While many Americans were focused on the passage of health care reform this week, others were concerned with another, arguably more important reform—a new NFL overtime format. That’s right, the day has finally come.
When my roommate first told me the NFL had passed the reform, I was quite the happy camper. I was so excited that I went straight to the Internet to confirm and investigate further. Unfortunately, after reading up on the new rule-changes, my enthusiasm turned to timid approval with a tinge of disappointment. These were not the so-called reforms I had long awaited.
I had long held the belief, as had many football fans, that the old overtime system was an absolute joke. Under the old system, the first team to score won, and a coin toss determined which team received the ball first. In many situations, especially with the heightened accuracy of kickers in recent years, the team who lost the coin toss never saw the ball in the overtime period and lost the game (see this past year’s Vikings versus Saints NFC Championship game). In effect, a coin toss could determine the outcome of an NFL game.
Under the new rules, there is still a coin toss for the first possession, but it takes more than a field goal to win the game. If the first team scores a touchdown, the game is over. But if that team scores a field goal, the opposing team gets a possession to extend the game with a field goal or win the game with a touchdown. The changes are small steps in the right direction; however, with two steps forward comes one step back, as the new system only applies to the playoffs.
It is clear that the NFL did not go far enough. First, it is still very feasible that, barring a turnover, one team will never get the chance to touch the ball. This still makes the NFL the only sport I can think of where one team can be excluded from the chance to score in the overtime period. The NBA, college basketball, MLB, the PGA Tour, the NHL, and college football to name a few, all have overtime policies that give teams an equal chance to win.
The most confusing part of this new legislation is the fact that the rules only apply to the post-season. From the press conferences and interviews I have seen, the reason for this choice is player safety, as extended overtime play could lead to more injuries. If the NFL is so concerned that extra playing time could lead to injuries, why do teams still play four pre-season games in the face of a strong push for shortening that number to two or three? There is no answer. NFL players, in fact, are not at any more risk for injury in overtime than they are in the last few plays of regulation.
Obviously the NFL thought these changes were necessary. However, they chose to test these changes in the few games that decide the Super Bowl Champion. In the meantime, having a different set of rules govern the regular season. The choice to start these reforms in the playoffs is entirely backward.
As disappointing as it may be, I am not entirely discouraged by the policy. It shows that the NFL realizes the fault with their prehistoric policy, even if they are hesitant to make any meaningful changes. Instead of improving the sport, the owners created two different sets of rules for the regular and post seasons. Unfortunately, these rules are seperate but unequal. And just as the Supreme Court overrulled Plessey versus Ferguson, the NFL ought overturn this policy to deliver a more just overtime system in the hopes of creating a more perfect NFL.
