Friday 10 February 2017 20:49, UK
Super Bowl 51 was arguably the most dramatic and shocking game in NFL history.
As has been well documented by now, the New England Patriots trailed the Atlanta Falcons 28-3 with just over two minutes remaining in the third quarter but rallied for a 34-28 overtime win.
And the fact that the game was settled in overtime has led to some debate that probably should be given more attention once the Bill Belichick and Tom Brady 'greatest ever' chatter has died down.
So let's dig into NFL overtime and examine the rules from either side of the argument.
The Rules
Amid criticism of their inherent unfairness, the NFL adapted its overtime procedures for the play-offs from 2010 and for the regular season from 2012 onwards, wiping out the original rule that the first team to score any kind of points wins. Now, each team must have an opportunity to possess the football… unless a touchdown or a safety is scored, in which case, the game is over.
For example, if Team A can only score a field goal on its first possession, Team B has an opportunity to take the football and can win the game with a touchdown. If Team B also kicks a field goal, the game becomes sudden death and the next team to score wins.
If Team A (New England in the Super Bowl) scores a touchdown on its first drive, Team B (the Falcons) never gets the chance to respond and the game is over.
Argument No.1… The rules need to be changed
While it is not quite as clear-cut or dramatic, the NFL overtime rules are not a million miles away from seeing a penalty shootout at the World Cup decided by the first kick being put into the top corner of the goal.
The fact is; a touchdown for one team means there is no chance for their opponents to respond. And that just doesn't seem right, particularly at the end of a long and gruelling game of American football when defenders might literally be out on their feet.
Surely both offences should have a chance to exploit the tiredness of the opposing defenders?
As soon as the coin fell in favour of the New England Patriots on Sunday night, one of the greatest games the league has ever seen was effectively over because Atlanta's defence was exhausted. While Brady worked his magic, Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan paced up and down the sidelines with his hands behind his back. They might as well have tied his hands behind his back for all the involvement he had in the remainder of the game.
The NFL changed the rules to avoid a coin toss effectively deciding the outcome of a game, but they only went halfway to making a significant difference. And arguably the biggest game in NFL history was impacted in a major way by the overtime coin toss when New England's Matthew Slater called "heads."
This has happened before on a big stage and it is not right. During last year's play-offs, Green Bay's Aaron Rodgers never saw the field at the end of a thriller with the Arizona Cardinals. Rodgers sent the game into the extra period with a dramatic Hail Mary but never threw again.
Each team must have equal opportunities to score in overtime and Super Bowl LI only served to highlight that.
Argument No.2… The rules are perfectly fair as they are
Coaches and purists always talk about how defences can win championships. Playing well on defence is as important as throwing a 50-yard pass or scoring on an 80-yard run. So if you cannot stop your opponent scoring a touchdown on the opening drive of overtime, you can have no complaints.
That is one of the major arguments to maintaining the current overtime rules.
Another is that the NFL doesn't see an ideal alternative out there. College football sets each team up at the 35-yard line and tells them to take turns scoring touchdown for touchdown in games that can end up as high-scoring affairs.
The purists have argued that they don't want to see games end 77-74 with a quarterback like Brady throwing for 12 touchdowns. But why not adopt the football approach to keeping score? Super Bowl LI could have been recorded as a 28-28 tie with New England winning in overtime, written and detailed in brackets.
Also, with the college football system there is an advantage to going second in the scoring because then you know if a touchdown or field goal is good enough, and if you should go for it on fourth down. So that would not be ideal, either.
There is also a worry that trading touchdowns one after the other in overtime will lengthen a game that is already being dubbed as too long by fans and television networks. The average length of an NFL game is now around three hours and 15 minutes and is heading in the wrong direction. And, of course, the longer players are on the field, particularly when tired, the more open they are to picking up a significant injury. And that is always a concern in this era of heightened awareness of player safety.
One final thing that worries the NFL is that trading touchdowns during the regular season could mean running out of time to find a winner in the additional 15-minute period, resulting in more ties. American sports is a renowned hater of ties - there is no good draw away from home in the NFL! No wonder the legendary coach Vince Lombardi said a tie is like "kissing your sister".
My verdict
For the record, I had a hard time making the argument for keeping the current rules. It just doesn't seem right that Ryan and the Falcons' offence never had a chance to match what Brady and the Patriots achieved on the opening drive of overtime.
The NFL has genuine concerns over the length of games and player safety, and big changes come slowly at the league level. But having such a scenario play out in arguably the greatest game of all time should prompt change.
I am taking nothing away from the Patriots who won fair and square under the current league rules, but the future of this great sport should see change brought about so both teams enjoy equal opportunities in overtime, particularly in playoff games when seasons can end in a matter of seconds.
