NFL overtime, part 2

The NFL passed a new overtime rule today. I had previously talked about it being a possibility, and now that it is a reality and I've learned more about it I like the new rule even less.

This new rule only takes effect in postseason games. Basically, it says that the team which receives the kickoff cannot win the game on a first possession field goal. If they score a touchdown, game over. If they score only a FG, then they must kick off, and the other team has a chance to tie or beat them, with a FG or TD respectively. In the case of a tying FG, or if neither team score, the game reverts back to sudden death format. If the other team fails to score the game is over.

There are some wrinkles here which should be addressed. Any defensive score (safety or defensive TD) ends the game. So 2 points is enough to win, but not 3! Amazing!

If the original kickoff team tries and recovers an onside kick, then the team which was supposed to recover has "had their opportunity", according to the league. So theoretically a team could onside, recover, and then drive down and kick a field goal to win. Similarly, if the receiving team were to fumble and lose the kickoff, or commit a turnover while on offense, then the other team only has to score in order to win, touchdown or field goal.

I don't like this rule. I think its wrong to change the fundamental rules of the game just because its the postseason. True, there is already a difference in rule, in that a regular season game ends in a tie after 1 quarter while a postseason game goes till a winner is decided, but that difference is necessary given that someone has to win a playoff game. The timing may be different but the conditions for winning are the same: first point prevails.

Besides the regular/postseason difference, I don't like that this rule implies that certain points aren't really legitimate. Why should a field goal on one given possession not count the same as points score on other possessions? Field goals are still points. They are a legitimate part of the game. I know we like to hate on kickers. At best they are useful in certain situations, at worst they are midgets masquerading as football players who can screw up their one job and blow a game for the 52 other guys who are fighting their asses off.

But they are still part of the game. If you don't like Field goals, get rid of them. Narrow the uprights, widen the splits, make them worth fewer points, do what you will. But if they are part of the game then they should be treated as such. Teams win games via field goal all the time.

A lot of the complaining about the sudden death overtime starts with the reasoning that a field goal is no way to end a football game. The unspoken but very obvious motivation behind this line of thought is that sudden death overtime prevents the NFL's biggest stars, the QBs, from leading their teams to glorious victory. Even the teams who win usually do so by field goal, not a touchdown, and on many occasions the other team never gets a chance to score. Somehow, some people believe there is shame in this, as opposed to embracing the fact that football is a team sport and there are players who affect the outcome besides the quarterback.

I guess what I really dislike most about this rule is that it feels like such a such an obvious, slapdash attempt to appease the small but vocal group (mostly Peter King types) who want star QBs to get a guaranteed chance to play in overtime and think its an affront to the football gods that a kicker should take that away from them. Because it was so unfair how Garrett Hartley held a gun to Brett Favre's head and made him throw yet another back-breaking, game changing, season ending interception (3 years and counting!).

And that's the real story here. This change isn't about fairness and competitiveness and the evil of field goals. If it was then they could make it first to 6 points, or outlaw field goals in overtime, or just guarantee both teams one possession regardless of what happens on the first, or just play a full quarter. Its not really that hard. Instead we get this half-assed attempt by the NFL trying to promote offense and sell jerseys. And I know that's their business and they make a lot of money at it, but can't we at least pretend that the rules mean something?

Its especially disingenuous because despite all this whining about the tragedy of field goals deciding games in overtime, now we have an overtime setup in which games could very likely be decided by field goal. Just not the first field goal. Teams could trade opening field goals or the receiving team could go scoreless, in which case a field goal still wins it. Or there could be the aforementioned turnover or onside kick, either of which would put us right back to where we started. So what have we gained here? Besides the possibility of more injuries, a longer game, and perhaps a few more points for the over/under in Vegas?

Sudden Death - real sudden death- has worked for years. It was good enough for "The Greatest Game Ever Played", one of the legendary games in NFL lore which helped put the league on the map. If you want to get rid of it then do so, but don't play around with the rules like this. Do it right and be consistent. Like Brett Favre throwing an end of season pick.