The Detroit Lions are not giving up without a fight. After striking out on two previous proposals, the organization’s third attempt to usher in change has once again fallen short—at least for now. The NFL has tabled the Lions’ latest rule change proposal, meaning it won’t move forward this year, but that doesn’t mean it’s dead in the water. League officials have confirmed that the discussion is far from over and will continue into future owners meetings.
For Detroit, this marks the third time in recent years the franchise has pushed for a modification in the rulebook, only to be met with resistance. Still, this latest decision comes with a silver lining: unlike past rejections that ended talks altogether, the tabled status of this proposal leaves the door open for refinement and renewed debate.
The Lions’ latest proposal aimed to address fairness and competition concerns in overtime procedures. The team was advocating for a rule adjustment that would allow both teams an opportunity to possess the ball in overtime regardless of what happens on the first drive. This concept, though not entirely new, has gained traction around the league due to a series of high-profile postseason games where the outcome felt determined by a coin toss rather than a full team effort. For Detroit, it’s not about just their own interests—it’s about making the game better for everyone.
But despite gaining some level of support across the league, the Lions’ motion didn’t get the votes needed to move forward this year. Instead, the NFL’s Competition Committee and team owners opted to table it—essentially placing it on hold rather than delivering a final verdict. The reasoning behind the decision is that more data, more discussion, and potentially more compromises are needed before the league can reach a consensus.
The Lions organization, spearheaded by head coach Dan Campbell and general manager Brad Holmes, has been increasingly vocal about improving competitive balance through rule reform. Campbell, a no-nonsense leader with a gritty football mentality, has repeatedly emphasized that overtime rules should reflect the principle that both offense and defense matter—but that games shouldn’t be overly influenced by random chance. Holmes echoed that sentiment in recent interviews, noting that the league owes it to players, coaches, and fans to explore every possible avenue to make the game more equitable.
This isn’t unfamiliar territory for the Lions. In 2022, the team proposed allowing teams to challenge any personal foul penalties—a rule that many believed would hold officials to a higher standard of accountability. That proposal was met with staunch opposition from other owners and was ultimately shot down before it ever reached a vote. A year later, Detroit returned with another pitch, this time related to expanding reviewable plays on potential roughing the passer calls. Again, it failed to gain traction. Yet despite the setbacks, the Lions have remained undeterred.
Their persistence is starting to turn heads. While no rule change has been enacted yet, Detroit is carving out a reputation as one of the most forward-thinking organizations in the league when it comes to rule governance. In a league where traditions often run deep and change is incremental, the Lions are playing the long game—pushing ideas that may not pass now, but could lay the groundwork for future shifts.
Tabled proposals don’t often make headlines, but this one is different. It reflects a growing tension within the NFL between maintaining tradition and adapting to an evolving sport. Modern offenses are more explosive than ever. Quarterbacks are the centerpieces of billion-dollar franchises. Games decided in the final moments—especially in the playoffs—carry a weight and visibility that magnifies every decision. In that context, giving both teams a fair shot in overtime doesn’t seem like a radical notion; it feels like a necessity.
Still, there are valid arguments on the other side. Some owners worry that expanding overtime possessions could extend games unnecessarily, potentially increasing injury risk or conflicting with broadcast schedules. Others argue that defense is still a crucial component of the game and should be given the opportunity to close out contests. There’s also a concern about how such a change might alter team strategies, particularly around kickoff decisions and late-game play-calling.
Those are the kinds of issues the league’s Competition Committee is expected to study in the coming months. With the proposal tabled rather than rejected, the committee will have time to review game film, analyze data, and gather feedback from coaches and players. If momentum builds, the proposal could resurface at the next league meeting with a stronger chance of passage.
In the meantime, the Lions are keeping their foot on the gas. This offseason, they’ve already made noise with roster moves and internal investments, but their actions at the rules table may be the most lasting. Football is a game of inches, not just on the field but in the boardroom. And while Detroit’s rule proposals haven’t crossed the goal line yet, they’re inching closer with every attempt.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has said he supports a healthy dialogue about game rules and believes that the league benefits when teams bring forward well-reasoned proposals. He stopped short of endorsing the Lions’ latest idea outright but acknowledged that the discussion around overtime fairness is not going away anytime soon. “These are tough decisions,” Goodell said. “But we want to get them right. And that sometimes takes time.”
Fans in Detroit may be frustrated by another procedural stall, but there’s reason for optimism. A proposal that gets tabled, unlike those rejected outright, lives to fight another day. And in the political world of NFL rule changes, survival is half the battle.
The Lions will likely revisit their proposal next year, possibly with slight revisions aimed at addressing the concerns voiced by opposing owners. They’ll continue building alliances, gathering support, and lobbying for change. Because for them, it’s not just about winning games—it’s about leaving the league better than they found it.
And if history is any guide, it’s only a matter of time before one of their ideas finally breaks through.
