NFL Overtime Rules: Change Coming?
by Tim on Mar 3, 2010 8:59 AM CST
in News
90 comments
You've probably read about it elsewhere, but I'm curious to see what BRB thinks of the proposed change to the NFL's overtime rules (although said change is currently only being discussed for playoff games, which is patently absurd). In relevant part:
Under the new format, both teams would get the ball at least once unless the first team to get the ball scores a touchdown, Greg Aiello said. If the first team to get the ball makes a field goal and the other team ties the game, action would continue until a team scores again.
While this is an improvement over the current sudden death system, it still doesn't ensure that both teams will get to touch the ball in overtime. Thus, I'd be in favor of tweaking it even further. If Team A wins the coin flip and scores a TD, Team B should have the opportunity to score a TD to keep the game going. That doesn't necessarily mean the NFL needs to adopt the college overtime practice of each team starting at its opponent's 25-yard line; I'd keep kickoffs, punts, and returns in play.
What say you? Vote in the poll below and justify your stance in the Comments.
0 recs |
90 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I say set it up like the college system. Its the only fair system out there. And if you want to change it up, because the NFL can’t be like college, then have them start on the 50 and make a 2-point conversion mandatory from the start.
Miss-placed Houstonian living and going to school in the wilderness of Wyoming. Fresno St. 28 - Wyoming 35 (2 OT)!!! Hands down best game I have ever been to.
How is the Sudden Death unfair?
If the team A gets the ball and team B can’t stop them from scoring, team B shouldn’t be awarded with a chance to win the game.
That’s why you build a balanced team.
Well in that case, why not just change the whole game to be whoever scores first wins? The game is pretty fair for the first 60 minutes and then skews way off in favor of a coin flip in the last 15.
This guy said it much better than I could and also uses some stats to back it up.
If you are too lazy to click I’ll give you a small run down.
“From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one (I believe), the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once).”
“The dreaded ‘lose-the-coin-toss-never-touch-the-ball’ scenario happened in 37 out of the 124 OT periods, or about 30% of all overtime games.”
He is also in favor of a college style OT in case you were wondering.
Miss-placed Houstonian living and going to school in the wilderness of Wyoming. Fresno St. 28 - Wyoming 35 (2 OT)!!! Hands down best game I have ever been to.
I've read that before.
I see why you think it’s unfair.
But a 50-50 chance to obtain possession sounds pretty fair to me.
I agree the coin flip is fair. I just think it should be used to decide which end of the field to play on and who gets the ball first rather than a 30% chance of deciding who wins the game.
Miss-placed Houstonian living and going to school in the wilderness of Wyoming. Fresno St. 28 - Wyoming 35 (2 OT)!!! Hands down best game I have ever been to.
The college OT system is a terrible joke. Special teams is a part of professional football and it always should be. Kickoffs are necessary. The field position battle is necessary. Having to fight for possesion is necessary. The game clock is necessary.
Innings just have no place in football.
Fair system? What’s so wrong with regulation ties counting as ties? At least during the regular season?
And what’s so wrong with having to rely on your defense, in a sudden death overtime? Time is up now, it’s the very end of the game… it’s crunch time… just stop the other team,.. or else!
What’s next? A poll, or a computer formula, to decide the Super Bowl champion?
Let’s leave all this “fair play” garbage to the tee-ball leagues and other amateur sports.
any given Sunday
Special teams? Come on now. I personally could care less about seeing those teams, mostly filled with back up players, on the field during OT. Yes they are necessary and a huge part of the game but this is OT and a revised version of the game must suffice in order to determine a winner. The first thing I would throw out is special teams.
The way you feel about innings in football is the way I feel about ties in general. This isn’t soccer. Ties are bullshit, IMO. You either win or lose, bottom line end of discussion.
And whats wrong with relying on your d to hold? That would be fine a few years ago, but can no longer be the case. With all the new rule changes that make it harder for a d to stop anyone, it is an unfair advantage. Yes, it does happen as evidenced by the Eagle having a tie the year before last (I forget who they played), but I still think it is too easy to pick up a few first downs and kick a 40+ yard field goal.
And sure why not have a computer decide the Super Bowl champion. Then I can hack in every year and the Texans can be champs. In all seriousness, I don’t agree with everything the NCAA does concerning football. One thing I do like and would like to see at the NFL level is their OT rules in place.
Miss-placed Houstonian living and going to school in the wilderness of Wyoming. Fresno St. 28 - Wyoming 35 (2 OT)!!! Hands down best game I have ever been to.
"end of discussion"... yes, if you say so...
I’m about as thrilled by tied results, as anyone else would be. But if a tied game is the final, true, outcome of a completed regulation contest?….. Well, if the shoe fits…
Why even mention soccer, though? Tie games have been a part of organized tackle football throughout its history, and as you had already pointed out, they still are! Regardless.
I’m all for revamping the system; for searching for ways to revamp the system. But I personally have serious reservations about morphing one competition, a complete 180 degrees into another, once that (original) competition concludes in a tie. Competitively speaking, what does that prove? Who’s better at one phase of the game, rather than at all three!? You say that’s fair??? Why not just use a system of innings from the very beginning of the game? Or instead of innings, or even sudden-death, why not just decide a tie game with one of those 90s-style QB competitions? Because offense sells, by the way…
Of course, there are two completely different sides at play here. And which one supercedes the other? The sanctity of the competition? Or the entertainment value of the competition? Ideally, they should work in tandem with each other. Because if one supercedes the other, it will only result in an even bigger mess (ahem… NCAA Bowl Conference Subdivision)…
Still, a win is a win. A loss is a loss. A tie is a motherfucking tie. And a sudden death win… is still a win. Whether by a FG, a saftey, or a TD (which also sometimes occur on special teams, I’ll have you know). No matter what kind of taste it leaves in anyone’s mouth. At least it’s STILL the game of football, played all the way through, to an end point. That’s so bad? Really?
As for winning and losing being the only true outcomes, though… that is a tough one, isn’t it? In real life (and especially in athletic competitions), luck does tend to play its role, too. I guess maybe that’s why sudden death OTs (and coin tosses) don’t bother me so much. Shit happens. You play the game (the whole game; all phases) and then it ends in a result, one way or another. Sometimes a better team gets ripped off (ahem… Week 9, Texans at Indy), no matter how well we ever seem to organize things. But why would we try to throw out any phase of the game? Including luck?
Luck is always going to be a part of things, and so be it. There is no possible way to remove the “luck” factor. Ever. Perhaps there are ways to reduce it (and fine let’s reduce it… but let’s also not be hasty in doing so). Innings would only ADD to the probability of luck, IMO. And the type of luck they would add goes against the entire nature of the original contest. There are certainly better ways to revamp the OT system, than those nasty college-style innings, that’s for damn sure.
I do respect your opinion, but I thoroughly disagree, that’s all.
any given Sunday
by Cut Block on Mar 3, 2010 6:26 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree in principle
But I have also refereed a local grand final under the NCAA rules.
We had a 3hr 15 minute game end in a draw, we then had SEVEN overtimes to decide the outcome. More than fair. But four and a half hours was enough for me.
The 25 yard line rule is there to make it not too difficult to score, but not impossible to stop. It gives both teams a pretty fair chance at settling the outcome quickly.
A Texas Wannabe, born and raised in New Zealand. Currently located 7539 miles South west of Houston.
by distant_texans_fan on Mar 3, 2010 2:15 PM CST up reply actions
It's better than it was
Allowing a team to win the coin flip and just need a field goal to clinch it in sudden death was not fair. I say try this for a season or two and see how it goes. The only regret is that they didn’t make a change sooner. It required a tie-game situation in the playoffs to finally burn someone’s ass enough to make a change.
