Last March the NFL owners voted 28-4 to change the NFL overtime system. Archived |
YES, I SAID IT FIRST.
Weekly Article and Sports Magazine
www.yesisaiditfirst.com
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Volume 10; Article 2
Issue #233
SCHEDULED DEATH II
By Patrick Morand, Senior Editor, “YES, I SAID IT FIRST”
Last March the NFL owners voted 28-4 to change the NFL overtime system.
The change did not come into affect in August during pre-season games.
The change did not arrive in time for September’s start of the 2010 regular season – when more games would actually go into overtime.
No, this significant change did not take effect until the 2010 playoffs.
Does that seem a little bizarre?
I am so used to leagues making decisions of consequence and being too slow to fully adopt them.
Usually they err on the side of trying them out in the least important games in deference to kicking them off at the championship level.
Sometimes they try them out in development leagues first, but of course the NFL does not have one of those anymore.
REASON TO CHANGE NFL OVERTIME
I understand why everyone wants to change the traditional overtime format to make one possession overtimes, determined by a coin toss a part of football history, but find fault with some aspects of this new change to the finish of games that require extras after December 2010.
First, the fact that the change is being tried out in the playoffs.
Second, the elimination of “sudden death” and how it might favour a specific type of offense in the NFL even more with this new format. I suggest they could have satisfied all their concerns about fairness by just removing the coin toss to start overtimes completely.
Third, four teams voted against this important change, and many coaches feel their voice was left out of the decision completely. The coaches need to plan differently for overtime starting in the playoffs with a new set of possibilities and outcomes. Should they really have to figure it out cold turkey on the biggest stage of their season.
Fourth, what if this rule were in place before? Might we now have to asterisk great overtime games of recent years because the new overtime possession rules might have changed some outcomes.
THE NEW RULES
In case you missed it the NFL owners decided to modify the finish of overtime games to make sure that the team that wins the coin toss does not win the football game on their first possession by scoring only a field goal. It will now take a minimum of six points to win the overtime game.
A touchdown score or even a kickoff return touchdown will win the game on one possession. An interception return for touchdown will win the game.
A single field goal will not win it unless the team can recover the ball for a second time and score another field goal.
I assumed that means a safety (2 points for tackling the opponent with the ball in his own end zone) will not be enough to win a football game either – even though it is one of the hardest feats in the game. However, I am wrong – in football 2 points does win the game, because they thought of that.
So maybe a safety should always be worth more than 3 points?
As it now is three instant field goal points are not still greater than two points off a safety. Kicking becomes of very little importance in playoff overtime.
I like that the NFL is making a creative rule. I like that it does not copy college football’s one possession each rule.
I think the rule will end up being tweaked – it has potential to change some outcomes and will change the way teams defend in overtime no doubt. It may in some games make the overtime very entertaining.
My biggest question is why wait until a January playoff game to find out?
Is that really fair to the two teams that play under those rules the first time?
Who will be the first field goal kicker to enter overtime as the least important player in the next playoff game – “if” a playoff game even goes to overtime?
There are not many playoff games that go to overtime – we could be waiting two or three years for the NFL owners to finally decide whether this change should apply in the regular season as well.
It makes little sense to hurry up and wait for the outcome of the new overtime. It should be piloted in preseason – but they don’t play OT in preseason.
They should institute the change in regular season games and give everyone a shot to produce multiple results from different styles of play. The extra data will advise the league and coaches whether it makes the games better, longer, fairer or worse than they are now.
THE COIN NEVER MADE IT FAIR
Consider what is at stake when the question of fairness has come up on the overtime question before.
The reason overtime change has not been discussed in other years is that those against changing it have always felt that by making any change is to make defence appear less important than offense.
Some teams take pride in being able to hold field position in overtime and force offensive teams to three and outs.
It also changes the emphasis on specialty teams. The importance of a healthy field goal kicker, the direction of the wind, the footing on the field, and the chance of blocked kicks are not going to be as important if there is no chance of finality to the lone play of a kick.
Defence wins games, and in games where the second possession is earned it’s often the turning point. Why further penalize that team that gets the ball second and say they also need to score 6 points, instead of 3 to win the game.
Is a defensive stop not worth anything?
The real problem has not been about who gets the ball first. It has been a concern about fairness. The chance that the coin lands in favour Joe Nedney’s foot sometimes instead of Peyton Manning’s arm is the real problem.
My solution is to keep things the same as they are, except just get rid of the coin toss completely.
Make home field matter more.
The home team should always get to decide possession at the start of the game or defer that choice to half time. They should also get that first rite at the beginning of overtime.
The good teams have earned the choice – by winning all year at playoff time to enjoy all the cosiness of playing at home. That should extend to overtime. Just maybe the visiting teams will consider taking chances late in regulation to overcome that advantage or trust their D to hold them in during sudden death overtime.
The point is that the coin never made it fair. Football is about offense, defence, and specialty teams. The coin does not necessarily side with whoever deserves it most.
It should even out and if they go with my suggestion (always home team gets possession) it will even out.
COACHES LIKE THE STATUS QUO
That could be why some teams and many coaches like the status quo.
By making a team have to score a touchdown with that first possession changes a bunch of things.
It takes the importance of the pass rush of the defence away from overtime, and places greater emphasis on the offenses need to run the ball. That team can run all the way to the 7 yard line, but they will not be able to win the game with a field goal even if they dominate the clock and eat ten minutes.
If a team intercepts a ball like the Arizona Cardinals did in their 2009 playoff with Green Bay Packers they better back up the great play by scoring the touchdown.
If they are defending on their own half of the field they might be more inclined to not be as aggressive because it is a long run to pay dirt. If they are getting the ball back anyway after a field goal attempt there is less urgency.
