Heart-ache: NFL abandons sudden death rule for postseason

posted at 7:31 pm on March 23, 2010 by Allahpundit

On the very day that O-Care is signed, too. I don’t know my country anymore.

• Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner.

• If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball. If [that team] scores a touchdown on its possession, it is the winner. If the score is tied after [both teams have a] possession, the team next scoring by any method shall be the winner.

• If the score is tied at the end of a 15-minute overtime period, or if [the overtime period's] initial possession has not ended, another overtime period will begin, and play will continue until a score is made, regardless of how many 15-minute periods are necessary.

The reasoning is that it’s become too easy to win the game on the first possession of overtime thanks to the fact that they moved the kickoff back from the 35 to the 30-yard line in 1994. (Er, why don’t they just move the kickoff line up instead?) At first blush, I thought they were replicating the college rules where each team gets the ball until one scores and the other fails to answer — which would be sweet. Ever seen the highlights of one of those six-overtime 61-60 Division I shootouts on SportsCenter? Imagine that in the Super Bowl.

But no: Read the new rules again. The team that receives the overtime kickoff can win the game with a touchdown right away, under standard sudden death rules. Only if they’re stopped and forced to kick a field goal does the other team get the ball. The point, I guess, is that sudden-death FGs on the opening drive are quick and easy, but if that’s the case, then why let the game ever end on a field goal? Under this half-baked scheme, if I go for three on the first drive and you come back with three yourself, I can then win the game — in sudden death — with another field goal of my own. Why? If the problem is that the kickoffs are producing field position that makes winning FGs too likely, there’s nothing here that cures that problem; all it does is push it forward by one possession, after each team has kicked a field goal on its opening drive. Stupid.

What this really does is create the following strategic dilemma: If you take the opening kickoff, kick a field goal, then kick off to me and I drive down to your 10-yard line, say, what do I do on fourth down? Kick to tie the game and send it into sudden death, where the odds say you’ll win because you’ll get the ball next, or do I go for the TD to try to end the game right there? Let’s poll it!


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Somebody is upset that the Colts didn’t win.

portlandon on March 23, 2010 at 7:33 PM

The current system is stupid. Flip a coin, three plays later the team moves 40 yards and kicks a field goal, game over. Anything is better than that. The only problem with this new rule is that it’s for the postseason only. That doesn’t make sense.

strictnein on March 23, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Where have you gone Joe Dimaggio…..?

Okay, Jan Stenerud.

SteveMG on March 23, 2010 at 7:34 PM

If they add a rouge to the game I’m moving to Montana and joining a militia.

There.

SteveMG on March 23, 2010 at 7:36 PM

It’s sad to be wimpier than baseball. Play as many whole quarters as it takes. Also, no helmets allowed after the first OT.

exception on March 23, 2010 at 7:36 PM

We’ll call it the Brett Favre rule.

PackerBronco on March 23, 2010 at 7:37 PM

I voted Ron Paul. The Fed is behind those Fiat Field Goals!!

trubble on March 23, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Well, I voted Ron Paul, because I grow to dislike the NFL more and more.

Nothing wrong with sudden death, what’s with this “fair” crap everywhere?

reaganaut on March 23, 2010 at 7:37 PM

If at first you don’t succeed, change the rules.

Skandia Recluse on March 23, 2010 at 7:38 PM

We’ll call it the Brett Favre rule.

PackerBronco on March 23, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Funny part about it, the vikings voted against it, LOL!

deidre on March 23, 2010 at 7:38 PM

RON PAUL!!11!!@!!!

(I voted for college rules, but that was a funny choice.)

beancounter on March 23, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Good call…The other option would be the college method, which is also preferable to what is currently in use…

golfer1 on March 23, 2010 at 7:39 PM

If it has to be sudden death, just ban field goals.

exception on March 23, 2010 at 7:39 PM

I would borrow the penalty-kick idea from soccer: each team kicks five field goals, from 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 yards. Whoever makes the most, win. If it’s a tie, then the teams alternate kicks from 50.

year_of_the_dingo on March 23, 2010 at 7:39 PM

The current system is stupid. Flip a coin, three plays later the team moves 40 yards and kicks a field goal, game over. Anything is better than that. The only problem with this new rule is that it’s for the postseason only. That doesn’t make sense.

strictnein on March 23, 2010 at 7:34 PM

some of the owners are talking about voting it in for the whole season… probably won’t pass this year, but next after they test it in Post season.

