NFL rule changes

**BruceMGF** · March 28, 2012

1. All turnovers will be automatically reviewed.

Good side: the right call will be made more often in tough cases.

Bad side: games delayed while reviews are made of calls that are obviously right (interception went right to a defender with no-one else close).

2. Post-season overtime rules now apply in regular season - almost.

The "almost" is that, as before, regular-season OT is limited to 15 minutes. Ties are still possible. And under the new rules, presumably more common, which bothers this writer:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/overtime-change-could-cause-problems/

OK, I get that OTs will be longer, which creates greater risk of injury. This is the more troubling part of the new rule.

He also says it will cause more overlap in televised games. Cry me a river. Pick a game and watch it. Pick up the next one late in the first quarter if you want to. Or record it. Whatever. Mountain out of molehill.

He also says the increase in ties will "wreak havoc on the standings and the playoff possibilities."

Huh? Why?

One of reasons ties are a good thing (heresy to modern sports fans, I know) is that they create greater granularity in the standings. That is, not only can you have teams with 9, 10 and 11 wins, but also with 8.5, 9.5, 10.5 and 11.5 wins. And fewer playoff spots or seedings decided by tiebreak criteria #89 (safeties on blocked punts in Monday Night games.).

That being said, I doubt the number of ties will rise greatly. What's it been, four ties in twenty years under the old rules? So maybe the next twenty will feature all of six or seven? Maybe even ten?

***iacas*** · March 28, 2012

The NFL gets less and less interesting with each passing year.

I agree with much of your opinion above. I suspect though that on obvious turnovers the "review" process will be about four seconds long. We won't notice it because they'll be busy showing replays of the awesome interception or the horrible fumble or whatever.

**BruceMGF** · March 28, 2012

Originally Posted by iacas

The NFL gets less and less interesting with each passing year.

While I agree with this statement in general, why do these particular changes make it less interesting for you? I'm actually curious to see what new strategies emerge from the new OT rule. Will the team with the first possession go all-out for a touchdown, maybe even trying to convert a fourth-down play in easy FG range? Will the other side, down by 3, be content to re-tie the game (essentially getting all the disadvantages of the old rule's kickoff team) or go for broke in their turn?

A writer for Slate reportedly did a simulation showing the team kicking off under this format should onside-kick every time. Alas, the article is behind a paywall and I'm not interested enough in Slate to register.

**Shindig** · March 28, 2012

He also says it will cause more overlap in televised games. Cry me a river. Pick a game and watch it. Pick up the next one late in the first quarter if you want to. Or record it. Whatever. Mountain out of molehill.

This is nice if you have Sunday Ticket. If you're watching the normal televised game on CBS or FOX, you don't have the choice. There was plenty of madness on NFL boards in week 2 of last season when the Raiders/Bills game had to switch over to the start of Patriots/Chargers. It wasn't quite the Heidi Game, but the morning game did have an exciting ending and if you weren't in the Raiders or Bills market area, the television provider was contractually obligated to switch over to what was probably an opening touchback. That was the only time in my life I think I've ever used the phrase "I'm glad I live in Raiders territory."

***iacas*** · March 28, 2012

These rules changes have little to nothing to do with why the NFL gets more boring to me.

I can't put my finger on why the games are less interesting. I only ever watch Steelers games, really. And I find myself fast forwarding through parts of those games as well.

Hockey I watch just about every minute of.

**LuciusWooding** · March 28, 2012

Originally Posted by BruceMGF

1. All turnovers will be automatically reviewed.

Good side: the right call will be made more often in tough cases.

Bad side: games delayed while reviews are made of calls that are obviously right (interception went right to a defender with no-one else close).

2. Post-season overtime rules now apply in regular season - almost.

The "almost" is that, as before, regular-season OT is limited to 15 minutes. Ties are still possible. And under the new rules, presumably more common, which bothers this writer:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/overtime-change-could-cause-problems/

OK, I get that OTs will be longer, which creates greater risk of injury. This is the more troubling part of the new rule.

