The U.S. women's soccer team won a thrilling, back and forth, 4-3 game yesterday in the Olympic semifinals over Canada with a goal in injury time of the second overtime period. With the win, the U.S. moved on to the finals to play Japan in a rematch of the World Cup final. Japan won that game, but now the United States gets a chance to avenge that loss and win an Olympic gold medal. Aside from the obvious fact that the United States won the game and the winning goal was scored by my future wife Alex Morgan, I was also very happy that the game ended without going to penalty kicks. Seeing the game ended on penalty kicks would have been a disappointing end to a hard fought match between two very good teams. This got me thinking about how each of our major sports decides games that are tied at the end of regulation time, and I decided it would be a good topic to write about. What follows is my thoughts on the overtime rules of the five major American sports...
Soccer - Since yesterday's soccer game was what got me thinking about this subject, that is where I will start. My thoughts on overtime in soccer can be summed up in three words. I hate it. Two, 15 minute, non-sudden death periods followed by penalty kicks if the game is still tied. As will be the theme throughout this writing, I want to see sudden death. First goal wins. Instead, soccer games are decided by two 15 minute periods and then penalty kicks. I don't have a problem with regular season or group stage games ending in ties, but in tournament games in which a winner is needed, I hate the way soccer conducts its overtime periods. Often times, the overtime periods are non-eventful and bordering on the stage of painstakingly boring. It's as if the teams are simply just wasting time in order to go to penalty kicks, and that makes it even worse. Deciding a soccer game with penalty kicks is like deciding a basketball game with a free throw shooting contest. It makes no sense. Decide the game as the previous 120 minutes were played. A penalty shootout is often decided by a fluke save or mis-kick, and sometimes when shootouts decide very important games (like Brazil vs Italy in the 1994 World Cup Final), the result feels unsatisfactory. I don't have a problem with playing 15 minute periods, because soccer games are obviously very long and the players tire. However, I would love to make it sudden death. A game ending during the course of play as opposed to a shootout is far more exciting because the game could end at any minute. Get rid of the shootouts in soccer.
Baseball - Baseball does it the right way, simply because there is really no other way to decide an extra innings game than to keep playing as if it were a normal game. The possibility of walk-off hits and come from behind victories makes extra innings exciting all the time. Sometimes it gets a bit bizarre if games go to 12 innings or more as position players will come in to pitch due to teams running through their entire pitching staff, but that doesn't happen very often, and baseball games that go to extra innings are always exciting.
Basketball - This is another sport that does it right. Keep playing until we get a winner. I also like the fact that the NBA overtimes are only 5 minutes long, as opposed to a full 12 minutes like the four quarters of a normal game. Sudden death in basketball is obviously out of the question because there are more points scored in basketball than any other sport, but I like the 5 minute overtime period rule. Sometimes we can see a team or a player go on a run and win the game comfortably, and other times we can see games come down to the wire. Watching games that come down to the wire during regulation time and during overtime are always exciting. The only problem is that sometimes due to overtime, many players accumulate a lot of fouls, and we might end up seeing some stars on the bench if the game goes to multiple overtimes. However, this doesn't happen too much, and overall, I like the NBA overtime rules.
Football - NFL overtime rules are some of the most polarizing rules in all of sports, and I obviously would then have very strong feelings on the rules. Although the regular season overtime rules are as they should be, it seems like we are getting closer and closer to seeing those rules change. In the regular season, the game is decided by one 15 minute (at most) period, with the first team to score being the winner. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this. Critics of this method of deciding a game argue that the team that gets the ball first wins something like 52% of the time. I'm not sure of the exact number, but it is basically half the time. And somehow, critics believe that this is overwhelming evidence that the rules are unfair. That means half of the time, the team that gets the ball first wins the game. Do they realize what this means? Half of the time the team that gets the ball first wins, and half of the time the team that gets the ball first loses. How is this evidence that the rules are unfair? Half of the time that a team gets the ball first wins the game in EVERY football game ever played! A team that wins the coin toss has a 50% chance of winning a game in any given sport on any given day! How can a team prevent its opponent from winning on its first possession of overtime? Is it a complete mystery? No it isn't. Play defense. Stop the other team from moving into field goal range. More often than not, in any given football game, more possessions end in punts or turnovers as opposed to points. If a team would simply play defense and force a punt or a turnover instead of letting a team go about 50 yards to score points, they could get the ball and win the game. It is incomprehensible how a team/player/coach/fan can complain about losing in overtime without ever getting a chance to have the ball when they just cannot play defense. It's like being opposed to touchdown celebrations. If you don't want opposing players to dance in the end zone, don't let them score. If you don't want to lose a game on the first possession of overtime, play some defense.