Romeo13 on March 23, 2010 at 7:39 PM

We’ll call it the Brett Favre rule.

PackerBronco on March 23, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Too funny!

Anna on March 23, 2010 at 7:39 PM

I think its a rational change, it doesn’t slide too far, and its in line with other rules that were created to take an inordinate amount of power for the field goal kicker to control the game. It just says that a bad kick and a couple of first downs don’t decide a season. Why not?

itsspideyman on March 23, 2010 at 7:40 PM

But… but…

is this…. dare I say…

REV0LUTIONARY!

Romeo13 on March 23, 2010 at 7:40 PM

.

Also, no helmets allowed after the first OT.

exception on March 23, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Or cups!

bernzright777 on March 23, 2010 at 7:41 PM

How about either play out the quarter, or play on a rebuttal system: You get a FG, I must match or overcome, or I lose. They’ve made this too complicated.

Repurblican on March 23, 2010 at 7:41 PM

If this rule were in effect last season the Packers would be Super Bowl champs

/conjecture

Ray Flicker on March 23, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Just play a 10 minute period under the normal rules. If the score is still tied, play another 10 minute period.
Why change the rules for overtime?

Lather, rinse, repeat.

BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Second look at Ron Paul/

Knucklehead on March 23, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Sudden death was instituted to keep the ‘Boys from winning every year.

BobMbx on March 23, 2010 at 7:44 PM

I don’t necessarily like new rules, but ending a game in OT off a field goal is just too anti-climactic to be tolerated.

Daemonocracy on March 23, 2010 at 7:44 PM

I’m curious though, which team(s) whiny owner(s) lost a game in overtime?

If you want to win, stop the other team. Pretty simple.

reaganaut on March 23, 2010 at 7:45 PM

We’ll call it the Brett Favre rule.

PackerBronco on March 23, 2010 at 7:37 PM

The Vikings voted against it.

strictnein on March 23, 2010 at 7:46 PM

20 Ron Paul voters will be pleased to know Ron’s been ejected from the game for roughing the vendors.

Rovin on March 23, 2010 at 7:46 PM

What did the Vegas mob tell them to do?

viking01 on March 23, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Teams that don’t like sudden death are teams with a poor defense. If they loose the coin toss it’s pretty much an automatic game loss. Sissies and Cupcakes.

jaime on March 23, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Just did a quick check;

Proponents argue that as field goal accuracy has steadily improved, teams that won the toss have a 59.8% winning clip in regular-season games since 1994, when kickoffs were moved back to the 30-yard line.

From 1974-1993, the rate of winning and losing were an identical 46.8%.

Looks like APs idea of moving the kickoff line back (ahead) is best.

59.8% is not a huge deal, anyway.

Hey, why not have adjustable goal posts and make them smaller. Or even better smaller, flaming, moving goalposts.

reaganaut on March 23, 2010 at 7:52 PM

College rules?

That’s not even football.

uknowmorethanme on March 23, 2010 at 7:52 PM

I hate college rules. I don’t pro games ending 45-42 between two tight teams. You’d just have to throw the stat books out.

LOL at Ron Paul option. Nicely done, AP.

Spirit of 1776 on March 23, 2010 at 7:54 PM

The NFL is a liberal organization: a group of members are unhappy with the outcome of one game and they change the rules for everyone. They change the rules every 2 years to make it “more fair and equitable” resulting in “parity”. That is tantamount to “social justice” and not in the spirit of America. Football is filler between the World Series and Spring Training.

thomasaur on March 23, 2010 at 7:55 PM

I bet this comes right from the White House,
everything is getting screwed-up!!(sarc)

canopfor on March 23, 2010 at 7:55 PM

They really AnninCA’ed this up.

myrenovations on March 23, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Will there be Congressional hearings on this? It is important to the American fabric afterall.

thomasaur on March 23, 2010 at 7:57 PM

What this really does is create the following strategic dilemma: If you take the opening kickoff, kick a field goal, then kick off to me and I drive down to your 10-yard line, say, what do I do on fourth down? Kick to tie the game and send it into sudden death, where the odds say you’ll win because you’ll get the ball next, or do I go for the TD to try to end the game right there? Let’s poll it!

