New OT Proposal

[Rids]

Apparently the recommendation from the Rules Committee is to make teams go for a 2 point convert in OT. I'm not in favor of it completely and think they should've either changed it to a new format or left it. This isn't necessarily going to happen and needs to be voted on.

http://tsn.ca/cfl/story/?id=312458

[cossack]

I like it. Single point converts are a given. Being forced to go for two is definitely more exciting than attempting a routine convert. I think that we'll see a few games decided by the two point convert if this is adopted.

[Karrant]

If there's a problem with the extra point being a boring and routine part of the game the problem doesn't just exist in OT. How can the removal of the extra point in overtime not be a threat to the continued existence of the extra point all together.

Makes me think Action Point.

[Rids]

What I don't like is that it just comes across as a gimmick, much like the NHL 4 on 4 OT does. If it's not good enough for the first 60 minutes of game time then it shouldn't be in the extra time.

[Ron]

I like it. It forces teams to not "play it safe" if they get a TD in their first possession. Now they also have to get the conversion to put real pressure on the other club.

As far as gimmicks go ... at one time the forward pass was just some dumb gimmick that the traditionalists thought was stupid to add. Worked out pretty good IMO.

[Dave in Korea]

It does come across as a gimmick tacked onto a gimmick . . . but it is a rather small additional gimmick.

I am disappointed that they're not looking at bringing special teams more completely into the OT format.

[cossack]

I like it. It forces teams to not "play it safe" if they get a TD in their first possession. Now they also have to get the conversion to put real pressure on the other club.

As far as gimmicks go ... at one time the forward pass was just some dumb gimmick that the traditionalists thought was stupid to add. Worked out pretty good IMO.

So you say that the forward pass was considered a gimmick. Just last week the Argos release all their quarterbacks. What aren't you telling us Ron?

[CFL in Quebec]

If there's a problem with the extra point being a boring and routine part of the game the problem doesn't just exist in OT. How can the removal of the extra point in overtime not be a threat to the continued existence of the extra point all together.

Makes me think Action Point.

Let the guy scoring the TD having to kick the extra point. OT or not !
That would make things interesting !

[Rids]

As far as gimmicks go ... at one time the forward pass was just some dumb gimmick that the traditionalists thought was stupid to add. Worked out pretty good IMO.

Yes but those forward passes were a risk since if they hit the ground they were considered a fumble. I can't think of any rule change (outside of ones that leagues went back to traditional rules) of the past 15 years in any pro sport that was just a TV gimmick and that I enjoyed seeing the change made.

[iso_55]

What I don't like is that it just comes across as a gimmick, much like the NHL 4 on 4 OT does. If it's not good enough for the first 60 minutes of game time then it shouldn't be in the extra time.

Good comment & I agree 110%.

[argolio]

Is this just for the regular season, or playoffs as well?

In this era where almost everyone wants to see a winner and ties are considered useless, this isn't much of a surprise. Could also make a difference to the end of regulation where teams are down by seven and then score a touchdown. They might be more tempted to decide things right there and go for two instead of risking overtime.

[Spellchecker]

Is this just for the regular season, or playoffs as well?

In this era where almost everyone wants to see a winner and ties are considered useless, this isn't much of a surprise. Could also make a difference to the end of regulation where teams are down by seven and then score a touchdown. They might be more tempted to decide things right there and go for two instead of risking overtime.

Everybody knows ties are like kissing your sister. Which makes losses like what? Kissing your wife? Ha ha. Just kidding Hun!

Mebbee wins are like kissing Zooey Deschanel.

[jazzace]

Forcing a two-point convert attempt would be awful — it takes a decent concept (drive the football to score) and perverts it (one 5-yard play each way decides it). I'd rather they eliminate the convert in OT than force a 2-pointer. I'd rather they time-limit the drives than force a 2-pointer. Almost any other idea would be better.

[B-17]

I still think taking the punt and kick return out of OT removes a key part of your special teams. Have the ball placed at the 15, the kicker punts from the goal line, cover team vs kick returner, can they keep them out of field goal range on the return? Right now, if Team A tries for and misses a FG, it is almost automatic that Team B will win with only minimal effort and no risk taking, when all they have to do is kick through the end zone for a single. Having the punt as part of OT means that there are is no automatic field position, it has to be earned. Plus, imagine if Team A blew it on their first possession, missed a FG and it was ran out. A coach might have the guts to even try the onside kick (especially against the wind), keeping one player back with the kicker who is then eligible. If they recover it first, they then force a second round of OT. The only rule would be that the ball has to be put into fair play (can't just fake the punt, or have the kicker try to run for a first down).