Do the NFL play-off rules need amending after Green Bay Packers lost to Arizona Cardinals?
Tuesday 2 February 2016 10:45, UK
After the stunning end of the Green Bay Packers v Arizona Cardinals play-off game, our US sports reporter asks the question: should the NFL change its play-off rules?
If you watched the Green Bay v Arizona game with me on Saturday night, you would have been deafened by the shriek as Aaron Rodgers threw not one, but two unbelievable Hail Marys to take the Packers to overtime. They lost the coin toss, and one kick-off return and two Larry Fitzgerald receptions later, they were out of the play-offs.
And while Arizona celebrated, a lot of people began asking the question again: shouldn't we revisit the NFL's overtime rules? That's because Green Bay didn't get a chance to possess the ball and level the game, because in the rules, if you get the ball and score a touchdown the game is over.
But this isn't a rule that's been long established in the NFL. This rule began in 2010 after the NFL's owners decided that the old rule - which said the team who scored a field goal would end the game - wasn't great, opting instead for the 'if you score a field goal the game continues, if you score a touchdown the game is over' rule.
Green Bay's Clay Matthews, understandably, has said that the NFL should opt for college football's overtime rules which are not only much easier to comprehend but also fairer. College football's overtime rules are: both teams start on the opposition's 25-yard line, and they have to match each other's scores. In other words, both teams get the chance to play. CBSSports' John Breech has pointed out that this would eliminate the coin flip issue, which is no bad thing.
Sportswriter Jason Kirk added: "What kept the game from ascending to an even higher level was the fact that Aaron Rodgers never got to touch the football in overtime, thanks to sudden death rules". He added: "You'd like to watch Aaron Rodgers v Larry Fitzgerald in overtime, wouldn't you?"
Kirk and Breech's comments have been added to by NBC's Mike Florio who said: "Spare me the 'if you want to win the game, stop them' nonsense.
"The question of whether a team goes to the next level of the postseason shouldn't hinge, ultimately, on the outcome of a coin toss. Both teams should have a chance to possess the ball, and the kicking team should have a chance to match any score mustered, field goal or touchdown, by the team that receives the kick-off."
Florio has pointed out that the NFL's change should be just for the play-offs but I don't quite agree. I think it should be for the whole season. Everybody wins: the viewers, the TV guys, and the fans.
Other sports have been happy to look at each other's extra-times and get in sync. In the NBA and college basketball, both sports play five-minute overtime rules, and baseball gives both batting sides a chance to score a run or two in overtime. Would it be such a horrible thing if that happened for the NFL and college football?
Right now, there doesn't seem to be a lot of love for the current ruling, but our thought is this: the longer there are no changes, the bigger dissatisfaction there will be among fans, the media and, yes, the owners. The NFL has the chance to morph a little. If they don't want to start both teams on the opposition's 25-yard line, then start on the 30-yard line. Or let the other side receive a kick-off if the other team scores a touchdown. As long as both sides get the chance to 'match-the-score' that would be OK.
And if you don't believe me about how exciting college football overtime is, I would beg you to watch the Arizona State v Oregon triple overtime game from earlier this year. Then close your eyes and think 'how awesome would that kind of overtime be in this year's Super Bowl?'