4th down and how many yards? Two yards and less and I’m going…

toliver on March 23, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Oh yeah, college rules rule!!

toliver on March 23, 2010 at 7:59 PM

If you don’t want to lose by a FG in OT win in regulation.

thomasaur on March 23, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Question is,
=======================

Does this rule apply to/

Lingerie Football League
————————–

http://www.lflus.com/

canopfor on March 23, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Guys, it is a good change, but I would give each team the ball at least once regardless of what happens on the first possession. So if the coin toss winner scores a TD, then the other team has the opportunity to tie or win the game if they converted the 2-point conversion.

Frank T.J Mackey on March 23, 2010 at 8:00 PM

reaganaut on March 23, 2010 at 7:52 PM

But those statistics showed that since 1994, the team that won the overtime coin toss won the game 34.4 percent of the time on the first possession. So the other team did get a possesion in most games.

galvestonian on March 23, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Why shouldn’t the other team be “entitled” to get the ball? Remember, defenses win championships!

djaymick on March 23, 2010 at 8:01 PM

• Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner.

Your hypothetical situation didn’t mention this part AP. This part I like. How many times have you seen an overtime game with one big play go down inside the thirty yard line and the offensive team gives up relying on a field goal to win. This at least gives a reason to try to score a touchdown. LOL, Ron Paul.

disillusioned on March 23, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Does the game end if you are defending your own 1 yard line, and the other team has more players, but their wide receiver has always promised he is on your side, but just when the ball is snapped he runs into the end zone for the reception while insisting that he got a verbal promise from his coach that the goal won’t count?

pedestrian on March 23, 2010 at 8:02 PM

None of the Above – your poll should have “First to Seven” which is what I thought they were going to do.

This way is overcomplicated.

Also, what happens in the event of a safety?

apollyonbob on March 23, 2010 at 8:02 PM

Funny part about it, the vikings voted against it, LOL!

deidre on March 23, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Probably figured it would make no difference. It just guarantees that Favre will have an opportunity to throw the game-ending pick.

PackerBronco on March 23, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Every time these meddlesome boobs change familiar, functional rules, it means someone has too much time on their insidious little paws.

profitsbeard on March 23, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Come to think of it, why not just break a tie with a coin-toss? It’s quick and fair, in that the probability is exactly 50%. When a team forces OT, usually it has the opportunity to win the game in regular time. I honestly cannot think of an instance where a team catches up by a touchdown and a two-point conversion.

year_of_the_dingo on March 23, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Don’t worry, Congress is on top of this.

A little-known provision of the Obamacare Reconciliation package includes the provision that no sporting event in the U.S. (from Peewee all the way up to professional) may include keeping score. Keeping score just makes the losers point-scoring-challenged individuals feel bad, and this can lead to poor health. By eliminating scorekeeping altogether, health care savings will be achieved.

malclave on March 23, 2010 at 8:08 PM

malclave on March 23, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Lombardi Trophies for all!!!

thomasaur on March 23, 2010 at 8:11 PM

The can call it…

“The Good and Welfare Clause”

Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Ron Paul WHO DAT!

Christien on March 23, 2010 at 8:12 PM

The NFL is a liberal organization: a group of members are unhappy with the outcome of one game and they change the rules for everyone. They change the rules every 2 years to make it “more fair and equitable” resulting in “parity”. That is tantamount to “social justice” and not in the spirit of America. Football is filler between the World Series and Spring Training.

thomasaur on March 23, 2010 at 7:55 PM

Read this link on NFL political campaign financing. Very liberal indeed? Thoughts on a salary cap in baseball?

disillusioned on March 23, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Every time these meddlesome boobs change familiar, functional rules, it means someone has too much time on their insidious little paws.

profitsbeard on March 23, 2010 at 8:05 PM

profitsbeard: Yes,idle hands can be the work of zee devil!:)

canopfor on March 23, 2010 at 8:14 PM

Same as health care – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

It’s just one more thing to dislike about the NFL.

dugan on March 23, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Thoughts on a salary cap in baseball?

disillusioned on March 23, 2010 at 8:12 PM

While too many players are vastly overpaid, I say if you can get it take it.

thomasaur on March 23, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Screw it: give both teams a “participation prize”.

ya2daup on March 23, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Also, what happens in the event of a safety?

apollyonbob on March 23, 2010 at 8:02 PM

Exactly. Stupid.

peski on March 23, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Why shouldn’t the other team be “entitled” to get the ball? Remember, defenses win championships!

djaymick on March 23, 2010 at 8:01 PM

I know you’re jesting, but I’ll take it seriously anyway.

Defenses used to win championships, but the rules have been changed so much in the last 20 years so as to make pro football an offensive game. With that said, the team that wans the coin toss wins the OT in 59.8% of the games since the kickoff was moved ~15 years ago.

toliver on March 23, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Oh yeah, that ~60% number makes OT kinda suck.

toliver on March 23, 2010 at 8:22 PM

It just guarantees that Favre will have an opportunity to throw the game-ending pick.

PackerBronco on March 23, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Tradition!

ya2daup on March 23, 2010 at 8:22 PM

While too many players are vastly overpaid, I say if you can get it take it.

thomasaur on March 23, 2010 at 8:16 PM

I’d say that for the players, but not the sport. Small market teams really don’t have a chance anymore.

disillusioned on March 23, 2010 at 8:23 PM

College rules make for a much more exciting game.

dalewalt on March 23, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Wow, even the XFL handled overtime better than the NFL. (Pretty much the college idea. each side gets a possession. If one side is ahead they win. If they’re tied and both scored the one that used fewer downs wins. Otherwise another set of overtime possessions.)

Dave_d on March 23, 2010 at 8:26 PM

“First to Seven”

apollyonbob on March 23, 2010 at 8:02 PM

I’d watch that. Give OT an interesting twist.

exception on March 23, 2010 at 8:27 PM

I’d say that for the players, but not the sport. Small market teams really don’t have a chance anymore.

disillusioned on March 23, 2010 at 8:23 PM

While their chances are less they still have a chance. The Marlins, Rays and D-backs come to mind in recent history.

thomasaur on March 23, 2010 at 8:31 PM

bernzright777 on March 23, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Ouch!!

Gracelynn on March 23, 2010 at 8:35 PM

We’ll call it the Brett Favre rule.

PackerBronco on March 23, 2010 at 7:37 PM

No, the Brett Farve rule is to play until one team scores and declare them the winner. Then decide that, no were going to play some more OT. After the next team scores, declare that team the winner. After both teams shake hands and complete their prayer circle, decide that the OT has been extended. Continue until it becomes so ridiculous, that one team finally leaves the field in embarrassment and is declared the winner for finally ending the game.

Too complicated?

Mallard T. Drake on March 23, 2010 at 8:36 PM

That was a tough call: college rules, or Ron Paul.

John the Libertarian on March 23, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Wow.
This has definitely moved to the top of the list of things I couldn’t care less about.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on March 23, 2010 at 8:38 PM

College rules also mandate you go for two after TD’s starting with the third OT. That’s what makes those six-OT affairs ever wilder.

JammieWearingFool on March 23, 2010 at 8:39 PM

College rules?

That’s not even football.

uknowmorethanme on March 23, 2010 at 7:52 PM

At least in college they’re still playing for the love of the game, instead of the paycheck prima donnas posing in the thunderdome. And yes, I do know more than you.

John the Libertarian on March 23, 2010 at 8:39 PM

In a League where Fergie, Jennifer Lopez, et al can be owners of teams, yet Rush Limbaugh is denied the opportunity – we are in for more of this type of ‘fairness’ bullshinola.

