Sean Payton suspended for 2012, Tebow a Jet

[Gothamite]

It's certainly possible that any high-profile game that ended in OT with a dynamic QB denied a single snap could have brought the issue to a head.

Of course that situation is still possible, though not on a field goal.

Which is why I don't like the new rules. They add another level of complexity, without really addressing the issue everybody seems so concerned about.

I have two central problems with the new OT rules, one is complexity. It is relatively easy for football fans to understand, but how easy is it for the casual football watcher to follow? The other issue is its still a compromise, and you don't often fix the problems caused by one compromise with another compromise. Eventually some problem will come to light with the new OT rules, some team will feel slighted by a happening it causes.

Exactly. You've summed it up perfectly.

I happen to like the "sudden death" format. But if that's no longer preferable, then I think they should just play a full 15-minute overtime period. Easy to understand, fair for all.

[BlueSky]

I"m not sure I agree with the notion that the rule wouldn't have changed if it went against the Saints. There's no way to say that with any certainty, especially since, as OnWis said, the subject of an OT rule change had already been floating out there for years.

It's certainly possible that any high-profile game that ended in OT with a dynamic QB denied a single snap could have brought the issue to a head.

Of course that situation is still possible, though not on a field goal.

I have two central problems with the new OT rules, one is complexity. It is relatively easy for football fans to understand, but how easy is it for the casual football watcher to follow? The other issue is its still a compromise, and you don't often fix the problems caused by one compromise with another compromise. Eventually some problem will come to light with the new OT rules, some team will feel slighted by a happening it causes.

As for speculation on the Saints-Vikes game fallout, agreed, there's no way to know. I'm basing my opinion on all the media whining and hand-wringing that went on afterwards which sounded a lot like what you wrote (I mean no offense, that's just a fact). So if it wasn't a "dynamic" or "Hall of Fame" QB, it would've been okay? Favre, Brady, or Manning, it's a travesty; Alex Smith or Trent Dilfer, oh well, sucks to be you? Those rules had been in place for decades.

On the complexity, interesting point. I think it was on NFL Network's Sound FX where they showed a Bronco sitting on the bench after their OT TD against Pittsburgh and he didn't realize they'd won until another player explained it. When the players don't understand the rules, yes, there may be a problem.

[Gothamite]

But then again, Donovan McNabb didn't understand the old overtime rules, so maybe players aren't the best example there, any more than they should be allowed to evaluate uniforms.

As for what I wrote, I was trying to illustrate the tone of the coverage. Frankly, I think if Brees had been on the other side that might have been enough to motivate a re-evaluation as well.

And yes, dramatic events tend to spur innovation. We see it all the time, in sports and in every other facet of life. Unfair? Sure. But so's existence.

[HedleyLamarr]

Not allowing both offenses on the field in a league where the game is ever-increasingly engineered to favor the offense is more and more like ending a baseball game in the top of the tenth inning. If defenses were relevant to the modern NFL beyond getting popped for taking bounty money from a felon, then maybe I could see the merit of sudden death, but they aren't, and such is life, so bring on the in-my-day-nineteen-dickety-garble-garble that BlueSky seems to drive a veritable dump truck full of.

Did the Kaiser take away the word twenty?

[Saintsfan]

The only solution to the OT one possession fairness issue is really quite simple. Play overtime without a clock. (Have a play clock but no game clock). Teams then alternate possessions as if they were innings in baseball. When a pair of possessions is over with one team winning, the game is over.

[tBBP]

Okay...except what if neither team scores after, say, 20 minutes? 25 minutes? In say, the twelfth game of the season?

(And bear in mind this is the same league that's now pushing player safety hard...pretty sure they wouldn't want their most valued assets running around out there during an untimed extra period. Or at least I would hope.)

[Saintsfan]

Okay...except what if neither team scores after, say, 20 minutes? 25 minutes? In say, the twelfth game of the season?

(And bear in mind this is the same league that's now pushing player safety hard...pretty sure they wouldn't want their most valued assets running around out there during an untimed extra period. Or at least I would hope.)

Well in regular season play give them 1 possesion each, maybe 2 max. Then call it a tie.

