After years of wailing from owners, players and fans alike, the NFL is set to vote on a possible change to its unpopular postseason overtime rules. In a week, owners are set to discuss this issue and make a definitive decision as to whether to keep the rules as they are, or to change to a more popular set of statutes.
As the rules stand, the team that wins the overtime coin flip receives the ball and has the chance to score; whichever team scores first wins, a.k.a. sudden death. The proposed new rules-again, only for the postseason-would require that each team get one possession with the ball, so that if the coin toss-winning team scores a field goal first, their opponent would have the chance to answer. If both teams have their chance to score and the score is tied 3-3, sudden death rules would be put into place.
The current rules were put into place in 1958, and at first were very fair statistically. Both sides of the coin flip had an equal winning record percentage-wise, largely due to the lack of talented field goal kickers in the league at that time. Nowadays, the league has its share of Adam Vinatieris and Matt Stovers that can win a game in one swing of their legs.
Evidently there are pros and cons to both sets of rules. The proposal is essentially saying that field goal kicking should not decide a postseason game. Although I do agree that most of a football game should be decided by grit, big plays and consistent effort for 60 minutes, there is something to be said for that last minute field goal. The field goal is one of the most clutch and exciting moments that any postseason game can feature. Super Bowl winning and playoff game winning field goals are chances for guys that get little recognition throughout the season to make a lasting impact on their team’s success; whether you support this fact or not, it stands true.
The proposed rules would also deemphasize any defensive effort in postseason overtime play. You’re telling me that a team can’t keep its opponent from reaching the 35 yard line on one drive when the game depends on it. If a defense can’t do that, should they really deserve a win? Even, or perhaps especially, in the postseason efforts on both sides of the ball should be emphasized at all points in the game, and overtime should receive no exemption. Changing the rules gives more power to offensive firepower rather than a team’s ability to stop the latter.
In the current situation, if the loser of the coin toss can force its opponent to go three and out on their overtime drive, it wins takes over the advantage in that particular overtime. The team instantly gets better field goal percentage, and laces up to face a defense that is demoralized by their offense’s failure to score. As it stands, the sudden death coin toss puts an equal emphasis on the offensive, defensive, and special teams units of each team, subsequently rewarding a team for having a balanced attack.
If a team is balanced and has a great field goal kicker, offense, and defense, they probably deserve to win the game. Whereas that team’s opponent might be a little less balanced, and maybe got to overtime on a few lucky big plays.
I’m not saying that the current set of rules is perfect by any means. There is something to be said for each team having chance to score, and maybe there should be a place for that in overtime. However, the fact that so many teams score on the first possession isn’t a flaw of the rules, it’s a flaw of team balance. And shouldn’t the more balanced team, the team that can stop a drive or kick the field goal, win? If anything, the current rules should be kept for the postseason, not besides it.
No comments:
Post a Comment