I suppose if all of the stars, moons and planets align it could be possible, but what are the chances of that?
by Rip Jersey on Mar 3, 2010 9:26 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
On the poll
You don’t have a selection for what the new rule is. I guess that would be “other.”
I suppose if all of the stars, moons and planets align it could be possible, but what are the chances of that?
It's the second one.
Sudden Death is the current way, it could be phrased better though.
The new one can end without a TD
The new way can end with the first team scoring a field goal and the team getting the next possession not scoring at all or scoring a TD.
The new way can end with the first team not scoring and the team getting the next possession kicking a field goal or scoring a TD.
The new way can end if both teams on their first possessions each don’t score, but either team then scores a field goal or TD on a subsequent possession.
I think I could go on, but you get the point. There is not a selection for the new rule.
I suppose if all of the stars, moons and planets align it could be possible, but what are the chances of that?
"Other"
Includes the proposed new variation. My bad; should have been more clear about that.
Looking forward to a day when being a Texans fan doesn't mean that April is the highlight of my season...
by Tim on Mar 3, 2010 5:05 PM CST up reply actions
Let's erase all the votes and start over, then....
I suppose if all of the stars, moons and planets align it could be possible, but what are the chances of that?
DO NOT WANT.
If Team A wins the coin flip and scores a TD, Team B should have the opportunity to score a TD to keep the game going
If that were to happen, every single NFL record will be broken by 2012.
Higher risks of players getting injured.
More crappy bud light commercials.
More horrible announcing from big time announcers.
DO NOT WANT.
I used to hate the old “Sudden Death” rule. But overtime(useless pun intended), i’ve grown to love it. Especially after the Packers vs. Cardinals game. It couldn’t have ended any better.
I disagree.
Sudden Death determines who is better at guessing heads or tails.
9 out of 10 times an nfl team is going to get into field goal range at the end of a game.
Both teams should have an EQUAL chance to win.
All that other stuff, records, injuries, etc….those are part of the game. Worried about an injury? Sit your guys and play backups.
"An open mind is like a fortress with it's gates unbarred and unguarded."
The ROSENFAIL : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAKAKE-uq-8&feature=related
by TexansForever on Mar 3, 2010 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Last time I checked, there's two sides to a coin.
Meaning you have a 50-50 chance to obtain first possession. And even then, you’re not guaranteed a W. You still have to work for it.
Special Teams have always been a part of the game. And it should be as important as the other two aspects of the game. But then again, if your defense can’t stop the other team from driving down 60 yds when the game is on the line; you don’t deserve to win.
I am glad...
John Madden finally retired! I was bored with his CPT OBVIOUS and horrible magic pen that circles players!!
Playoffs?
We’re talkin bout playoffs?
I’m a strategery guy, so I prefer the divide and choose method, so I voted “other.” I realize its too far out there to ever be a reality, but, like the 16 team playoffs in college football, its my dream scenario.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
2nd weekend in December
is the opening round, and the 4 BCS bowl games on Jan 1 are the elite 8.
Its not hard at all.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
That actually sounds good.
But I don’t think the NCAA is too stubborn to even think about alternatives.
They won’t dump the current system because….it brings in plenty of $$$
Even if it does happen they'll never do it correctly.
Which is to say, instead of giving each conference winner admission, they’ll come up with some formula where half the SEC gets in and gets a second chance at winning a game or two they should’ve won in the first place to have any claim on a playoff spot.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
Florida and Alabama were 1-2 and undefeated going into the SEC championship game, and didn’t get a rematch.
Is there some bias here I’m missing?
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
If you create a playoff system
I’m not saying last years Florida doesn’t deserve another chance to make it through a bracket.
