Happened in the Saints game this weekend. Brees had the ball knocked out of his hand, one official blew a whistle for an incomplete pass, the ball bounced around a bit, and the Lions recovered. If that was a fumble with no whistle, they’d have scored on the return. If it was an incomplete pass, Saints should have kept the ball. The officials huddled, and awarded the Lions the ball at the point of recovery.
Yep, happens all the time, which is why I don’t understand why in a very clear case they kept it in the Steelers favor.
Except that the Steelers always get the favorable calls, that is. It’s funny because Steeler fans deny this entirely, or even think they’re on the wrong end of the majority of calls, but pretty much everyone who’s not a steeler fan, even if they have no particular hate for the steelers, can see it.
I’m still laughing that Tebow beat the Steelers in the exact way that everybody said he was incapable of doing - with his arm. 
You’re right, I’ll blame my faulty memory
You may have been thinking of 2007. Favre threw an interception in overtime against the Giants in the conference championship.
The stated reason wasn’t Favre but Peyton. The league felt it needed a change when Peyton got knocked out of the playoffs without touching the ball in overtime when the Chargers pulled off the “cheapo” two passes and a FG technique.
How that’s any more or less unfair than Tebow’s one-and-done passing TD I’ll never know. I will go to my grave feeling that OT should be sudden death. If it’s unfairly weighted toward the coin toss winners that’s only because rules have been implemented to favor the offense. Fix the root of the problem, not the symptom.
I think anyone can be excused for believing Favre threw an interception.
Seemed very strange. Is there some obscure rule that can be interpreted: “We really shouldn’t have blown a whistle, so you Lions can have the ball, but can’t advance it.” ?
That was one of the games that caused people to question the OT rules (I recall Peter King particularly), but the Chargers didn’t win on a FG; it was a Sproles touchdown.
True. And under the new rules, the game still would have ended without Manning touching the ball.
I’m not entirely convinced with the new rules. I don’t particularly care either way - either you actually give each side an actual possession or you keep the OT rules the same as the regular season. This halfway nonsense serves no real purpose.
I like the way overtime works in college football. Each team gets at least one possession, and you have to not only score but stop the other team to win.
I think the reason for the decision in the Saints’ case was that the head ref knew on the field that it was a fumble. You see him immediately throw his beanbag at the fumble spot. The head linesman blows his whistle, negating the return, but not the fumble itself. Clear recovery=Lions ball.
For how much they harp on first year officials not blowing their whistles too soon, it’s amazing to see how damn quick they are in the NFL when they all KNOW things can be overturned.
I hate it. It’s like a contrived version of not-quite-football.
If it were up to me, I’d just keep adding 15 minute periods. Not sudden death, just 15 minutes of extra time with an alternating kickoff at the beginning of each extra period. Whoever’s ahead when the clock hits 00:00 wins.
The wear and tear of too many OT games makes just playing full periods infeasible. I don’t like the college rule of just placing the ball on the 25 but like the equal possessions. The least disruptive but at least marginally satisfactory compromise would be for each team to be guaranteed at least one offensive play. I wouldn’t quibble with receiving a kick being an offensive play for this purpose (fumble a kick-off after the other team scored, you are done.)
That’s brutal, and it sounds like a fine way to get a lot of kids hurt. This isn’t a bloodsport. The short field OT system works fine and makes it exciting. The stakes are high because of the field length, and you have a distinct change in tactics and strategy. If you start piling on 5th and 6th quarters, I bet you end up with somebody dying on the field eventually.
Then win the game in regulation. I don’t really have much of a problem with the sudden death format either - they’ve already had 60 minutes of alternating possessions. If a team didn’t do enough with those, that’s on them.
That’s why the college OT system is good. You WILL end up with a winner, even in an otherwise deadlocked game. And it’s not “not quite football.” It’s still very much football, but it’s modified in an interesting way. YMMV.
(bolding mine)
That’s exactly why I hate it. Why would you decide a playoff football game based on something that’s different from the way the game is generally played?
Because it’s a special circumstance. Can’t have a tie. Nobody wants a tie. And it’s not different from the way the game is generally played. It’s the way the game is played, because it’s in the rules and everybody knows to be prepared for it.
Because it didn’t get decided in regulation, and you’ve got to do something that will decide a winner, as fairly as possible, without excessive risk of injury.
Interesting that everyone seems to have amnesia regarding this topic. We debated it to death along with the rest of the internet when it was debuted last year around this time. The reason the regular season is different from the playoffs is almost entirely due to TV time constraints. OT games screw up the ability of the TV networks to shift from early to late games and an extended OT would create far too many logistical issues for broadcasters that would end up leaving everyone pissed off.
The new rules are in the playoffs because the TV rules are more flexible and the perceived fairness of the outcome is far more important. A 15 minutes overtime period might be considered to be more “true” and appealing to purists but it would not be worth a damn if the entire country weren’t able to watch it due to TV contracts. Plus it’d make the lip service paid to injury prevention even more hypocritical.