A team can win a game during regulation, in the last seconds no less – with a filed goal – yet a field goal isn’t good enough to win the game completely, if it’s the first score in OT? Yet if it’s another score in OT it’s perfectly fine to win with a field goal?

Did Pelosi and Reid throw this travesty together too?

WTF?

catmman on March 23, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Also, what happens in the event of a safety?

The team whose defense score the safety gets two points, but then there’s this part of the rule:

Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period

That means the team who got the safety must send its offensive squad onto the field (if it hasn’t been on yet in the overtime) so it has a possesssion in overtime, too. Then the offense would logically take a knee on first down, to seal the victory.

Repeal it now!

Emperor Norton on March 23, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on March 23, 2010 at 8:38 PM

Yet you scrimped the time together to comment on it…

*heh*

catmman on March 23, 2010 at 8:41 PM

While their chances are less they still have a chance. The Marlins, Rays and D-backs come to mind in recent history.

thomasaur on March 23, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Statistically I guess everyone has a chance within a given year. Most small market teams have just become farm teams for 5 or 6 major league teams. Bring up a good player then trade him off for more prospects from the larger market teams. Maybe I’m just a disgruntled Pirates fan, but I’ve seen enough to become disheartened with baseball. The salary caps in the NFL at least keep 80% of teams contenders within a given year.

disillusioned on March 23, 2010 at 8:44 PM

Emperor Norton on March 23, 2010 at 8:40 PM

You sure about that? Wouldn’t that just be akin to a turnover and the game is over? I don’t see any point to that since the team that got the safety would have no need for a posession. And besides, if the team getting the ball first gets a TD, the game is over so there’s no mandatory two-possession rule.

JammieWearingFool on March 23, 2010 at 8:46 PM

LMAO! on the Ron Paul option. Good one AP.

All I know is when I watch the old football footage on the NFL Network, I wonder where has real football gone, and who stole it? I demand in the name of sheer decency someone give me back the football of old!

When we take back the country, act #150 for us should be to exile Roger G. and that pipsqueak who is head of the players union! UGH!

freeus on March 23, 2010 at 8:48 PM

They needed to change something. One Pass Interference call inside the 20 Yard line and the game (and season) is over. Pass Interference is a non-reviewable judgment call.

Refs shouldn’t be able to simply award a championship to one team or the other that easily.

Kohath on March 23, 2010 at 8:48 PM

I don’t see any point to that since the team that got the safety would have no need for a posession.

Yes, there’s no point to that, but this is the NFL. Rules are rules.

]if the team getting the ball first gets a TD, the game is over so there’s no mandatory two-possession rule.

For a touchdown, yes, the game is over. For a safety, it doesn’t say that.

Emperor Norton on March 23, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Why don’t they just play 24/7/365 with a winner declared every 15 mins? For armchair quarterbacks and advertisers it is a win/win.

Limerick on March 23, 2010 at 8:51 PM

The bucking fountry is in sudden death, so how this becomes a story is dubious. However, it’s really a great example of trickle down phoney baloney politically correct socialism where some paternal force pretends to keep things level so that one team doesn’t whine. It’s revolting, completely un-American, and has the fingerprints of thugbama’s goonion minions inside the NFL.

Next up: All curveballs and splitters to be thrown must be announced to MLB commissioner before the game.

Western_Civ on March 23, 2010 at 8:57 PM

Hey, why not have adjustable goal posts and make them smaller.

reaganaut on March 23, 2010 at 7:52 PM

I hadn’t seen this idea until today, but it’s starting to show up a lot and it’s probably my favorite along with adopting college rules (each team drives from the 25) or NBA (a set time period). If the reason for changing OT rules was due to FGs deciding sudden-death too often, why not just make FGs harder by narrowing the posts? The team would be forced to drive deeper, meaning on average more plays and thus more chances for turnovers (both actual and on downs).

LastRick on March 23, 2010 at 8:58 PM

If the score is tied after [both teams have a] possession, the team next scoring by any method shall be the winner.

for the safety. change of possession is inferred at the time of a turnover. scoring is after, not simultaneously.

disillusioned on March 23, 2010 at 8:59 PM

As long as we do it on camera and no Louisiana Purchases, no Cornhusker Kickbacks, no Gator-Aid, I’m okay with it.

