Heart-ache: NFL abandons sudden death rule for postseason
posted at 7:31 pm on March 23, 2010 by Allahpundit
On the very day that O-Care is signed, too. I don’t know my country anymore.
• Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner.
• If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball. If [that team] scores a touchdown on its possession, it is the winner. If the score is tied after [both teams have a] possession, the team next scoring by any method shall be the winner.
• If the score is tied at the end of a 15-minute overtime period, or if [the overtime period's] initial possession has not ended, another overtime period will begin, and play will continue until a score is made, regardless of how many 15-minute periods are necessary.
The reasoning is that it’s become too easy to win the game on the first possession of overtime thanks to the fact that they moved the kickoff back from the 35 to the 30-yard line in 1994. (Er, why don’t they just move the kickoff line up instead?) At first blush, I thought they were replicating the college rules where each team gets the ball until one scores and the other fails to answer — which would be sweet. Ever seen the highlights of one of those six-overtime 61-60 Division I shootouts on SportsCenter? Imagine that in the Super Bowl.
But no: Read the new rules again. The team that receives the overtime kickoff can win the game with a touchdown right away, under standard sudden death rules. Only if they’re stopped and forced to kick a field goal does the other team get the ball. The point, I guess, is that sudden-death FGs on the opening drive are quick and easy, but if that’s the case, then why let the game ever end on a field goal? Under this half-baked scheme, if I go for three on the first drive and you come back with three yourself, I can then win the game — in sudden death — with another field goal of my own. Why? If the problem is that the kickoffs are producing field position that makes winning FGs too likely, there’s nothing here that cures that problem; all it does is push it forward by one possession, after each team has kicked a field goal on its opening drive. Stupid.
What this really does is create the following strategic dilemma: If you take the opening kickoff, kick a field goal, then kick off to me and I drive down to your 10-yard line, say, what do I do on fourth down? Kick to tie the game and send it into sudden death, where the odds say you’ll win because you’ll get the ball next, or do I go for the TD to try to end the game right there? Let’s poll it!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
If there’s pass interference, it’s the player awarding the other team, not the ref.
Having said that, it’s about time this rule was changed. The game shouldn’t be decided on a coin flip. Both teams should have to play offense and defense.
xblade on March 23, 2010 at 10:11 PM
This doesn’t make any sense. If the receiving team recovers the onside kick, how did they blow it by kicking a FG? How does this relate to team B having possession? There is no possession here without a turnover. Again…
read the first line… notice the lack of the word opportunity?
disillusioned on March 23, 2010 at 10:13 PM
here’s the kickoff rule for possession. notice the difference between free ball and possession. With the latter being a turnover.
disillusioned on March 23, 2010 at 10:26 PM
I wonder if there would have been such a big push for overtime reform if it had been Brett Favre’s team that had won the game on an opening-drive overtime FG.
CDeb on March 23, 2010 at 10:32 PM
As a lllllllllllooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggg suffering Minnesota fan I still think the OT should have remained the same. Pissed that the other team kicked a FG to win….then maybe the Defense should have stopped them. The OT win or loss is what makes the game special. Sure I’m still bent by the OT loss in 1998 and of course I’m pissed by this years SNAFU……It’s part of what makes me a die hard (that all we seem to do by the way!) Vikings fan. To cheapen OT this way is dumb IMO.
The flip side is win’s I’ve seen my college & HS teams pull out in the hockey tourny’s. Don’t like hockey……you should check out the MN HS hockey tourney from this year or check out the 2002 Men’s college hockey championship game. Leaving it all out on the mat/field/surface is what makes any game special. In OT one mistake or one lucky bounce can make you a goat or hero.
VikingGoneWild on March 23, 2010 at 10:33 PM
I have always advocated the first to get to 6 points wins. This is pretty close, because if it is tied 3-3, to win a team would have to almost score another field goal to win.
technopeasant on March 23, 2010 at 10:39 PM
Well, like it or not we will have it in next seasons playoff games.
We’re on the way to a ‘no winner/loser’ system.
Helloyawl on March 23, 2010 at 10:40 PM
This is a pathetic and stupid rule change.
t.ferg on March 23, 2010 at 10:45 PM
I don’t how anyone can back the current system that says on a flip of a coin, it determines who wins or loses the game.
I know the argument is that if the defense can’t stop the offense of the other team c’est la vie!
But what’s the definition of stopping someone? Let’s say you stop the opposing team at your 30 yard line outside the red zone, isn’t that stopping the other side?
