- Messages
- 79,278
- Reaction score
- 45,630
Posted by Mike Florio on March 17, 2010 11:25 AM ET
As expected, the NFL's Competition Committee will propose at next week's league meetings (which will be held not in Maui but at the Ritz-Carlton in Orlando) a change to the overtime rules.
The new rule, as previously reported by many, will allow the team that receives the kickoff to start overtime to win the game only by scoring a touchdown. At that point, the game would end without the other team getting the ball -- and without an extra point being attempted.
If the team that receives the kickoff scores a field goal, the other team would then get the ball. A field goal by the other team would then extend the game, making it truly sudden death. Failure to score at all would end the game, as would a touchdown by the team that kicked off to start overtime.
Competition Committee co-chair Rich McKay explained that the impetus for the change comes from the fact that, with the movement of the kickoff from the 35 to the 30 in 1994, the rate of victory via first-drive field goal increased from 17.9 percent (from 1974 to 1993) to 26.2 percent (from 1994 through 2009). He pointed out that the average field position for the team receiving the kickoff to start overtime moved from the 24-yard line in 1993 to the 29.3 in 1994. Thereafter, the average field position has bounced around from year to year, but it has never been as low as 24.
McKay said that a two-possession proposal previously had been made by the Competition Committee, but that it obtained only 18 votes. McKay added that there also was a prior attempt to move the kickoff point, presumably from the 30 back to the 35. It also failed.
The "modified sudden death" rule, as McKay called it, would apply to the playoffs only -- and it would be a permanent change. This means that, if 24 votes are mustered next week to install the rule, 24 votes would be required in the future to erase it.
Though it remains to be seen whether the owners agree to the change, McKay said that, historically, players are fine with the current rule. But McKay said that formal union approval has not been sought, and apparently won't be sought, if the proposal prevails. (This raises a potentially interesting labor law issue; does the extension of the game constitute the kind of change in working conditions that makes the proposal a mandatory subject for collective bargaining? We'll ask the union for its position on this.)
It remains unclear whether the owners will approve the measure. McKay said he has no feel for whether 24 or more votes will be cast in favor of it. But he said that the Competition Committee believed it was the right time to propose the change -- possibly due to the outcome of the NFC title game, which the Saints won on a first-drive field goal.
We strongly believe that the current system must change. Though we prefer a system that guarantees a possession for both teams even in the event of a touchdown, the proposed rule is far, far better than the current one.
Defenseless players will be further protected from blows to the head
Posted by Mike Florio on March 17, 2010 11:42 AM ET
During a Wednesday morning conference call regarding proposed rules changes to be discussed at next week's league meetings in Orlando, Competition Committee co-chair Rich McKay said that one of the possible new rules will clarify and expand procedures regarding hits to the head suffered by defenseless receivers.
McKay said that, under the proposal, a receiver will have "additional protection" against a hit to the head, and that the protection will apply "until he has an opportunity to defend himself." (We assume that this provision will be satisfied at some point before the receiver pulls out a gun or a knife.)
The potential change obviously arises from the league's newfound sensitivity to concussions, which emerged in 2009 after Congress began to stick its nose into the NFL's business on this subject.
We pointed out a disconnect between the language of the relevant rule and its application in January 2009, after Ravens running back Willis McGahee after Steelers safety Ryan Clark gave McGahee a message to pass along to his bird named Ronnie. The rule already prevents the use of a helmet to "butt, spear or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily." The problem comes from the specific examples listed in the rule, which the officiating department mistakenly has interpreted to be exclusive. Given its language, any instance of butting, ramming, or spearing in a violent or unnecessary way should trigger a penalty and a fine. But if the language needs to be changed in order to get the point across to the officials, so be it.
The protections for defenseless receivers should go beyond helmet-to-helmet hits and should cover any hits to the head. Given the current climate, it would be a head scratcher if the proposal failed to pass.
As expected, the NFL's Competition Committee will propose at next week's league meetings (which will be held not in Maui but at the Ritz-Carlton in Orlando) a change to the overtime rules.
The new rule, as previously reported by many, will allow the team that receives the kickoff to start overtime to win the game only by scoring a touchdown. At that point, the game would end without the other team getting the ball -- and without an extra point being attempted.
If the team that receives the kickoff scores a field goal, the other team would then get the ball. A field goal by the other team would then extend the game, making it truly sudden death. Failure to score at all would end the game, as would a touchdown by the team that kicked off to start overtime.
Competition Committee co-chair Rich McKay explained that the impetus for the change comes from the fact that, with the movement of the kickoff from the 35 to the 30 in 1994, the rate of victory via first-drive field goal increased from 17.9 percent (from 1974 to 1993) to 26.2 percent (from 1994 through 2009). He pointed out that the average field position for the team receiving the kickoff to start overtime moved from the 24-yard line in 1993 to the 29.3 in 1994. Thereafter, the average field position has bounced around from year to year, but it has never been as low as 24.
McKay said that a two-possession proposal previously had been made by the Competition Committee, but that it obtained only 18 votes. McKay added that there also was a prior attempt to move the kickoff point, presumably from the 30 back to the 35. It also failed.
The "modified sudden death" rule, as McKay called it, would apply to the playoffs only -- and it would be a permanent change. This means that, if 24 votes are mustered next week to install the rule, 24 votes would be required in the future to erase it.
Though it remains to be seen whether the owners agree to the change, McKay said that, historically, players are fine with the current rule. But McKay said that formal union approval has not been sought, and apparently won't be sought, if the proposal prevails. (This raises a potentially interesting labor law issue; does the extension of the game constitute the kind of change in working conditions that makes the proposal a mandatory subject for collective bargaining? We'll ask the union for its position on this.)
It remains unclear whether the owners will approve the measure. McKay said he has no feel for whether 24 or more votes will be cast in favor of it. But he said that the Competition Committee believed it was the right time to propose the change -- possibly due to the outcome of the NFC title game, which the Saints won on a first-drive field goal.
We strongly believe that the current system must change. Though we prefer a system that guarantees a possession for both teams even in the event of a touchdown, the proposed rule is far, far better than the current one.
Defenseless players will be further protected from blows to the head
Posted by Mike Florio on March 17, 2010 11:42 AM ET
During a Wednesday morning conference call regarding proposed rules changes to be discussed at next week's league meetings in Orlando, Competition Committee co-chair Rich McKay said that one of the possible new rules will clarify and expand procedures regarding hits to the head suffered by defenseless receivers.
McKay said that, under the proposal, a receiver will have "additional protection" against a hit to the head, and that the protection will apply "until he has an opportunity to defend himself." (We assume that this provision will be satisfied at some point before the receiver pulls out a gun or a knife.)
The potential change obviously arises from the league's newfound sensitivity to concussions, which emerged in 2009 after Congress began to stick its nose into the NFL's business on this subject.
We pointed out a disconnect between the language of the relevant rule and its application in January 2009, after Ravens running back Willis McGahee after Steelers safety Ryan Clark gave McGahee a message to pass along to his bird named Ronnie. The rule already prevents the use of a helmet to "butt, spear or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily." The problem comes from the specific examples listed in the rule, which the officiating department mistakenly has interpreted to be exclusive. Given its language, any instance of butting, ramming, or spearing in a violent or unnecessary way should trigger a penalty and a fine. But if the language needs to be changed in order to get the point across to the officials, so be it.
The protections for defenseless receivers should go beyond helmet-to-helmet hits and should cover any hits to the head. Given the current climate, it would be a head scratcher if the proposal failed to pass.
