With each dawning of spring come revisions to the rules of America’s National Football League. Providing further evidence that there is no “off-season” in the NFL, the Competition Committee gathers its members together in March to make revisions to the existing rules of the game. It is natural to wonder why a game which has been played for over a century requires tweaking of its rules following each season. One particular change, set to begin this season, is an example of the difficulty of trying to make the game as perfect as possible.
The NFL’s Competition Committee is a group of eight members chosen from members of the NFL (generally coaches and club executives) who oversee the rules which govern the game. That group makes recommendations regarding rule changes to the owners who then annually vote on the recommendations. Ever increasing emphases on player safety has made up the bulk of recent committee recommendations and subsequent implemented rule changes. This season however, one change was proposed and adopted which left many close to the game scratching their collective heads — a “modified overtime” rule just for the playoffs.
The adoption of a rule change to playoff games which end in a tie have created reverberations which still are being heard around the League. Though this particular rule change would effect only a handful of playoff games, the passion generated makes it seem that a change had been made to the shape of the ball or the number of points awarded for a touchdown. Everyone seems to have strong opinions. Virtually no one is content with the new rule, set to commence with next season’s playoffs.
The former playoff method for dealing with games ending in a tie was identical to regular season games. A coin toss determines the initial possession of the football. The team scoring first wins the game in a “sudden death” fashion. The new rule, which only applies to the playoffs is referred to as “modified sudden death.” This dramatic change which has tongues wagging everywhere, states that the first team to possess the football cannot win the game by means of an initial field goal played in the overtime period. Committee co-chair and Atlanta Falcons General Manager, Rich McKay stated last week that this modification would produce the “fairest result.”
McKay goes on to state, “I have a file that’s this thick with overtime recommendations and changes. …This idea, in our minds, did the right thing for football. It kept the football decisions the same. It kept the strategy the same. It dealt with the statistical advantage that had occurred from the coin toss, which we didn’t think was fair.”
Modified sudden death now states that if the team to initially possesses the football manages only a field goal, the other team shall be given an opportunity to also attempt a score. It will now be in the best interest of the team first possessing the football to score a touchdown rather than a field goal. Where formerly a field goal would have ended the game, the opponent is now given their own chance to either tie the game with a field goal of their own, or score a touchdown and win the game.
Why the controversy? The majority of dissensions fall along one of two lines: first, the rule requires a complete overhaul to the strategy of how playoff overtime is managed, and/or secondly the rule change fails to go far enough in addressing the crux of the issue. Ironically, all dissenters agree that the system previously employed was flawed — they just wish the new rule had been different.
Regardless of playoffs or regular season games, most believe sudden death itself lies at the heart of the present overtime problem. While there are a those who believe that the present system should not be meddled with and that the status quo be maintained, most prefer sudden death be eliminated entirely. They favor a shortened overtime period be played so that the game is kept closer to the heart of football. Most would prefer the offense and defense be the determining factor in the outcome of the game — not a kicker.
Modified sudden death will certainly be argued about for some time. Since most coaches and fans seem to favor something different, sudden death itself may require killing. It seems clear that the NFL made progress on an issue which has been contentious for some time. Unfortunately, progress frequently does not equal perfection — and that certainly seems the case here.
I still think either a shortened period, or let each team touch the ball once and if still tied go to sudden death.
As a Vikings fan I’m still not over the OT loss to the Saints and in retrospect this feels like a good rule. However a part of me feels that sudden death should be just that, sudden death, at the end of the day the point of sudden death is to end the game and I don’t feel like that should be tampered with.
Since the front page doesn’t seem to have a comment section I thought I would just add you guys were great on TV, I saw your first broadcast from 2008 on Youtube and you looked a little fresh but you really evolved, wish you were on in Sweden!
Interesting article, thanks Jeff. Being in the UK, where we get neither the breadth nor depth of NFL coverage you enjoy in the States (except from R&R, of course!), I hadn’t realised this was such a controversy or that there was such a consensus against the modified rule. It would be interesting if you could cite some sources for those assertions.
Of course, a game in a knock out stage of a competition in any sport needs some form of sudden death, unless you can (and will) play for an indefinite period of time or arrange an inderminate series of replay games until a winner under normal rules emerges. (I remember years ago often two or three replays of soccer cup matches in England, sometimes not getting a result until after the next round was supposed to have taken place – I believe the record was six games to get a winnner). You simply have to have a winner, so there is no practical option to “elimate sudden death entirely”, the only arguments are about when it kicks in (pardon the pun) and what form it takes.
I disagree with the premise that kickers won’t be the determining factor – the intent of the rule change is that the coin toss won’t be the determining factor. I believe field goals will still decide some play-off overtime games, just not on the first possession. To me the logic of letting both teams play both main phases of the game seems unarguable, so I’d be in favour of at least one possession each before sudden death.
My favorite overtime memory was of soccer. It was a women’s collegiate National Championship game. The rules indicated that the game must be decided by extra five minute periods being added. There were eight of these before a result was determined. The girls were so winded that some were missing the ball entirely when trying to kick it. It was like a war and it was so memorable. I will go to my grave and likely never witness such a battle of wills and exhibition of courage. Making it extra special is that my side won :-)
That’s the answer for the NFL :-) I can imagine the two lines just kind of leaning on each other!
I remember years ago a suggestion that in soccer the number of players per side should be reduced every five minutes in extra time, so that eventually you would end up with the goalies playing one-on-one.