Why should a 47 yard field goal decide the game?
That to me is just crazy. I know life isn’t fair but to not give the other team’s offense any chance to respond is ludicrous.
technopeasant on March 23, 2010 at 10:50 PM
You’re misreading Mort’s tweet. He’s saying, say Team A loses the coin flip to start OT and thus Team B elects to receive, if Team A kicks to Team B, who fails to recover, thus allowing Team A to get it (otherwise known as an onside kick), then Team A could win with only a FG because both teams had an opportunity to possess (Team B had an opportunity when the ball was kicked to them and Team A had an opportunity because they actually picked it up).
LastRick on March 23, 2010 at 10:52 PM
You’re still mistaking possession and opportunity to possess. Simply having the ball kicked to you is an opportunity to possess; whether you catch it, don’t catch it, doesn’t matter. The kickoff is an opportunity so it counts toward the new OT rules.
LastRick on March 23, 2010 at 10:55 PM
This is being done purely because Bret Favre lost and the SAINTS won.
Had this happened with any other team then their wouldn’t be a problem. In fact if it would have been the Saints who’d lost the toss and the Vikings would have kicked a field goal then nothing would have been said. Denying Drew Brees the ball wouldn’t be a problem for these jackasses.
roux on March 23, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Just like the NFL to adopt a convoluted rule that will need constant tweaking, adjustment, and reinterpretation. Not that they have ever did that before about any of their other rules, he-he…
paulsur on March 23, 2010 at 11:14 PM
I’d rather see the college rule. Love those games with lots of scoring in OT. If not that, then I’d vote to either leave it as is, or just have ties. Ties would make the postseason gambits much more interesting.
Tennman on March 23, 2010 at 11:29 PM
There is an inconsistent point here. I see what your trying to say, but am still scratching my head on understanding. First from Mort’s comment.
The perceived implication here is that a FG will negate rule 1. Although the rule specifically states that a touchdown is needed to win. This is beyond the whole receiving team blew it nonsense. Also from your last comment:
Team A could win with only a FG because both teams had an opportunity to possess (Team B had an opportunity when the ball was kicked to them and Team A had an opportunity because they actually picked it up).
Team B had an opputunity, but not exactly possession without a turnover. If Team B has a turnover, then Team A has all the right to win under these rules with a FG. This is exactly the same as the end game results are determined now. I posted the kickoff rules for possession earlier. Now on to Team B not having possession. First rule TD requirement applies here.
disillusioned on March 23, 2010 at 11:29 PM
Never mind. I didn’t read the part where this *was* postseason. College rules, then.
Tennman on March 23, 2010 at 11:31 PM
RON PAUL!!!
/obligatory
FontanaConservative on March 24, 2010 at 12:09 AM
I believe that one should sum all the scores from every game each team played over the past four years, and the team with the lower score gets a handicap of the difference between the sums. I call this the Cadillac Tax. The team playing against the team receiving the Cadillac Tax must, within the next five years thereafter, earn enough points to overcome the Cadillac Tax, or they lose, and all their points are forfeited to the winning team.
unclesmrgol on March 24, 2010 at 1:36 AM
I agree it is not perfect, but it is more fair than the prior rule. At least in the scenario you proposed at the end of your post, you got the opportunity to win. In the previous rule you would have lost on my field goal.
lionheart on March 24, 2010 at 5:50 AM
These rules were devised by the Democrat who shot J.R. Ewing.
percysunshine on March 24, 2010 at 7:36 AM
What about a safety? Does that end the game on first possession? What if both teams score touchdowns on first possession, but only one gets the point-after? Does the point-after end the game, it’s really just a short range field goal.
Stupid rule. If a field goal wins the game with 0.10 on the clock in regulation, why doesn’t it count if it happens 30 seconds later, 20 sec into overtime?
Field goals are part of the strategy of the game. Leave it alone.
NavyspyII on March 24, 2010 at 8:44 AM
Hah. Sounds more like the Detroit Lions tax to me. We might actually win a game this way.
As the old joke goes, the halftime whistle blows, and the Bears leave the field. 3 plays later, Detroit gets a field goal.
NavyspyII on March 24, 2010 at 8:46 AM
I actually see the need for possessions by both teams. You have one team winning at the end, maybe dominating for most of the game. The other team catches a break, gets OT and then wins because they get the coin toss. Remember, in the pros they only have to travel maybe sixty yards to get in scoring range.