He also says it will cause more overlap in televised games. Cry me a river. Pick a game and watch it. Pick up the next one late in the first quarter if you want to. Or record it. Whatever. Mountain out of molehill.

He also says the increase in ties will "wreak havoc on the standings and the playoff possibilities."

Huh? Why?

One of reasons ties are a good thing (heresy to modern sports fans, I know) is that they create greater granularity in the standings. That is, not only can you have teams with 9, 10 and 11 wins, but also with 8.5, 9.5, 10.5 and 11.5 wins. And fewer playoff spots or seedings decided by tiebreak criteria #89 (safeties on blocked punts in Monday Night games.).

That being said, I doubt the number of ties will rise greatly. What's it been, four ties in twenty years under the old rules? So maybe the next twenty will feature all of six or seven? Maybe even ten?

As a Giants fan, I can't complain; but they still came close on many occasions to being screwed out of the playoffs due to turnovers being overturned without a review. I like the scoring review, but they're taking it to a bit of an extreme. Do they review all 4th down plays now? How about reviewing every penalty, every special teams play, etc? It's a bit too much. I hope they don't call penalties from the booth next... The officiating was bad last year, and they're reacting by making the booth a redundant part of the process to cover the ref's ass.

I also noticed this year the refs called everything within a mile of the goal line a TD, since it would be reviewed anyway. I don't like that since offense gets the benefit of the doubt now and close plays aren't likely to be overturned. I believe the same thing will happen on turnovers and anything else they booth review; refs will call everything to force a review if it's close. Turnovers are a lot more subjective than TDs, so I think it will change the definition a bit.

OT is no big deal. The rules are fine either way. If you don't want an injury, don't play in the NFL though; saying OT will cause injuries is BS and the same could be said about playoff games. If they wanted to protect the players to the maximum, they'd have the scouting combine and a draft, then simulate all the games in Madden NFL every year. There would still be hurt players.

I agree that ties will be no big difference. Unless the teams are in a position to play for a tie, where both would reach the playoffs, the ties won't make a big difference.

**BruceMGF** · March 29, 2012

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

If you don't want an injury, don't play in the NFL though; saying OT will cause injuries is BS and the same could be said about playoff games. If they wanted to protect the players to the maximum, they'd have the scouting combine and a draft, then simulate all the games in Madden NFL every year. There would still be hurt players.

The point is that, statistically, the chance of injury rises toward the end of games, and continues into overtime, if any. And it's a big deal with the NFLPA. The recent NFL-player dispute wasn't solely about money, but about safety as well. It's why kickoffs were moved back to the 35 from the 30.

**LuciusWooding** · March 29, 2012

Originally Posted by BruceMGF

The point is that, statistically, the chance of injury rises toward the end of games, and continues into overtime, if any. And it's a big deal with the NFLPA. The recent NFL-player dispute wasn't solely about money, but about safety as well. It's why kickoffs were moved back to the 35 from the 30.

I don't doubt it, but it's unfair how much protection QBs and WRs receive while every other player isn't protected at all really. Those two positions get coddled the most by all the rules, and I wonder who makes the most money and has the longest career? Maybe you could make a case that kickers are protected as well, but special teams and defense, as well as TEs, RBs, and O-line all play the real game and take tons of hits while the others play tag. Sean Payton probably got hurt worse than all the QBs in the league put together. If players want to be more safe, at least make every position play in the same league.

IMO, if injuries occur from players playing harder, you can never prevent them or tell players not to compete their hardest. In these close games and overtime situations, that's when you earn your keep. There's no need for bounties or a bloodthirsty attitude, but you can take the competitiveness out of the game by softening the rules and slowing the action like this. There are preventable injuries and then there are accidents; Sean Payton's leg is a perfect example. You can't prevent things like that, especially during play. But then there's the concussion thing where the player needs to be taken out of the game for their own good. The PA has every right to be concerned about that, as well as injuries on meaningless plays where the kickoff would be booted deep anyway.