TXUS on March 23, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Also, what happens in the event of a safety?

apollyonbob on March 23, 2010 at 8:02 PM

The game is over. The rule doesn’t say “both teams get a possession”, it states both teams must have “the opportunity for a possession”. So in cases of safeties or onside kicks, both teams had “an opportunity” and thus, any score ends it. IIRC Chris Mortensen covered this one on Twitter today.

LastRick on March 23, 2010 at 9:00 PM

The game is over. The rule doesn’t say “both teams get a possession”, it states both teams must have “the opportunity for a possession”. So in cases of safeties or onside kicks, both teams had “an opportunity” and thus, any score ends it. IIRC Chris Mortensen covered this one on Twitter today.

LastRick on March 23, 2010 at 9:00 PM

as for onside kicks, your comment isn’t in agreement with the second rule.

If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball. If [that team] scores a touchdown on its possession, it is the winner. If the score is tied after [both teams have a] possession, the team next scoring by any method shall be the winner.

disillusioned on March 23, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Come on… let’s be transparent. The real reason the NFL is changing the rules is so that they can sell more commercial time.

Kalifornia Kafir on March 23, 2010 at 9:20 PM

Great, let’s make football more complicated than filling out a tax form.

Scranton on March 23, 2010 at 9:21 PM

I don’t know my country anymore.

Miss me yet?

Paul Taglibleu

Oh, and GO TITANS GO!!!

TN Mom on March 23, 2010 at 9:36 PM

How about either play out the quarter, or play on a rebuttal system: You get a FG, I must match or overcome, or I lose. They’ve made this too complicated.

Repurblican on March 23, 2010 at 7:41 PM

I’m with you on this. I think each team should have an equal number of possesions to score.

Bizarro No. 1 on March 23, 2010 at 9:37 PM

I’m going to have to get a second job to pay for the extra beer…

TN Mom on March 23, 2010 at 9:40 PM

as for onside kicks, your comment isn’t in agreement with the second rule.

• If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball. [snip]

disillusioned on March 23, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Here’s the exact Tweet from Mort:

“Opportunity to possess, good example is team loses coin toss but recovers an onside kick. Then kicks FG. Game over. Receiving team blew it.”

In other words, if Team A kicks to Team B, who fails to recover, then Team A can win with a FG. Because Team B had an opportunity to possess, they just “blew it”. You don’t like that? Fine, you may have a point. But the way the rules are written, there is no guarantee to possess, so this is now how the onside kick works in OT.

LastRick on March 23, 2010 at 9:42 PM

They’ve made this too complicated.

Repurblican on March 23, 2010 at 7:41 PM

This is my biggest complaint as well. It’s too complicated, which means edge cases are bound to pop up over the years that make the league reconsider this rule. Woj at ESPN is right, most of us would agree the league needed to change OT rules, but they outsmarted themselves. Could have gone with college rules (both teams have to go equal length) or NBA rules (both teams have ample opportunities due to extra time). And either of them would be better than this.

LastRick on March 23, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Guys, I got a perfect solution: You kept the current rules, and then do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iapcKVn7DdY

Frank T.J Mackey on March 23, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Why not just play another quarter with regular rules?

RedbonePro on March 23, 2010 at 9:51 PM

Where have you gone Joe Dimaggio…..?

Okay, Jan Stenerud.

SteveMG on March 23, 2010 at 7:34 PM

As a Saints fan since the beginning one of the wildest aspects last season was seeing the kicker get the team into the Super Bowl.

But since you mention Jan, may I note that longtime New Orleans Saints kicker Morten “The Great Dane’ Andersen had stats that were equally impressive.

He’ll be eligible for the HOF in 2013. First ballot, I garontee.

Del Dolemonte on March 23, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Congrats on SB win SAINTS FAN. As a Hoosier and COLTS fan I voted to keep the current rule,though I am usually pissed when my team loses without a chance for a possesion and happy when we score and the other teams just out of luck. So goes the irrational thoughts of a NFL fan.

PTN 39 on March 23, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2