The new rule that has just recently been adopted in playoff overtime games caters to these asinine critics of overtime, and I have a feeling that this rule will soon be implemented in all games. If a team kicks a field goal on the first possession of overtime, the opposing team gets a chance to receive a kickoff and get the ball. However, if a team scores a touchdown on the first overtime possession, the game is over. How are these any different? All it basically comes down to is a defense being unable to make a stop. Force a three and out. Or even give up two first downs and then still force a punt! Points are points. If your defense gives up points in a "sudden death" period, it should lose. The other team should not get a chance to answer. If Eli Manning leads the Giants down to a touchdown on the last possession of the fourth quarter, the other team does not get a chance to respond just because their defense failed. The NFL needs to stop feeling bad for teams that cannot play defense and make the game all about offense, and instead it should reward the team that can actually make a stop and then score first.
Hockey - The NHL gives us the best of both worlds when it comes to overtime. Formerly, a regular season game that was tied after three periods went into a five minute overtime period. If a team scored, the game was over. If no one scored, the game ended in a tie. For regular season games, I have no problem with this. Both teams get one point, and we move on to the next game. However, recent rule changes have, in my opinion, hurt the way that games are decided. First, the worst part of the new NHL overtime is that both teams instantly get a point by simply getting to overtime. Even if a team loses the game, they still get a point. I hate this. If a team loses, they should not be awarded with a point just for getting the game into overtime. What is even worse now, is that all games tied after the five minute overtime periods go into shootouts. And just like soccer, I cannot stand shootouts, because the games are not decided by actually playing the game on the ice. I also don't like this because it lessens the excitement of penalty shots. Penalty shots used to be few and far between. Watching a penalty shot during any given game was extremely exciting because they were so rare. Instead, now we get to see penalty shots all the time, and in my opinion, it isn't good for the game.
Despite what I feel is a terrible overtime rule for regular season games, the NHL gets it right in the playoffs. No shootouts. Play until a team scores in true sudden death fashion. 20 minute periods just like a normal game, and the first team to score wins. Watching NHL playoff overtime games are, in my opinion, one of the most exciting things to watch in all of sports.
12 years ago, the Flyers and Penguins played a five-overtime game in the playoffs that ended in a Flyers win thanks to a Keith Primeau goal. The excitement and drama during that game was unbelievable. Just this past year, the Rangers and Capitals played into overtime in the playoffs and Marc Staal scored the game winner in an extremely exciting game. Steve Yzerman scored a goal on an unbelievable shot against the St. Louis Blues in 1996 to win a double overtime Game 7. The game was edge-of-your-seat drama the entire way through. There is absolutely nothing like a multiple overtime NHL playoff game. In the regular season, I have no problem with games ending in ties, but in the playoffs, give me a seven overtime game and I will be happy no matter who wins.
So to sum it up, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL (in the playoffs) do it right, and the NFL (in the playoffs, and sadly, probably the regular season also) and any given soccer league do it totally wrong. Don't give me a game that ends in a skills challenge or a game that ends with sympathy for a team that can't play defense. Decide the game on the field or on the ice and I will be glued to the television.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: As I write this, Starling Marte just hit a home run off of Takashi Saito to tie the game at three in Pittsburgh. Patrick Corbin was very good tonight, but now will not get a chance to win a game in which we have wasted a bunch of opportunities to score some more runs. We are still within striking distance of the Giants and Dodgers, but we need to start making up ground as opposed to just staying close. Winning tonight will help that.
Daily Giants Update: The first preseason game is in three days against the Jacksonville Jaguars. It is incredible how fast this offseason went by, and I am excited to see what this season will bring. The first preseason game won't include much time for the starters, but we can get a chance to see young players fighting for roster spots who could play big roles later in the year if injuries might crop up. Football is getting closer and closer!
No comments:
Post a Comment