On the note of the new kickoff, I noticed 90% of the time they'd kick it into the stands as intended, but the occasional close game where they didn't resulted in especially vicious play on special teams. It was a lot less exciting most of the time, and it made the real plays just as dangerous as ever.

**zeg** · March 29, 2012

I'm not thrilled with the OT rules. I guess it's an improvement over the glorified coin toss that was in place before, but it really doesn't solve the problem. "Sudden Death" options are inherently ridiculous. I see three options that could be considered reasonable:

Add a fixed-time additional period, 5 or 10 minutes, and play it out. If it's still tied after that, either accept the tie or add another period.
Give each team a possession.
Forget OT, just accept the tie and move on.

We've almost got option 2 now, but I see zero logic in a TD triggering Sudden Death. Give the other team a possession. Option 1 has some serious problems, particularly with regards to injuries. For it to be fair, the period needs to be long enough that it's not just a clock management game for the first team to hold the ball, but not so long as to cause significant additional injuries. If you aren't willing to live with ties, I think option 1 is the cleanest in principle, but the reality of injuries probably makes it impractical.

IMO option 3 is the best. If you can't make the OT fair and safe, or even guaranteed to resolve the outcome, then just accept that some games do not have winners. It doesn't seem to harm hockey or soccer that not every game has a winner.

**BruceMGF** · March 29, 2012

Originally Posted by zeg

I'm not thrilled with the OT rules. I guess it's an improvement over the glorified coin toss that was in place before, but it really doesn't solve the problem. "Sudden Death" options are inherently ridiculous. I see three options that could be considered reasonable:

Add a fixed-time additional period, 5 or 10 minutes, and play it out. If it's still tied after that, either accept the tie or add another period.

Give each team a possession.

Forget OT, just accept the tie and move on.

We've almost got option 2 now, but I see zero logic in a TD triggering Sudden Death. Give the other team a possession. Option 1 has some serious problems, particularly with regards to injuries. For it to be fair, the period needs to be long enough that it's not just a clock management game for the first team to hold the ball, but not so long as to cause significant additional injuries. If you aren't willing to live with ties, I think option 1 is the cleanest in principle, but the reality of injuries probably makes it impractical.

IMO option 3 is the best. If you can't make the OT fair and safe, or even guaranteed to resolve the outcome, then just accept that some games do not have winners. It doesn't seem to harm hockey or soccer that not every game has a winner.

I prefer option 3 myself, but I'm sure I'm in a minority. "Ties suck!" seems to be accepted as tautological these days for some reason. Hard to believe now that MLB, in the 1960s, was seriously considering putting a cap on extra innings and accepting ties in the standings.

Option 1: The Canadian Football League used to do this for playoff games (a 20-minute mini-game) and I think something similar was in the rules of the short-lived World Football League in the 1970s. Not sure if it ever actually was needed in the WFL, which lasted less than two seasons, I think.

**LuciusWooding** · March 29, 2012

Originally Posted by zeg

I'm not thrilled with the OT rules. I guess it's an improvement over the glorified coin toss that was in place before, but it really doesn't solve the problem. "Sudden Death" options are inherently ridiculous. I see three options that could be considered reasonable:

Add a fixed-time additional period, 5 or 10 minutes, and play it out. If it's still tied after that, either accept the tie or add another period.

Give each team a possession.

Forget OT, just accept the tie and move on.

We've almost got option 2 now, but I see zero logic in a TD triggering Sudden Death. Give the other team a possession. Option 1 has some serious problems, particularly with regards to injuries. For it to be fair, the period needs to be long enough that it's not just a clock management game for the first team to hold the ball, but not so long as to cause significant additional injuries. If you aren't willing to live with ties, I think option 1 is the cleanest in principle, but the reality of injuries probably makes it impractical.

IMO option 3 is the best. If you can't make the OT fair and safe, or even guaranteed to resolve the outcome, then just accept that some games do not have winners. It doesn't seem to harm hockey or soccer that not every game has a winner.

I'd like to point out that the game between the Giants and 49ers in the divisional was without a doubt the best game I've ever seen in 10 years of watching, because it was so atypical; it was a dead heat throughout the whole game, and was decided by a freak special teams play late in a brutally long overtime. It had several kick returns, physical defense on both sides that made my jaw drop, a lot of grinding by the offenses, and the quarterbacks and receivers weren't exempt from being pummeled. To my knowledge, no one was injured significantly in spite of the competitiveness, length, and ferocity of the game.

In the regular season, I don't mind ties, but certainly some sort of OT has to be played. There were a number of games tied after the 4th this season, and no overtime to narrow it down would in fact throw off the standings as posited before. The thing about sudden death is that OT requires 2 very evenly matched teams to be played, so you could trade possessions and be tied ad infinitum, as nearly occurred in the aforementioned Giants victory. Those teams were so well matched it took like 5 possessions to win. Without sudden death they might still be playing. The coin toss is still a bit decisive, but it's better than a regular season game running back and forth. They use the OT format to force a resolution, just like a shootout in hockey. It's possible to tie, but by design unlikely.

**jamo** · March 29, 2012

[LIST=1] [*] Add a fixed-time additional period, 5 or 10 minutes, and play it out. If it's still tied after that, either accept the tie or add another period. [*] Give each team a possession. [*] Forget OT, just accept the tie and move on. [/LIST]

B is my favorite. Give each team a possession, let 'em score or mess it up. Seems fair to me.

**Golfingdad** · March 29, 2012

Originally Posted by BruceMGF

1. All turnovers will be automatically reviewed.

Good side: the right call will be made more often in tough cases.

Bad side: games delayed while reviews are made of calls that are obviously right (interception went right to a defender with no-one else close).

I like the extra replays because it really is all about getting the call right, but you are right about it adding extra time. Then again, many are obvious like you mentioned and I think they frequently have a commercial break at changes of possession anyways, so maybe it won't be so bad. My biggest problem with all replays in the NFL is the fact that they have the guy on the field making the calls, even though they already have a replay official up in the booth. He goes to work deciding if plays warrant a review in the last 2 minutes, which means he's already looked at it and already halfway to a decision, so why throw it down to the field and have him start from scratch? It's a waste of time, and also a bit of a conflict of interest because he will be less likely to want to "show up" his team by admitting that they were wrong than would be the guy upstairs.

I love the NFL, but in the case of replay, college has a better system.

**zeg** · March 29, 2012

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

I'd like to point out that the game between the Giants and 49ers in the divisional was without a doubt the best game I've ever seen in 10 years of watching, because it was so atypical; it was a dead heat throughout the whole game, and was decided by a freak special teams play late in a brutally long overtime. It had several kick returns, physical defense on both sides that made my jaw drop, a lot of grinding by the offenses, and the quarterbacks and receivers weren't exempt from being pummeled. To my knowledge, no one was injured significantly in spite of the competitiveness, length, and ferocity of the game.

In the regular season, I don't mind ties, but certainly some sort of OT has to be played. There were a number of games tied after the 4th this season, and no overtime to narrow it down would in fact throw off the standings as posited before. The thing about sudden death is that OT requires 2 very evenly matched teams to be played, so you could trade possessions and be tied ad infinitum, as nearly occurred in the aforementioned Giants victory. Those teams were so well matched it took like 5 possessions to win. Without sudden death they might still be playing. The coin toss is still a bit decisive, but it's better than a regular season game running back and forth. They use the OT format to force a resolution, just like a shootout in hockey. It's possible to tie, but by design unlikely.

Two thoughts: first, the fact that no injury occurred in a single game doesn't mean that long overtimes are safe. It's fortunate that no one was hurt, but I believe the statistics suggest that injuries are far more likely.

Second, one can't really claim ties would "throw off" the standings, you can only say they'd change them. If you have two teams that are well enough balanced that a fair OT is going to run on endlessly, introducing an arbitrary rule to award the win to one side actually makes your standings less accurate. That is, if you want the standings to reflect the best team.

Originally Posted by jamo

B is my favorite. Give each team a possession, let 'em score or mess it up. Seems fair to me.

I have no real problem with this, aside from what I mentioned above. IIRC, in hockey they give (or gave, I barely pay attention to it) a smaller weight to games won in OT than those won in regulation. While that sort of mathematical solution can be unpopular (a la the FedEx Cup scoring...) it does lead to more scientifically meaningful rankings.

**Shindig** · March 29, 2012

IIRC, in hockey they give (or gave, I barely pay attention to it) a smaller weight to games won in OT than those won in regulation. While that sort of mathematical solution can be unpopular (a la the FedEx Cup scoring...) it does lead to more scientifically meaningful rankings.

My understanding of hockey regular-season rules is that there are "points" at stake in each game (separate from goals scored). The winner takes two, but a loss in overtime is worth one. I haven't given much thought to if this would work in the NFL.

**newtogolf** · March 29, 2012

I agree, the new rules changes will have minimal effect on games next season. I always thought it was unfair to decide a game with a coin toss and field goal anyway.

The rules changes last year that make it almost impossible to hit the QB and WR's has ruined the game for me. I agree with the NFL trying to eliminate cheap shots, but it's gone too far now. Defenses basically have to allow a WR to catch the ball before hitting them or risk a 15 yard penalty, fine and suspension. This is not the game I played for 8 years or NFL I enjoyed watching.

Originally Posted by iacas

The NFL gets less and less interesting with each passing year.

.

**zeg** · March 29, 2012

Originally Posted by Shindig

My understanding of hockey regular-season rules is that there are "points" at stake in each game (separate from goals scored). The winner takes two, but a loss in overtime is worth one. I haven't given much thought to if this would work in the NFL.

That sounds right. I think it works out to approximately the same thing, just with more positive spin (rewarding a team for forcing OT versus punishing the other for failing to close in regulation). I like the principle, but I haven't sat down to examine its effects in detail.

dkmago · March 30, 2012

Originally Posted by zeg

I'm not thrilled with the OT rules. I guess it's an improvement over the glorified coin toss that was in place before, but it really doesn't solve the problem. "Sudden Death" options are inherently ridiculous. I see three options that could be considered reasonable:

Add a fixed-time additional period, 5 or 10 minutes, and play it out. If it's still tied after that, either accept the tie or add another period.

Give each team a possession.

Forget OT, just accept the tie and move on.

We've almost got option 2 now, but I see zero logic in a TD triggering Sudden Death. Give the other team a possession. Option 1 has some serious problems, particularly with regards to injuries. For it to be fair, the period needs to be long enough that it's not just a clock management game for the first team to hold the ball, but not so long as to cause significant additional injuries. If you aren't willing to live with ties, I think option 1 is the cleanest in principle, but the reality of injuries probably makes it impractical.

IMO option 3 is the best. If you can't make the OT fair and safe, or even guaranteed to resolve the outcome, then just accept that some games do not have winners. It doesn't seem to harm hockey or soccer that not every game has a winner.

4. Give the visiting team a 1/2 point at the start of the game.

No overtime is possible and if a visiting team is able to play a game to a tie, then they should get the win. Many away teams play for a tie where home teams play for a win today when the option is there (home team down by 3 on 4/th and goal from the 1).

Sign In

NFL rule changes

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Topics Being Discussed Right Now on The Sand Trap

TST Partners

Popular Now

Posts

Important Information