I’m saying, for instance, LSU didn’t. But when you open up the playoffs door, you open up countless amounts of whining by the teams that didn’t, see: NCAA basketball tourney and how every 17-10 Big East or ACC team that doesn’t make it bawls their eyes out on the selection shows.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Mar 3, 2010 10:01 AM CST up reply actions
*that didn't make it
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Mar 3, 2010 10:02 AM CST up reply actions
but LSU won the game
and the better argument that there was bias would be if they allowed a re-match this year.
Re: the whining, that will definitely happen, I agree. But I think Boise State has a huge case to whine right now. What else could they have done? They prove that the system is flawed, and it is not possible to win a National Championship in the WAC. So what are the WAC teams playing for? Fun?
If each conference winner gets a shot on the field at the National Championship, the whiners would not have a case.
And if you think the world is biased towards the SEC you have to actually win the games v. them to have a legit argument.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
I'm just using the SEC as an example since they're the biggest conference
I really don’t care about college football beyond who among them will become good NFL players.
I went to UH and I understand that there is no chance of them ever winning a national title in their current circumstances. So why would I care?
Alls I’m trying to say is, if you make a playoff system, it needs to be 75% conference winners and 25% at-larges, not the other way around. And I do think if they make one, they’d have to cater to the big school teams. Which means you’d see scenarios like a 15th ranked 9-3 SEC/Big 12 team making it over the champion of say, the Sun Belt.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Mar 3, 2010 10:11 AM CST up reply actions
If the field was large enough
I think you have to include all the conference winners. Its only fair. Why do the big schools deserve it more, because they are bigger?
That’s what the 4 at large bids are for. The top 4 conferences can have 2 teams represented. That’s plenty. I wouldn’t want the third place SEC team to have a shot.
I went to UH to, and them not having a shot is why I care.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports
talks about this exact thing every year. Here is his way to do it. Pretty much what both of you are saying.
Miss-placed Houstonian living and going to school in the wilderness of Wyoming. Fresno St. 28 - Wyoming 35 (2 OT)!!! Hands down best game I have ever been to.
Agreed
The BCS has too much vested interest in the status quo to do anything really merit-based.
12 conferences
including the service academies, which would have a fantastic shot at it, by the way.
That leaves 4 at large, and I would definitely be in favor of no conference getting more than 2 teams.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
Maybe it’s the fact the Texans missed the playoffs on a technicality… or maybe it’s just the fact that good football teams miss the playoff tournament because of a standings-tiebreak scenario nearly every year… but my dream is a 32 team NFL playoff (after a 14 game season that determines seeding)!
I realize that this, too, is probably too far out to ever be a reality, though.
But I agree, the top division of college ball needs a playoff.
any given Sunday
32 team playoff
would greatly increase our chances of making the playoffs for the first time ever.
I would even wager we’d make it in.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
by texanphil on Mar 3, 2010 9:49 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
I like this idea so much
I want to take it ouy to a bar, buy it drinks all night and have it leave with a trucker that walked in right before last call.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Mar 3, 2010 10:53 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
I admitted the idea was extreme...
But with 8 divisions consisting of only four teams each, it’s high time the NFL expanded the playoffs to 7 or 8 teams per conference.
I’d settle for a 32-team bracket, though. The hottest team usually wins it all anyway.
Determine the champion on the field; get as many worthy teams into the playoffs as possible.
Playoffs aren’t the real accomplishment… playoffs are just the start…
any given Sunday
Lulz.
"All by their heads, he places crowns."
Matt Prater, pre-2009 season: Despised, lambasted, Josh McDaniels is derided for not replacing him.
Matt Prater, post-2009 season: Loved, praised, everone forgets the time when they called Josh McDaniels an idiot for not replacing him.
by Tempestuous Binary on Mar 4, 2010 1:00 AM CST up reply actions
7:30
Half of a usual quarter. Regular conditions played all through the 7:30. One timeout, all challenges by the booth.
At the end of that 7:30, untimed sudden death.
