. Louis Rams ownership situation is on the docket this week, but only for beginning discussions about the proposed sale. Chip Rosenbloom is still representing the St. Louis Rams at the owners meeting this week...because he still owns the team along with his sister. Khan and his offer for the Rams will have to be vetted. The PD has a full rundown of the process. Owners will likely vote to approve the sale at their meeting in late May.

Poll

Should the NFL change the overtime rules for postseason play?

Yes

152 votes

No

77 votes

229 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I know why they want to keep it as it is

and it has everything to do with television.

They don’t want games running any longer than they already do (at least 3 hours and 15 minutes). Overtime games screw everything up with the late games that start after 3 pm central time.

However, with this being said, I’ve always tried to get my idea of overtime to be heard and no one ever does and I just don’t get why this isn’t such an easy way to fix things.

Guarantee each teams gets 1 possession but after the first team has possession, it goes back to being a sudden death.

Let me explain….

Scenario 1

Team A receives the kickoff and scores a touchdown. Team B then comes back and scores a touchdown. Team A then gets the ball and scores (whether it’s a FG or a TD, it doesn’t matter) and the game is over with Team A winning.

Scenario 2

Team A receives the kickoff and scores a field goal. Team B then comes back and scores a touchdown. The game is over with Team B winning.

Scenario 3

Team A recieves the kickoff and doesn’t score. Punts to Team B. Team B scores a FG or a TD (it doesn’t matter). The game is over and Team B wins.

If this were the rule, each team would be guaranteed a possession. Whatever happens after the first team has their possession (i.e., a score) ends the game. Each team had the ball and had an opportunity to score.

The only thing I’d like to point out and a situation where Team B would not get a possession is if Team A receives the kickoff and ends up giving up a safety at any point on their first possession of overtime. In this scenario, Team B would win.

Or… if Team B fumbles the kickoff. That would count as their possession and if Team B ran the fumble back or set up and kicked a FG, that would end the game.

Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.

- John Wayne

by Tackle Box on Mar 22, 2010 12:30 PM CDT reply actions

I think if it aint broke it doesn't need fixing.

Both teams A & B should try their damnedest to win in regulation time. But you do make a good point above.

What would happen if Team B kicks off in overtime, knowing if Team A scores they still have a chance to come back and win, decides to try an onside kick and is succesfull. Team B after a couple of plays get in field goal range and knocks it in. Should that be game, given that Team A did have a chance to score?

"SJAX" - The extra strength cleaner that fights off that Stubborn, Stingy Defense

by moy on Mar 22, 2010 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions