The League

NFL News Feed

Coaches criticize owners' OT vote

UPDATED (1:31 p.m.)...

ORLANDO, Fla.--Several coaches were critical of the process by which the league's franchise owners voted Tuesday to change the sport's overtime format in postseason games.

The vote was taken Tuesday afternoon, a day sooner than originally expected, with the coaches not present.

"It's always interesting," New Orleans Saints Coach Sean Payton said Wednesday at the NFC coaches' breakfast at the annual league meeting. "Typically there's been a good process.... There's a Wednesday vote. There's a Tuesday discussion. There's a Monday informational, regardless of who's for it, who's against it. That [vote] kind of got slipped in the back door. That's a taste you have in your mouth that's bitter. I'm against it. I hate the policy. I don't want to have to explain this. My sister is just getting to understand the [instant replay] challenge system."

Many coaches were on a golf outing when the owners voted, 28-4, to ratify the overtime proposal made by the NFL's competition committee.

"That's how it was done," Payton said. "It was a little surprising to everyone. We had just had lunch with Arnold Palmer and were coming back to the building. The system we have, with the number of votes required, is healthy. It just caught a lot of people off guard, the way it was done, which tells me there was not a lot of confidence it would get done if it was done on the normal itinerary. That's interesting."

Minnesota Vikings Coach Brad Childress said at the coaches' breakfast: "With the seven or eight guys I was playing golf with yesterday, I would characterize it as surprised, to get e-mails and texts saying the vote was done. We thought we would come back to talk about it more today. The word transparency comes to mind."

The Vikings were one of the four teams to vote against the measure, even though they lost the NFC title game to the Saints on a field goal on the opening possession of overtime. The new system eliminates the possibility of a team winning a postseason game with a field goal on the opening possession of overtime.

"I didn't think it would go in a different direction, necessarily," Childress said Wednesday. "It's just the process, that's all."

The Baltimore Ravens, Cincinnati Bengals and Buffalo Bills also voted against the proposal.

The measure needed 24 votes among the 32 teams to be ratified.

Not all coaches expressed objections to the voting process.

"I think there was a lot of discussion about the rule," Arizona Cardinals Coach Ken Whisenhunt said Wednesday. "I knew there was a consensus that this was something that was good for the game. I don't have an issue with it."

According to The Post's Rick Maese, Washington Redskins Coach Mike Shanahan called the new overtime system "a good change."

Shanahan said at the coaches' breakfast: "One thing that you have as a commissioner--and I think you have to do it as a guy in charge--you know how people feel in certain situations about the game. And sometimes as a coach, you're the guy that they probably should talk to at the end of the conversation and not at the beginning because coaches, they get so tunneled into their game. They don't like change."

Tennessee Titans Coach Jeff Fisher, the co-chairman of the competition committee, defended the voting process and said his coaching peers had their chances to be heard on the subject during the three-day league meeting.

"We discussed it Sunday evening," Fisher said. "We discussed it Monday morning. Coaches had plenty of opportunities to voice their opinions.... The bottom line is, our owners are going to vote.... It's their call."

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell expressed similar sentiments.

"We had a full discussion yesterday morning with the coaches in the room, and the owners heard it," Goodell said. "It's no secret that certain owners may have a different view from their coaches. This might not come as a news flash, but the owners have the vote."

Goodell said the proposal still would have been approved even with the coaches in the room. Goodell said that he and many owners had been told by fans that fans believed the existing overtime rule was unfair.

"The ownership felt that this was good for the game and good for the fans," Goodell said. "... I think it will be received very well by the fans."

Coaches continued to say that they new system will change the strategy of coaching in overtime. A team that has the ball first might keep its offense on the field for a fourth-down gamble rather than attempt a field goal, knowing that its opponent would get the ball after a field goal and have a chance to win with a touchdown.

"On fourth and short, that's going to create a big decision for you," Whisenhunt said.

Under the new system, the team that gets the ball first in overtime can win the game with a touchdown. If that team gets a field goal, the other club gets a possession and can win the game with a touchdown or tie it with a field goal. If it gets a tying field goal, the game is sudden death from there. If neither team scores on its first possession of overtime, the game proceeds on a sudden-death basis.

Competition committee members said they proposed the rule because of a 16-year trend in which the team that got the ball first in overtime had come to win a significantly higher percentage of the games.

Regular season games, at least for now, will continue to be played under the current overtime system, in which a coin flip determines which team gets possession first and the first team to score wins.

The NFL Players Association contends that the new overtime system must be collectively bargained with the union.

By Mark Maske  |  March 24, 2010; 8:48 AM ET  | Category:  League Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: NFL changes overtime system for postseason games | Next: Union contends new OT system must be collectively bargained


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Hello,everybody,the good shoping place,the new year approaching, click in. Let's facelift bar!
===== HTTP:// ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33


Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35

Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25


Posted by: linjian76 | March 24, 2010 1:42 PM

Sounds like a good and reasonable idea to me. It ought to be extended to regular season too.

Players, you over-paid babies, STOP the bellyacheing!! If you don't like the way things are run , even though the lowest paid of the bunch of you get 100K +, then quit and form your own league.
Fans are SICK of having to pay hundreds of dollars to attend a stinking 3 hours sport event frought with $6 hotdogs, $7. beer, $25 parking , etc.

Posted by: pd2710 | March 24, 2010 11:09 AM

I like the proposed rule change, but I would tweak it to say that if a team gives up a field goal on the opening possession, then they must score enough points on their "response" drive to win the game. In other words, they would not be allowed to continue the game by kicking a FG; they must score a TD. This would not only give them their opportunity to win the game, but it will guarantee that the game won't continue to drag on after an initial score. Then the players can't really complain of the added injury potential because it's just one more drive, not a potential entire OT period.

Posted by: octopi213 | March 24, 2010 11:06 AM

They should make it like free kicks in soccer! Five 50-yard fields goals per kicker, with special teams in there to try and block it. LOL

Posted by: jimwest20 | March 24, 2010 11:02 AM

No overtime, no coin toss. If regulation time ends with the score tied, the team that reached the miximum score first wins. Reward the team that got there first and make the trailing team play for the win, not for overtime. Even TV should like that--still plenty of drama, maybe with 2 point conversion attempts as the clock runs out, and but with less last-minute schedule-juggling.

Posted by: EdRigdon | March 24, 2010 10:57 AM

In the news article in the Post today, they point out that before the kick-off was moved back to the 30 yard line, overtime was won in exactly equal percentages by the winner and loser of the toss.

Why not just kick off from the 35 yard line during overtime? They have tons of data to show what the result will be. Who knows what the outcome of this experiment will be?

Posted by: rick5 | March 24, 2010 9:53 AM

I favor changing the overtime rule but I voted to disapprove of the way they did change it.

It should be simple. The overtime should be played by the normal rules of the game (except all replays should come from the box). Whoever is ahead after both teams have had the ball an equal number of possessions should be the winner.

It's so obvious. Why would they even consider anything else?

Posted by: FergusonFoont | March 24, 2010 9:37 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company