Time for NFL to Change the Overtime Rule

When the coin toss at the start of overtime is so important that Chargers nose tackle Jamal Williams could declare "game over" as soon as his team won it on Sunday night, you know there's something wrong with the NFL overtime rule. Fortunately, I have the solution.

It's actually quite simple, and it doesn't involve alternating possessions, like they do in college, or giving both teams the ball at least once, or saying one team has to win by four points, or any of other proposed solutions you usually hear.

The solution is this: Let one team determine where the overtime kickoff will take place, and then let the other team choose whether to kick or receive.

I've been arguing this for years, and my idea hasn't gone anywhere, but I'm going to keep at it. They don't even need to have a coin flip. Just say that the road team picks a yard line, and the home team picks whether to kick or receive. Right now, the overtime kickoff is at the 30-yard line, which benefits the receiving team. But what if they moved the kickoff by 20 yards, to the 50-yard line? Or by 40 yards, all the way to the other 30-yard line? All of a sudden, receiving wouldn't be an advantage anymore.

The NFL, of course, will never implement this rule. But it should. A coin toss followed by the words "game over" is no way to conclude a playoff game.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

1-05-2009 @ 9:16AM

MrC said...

My solution has always been to eliminate field goals in overtime. It wouldn't have mattered here, but giving up a 22-yard TD run should be a game ender. But there's nothing less exciting than to see a team march to the opponent's 30, put it through the uprights, and call it a W.

1-05-2009 @ 10:45AM

GM said...

I agree with you to a point. I think that by eliminating field goals you are eliminating a part of football and that is what everyone wants to avoid. But watching a team get into field goal range and kick the ball on 2nd or 3rd down isn't football either.

1-05-2009 @ 2:08PM

Tom said...

I completely disagree. I think the coin toss is very fair, because you still have your defense on the field. The Colts lost because their defense wasn't good enough to stop the Chargers. The better team won that day.

1-05-2009 @ 9:42AM

BlueStarDude said...

I've always thought your idea would be an improvement. I also think they could do a variation on that where there is no kickoff, instead the "receiving" team gets the ball spotted at the 20 (or maybe the 25). Or even more simply: make the overtime an abbreviated quarter (say ten minutes), give each team just one time out, and play the quarter out (downside here, though, is that there's a decent chance the score would still be tied--quarters aren't innings, which is why a simple solution like this isn't as viable an improvement as your idea).

No matter what, I hope they never go to the college shootout system. I hate that. I used to think that could never happen, but with the NFL making such bone-headed decisions as moving the Pro Bowl to the week before the Super Bowl, who knows what they'll do next?

1-05-2009 @ 9:53AM

steve said...

I'd like to see the ball automatically switch sides from the team that had last possession in the 4th quarter. This would encourage more teams to go for the win in regulation instead of taking a knee. Start the overtime with an automatic punt from the last spot.

1-05-2009 @ 10:10AM

trrosen said...

So instead of sitting on the ball, teams would sit on the ball till ten seconds left, punt give the other team one hail mary try and then get the ball back for the fifth quarter.

lets try real sudden death...no time outs...clock only stops for penalties and to move the chains.

Note in general they do need to make Field goals harder though...and maybe NO field goals in OT.

1-05-2009 @ 8:27PM

Eric said...

The kickoff rule makes no sense to me. One team's scoring unit still gets the first crack (and possibly only crack) at ending the game. It's not like kicking from the 30 is a huge advantage anyways. In the Colts-Chargers game, the Chargeres started from their 24, so it was a four yard advantage. The only thing your kickoff rule would have changed would be Sproles would have had to run four more yards to end the game. A football team is made up an offense, a defense, and a special team. All three units should play a role in overtime. The NFL has made several rule changes in the past 10 years that were meant to give the advantage to the offense and increase scoring and game excitement. To give one team, but not the other, the chance to exploit that advantage by simple virtue of the flip of a coin is unfair.

1-05-2009 @ 10:08AM

D Dub said...

Or, the team that loses the flip can play defense. If you can hold a team to 0 points on 5+ drives for 4 quarters, you should be able to stop them one more time when it matters the most. I just don't see the problem - if Jamal Williams had declared 'game over' and Indy had stopped them to win, would we even be having this discussion? No, we'd be talking about what a douchebag Jamal Williams is (see Hasslebeck, Matt for more information on OT overconfidence).

1-05-2009 @ 11:22AM

Paul said...

Why should overtime play be any different than regulation play? One 15 minute quarter with a coin toss and two timeouts. The team with the most marbles at the end of 15 minutes wins.