[Epiphanic]

Pfft....if you're gonna have overtime, you play til there's a winner. 5 minutes, 20 minutes, whatever. Ties are fine, but only after regulation. If you're going to the effort to play extra to determine a winner, determine a winner. They have subs for a reason.

[BBTV]

The only solution to the OT one possession fairness issue is really quite simple. Play overtime without a clock. (Have a play clock but no game clock). Teams then alternate possessions as if they were innings in baseball. When a pair of possessions is over with one team winning, the game is over.

This is essentially the college rule, and starting at some set point is really the only fair way to "alternate possessions".

I happen to really like the college rule, so that's cool with me. I would like to see the possessions start from farther away though (maybe your own 40 or something) but with the strength of today's kicking game, I doubt that a game would remain tied for very many possessions.

[BlueSky]

The only solution to the OT one possession fairness issue is really quite simple. Play overtime without a clock. (Have a play clock but no game clock). Teams then alternate possessions as if they were innings in baseball. When a pair of possessions is over with one team winning, the game is over.

This is essentially the college rule, and starting at some set point is really the only fair way to "alternate possessions".

I happen to really like the college rule, so that's cool with me. I would like to see the possessions start from farther away though (maybe your own 40 or something) but with the strength of today's kicking game, I doubt that a game would remain tied for very many possessions.

Start the possessions with a kickoff instead of a fixed line of scrimmage. That gives the best of the college system without losing the special teams element and excitement of kickoffs. It would also add an incentive to go for it on 4th down. Say it's 4th and 12 at your own 45, why not go for it if you know you'll be kicking off anyway instead of turning the ball over?

[Saintsfan]

The only solution to the OT one possession fairness issue is really quite simple. Play overtime without a clock. (Have a play clock but no game clock). Teams then alternate possessions as if they were innings in baseball. When a pair of possessions is over with one team winning, the game is over.

This is essentially the college rule, and starting at some set point is really the only fair way to "alternate possessions".

I happen to really like the college rule, so that's cool with me. I would like to see the possessions start from farther away though (maybe your own 40 or something) but with the strength of today's kicking game, I doubt that a game would remain tied for very many possessions.

Start the possessions with a kickoff instead of a fixed line of scrimmage. That gives the best of the college system without losing the special teams element and excitement of kickoffs. It would also add an incentive to go for it on 4th down. Say it's 4th and 12 at your own 45, why not go for it if you know you'll be kicking off anyway instead of turning the ball over?

The only issue I have with that idea is that teams might be prepared to essentially defend the goal line, lose three points and go for a TD, rather than playing field position.

But as we've already discussed there probably is no perfect solution.

[Fox]

I've always wished that overtime in the NFL was not sudden death. I would much prefer to see one extra quarter, or if that's too much, maybe 10 minutes. If it's still tied after that, play another quarter. Football is a game with a clock, I don't like how that element is almost completely taken out of the equation when overtime begins.

[HedleyLamarr]

Football is a game with a clock, I don't like how that element is almost completely taken out of the equation when overtime begins.

Same thing can be said for hockey....

[The_Admiral]

Start the possessions with a kickoff instead of a fixed line of scrimmage. That gives the best of the college system without losing the special teams element and excitement of kickoffs. It would also add an incentive to go for it on 4th down. Say it's 4th and 12 at your own 45, why not go for it if you know you'll be kicking off anyway instead of turning the ball over?

This is what I've always felt. College overtime Gets It but for the weird arbitrary starting line.

Football is a game with a clock, I don't like how that element is almost completely taken out of the equation when overtime begins.

Same thing can be said for hockey....

But hockey is an inherently flawed game such that it can be most easily hijacked by Doing Nothing in ways that football and basketball with play clocks and shot clocks can't. This isn't to say those aren't subverted, mind you, oh dear god not at all, just that hockey is capable of taking the absence of play to terrifying new lows. Left to their own devices, hockey coaches would--and do!--turn every game into catatonic foosball if there's a half-win in it for them. Distilling the game to its purest element is the only way you can get these people to complete a goddamn task.

[HedleyLamarr]

But hockey is an inherently flawed game such that it can be most easily hijacked by Doing Nothing in ways that football and basketball with play clocks and shot clocks can't. This isn't to say those aren't subverted, mind you, oh dear god not at all, just that hockey is capable of taking the absence of play to terrifying new lows. Left to their own devices, hockey coaches would--and do!--turn every game into catatonic foosball if there's a half-win in it for them. Distilling the game to its purest element is sometimes the only way you can get these people to complete a goddamn task.

In their Super Bowl year, the Ravens went five weeks without scoring an offensive touchdown, and went like 3-2 or 4-1 during that stretch.

You can "trap" your way to a championship in football, too.....

[The_Admiral]

I don't feel that a dominant football defense is analogous to a dominant hockey defense (though that Tampa-2 is cutting it close), y'know, back when dominant football defenses hadn't been legislated away. Part of that is because football is kind of in between baseball and basketball/hockey in that it's measured in time but also in attempts and field position and so forth, so that we can break down a game with the 2000 Ravens by pointing out that they just straight-up punished the offense on this play and that play and so on, whereas within the fluidity of hockey, the 2000 Devils just kinda clogged the middle of the ice for a long time and not much really happened to all but the most learned NZT enthusiasts. "Did you see the way Brodeur dug it out of the corner after they made Modano dump it in? Poetry in motion!"

[HedleyLamarr]

Tony Siragusa would squat over the other team's QB.

How the hell is that not a form of NZT?

[The_Admiral]

Because it's a big fat guy sitting on you. At least it's a distinct event constituting some fort of dominance. "Hey, look! F-ckin' fatass just sat on the guy!" Like I said, the closer analogy is the Tony Dungy/Lovie Smith bend-but-don't-break defense where you let the other team keep gobbling up yards and settle for a field goal unless you manage to strip the ball from them first.

[BBTV]

The only solution to the OT one possession fairness issue is really quite simple. Play overtime without a clock. (Have a play clock but no game clock). Teams then alternate possessions as if they were innings in baseball. When a pair of possessions is over with one team winning, the game is over.

This is essentially the college rule, and starting at some set point is really the only fair way to "alternate possessions".

I happen to really like the college rule, so that's cool with me. I would like to see the possessions start from farther away though (maybe your own 40 or something) but with the strength of today's kicking game, I doubt that a game would remain tied for very many possessions.

Start the possessions with a kickoff instead of a fixed line of scrimmage. That gives the best of the college system without losing the special teams element and excitement of kickoffs. It would also add an incentive to go for it on 4th down. Say it's 4th and 12 at your own 45, why not go for it if you know you'll be kicking off anyway instead of turning the ball over?

Well that would certainly be the most fair way to do it, as it keeps the special teams in play, but the thing is that you have to set it up so that there will be some scoring. Having alternating kickoffs could too easily ensure an endless game (even given the extra offense that would be generated by teams using their 4th down for a play instead of a punt.) That's one of the reasons the college system is so exciting IMO (I don't watch college football, but if I hear a game is in OT I'll try to find it on TV and watch) - there's always a score and the drama of watching the other team try to counter. It may be a little analogous to the shootout in hockey in that there are elements of the game that are removed at the end, but I think that starting at an advanced line would be a better solution.

[CS85]

Guessing this is about as close as it gets, but yeah.

Here's this:

The U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Louisiana was told Friday that New Orleans Saints general manager Mickey Loomis had an electronic device in his Superdome suite that had been secretly re-wired to enable him to eavesdrop on visiting coaching staffs for nearly three NFL seasons, "Outside the Lines" has learned.

Sources familiar with Saints game-day operations told "Outside the Lines" that Loomis, who faces an eight-game suspension from the NFL for his role in the recent bounty scandal, had the ability to secretly listen for most of the 2002 season, his first as general manager of the Saints, and all of the 2003 and 2004 seasons. The sources spoke with "Outside the Lines" under the condition of anonymity because of fear of reprisals from members of the Saints organization.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7846290/new-orleans-saints-mickey-loomis-eavesdrop-opposing-coaches-home-games