Cricket has the idea of testing skills to decide a result when play isn’t possible (in knockout competitions). I once saw a “bowl out”, where five bowlers each side bowl at a set of stumps with no batsman, and only one out of the ten hit the stumps. Soccer and rugby both have used a penalty shoot out, of course – I’d like to see some big old linemen trying to kick field goals to decide NFL games, too!!
I think the NHL (National Hockey League) provides far and away the best overtime drama in the post season. In regular season play, the game is divided into three, 20 minute periods. Regular season overtime allows for a 5 minute, sudden victory overtime session with teams skating 4 on 4 (not counting goalies, usually it’s 5 on 5, not counting goalies). If no one scores in 5 minutes, they have a shootout. In the post season, if the game is tied after regulation, an intermission ensues (as is the case between periods in a game) and they just start playing extra, 2o minute, sudden victory overtime periods. I feel there is no greater drama in sports. Sometimes these games can last over 3 extra periods, so you essentially play 2 full games, back to back. I believe the most they’ve had is either 5 or 6 OT periods, so in that case you’ve played 3 entire games non stop.
DCSportsfan25, I don’t know much about hockey, but there is no way a football game can go 3 extra OT quarters much less 3 full games worth. Plus in hockey, both teams touch the puck in OT, which is not the case in football.
I feel that the problem with this whole modification is that it was done as a reaction to the whole “it’s not fair to lose in OT if you do not get the ball” whining everyone has been doing lately. If you really want it to be fair, then both teams should get the ball regardless of any scoring that is done by the team that gets the ball first.
Here is my OT rule: You win the toss you get the ball first. Regardless of whether you score a FG or a TD, the other team gets a chance to get the ball. That team now has a change to try to win or tie the game. Now this way, both teams have had the ball. After 1 offensive possession for both teams, it goes to sudden death. The current modification does not necessarily guarantee that both teams get the ball, and therein lies the problem.
Steven, I wasn’t trying to suggest the football OT needed to resemble the NHL’s, just that I think OT playoff hockey is the most thrilling of all sports. Baseball extra innings has the factor that the home team is gonna get their at bats no matter what happens in the top of the inning, football has the factor that as a team moves into fg range, the ending can be anti climatic. I know you aren’t a big hockey guy, but as the playoffs begin next week, if you happen to be channel surfing and come across a playoff hockey game in OT, I’d recommend you give it a chance, it’s usually very fast paced, and you don’t have to have a great understanding of the game to enjoy it (imo). Playoff hockey will be on Versus most week nights and NBC on weekend days (fyi) :-)
As for your NFL OT suggestion, I’m in total agreement, I think the rule should simply read “once both teams have possessed the ball, the first team to lead the game wins”. So if team A kicks off to team B, and team B throws a pick 6, team A wins. If team B drives and gets a FG, then team A can try to match the fg or get the winning TD. Once each team has possessed the ball, it’s just like a sudden victory OT period.
This weeks big champions league tie between Manchester United and Bayern Munich was decided by away goals. For those who dont know the champions league knock out stages are played over 2 games and the total score is added up. Bayern won 2-1 in Munich and Man United won 3-2 in Manchester. So the Aggregette score was 4-4 and Bayern won because they scored the most goals away from home 2-1.
So maybe the NFL could bring some factors to decide tied games based on performance. Most Yards, Most Touchdowns, Longest Time of Possession things like that? It won’t be exciting but it will be a bit fairer.
I personally like the rule as it was, its not just a coin toss you still have to get the ball about 40/50 yards to get in field goal range. Remember the play offs last year Green Bay v Arizona, Green Bay won the toss and turned the ball over. so i think the rule was fair enough as it was.
Great post Jeff,
I have no problem with the rule change … with one exception.
Why only the playoffs?
If this rules makes sense during the most important games of the year, why not implement it throughout the entire season. If a team misses the playoffs because they went into overtime, the other team scored a field goal, and they never got a chance to touch the ball – isn’t that just as bad as the team getting eliminated from the playoffs for the same reason?
NFL has to deal with the Regular Season OT rule now. We need a unified structure in the rules. Like Steven said in the show. You can beat a team with a Field Goal in the Regular Season, but in the Playoffs you can’t.
Just think of the problems McNabb will have. Poor fella.
How about each team has a 2 minute drill from their own 30, 3 time outs, no kicks. If both teams score, you do it again until one team wins. It means both teams touch the ball, you get excitement and fast plays, as well as not dragging out the game for extra hours.
It will be interesting to see how the rule plays out. It forces the coaches to maybe take a further risk when attacking rather than jsut pounding it until you reach field goal range. The rule also offers the chance for a team who is defensively aggressive to try and pin the opponents deep in their half and get their one touch out of the way then work to the field goal to end the game.
For an out their rule, why not have a field goal kick off with the offensive lineman. Realistically it would never happen but it would be funny to watch. Maybe an event for the pro bowl lol
Can’t say I’m a fan of these new rules, they seem complex and confusing to me. As you said in the podcast, what happens if there’s fumbled kickoffs/safeties etc??? I quite liked the old system as it was simple, and I didn’t think it was a bad thing there was a coin toss, as a coin toss provides the human element all sports need. Yeah it wasn’t always fair, but I thought that fans complaints that whoever wins the toss wins the game was stupid. If you lose the toss, your defense should stop the other team. If not, tough. And fans complaining, why didn’t you win in regular time???
@Jack
I heard elsewhere that any defensive play that scores ends the game. If the team onside kicks and recovers, then the other team don’t need to get the ball.
Hello There. I found your blog the usage of msn.
This is a really smartly written article. I’ll make sure to bookmark it and come back to
learn more of your useful info. Thank you for the post.
I will certainly return.