The games will go longer, and that is probably why the league is waiting for the playoffs to try this.
Will this result in some onside kicks in overtime from the team that loses the coin toss?
I don’t know – but a smart coach who trusts his defence to guard thirty yards might try it.
"Fourth-and-2 at the (opponent's) 22, what are you going to do?"
Giants coach Tom Coughlin asked.
"What you have to do now is looking at a situation where you better have thought out how you want to play it against who you're playing against."
Because as good as the average NFL coach might be in scouting players and implementing intricate offenses, these are guys who need cheat sheets just to figure out when to go for 2-point conversions.
How does a coach decide whether to kick a field goal on his first possession or gamble and go for a touchdown that would win the game - especially, knowing that they will be second guessed by fans and the media every time?
"I like sudden death. I think it's exciting," said Jacksonville coach Jack Del Rio. "I would do sudden death only in postseason; I'd have ties myself. But they're not asking me for that."
For the losing team with a really tired defence that does inevitably surrender two field goals it will seem like slow death and not sudden death.
RULE FAVOURS PROLIFIC PASSERS
I feel it is more like planned death. There is every intention by the league here to highlight the abilities of star quarterbacks to get the ball into the end zone.
This rule is pro Peyton Manning.
Teams spend sixty minutes of regulation trying to keep Manning on the sidelines in order to get a chance to win by a field goal, and now he still will get a last opportunity.
That means despite all the smart coaching and execution by good defensive teams it might not matter because some think that they are doing bad defensive teams a favour by giving them the ball back if they can by chance hold some good offense to just a field goal in overtime.
Many will point to the New Orleans Saints victory over Minnesota Vikings when Brett Favre lost because he never got the ball in overtime as a reason this change was made at this time.
New Orleans was fortunate to get to overtime when Favre turned the ball over in the dying seconds of the fourth quarter, and then they won on their first possession with a kick by a kicker I never heard of.
A little anticlimactic I guess.
(We all wanted Favre to win that game didn’t we?)
Never mind the questionable officiating on that overtime winning drive that helped New Orleans, the astounding fact of this rule change which was probably created because of that game is that Minnesota was one of the four teams to vote against the change to overtime!
The Baltimore Ravens, solid defensively, Buffalo Bills, consider the cold winds of Buffalo swirling against the kicks, and the Cincinnati Bengals, who actually had a tie score two seasons ago also voted against this change.
While many agree something should change this particular idea was not fully supported.
WHY TO EMBRACE NEW RULE?
Historically, we should not embrace it either.
I wonder if John Madden would have suggested in 2002 that the New England Patriots should just kneel down and run out the clock to await overtime if this rule were in place then?
A team without much punch on offense really can’t afford to enter OT knowing that the more prolific team (in 2002 the Rams) will have a drive in the extra quarter regardless.
Perhaps every team will see nothing to lose by trying to finish games late, because it is going to be like an extra chance to win. They will have another shot anyway unless they have a terrible pass defence.
The New York Giants won the January 2008 NFC Championship in overtime on a field goal at Green Bay.
They missed an opportunity as time ran out, but they made redemption in overtime.
Imagine the irony if they would have had to kickoff again and try to score two field goals in the extra that year? That would be like saying one in regulation was worth more than one in overtime.
In the Giants example that OT kick would have still won it for them because they gained possession off a turnover and the rule is all about "possession".
It is still possible to have a great defensive stand and then fumble the ball on the very next possession setting up a winning field goal that would not have been a winner a couple of seconds before.
I think if a team forces a turnover and kicks a field goal immediately that proves everything. The best team wins either way and this rule doesn't change that.
Three points are enough to win once each offense has had a chance with the ball.
Wouldn't want to be the defense that lets that first touchdown winner on the first possession though - that would hurt!
A great opening drive and having a team backed up to their own 5 yard line, but no way to win or finish it short of a touchdown also seems sad for the team that gets in that position the first time.
There will be all kinds of what ifs to go along with the new rule.
Remember all the talk about the “quarterback tuck rule” after the Oakland Raiders and New England playoff game in 2002?
The Patriots tied the game in regulation and then iced it on the first drive in overtime.
Would there have been as much discussion if Oakland had gotten the ball back after the Patriots overtime field goal?
If they had still lost with the extra possession it would have muted their victim statement a little. Teams have to get it done when the ball is in their hands.
If the Pats would have needed a touchdown instead of a measly field goal and still beat the Raiders then maybe all would have been forgotten.
Could teams with the lead afford mistakes late in games since the odds will favour them in overtime even if they don’t get the ball first?
Will teams go for the jugular more late in the fourth quarter?
BENCHING THE KICKER
What about the bold coaching calls to attempt a FG winner from beyond 40 yards?
Will this ever happen again?
If they make it they don’t win.
If they miss they give the other team great field position.
Perhaps these changes are really the result of the increasing agility, leg strength and accuracy of the current day NFL kickers.
Could it be that they have done their job so well that they are inevitably working their way out of a job?
Haven't we always considered the Hail Mary Field Goal exciting?
They are almost as exciting as a field goal block, missed snap, mishandled hold and of course the wide right kick and new life for the other team.
Teams have lost important games because of inconsistent kickers – why would we want to remove the importance of that element from the game?
The game is called football still isn’t it?
Imagine a football game where only touchdowns are counted. That in essence is what the overtime rule change will really be accomplishing. Apparently nobody wants to see a game end in a field goal chipped in from the 14 yard line.
Logic that defies the fact that the whole game is about creating and preventing good field position.
Football might become more and more about prolific passing and full field drives.
The game will change greatly if teams no longer need to respect the 3 point range of any kicker and this rule is just a yard closer to taking the Arena Football style of play outdoors on the big turf.
| Site Map |