For a league that's supposedly not actively doing any business until later this week, it's sure been a busy time in the NFL. As usual, players are getting traded (or vetoing trades!) and released left and right, even though this is all technically unofficial until the league year opens. And once the league year does start, they'll vote on nine rules changes that have been proposed by different teams.
It's interesting that the Competition Committee didn't propose any rule changes, while the teams put nine forward. The likelihood of them all passing seems very slim. Seeing as they need 75 percent support, I wouldn't be surprised if none of them pass. But that doesn't mean they aren't worthy of the discussion. Especially the proposal made by the Chiefs.
Kansas City, of course, never touched the ball in overtime in the AFC Championship Game. New England won the toss, Brady did what he does, and they were in the Patriots Game yet again. Just like in Patriots Game LI, when they won the overtime coin toss and Atlanta never touched the ball.
The Chiefs would like to see that changed. In fact, they've proposed three different changes to overtime. The first is that each team get a possession regardless. The second is getting rid of overtime in the preseason. And the third is eliminating the overtime coin toss. Instead, the team that won the opening coin toss would get the same choice they get at the start of the game.
Proposal No. 2 shouldn't ruffle any feathers at all. Preseason games are stupid to begin with. The fact that they play overtime in them is even dumber. What difference does it really make if they end in a tie? None whatsoever! (They don't even play extra innings in Spring Training baseball games most of the time.) And there's no new regular season overtime rule to get used to, which would be the only reason preseason overtime would make any degree of sense. So, basically, what I'm saying here is that preseason overtime is completely unnecessary and should've been eliminated a long time ago.
That's the only non-controversial part of their proposal, though. Everyone knows the one about possession is a direct reaction to the AFC Championship Game. I'd even say it's an overreaction. Except that on the surface, they have a point. Whoever won the coin toss was going to win that game, and a coin toss shouldn't determine who goes to the Super Bowl. Especially in an era so heavily skewed to favor the offense, it seems to make more sense to allow both offenses a chance to score.
After all, the current rule was implemented after a field goal on the opening drive of overtime in the NFC Championship Game sent the Saints to the Super Bowl over Brett Favre's Vikings. The next year, they changed it so that a first-possession field goal didn't do it. It had to be a touchdown or the other team would get the ball. If they match you, it reverts to sudden death.
Virtually everyone agrees that this method is better than the old one. However, it still has its flaws. Mainly, the fact that winning the coin toss still, more often than not, determines the winner of the game. And that's something that should never be left to chance! That's probably why the Chiefs want to get rid of the coin toss, too. But if both teams are guaranteed to get the ball either way, that change would be completely unnecessary. (That part of the proposal has absolutely no chance of passing, so I'm not going to waste my time talking about it.)
What Kansas City's proposing is basically a hybrid of the current system and the college overtime rule, which is far superior to the NFL's version. Although, I'd recommend one slight adjustment. After the first possession, you have to go for two. That would, theoretically, make the game end quicker than if they kept trading touchdowns and extra points.
There probably isn't enough traction for it to pass. (It only requires nine "No" votes from the owners to strike it down.) The networks probably won't want it, and it could potentially lead to more tie games in the regular season (especially after their idiotic decision two years ago to cut regular season overtime to 10 minutes, which might only give each team one possession as it is). But the fact that they're going to talk about it represents progress. Even if those talks don't go very far.
Most of the other proposals involve replay. Some make sense and seem like no-brainers. Others are a little more controversial. But the fact that there are so many teams making recommendations to adjust the instant replay rules speaks volumes. Clearly it's not working right now. The whole point of instant replay is to get calls right, yet there have been too many calls that officials have gotten wrong, but no one could do anything about it since the play wasn't reviewable. All the teams want is for them to get those calls right. If it means expanding replay, so be it.
Denver was one of the teams that made a replay proposal, but the Broncos' other proposal was interesting. The new kickoff rules last season make it virtually impossible to recover an onside kick...which, by extension, make it nearly impossible for the team that's trailing to come back late in games. They'd like to give that chance back by getting rid of the onside kick altogether. Instead, teams would attempt what amounts to a 4th-and-long play, and if they get a first down, they keep the ball.
This isn't a novel idea. It's actually one of the rules in the we-don't-need-kickers AAF. And teams would almost certainly have a better conversion rate on fourth-and-whatever than they do on onside kicks under the current rule. It's a little gimmicky, which is the reason why I'm lukewarm about it. But, in lieu of adjusting the kickoff rules so that teams actually have a chance of recovering an onside kick again (which seems unlikely), it's not completely terrible. I still don't think it'll pass, but I like where it's coming from.
Some of the replay changes will likely pass. So will the Chiefs' idea to get rid of preseason overtime. As for the others, we'll have to wait and see. I don't think either the overtime change or the onside kick change will garner enough support. But I wouldn't hate it if they did pass.
No comments:
Post a Comment