AN ENGLISHMAN ABROAD WANTS TO CHANGE THE RULES

Challenging the norms of another country’s national sports is always asking for trouble.  But the weekend’s Patriots versus Chiefs championship game ended on such a note of anti-climax that it cannot go unremarked.  The way in which tied matches are decided in over-time does no justice to the talent in the game.

The stakes were heightened by the star quarterbacks on each side.  Legendary, multiple Super Bowl ring winner Tom Brady against young gun, superstar Patrick Mahomes.  The sherrif was in town and the kid was itching for a fight.

It was an attritional game with flashes of brilliance on all sides which is everything you could hope for.  The two slugged it out toe to toe for four quarters and with just ten seconds left in the game the Chiefs tied the scores.  High drama to be followed by total disatisfaction that left a new observer of the game cold.

The method of settling the game is that each side gets a possession and the chance to score unless a touchdown is scored by the team with first possession.  If the scores are equal after a possession each it becomes ‘sudden death’ with the next score winning the game.  And the first possession is determined by the toss of a coin. 

The Patriots won the coin toss and marched down the field to score a touchdown.  There was no opportunity for the Chiefs or their quarterback to respond with their own touchdown.  And that is where the problem lies.

Imagine a world heavyweight boxing match where the scores are tied at the end of the allotted twelve rounds.  To decide the fight a coin is tossed and the loser is not allowed to throw a punch for the next three rounds.  If he is knocked down he loses.

Or a tied game in a World Cup Final between Portugal and Argentina.  On the flip of a piece of metal, it is decided that Messi can’t play in the first half of extra-time and if Portugal score the game is over.  As Ronaldo wheels to celebrate his success the sight of the world’s other greatest player on the sidelines would be heartbreaking.

Defence may win championships but most fans clamour for the thrill of creative players doing amazing things.  They want the joy of enterprise and the jubilation of scoring.  To have a system where one side can be deprived of that makes little sense.

It’s even worse in a game which is a series of set-pieces and where first-mover advantage is in favour of the team in possession.  Alex Lalas noted that a free-kick in soccer is ‘probably the closest thing we have to American football’.  An increasing number of goals in soccer are coming from set-plays as coaches understand the advantage it gives them in a game which is otherwise almost entirely random.   

This advantage in American Football is borne out by the statistics.  According to Football Outsiders statistics Drive Success Rate (DSR), which measures the percentage of down series that result in a first down or touchdown, no team is successful less than 60% of the time.   In 2018 the Patriots had a season DSR of 73.9% and the Chiefs a DSR of 80%.

In short, you would expect the Patriots to complete a first down most of the time they are in possession.   And some excellent statistical work by Brian Burke indicates that, wherever on the field a drive starts it is more likely to end in a touchdown than a field goal.  None of this takes away from the quality of the Patriots’ execution in a pressure situation but it shows how the balance of probability adds up.

But the point is that the Chiefs did not get a chance to respond which short-changed the paying public.  I am told that before a rule change it was even worse, with only a field goal being needed to win in overtime. It’s a version of the dreaded ‘golden goal’ tried in soccer until being dropped in 2004 – I like to think because rule-makers realised it was dumb.

In every sport I can think of, where a definitive result is necessary, the teams battle it out on a blow for blow basis until the end.  Baseball can go on for hours and hours and innings after innings.  Football has resorted to penalty shoot-outs which at least equalises the pressures and skill levels of the teams.

And that is probably where American Football should go.  Maybe they give each side two ‘mini-quarters’ of, say, three minutes, with no time-outs, to score.  Once they score, a field goal or touchdown, or lose possession they hand the ball over to the opposition.  If the scores are level at the end of that, the game goes to field goal kicking of increasing lengths until one misses while the other scores.

Or they could simply move to the NCAA college rules where each team is, in succession and with no time limit, given the ball on the 25 yard line. After the first team completes its drive with a score or turnover, the opposing team has the same opportunity. If the teams are still tied after the second team’s possession, they must play another period until a winner emerges.

Neither is perfect but both mean that each side has an equal chance to win.  The game is eventually settled on a test of skill rather than fortune.  And the tension would be unbearable to the very end.  Perfect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *