ESPN Clayton: Owner Meetings Update...

WoodysGirl

U.N.I.T.Y
Staff member
Messages
79,281
Reaction score
45,648
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Overtime format staying the same
By John Clayton
ESPN.com
Archive

PHOENIX -- Proponents of change to the NFL overtime system will have to work overtime to find a solution.

On Wednesday, NFL owners decided to table a proposal to modify the overtime system. The competition committee came up with the idea of moving kickoffs in overtime from the 30 to the 35- yard line. The change would have made it tougher for the team winning the overtime coin toss to get the winning points on the first possession. According to a competition committee study, moving kickoffs up 5 yards would mean a 5-yard difference in the start of drives in overtime.


A block of 12 to 13 opponents killed that idea. Competition co-chairman Rich McKay will survey clubs, particularly the dozen or so teams that would like to make sure each team in overtime gets a possession. McKay said he was doubtful any vote would happen this year on making an overtime change, but he's concerned about the trends because teams winning the coin toss have a distinct edge in winning overtime games.


In 2006, the team winning the coin toss won 45.5 percent of the games on that first possession. Colts coach Tony Dungy would like to see change, but he realizes this might be an issue that doesn't have easy solutions. The two-possession concept could lead to longer games and more ties. The other problem with the two-possession idea is coaches in overtime could become more defensive because they would want to kick off after winning the toss. Conservatism doesn't sell in the NFL.


Commissioner Roger Goodell isn't a supporter of the two-possession concept. "I think the focus needs to be to win the game in regulation," he said.


Here are other things that went down as the owners meeting concluded.


1. In a 26-5-1 vote, owners adopted a rule change to penalize a player if he spikes the ball after a non-scoring play has ended. "You have a player celebrating a 3-yard slant play and spiking the ball on this great achievement," McKay said sarcastically. The league felt it took too much time for the officials to chase down the ball. Plus there was the question of bad sportsmanship. In case you are wondering, the Raiders were the team that didn't vote.


2. The Bears received the formal trade offer from the Commanders, a swap of the No. 6 pick in the draft in exchange for Bears linebacker Lance Briggs and the 31st pick in the first round. The Bears are mad. They think it was unprofessional for the Commanders to team up with Briggs' agent, Drew Rosenhaus, and try to make a public trade offer without talking to them first. The Bears will study the proposal over the weekend, but they say the way this was handled makes it tougher for the trade to happen.


3. Goodell confirmed the hearings of Titans cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones and Bengals wide receiver Chris Henry for next week. Henry and Jones are both scheduled for Tuesday. Goodell said a decision on suspensions could come within 10 days of those hearings. Henry and Jones have had repeated off-the-field offenses and will be the first players to face discipline under Goodell's new, tougher conduct policy. During these meetings, Goodell listened to clubs' suggestions for the new conduct policy. He said whatever is crafted as the policy will undergo constant revisions over the next couple of years.


4. Finally, the crowds won on the crowd-noise issues. The NFL owners voted to eliminate the old crowd-noise procedures from the rulebook. The reason for the change is more teams have used silent counts and can deal with the loud crowds. Before, a quarterback could ask an official to stop the clock if his offensive players could not hear his play call. If the crowd remained loud, an official could stop the game and order an announcement to quiet the crowd. If that didn't work, the home team could be penalized 5 yards for delay of game. Now, crowds can stay loud.


5. Down-by-contact is now a permanent part of instant replay officiating. A year ago, the league tried a one-year experiment to include runners being ruled down by contact as part of the instant replay reviews. In a 32-0 vote, down-by-contact was made a permanent fixture in replay officiating. Last season there were 17 plays in which a down-by-contact play was challenged. Five calls were overturned. This permanent change eliminates those controversial plays in which a quick whistle by an official on a contact play doesn't have a chance to be reviewed.


6. The NFL proved it isn't afraid to adopt a college rule. The NFL voted to go to the college rule when a quarterback accidentally throws a ball that hits an offensive lineman. Under the old rule, that was a 5-yard penalty because an offensive lineman is ineligible to catch a pass. The league felt that adopting the college rule and not penalizing accidental contact would speed up the game. If a lineman tries to catch the ball, though, the play will result in a 5-yard penalty.


7. The possibility of a team going to Los Angeles isn't dead, but it's on the back burner as far as the league agenda is concerned. The NFL wants a team in Los Angeles. Los Angeles is interested in getting a team. But chances of getting a new stadium in Los Angeles are bogged down in politics and funding problems. Goodell had a conversation with the mayor of Los Angeles this week about the NFL's interest in the city. It wasn't a topic during the owners' meeting. Stay tuned.