1-05-2009 @ 10:13AM

Bobz said...

eliminate the sudden death aspect of it all together. let them play the entire 15 mins of overtime, whoever is winning after the OTperiod should be the winner. that way, if th kickoff winner goes down and scores. the other team atleast has a chance at redemption. or give them a series. if a team wins the kick, goes down and scores a touchdown. make them kick it off and stop the other team. if they go out and make them punt. the game is over. they got 4 plays to get a 1st down and keep drive alive.

1-05-2009 @ 10:39AM

Sandy said...

I have no sympathy for a team that doesn't get the ball in OT. They have 60 minutes to take care of business and their defense gets another chance to take care of business. If they fail at both, they lose. Sorry, this ain't Pee Wee league.

In more than 60% (nearly 70%) of games, both teams touch the ball.

Using the Jamal Williams quote is very dramatic, but you should've thrown up the Matt Hasselbeck one, too, to prove that it's common for the receiving team to lose.

The OT change that is conceivable is a time limit. Perhaps a 7:30 quarter. Changing the rules of football with the crazy kickoff idea is bad. Don't change the game for OT. That's the problem with college OT...it ain't football.

1-05-2009 @ 1:38PM

Tim M said...

Eliminate the coin flip - period. No other sport uses such a thing. Home team should kick off (or yield) to start the game and the college overtime rule is an excellent way to eliminate ties.

1-05-2009 @ 10:54AM

WallyBallz said...

Hate the kickoff idea. Why wouldn't everyone choose to kick from the other team's 15 yard line, and onside kick it? Worst case is a touchback, and best case is they recover the kick in extra-point range. Average start for the receiving team would probably be their own 5 yard line.....

1-05-2009 @ 11:24AM

CDS said...

How about...instead of flipping a coin, keep the game sudden-death, but award the first possession to whatever team has the most first downs, or Red Zone attempts, or total yards, etc.

That would at least reward good football over random chance.

1-05-2009 @ 11:40AM

Scooter said...

The ref's said overtime is just like a regular game but if that was true they would play the entire overtime quarter! Have the coin toss but play the entire quarter and not just untill the first team scores!

1-05-2009 @ 12:06PM

Agreed the overtime rules need to be changed. Games should be decided by O/D and not kickers. The Texas shootout college rules would be a suitable option. My only problem with all the current outrage over the overtime rules is that if the coin had flipped the other way and it was Philip Rivers and Not MVP Peyton Manning whom did not get a opportunity to take the field there wouldn't be one tenth the amount of columns written. Just like if the Jets or patriots had qualified for the playoffs with an 8-8 record there wouldn't be all the calls for the NFL to reseed. It's time for the east coast bias media to come correct. If you think the rules are unfair start writing about it in September and not January.

1-05-2009 @ 1:31PM

mrhammerstein said...

it is decided by O/D.

one team's defense has to stop the other team's offense. you have to make 1/2 your team play the game and stop them. if have your team fails, why should the other half get an opportunity?

1-05-2009 @ 12:55PM

sean said...

everyone knows the rules and play by them. there's nothing wrong with the OT rules as they are today. Maybe the reason he could say "game over" was because he knew the indy defense was done.

face it, indy built their team to outscore their opponent in regulation. if it was SDvBAL, that guy's keeping his mouth shut at the start of overtime.

Also, recall Matt Hasselbeck used something similar when he won a coin toss in OT in the playoffs against GB... it didn't quite work out in his favor,

1-05-2009 @ 1:05PM

knidsrok said...

There's no real problem with overtime. If you take a large enough sample (i.e. don't try to judge by the last season or two) the team that wins the coin toss wins the game only 2% more often than the other team. Any attempt to futz with these rules is more likely to result in a situation that's ultimately more inequitable. Some people will always complain about the system. These are the kind of people who are fooled by anecdotal evidence away from object reality.

The system works because if the team that kicks off plays some defense and forces their opponent to punt from deep in their own territory, they've got a very good shot at getting the ball with better field position. So winning the toss isn't as advantageous as teams think it is if they can't move the ball.

If there's been any increase the the advantage of winning the OT coin toss in recent years, it owes entirely to the various ways the competition has messed with the rules to make things easier on the offense. If they told officials to put as much emphasis on offensive holding and offensive PI as they do on the defense, the game in general would be more equitable, and you wouldn't need to resort to some awkward OT gimmick.

1-05-2009 @ 1:06PM

My only problem with all the current outrage over the overtime rules is that if the coin had flipped the other way and it was Philip Rivers and Not MVP Peyton Manning whom did not get a opportunity to take the field there wouldn't be one tenth the amount of columns written. Just like if the Jets or patriots had qualified for the playoffs with an 8-8 record there wouldn't be all the calls for the NFL to reseed. It's time for the east coast bias media to come correct

How exactly is it an example of "east coast bias" for the media to be outraged over the playoff dismissal of a certain quarterback from the South who plays for a team from the Midwest?

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments