The NFL competition committee will soon be meeting to propose new rules that may completely revamp the overtime system as we know it.

The current set of rules that have been used since 1974 have been under scrutiny by many as being overly simplistic and unfair.

Though there are bigger opponents to the current system then myself, I think its deepest flaws resurfaced once again in the classic Vikings/Saints NFC Championship game last January.

This game was comprised of 60 hard-fought minutes by both sides, with the score tied at the end of regulation. The overtime began with the Saints winning the coin toss and choosing to receive the ball. Stringing together a couple big plays, they made their way into Viking’s territory, setting up the game-winning, 40-yard field goal.

Brett Favre and the Vikings offense sat on the bench and never even got a chance to answer.

My two big problems with the current system:

1) Too much emphasis on the coin toss

When the rules state that the first team who scores wins the game, a flip of a coin should not determine something of such great importance as a first offensive possession.

The reality is: When a team’s offensive unit is on the field first, they are playing to win the game. The opposing defensive unit is instantly put into the unenviable position of playing not to lose.

2) Kickers are given too much value:

With the OT rules as they are, a previously streaky kicker who happened to make a 40-yarder should not be responsible for ending a game and sending the opposing team packing, possibly even ending their season.

When an offense starts out and is able to initially move the ball against a defense, a good defense will tighten up near mid-field and become virtually seamless when the opponent is in the red zone.

Even when a field goal is given up, it’s often considered to be a small victory for the defense-bending, but not breaking.

A successfully kicked field goal in OT is not such a outstanding accomplishment whereas it alone should award a team the win, especially when no response is allowed by the opposition.

Consider this scenario that abides by the current overtime rules: Your team lost the coin toss and your defense is battling hard on the first series in OT. The opposing offense has put together a couple good plays, with a questionable roughing the passer call on third down which got them across mid-field. At this point your defense completely shuts them down, not allowing them to cross the 40. It’s fourth down. Out comes their kicker. You watch in shock as he sends a 57-yarder through the uprights, completely nullifying your good defensive stand. And what’s worse is, your league’s best offense, who has scored more touchdowns than anyone, isn’t even going to get a chance to respond. Game over.

The rewrite of the OT rules that is being considered would instantly end the game with any team scoring a touchdown .

If the team who first possesses the ball scores a field goal, the opposing team would get a chance to score a field goal. If the opposing team matches the field goal, then it turns into true “sudden-death” as the next team to score any points wins.

I see this as convoluted and not a significant upgrade to the excitement and fairness to the current OT rules.

My proposal:

1. The coin toss remains the same. The winner of toss chooses to defend or receive.

2. If you choose to receive and play offense, there are 3 possible outcomes:

•If you score a touchdown, you win the game.

•If you score a field goal, you will then have to give the opposing team one offensive possession. With this possession, a touchdown by the opposing team ends the game. A field goal would give the ball back to you, and the process would repeat…

•If you don’t score at all—you lose the game .
Let me explain this third scenario, as it is the difference maker that adds fairness and excitement.

First off, there is no punting option for the offense. You either score or you lose. If the defense prevents you from scoring any points on that one possession, they win the game. This adds great importance to the decision of the coin-toss winner. It requires the hopefully competent coach to analyze the strengths and weakness of themselves and the opposition.

Breaking down the decision:

You choose to receive —You have confidence in your offense being more superior than their defense. While the ultimate goal is to score a touchdown, you need to be completely sure you can score a field goal, otherwise the game is over. The coach’s/coordinator’s play-calling strategy is based on their offense having all four downs at their disposal since punting is not an option.

You choose to defend —You have confidence in your defense being more superior than their offense. The ultimate goal is to not allow them to score at all, thus winning the game for you. But you must be confident that your defense won’t give up a touchdown—otherwise it’s over. Giving up a field goal is acceptable, but not desirable as now you must rely on your offense to at least match it on their next possession.

Imagine a matchup with last season’s Colts and Jets teams, and you’re Jet’s coach Rex Ryan. Regulation has ended with a tie, and you’ve won the toss. With my OT rules, the decision after the coin toss is not clear cut.

Though you have the best defense in football, do you really want to give Peyton Manning the chance to beat you? He can end it with one TD pass.

But if your defense can be motivated for this one series, they may be able to shut down the Colts offense and win the game for you.

But your defense had a shaky final quarter and looks tired. And if your defense does allow a field goal, are you sure your offense can at least match it?

Maybe you should choose to receive, as you think Indy’s defense is even more exhausted than yours.

Edwards has been burning the young Colts CB—do you hand it over to an offense with the best running attack in the league, but with a rookie quarterback with little experience with pressure situations? Remember, you need at least a field goal to keep the game going. And Thomas Jones has struggled today…etc., etc.

The scenarios and storylines would be fascinating. This is a much more exciting style of overtime play.

The decision to kick or receive would be just that—an actual decision that stresses the skill level of your coach.

It brings that college football overtime excitement, while still retaining regular elements of regulation play.

Every play on offense and defense will have huge implications and carry a great sense of urgency.

It also presents an opportunity for the defense to literally win a game (other than by scoring a safety or TD off a turnover).

The kicker’s importance is there, but significantly watered down, as he cannot win games with a single kick. He can only extend the game with a successful kick, or lose it with a miss. Kickers will be utilized less, since the teams on offense have a higher motive for scoring a touchdown for the win. This finally eliminates the ridiculousness of a field goal being just as valuable as a touchdown in OT play.

With these rules, I don’t see anything but significant improvements to the fairness, strategy, and excitement of the overtime period. I’m interested to hear comments dealing with strong points and flaws.

-craiglutterguitar.com