8. The Bears' proposal of increasing the active game roster size to 47 was shot down, 17-15. It needed 24 votes to pass. The Bears felt keeping two extra active players for games would be a benefit. Opponents felt it would give too much of an advantage to a healthier team. What the league doesn't want is one team having a healthy list of 47 players while another has only 40 healthy players for a game.


9. Over the next 19 months, Goodell plans to put together a new negotiating team to start collective bargaining extension talks with the NFLPA. This is the biggest challenge to the new commissioner's administration. Owners didn't like last year's CBA extension and may opt to get out of the deal in 2009. Goodell anticipates a long negotiation, but he thinks it will come to a good conclusion. For any deal to work, though, the NFL has to figure out a way to get back a few things from the union that it lost in the last agreement. That might be tough.


10. Back to the Commanders. Joe Gibbs said Wednesday morning he could trade up from the sixth pick in the draft. Gibbs said he's had two or three conversations with teams about moving up and there is a better chance of the Commanders moving up from No. 6 than moving down based on trade talks. Those possibilities could end if the Bears accept the Commanders' offer on the Briggs trade. Clearly, the Commanders don't want to draft at No. 6. They want out. It's either Briggs, trade up or trade down. The Commanders are on the move.

John Clayton is a senior writer for ESPN.com.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
I would actually like to see a change in the OT policy. For many years I felt as though no change was needed. One team is on offense, one on defense, both were parts of the game and so every team should be able to play all phases. However, over the past few years my view point has changed considerably on this. Any more, the offense of any team just has much to great an advantage over the defenses and so, it creates too much of an inbalance IMO. Something needs to be done. Other wise, you might as well just say that the overtime period will be decided on the coin flip itself. Winner takes all, so to speak.
 

Doomsday101

Well-Known Member
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
39,034
ABQCOWBOY;1439225 said:
I would actually like to see a change in the OT policy. For many years I felt as though no change was needed. One team is on offense, one on defense, both were parts of the game and so every team should be able to play all phases. However, over the past few years my view point has changed considerably on this. Any more, the offense of any team just has much to great an advantage over the defenses and so, it creates too much of an inbalance IMO. Something needs to be done. Other wise, you might as well just say that the overtime period will be decided on the coin flip itself. Winner takes all, so to speak.

I feel now as you once did. If you start on D then it is up to them to stop the offense and in return have a chance at starting in great field position if you do hold the offense to 3 and out.
 

Bob Sacamano

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
WoodysGirl;1439219 said:
10. Back to the Commanders. Joe Gibbs said Wednesday morning he could trade up from the sixth pick in the draft. Gibbs said he's had two or three conversations with teams about moving up and there is a better chance of the Commanders moving up from No. 6 than moving down based on trade talks. Those possibilities could end if the Bears accept the Commanders' offer on the Briggs trade. Clearly, the Commanders don't want to draft at No. 6. They want out. It's either Briggs, trade up or trade down. The Commanders are on the move.

John Clayton is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

The Commanders have to give up picks, I love it
 

Kangaroo

Active Member
Messages
9,893
Reaction score
1
Do like college football after so many ties you have to go for 2 it works well. I love the college football overtime
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
I don't know which I'd prefer more, the Commanders trading up or trading for Briggs.
 

Teague31

Defender of the Star
Messages
18,221
Reaction score
22,841
what ammo do the skins haveto move up??? the 2nd rounder they don't have, the 3rd rounder they don't have, or the 4th rounder they don't have?

:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:
 

sago1

Active Member
Messages
7,791
Reaction score
0
I would depend on how far up Skins want to go. Currently at 6th their pick is worth 1600 points. Moving up to 5th only costs them 100 points, to 4th an additional 100 points; totals 200 points. So maybe their offer their 2nd round pick in 08 along with their 6th pick in first round this year. Frankly, I'd be surprised if one of the teams above them would accept that because most teams want another high pick this year. Maybe the Skins plan on offering 2nd & 3rd rounders in 08. Can't believe Skins would offer their first round pick in 08.
 

Rampage

Benched
Messages
24,117
Reaction score
2
Kangaroo;1439297 said:
Do like college football after so many ties you have to go for 2 it works well. I love the college football overtime
hell no! leave the ot the way it is. the college football overtime is terrible
 

BLT

Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
i was really hoping theyd increan the roster from 53 to 55 ... you'd think o just 2 players.. but that is a huge difference
 

big dog cowboy

THE BIG DOG
Staff member
Messages
101,872
Reaction score
112,833
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
There is nothing wrong with overtime the way it is set up now. You don't want to go into overtime? Score more points.