This should give each team a possession on each side of the ball while not opening up the possibility of an incredibly convoluted system of having to go for 2 or something like that. I’m not saying college football’s system isn’t exciting, but it’s also not actual football. Getting into position to score is a huge part of the game.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Mar 3, 2010 9:41 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
What’s the difference between this, and outright sudden-death at the beginning of OT? Except a longer game?
any given Sunday
Each team (probably) gets a possession
Hard to run a 7:30 drive against a team that didn’t just lay down and die.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
I'm sitting on the ball
in that scenario.
Run, run, pass, and not snapping with > 3 secs on the clock.
If I can get a 7:30 drive and score, game over. If not, I probably get the ball back within the 7:30.
There are positives and negatives to everything, this just seems to lengthen the game, imo.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
Sit on it at your risk
A touchdown wins the game for the other team then.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
gonna need more info
sudden death doesn’t start until 7:30 has expired?
What if I score a TD, you punt, I score another TD, you punt, and I score a 3rd TD at the 7:29 mark.
I then kick to you, and you kick a FG. You win?
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
so basically
its another 7:30 period, with a sudden death period after that?
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
Right.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Mar 3, 2010 10:01 AM CST up reply actions
Sounds fair.
But I disagree.
It would still increase the risk of injuries. It might even shorten some player’s careers.
I know that overtime doesn’t happen often but with this kind of rule implemented, it might.
Disagree
Teams already shoot for overtime most of the time, so you’re not making them any less aggressive in terms of going for the win.
Injury risk…how often do games actually go into overtime? How many injuries occur in the fourth quarter as compared to others? I just don’t see any credible evidence to that. It reeks of overprotectionism.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Mar 3, 2010 9:58 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
agree that it sounds like a cop out
its all about the dollars, to me.
If injuries were that much of a concern, why play 4 pre-season games?
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
4-preseason games.
To further evaluate the talent that you have. The NFL doesn’t require teams to play their starters at all during pre-season games. I don’t understand why teams send out their first team and risk their starters getting hurt.
To me, the pre-season is about seeing what talent you acquired in the draft and the FA. And it gives unknown players a chance to show that they can play the game without actually risking your chance to make it to the playoffs.
the nfl doesn't require you
to play your starters in overtime either.
And injuring your backups in pre-season is more detrimental in the NFL than MLB or NBA. Its not like our DT3 doesn’t get significant playing time during the season.
I think they play 4 pre-season games for revenue. They do charge full price for these games, as I’m sure you know.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
to play your starters in overtime either.
But if you want to win the game, you better play them starters. In pre-season, you don’t have to win those games in order to make it to the playoffs or have a better record.
That’s the only thing I hate about the pre-season. I don’t understand why they have to charge full price for meaningless games.
So how does it differ from the current sudden death rule?
You’re still gonna have to rely on your defense even if you win the coin toss.
As for the injury risk, it increases the chances of a freak career ending injury occuring.
The longer you play the game, the more your body wears out. Meaning you’re more susceptible to injuries.
And your evidence to this is?
What do most overtime games last, 5:00, maybe? Is that extra 2:30 gonna blow out someones knee? It’s not like the NFL is soccer and you’re constantly running around. You get plenty of rest breaks, particularly with all the TV timeouts.
It differs in that both teams get a chance to score? I don’t really see how this is complicated. Instead of doing what texanphil has theorized (run run pass try to get in FG range), teams have to measure the cost of doing that versus the cost of letting the opposing offense get the ball back with 2-3 minutes on the clock and the potential to WIN the game, not just tie it.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Mar 3, 2010 10:27 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
It doesn't take more than an extra minute for a freak injury to occur.
But you’re right. Maybe im just being overprotective. I’ve seen happen way too many times to people that I know.