I’m not sure I’d make is so complicated, but giving both teams a chance at possession changes a lot of the strategy including how to end the game in regulation. The difference between college and pros is that the college starts their OT on the 25 with four plays, yada yada. The pros would just continue to play normally. There would be no six overtimes.
archer52 on March 24, 2010 at 8:48 AM
Pro football triggers my yawns reflex.
It’s like watching paint dry.
molonlabe28 on March 24, 2010 at 10:12 AM
They should call it the Bret Favre Rule. That’s the only reason they did this is because poor Bret Favre was standing on the sidelines when Garrett Hartley nailed a 40 yard field goal in OT to send the Saint’s to the SuperBowl. Poor Bret Favre didn’t have a chance to touch the ball. Well if BF didn’t chuck that INT at the end of regulation and instead hauls it down and scampers for a few yards and give his kicker a chance to win the game… well if’s and but’s.
saltydogg14 on March 24, 2010 at 11:15 AM
I think Joe Biden should decide all games tied at the end of regulation..
right2bright on March 24, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Whom do they imagine they’re catering to with this dumb modification? Is this something the players were clamoring for? The owners? Who?
Couldn’t be the fans. Oh, we’ll spout like geysers if someone asks our opinion, but where’s the NFL Fan Movement to do this?
I’ve always thought sudden death was a fine rule. What do the defenses get paid for, anyway? Sure, it’s “easy” to move the ball to within your kicker’s FG range — unless the other team’s D makes it hard. Gimme D every time.
J.E. Dyer on March 24, 2010 at 11:46 AM
Beautiful!
J.E. Dyer on March 24, 2010 at 11:47 AM
I’ve always hated the NFL’s overtime rules so this is a slight improvement anyway. Giving one team a decided advantage based on the random chance of a coin toss is idiotic. The winner of the toss will still have an advantage in this new system but it will be mitigated somewhat by this new rule.
I much prefer college football’s OT system and I don’t know why the NFL won’t adopt it. It produces much more exciting overtimes.
rsrobinson on March 24, 2010 at 12:04 PM
If they wanted to change it to make it more fun (because it’s STUPID to say that the old system was “unfair”), they should have made it First Team to Six Points Wins.
But anyone who’s ever heard Roger Goodell speak knows that he’s a freakin’ idiot. Another big proponent of the new “fairer” OT system? Favre-fellatrix, Peter King (of the Douchebags) who also ended last Monday’s MMQB with an endorsement of our new f***ing Soviet-style health care swindle.
DrZin on March 24, 2010 at 12:31 PM
The new rule is better than what they’ve had.
Sure, they could kick off from the 40 like it was when the sudden death rule came about, but with today’s kickers, that would mean an automatic touchback (unless a team employed strategery and kicked high and short of the goal line, planing to tackle inside the 20 but risking a long return.
The College rule is bad because it starts teams at the 25, already within field goal range (42 yards). So they are basically given 3 points. There is no danger that you’ll have to punt or give the other team good field position. Turnover is you’re only real worry. There is never any clock pressure — why, is beyond me? From the 25, 90 seconds should be plenty, with one timeout and the clock stops out of bounds, incomplete, and on first downs. I could even see 60 seconds being enough. In short, it’s a different game. There’s a reason the game ends up tied 10-10 in regulation and then goes 6 overtimes with both teams scoring in the first 5 OTs.
EconomicNeocon on March 24, 2010 at 1:11 PM
It’s also probably an effect of the ability of place kickers to kick super long field goals. They could have made it easier for the defending team to block field goals (like eliminating the “leverage” rule) with the same good effect.
I don’t like the college rule because it eliminated kickoffs which limits the ability of special teams from having an role in the outcome of a game. If you’re best weapon is a kick returner (e.g. Josh Cribbs, Devin Hester), you take him out of the game.
Now, the rules should be applied in te regular season and not just the playoffs. That way, you would play the same regardless of which part of the season you are in. Players and coaches practice “gameplanning” all of the potential scenarios.
It should be easy enough to judge how fair this new rule end up being. In the last decade, 61% of the time, the team that won the overtime toss, won the game. 37% on their first posession. Assuming that both teams are equal (that’s why they are tied in regululation), we should start to see that percentage get much closer to 50%. If it doesn’t, the new rules objectively don’t work.
Michael K. on March 24, 2010 at 1:24 PM
No FGs in overtime. That would fix everything. You HAVE to score a touchdown to win.
DanStark on March 24, 2010 at 3:33 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2