I like the 47 man roster idea a lot. Maybe next year.
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
big dog cowboy;1439458 said:
There is nothing wrong with overtime the way it is set up now. You don't want to go into overtime? Score more points.
Standing alone, I'm not sure that's a very convincing argument. If something isn't fair, generally speaking, it should be fixed. Going into overtime, both teams are being penalized for the unfairness.

But that does raise an interesting point, because the owners that have voted against the rule actually want the overtime rules to be unfair. I was listening to NFL Radio on the way home and they ran a clip of Rich McKay justifying the decision not to change the rule to a double possession overtime (as opposed to sudden death). He mentioned that they implemented it in NFLE and that it worked just fine. He then went on to basically claim that the sole reason many owners were opposed to the change was that it extended the length of the game. It obviously extends it by giving the other team a possession, but it also extends games because coaches are more willing to "play for overtime" rather than winning the game in regulation. In other words, the inherent unfairness causes coaches to not want to go to overtime.

Prior to hearing this from McKay, I had been very much for a rule change (be it double-possession or moving the kickoff spot). But after thinking about it, it's a very interesting argument, and I think it may even be a very good argument for opposing the change.
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
Maybe they should just get rid of overtime altogether then.
 

Hoofbite

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,865
Reaction score
11,566
1. In a 26-5-1 vote, owners adopted a rule change to penalize a player if he spikes the ball after a non-scoring play has ended. "You have a player celebrating a 3-yard slant play and spiking the ball on this great achievement," McKay said sarcastically. The league felt it took too much time for the officials to chase down the ball. Plus there was the question of bad sportsmanship. In case you are wondering, the Raiders were the team that didn't vote.

Dumbest rule ever.
 

big dog cowboy

THE BIG DOG
Staff member
Messages
101,872
Reaction score
112,833
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
theogt;1439488 said:
Maybe they should just get rid of overtime altogether then.
That would be fine with me. If the game is a tie, then it is a tie. I don't see what the big deal is with that.
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
big dog cowboy;1439515 said:
That would be fine with me. If the game is a tie, then it is a tie. I don't see what the big deal is with that.
Nothing, I guess. Seems fime to me. I think most fans hate ties, though.
 

fanfromvirginia

Inconceivable!
Messages
4,014
Reaction score
164
theogt;1439468 said:
Standing alone, I'm not sure that's a very convincing argument. If something isn't fair, generally speaking, it should be fixed. Going into overtime, both teams are being penalized for the unfairness.

But that does raise an interesting point, because the owners that have voted against the rule actually want the overtime rules to be unfair. I was listening to NFL Radio on the way home and they ran a clip of Rich McKay justifying the decision not to change the rule to a double possession overtime (as opposed to sudden death). He mentioned that they implemented it in NFLE and that it worked just fine. He then went on to basically claim that the sole reason many owners were opposed to the change was that it extended the length of the game. It obviously extends it by giving the other team a possession, but it also extends games because coaches are more willing to "play for overtime" rather than winning the game in regulation. In other words, the inherent unfairness causes coaches to not want to go to overtime.

Prior to hearing this from McKay, I had been very much for a rule change (be it double-possession or moving the kickoff spot). But after thinking about it, it's a very interesting argument, and I think it may even be a very good argument for opposing the change.
Of course, it is "fair" in some important sense. If the coin toss is not rigged, then by definition it's fair. Rather or not it is "just" is another matter.

I don't want the college system. I don't want to every check the ticker and see that the Colts beat the Patriots 61-58 and Manning and Brady had 14 TDs between them.
 

VA Cowboy

Benched
Messages
1,858
Reaction score
0
WoodysGirl;1439219 said:
3. Goodell confirmed the hearings of Titans cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones and Bengals wide receiver Chris Henry for next week. Henry and Jones are both scheduled for Tuesday. Goodell said a decision on suspensions could come within 10 days of those hearings. Henry and Jones have had repeated off-the-field offenses and will be the first players to face discipline under Goodell's new, tougher conduct policy. During these meetings, Goodell listened to clubs' suggestions for the new conduct policy. He said whatever is crafted as the policy will undergo constant revisions over the next couple of years.


Any coincidence that Pacman and Henry both played at West Virginia?
 
Top