|
The Sudden Death Debate
by Chris Brophy
10/9/2007
So there goes the first NFL Sunday of the season into the record books. As you would expect, there was the usual mix of surprises, game breaking plays and controversy that makes the NFL appeal to us all in its own special way.
One of the things I always do the day after the game, as I’m sure many others do, is spend time going round the various sources on the net to gather after game thoughts. So with my Redskins squeezing out a victory against the Miami Dolphins, off I went looking at what the reaction was.
Some of that reaction concentrated on how poor both teams were in many aspects. Some discussed the part of Clinton Portis in helping to break the game open or of Joe Gibbs’ decision to kick a field goal once he got within decent range without trying to shorten the field any further. Despite all those talking points, the one debate that caught my eye (ears) was a clip available on NFL.com from NFL Network where Deion Sanders, Rich Eisen and Steve Mariucci talked over an age old question the rules of overtime.
As the only game to go past regulation this week (so far), the Redskins finished off the Dolphins by winning the coin toss (or rather, the Dolphins losing it as they made the on field call) and then driving down the field to kick a game winning field goal. The Dolphins of course, never got a chance to respond as once one team scores, the game is over.
I’m sure most people reading this are aware of the overtime rules of the NFL now so we need not go over them. What is obvious is that for some, the fact both teams don’t get a chance to have the ball on offense is seen as unfair.
So what are the alternatives? One exists in another version of football college, and another has been tried in the now defunct NFL Europa (Europe, whatever). For those not familiar, college football overtimes commence with a 1st and 10 play at the opponent’s 25- yard line. The offensive team keeps possession until they score, commit a turnover or fail to convert on 4th down. The overtime continues until the score is no longer tied and each team has had an equal number of possessions.
Basically, it’s set up like a penalty shootout, shoot and score or if you miss, the other team has to make you pay.
The NFLE version is much closer to the current system, only that it insists both teams have an offensive possession (it also had less time, 10 minutes) so if a team scores with it’s opening possession, you at least have a chance to respond.
Both systems have the same principle though, in that each team gets a chance to counter what the other has done, or take advantage of what they failed to do.
What I found most interesting whilst watching this debate on the clip I mentioned above is that Deion Sanders strongly argued the case for adopting the college system in the NFL. When countered by Rich Eisen that it removes a large amount of special teams from the game, Deion swatted the argument aside. Oh how quickly we forget Mr Sanders! He may chose not to remember his time as a Redskin (apart from the massive signing bonus he pocketed and the burgundy suit he choose to introduce himself with) but I recall a game in 2000 versus the Buccaneers, when as one of the $100 million wasters, Deion did actually make a small contribution to the Skins 8-8 season with a 58 yard run back of a punt to set up the ‘Skins game winning field goal in overtime. Sure you don’t want to reconsider Deion?
For me, every system has flaws. The college system just isn’t like the actual game, the field position battle and special teams in general field goals aside is lost and that is part of what makes the tactical battle of football so unique.
The NFLE system is the way I would go if forced to change but even then, if equal number of possessions is the issue, just get the officials to go over the game book at the end of regulation and see if one team had one possession less. The let them play out they ‘missing’ possession. Ok, ok, that’s a bit extreme but it helps make my point. Football is what it is and to have the game decided in a way that changes the idea of it is just plain wrong for me.
A coin toss is used to start a game, so it’s used to start overtime, what’s the difference? None, and that’s the whole point. How about best out of three for the coin toss or should we scrape it completely and adopt an XFL style ‘scramble for the ball’?
The current overtime system best represents what the game is in regulation. Field position has to be earned, you can grind clock to prevent the other teams chances, wear them down and you might get a chance but then again, you might not it’s all up to your team to step up and make it’s chance happen, not have it presented to it on a plate.
And I can assure you, just because my team won yesterday, losing in the same manner will not change my opinion.
Change may well come, if it does, I hope it is more towards the NFLE version of overtime. I guess every time a team loses in the fashion the Dolphins did on Sunday the question will again come up. It isn’t afraid of rule changes to open up the game but this is one I don’t want to see. What would be the reaction if a Super Bowl was settled in such a fashion? I dare say the question would get more attention than a three minute clip on NFL.com. Nevertheless, I hope a hypothetical situation like that would not be a case for forcing something like this through. Football is football – regular season or post season, regulation or overtime.
|