That 7:30 can go by really fast. It’s going to take like what, 2 or 3 first downs? It’s basically going to be the same thing as the current overtime rule. But instead of teams doing the run run pass try to get in FG range thing, they’ll try to eat up the clock in between downs.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand your proposal. It’s pretty darn clear and creative. I just don’t agree with it. I don’t even agree with the current overtime rules. They should just eliminate overtime period. If you’re up by 3 with four minutes left in the 4th quarter and you let the other team get in FG range, you don’t deserve to win to get another chance in winning the game.
They'll try to eat up the clock in between downs
If they are winning or tied in good field position. But you still have to reach that good field position. Teams will have a timeout and a two minute warning. It would probably take 4 or 5 complete 3 down sequences with a conversion to run the time out.
See, you can try to skirt the scenario, but the odds actually strike a pretty equal balance between the team on offense first getting to dictate the pace (and, in a longshot, actually being able to run the game out of time) versus the team on defense first getting to know the exact game situation AND being able to win the game on their drive 90% of the time.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Mar 3, 2010 11:24 AM CST up reply actions
It does nothing but make the game longer.
Might as well add an extra two minutes to each quarter.
It still comes down to who can get to FG range and make that game winning field goal by the end of the first 7:30.
By definition
Allowing both sides a chance to score in overtime will make the game longer. Any system is going to make the game longer other than what we already have.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Mar 3, 2010 11:59 AM CST up reply actions
Donovan McNabb
Has no idea what you’re talking about.
by JimboTexan on Mar 3, 2010 2:32 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
This new rule is essentially a "First to 6"
I’m okay with that. Most of these teams end up getting a cheap, chip-shot FG to end the game anyway, so all that changes is that coaches would actually try for the TD.
So will this be called
the Favre Overtime Rules, since this proposal is there to ensure he at least gets a shot in the OT period?
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
Just more chances to pad his NFL interceptions record
So unfair. George Blanda never got a chance in overtime.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Mar 3, 2010 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
CFL rules
so from what i’ve seen of the poll, 44% of you want to adopt the CFL Overtime rules, that is each offense is given the ball, we have it on the 25 yard line, and whichever offense doesn’t match the other offenses score wins. Although the CFL version, if after each team gets possession twice and still no one is the winner, the game ends as a tie.
In Canada our balls are bigger
College, not Canadian.
Rudimentary creatures of flesh and blood, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
forgive me
i’m canadian. lol. I’ll take your word for it
In Canada our balls are bigger
by canadian texan on Mar 8, 2010 10:24 PM CST up reply actions
I say try something else
How about first to score at least 5 points in overtime wins? Which means a TD wins it outright, or you need 2 FGs, or at the very least force a safety then kick a FG
I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but you appear to be unarmed.
Instead of a coin toss
How about each team putting 5-6 guys on each 40-yard-line, place the ball on the 50, blow the whistle and then have them fight for possession. The team that loses chooses which goal they wanna defend, and the winning team gets the ball on their 20. It would take out the randomness of the coin toss and be a lot more exciting.
The main problem I have with NFL overtime rules is that it’s the only one of the big 4 sports (NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB) where a team can lose without getting a realistic chance to score. The NHL is the only other league that uses sudden death, but each team has a reasonable chance to score. I just don’t see why anyone would have a problem with both offenses getting to touch the ball at least once.
The Raiders would win EVERY overtime game
Because they will definitely have the fastest 5-6 guys in the NFL.
Maybe Al Davis isn’t batshit crazy, and he has just been building up to this type of OT change.
If the Treasury Secretary doesn't have to pay taxes, then why do I?
like a jump ball
thats an awesome idea.
Or we could see which teams kicker could come closest to making a 49 yard FG without actually making it.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
I think the XFL tried that
look how well that worked
I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but you appear to be unarmed.
by The Night Owl on Mar 4, 2010 10:12 AM CST up reply actions
yeah, they would probably still be around
if they had a more conventional overtime rule
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
No Fair Catches
most entertaining rule EVER
If the Treasury Secretary doesn't have to pay taxes, then why do I?
Cushing
would be our punt returner.
Dunta's weightspeed was too low
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
