Did the Broncos get short changed in Seattle?

Discuss the NHL, NFL, CIS, NCAA, Lacrosse, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, Motorsports, Golf, Rugby, Amateur Sport, Curling, Wrestling ... Whatever Sport or Leisure activity you like!

Moderator: Team Captains

Post Reply

Does the NFL need to change its OVERTIME, again.......?

Poll ended at Mon Sep 29, 2014 11:13 pm

Yes, both teams should get to possess the ball on offence
6
75%
Yes, there should never be tied games, play until there's a winner
0
No votes
Yes, go back to the previous OT system the first score wins even if its a field goal
0
No votes
No, the current system is fine
2
25%
 
Total votes: 8
User avatar
notahomer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 12:09 pm
Location: Vancouver

(I'm more than happy, and would prefer, if this be tied into the NFL thread. Its just I wanted to add the poll. So, if its left as a stand-alone or rolled in the NFL thread, I'm happy regardless... Thanks Mods!)

PrimeTime Sanders was very vocal after yesterdays win by the Seattle Seahawks that a coinflip decided the outcome of the game (not exactly what he said but close).

IOW, Sanders thought that it was unfair because even though Manning led the Broncos to being able to tie the game late to send it into overtime, he didn't get a chance to help his team win. Manning didn't get a chance because Wilson led the Seattle offence to score a TOUCHDOWN, thereby ending the game. Sanders logic is that a coinflip helped the Seahawks beat the Broncos.

I actually prefer the CFL and NCAA ways of settling overtime games. The one drawback I feel that method has is it dramatically reduces the impact of special teams. That being said, both teams get the same chances from the same end of the field etc...

The NFL version is more like just continuing the game. One team wins the coinflip and usually takes possession of the ball via kickoff. If a touchdown is scored by the first team, game over. However, If that first team scores a field goal, the other team still gets a chance to possess the football (winning the game by scoring a TD, the game continuing if the second team ALSO kicks a field goal).

IMO, I would leave NFL OT as is. The Broncos D were the ones responsible for getting Manning another crack on offense, they didn't get the Seahawks off the field. If they'd held the Seahawks to a field goal, Manning would have had a chance to WIN by leading the Broncos to a TD and/or continuing overtime by having the Broncos kicker get a field goal too.

In some ways I think part of this is the status of players. I think had the roles been reversed and it was Wilson who led the late drive tying the game but didn't get to leave the bench, I'm not so sure Sanders would have complained. He claims otherwise, but IMO, I do feel there are different standards/entitlements that 'elite' players are given. Its clear what the rules were. The Broncos DID well to get back into the game but the Seahawks really showed the better team won, IMO.......
TheLionKing
Hall of Famer
Posts: 25103
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Vancouver

I'm not a fan of the NFL's version of overtime. Seems grossly unfair to me that one team may not have the opportunity to at least tie the game.
User avatar
sj-roc
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7539
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:39 pm
Location: Kerrisdale

TheLionKing wrote:I'm not a fan of the NFL's version of overtime. Seems grossly unfair to me that one team may not have the opportunity to at least tie the game.
I don't care for it, either. For that matter I also don't care for the CFL shootout format and would jump for joy :yahoo: if they re-instated the old two 5-minute halves version.

It was funny how when the shootout was first introduced with a "four-inning" format in 2000, the CFL ended up playing more OT games that year than in the three previous seasons combined, with several of them going the distance, which immediately exposed the flaws of the format. But instead of reverting to the old format they simply dug in their heels and truncated the shootout to two innings as it remains to this day, although they were eventually forced to add a mandatory 2PC attempt to all touchdowns as it seemed to many games were left unsettled.
Sports can be a peculiar thing. When partaking in fiction, like a book or movie, we adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for enjoyment's sake. There's a similar force at work in sports: "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt this, listen to any conversation between rival team fans. You even see it among fans of the same team. Fans argue over who's the better QB or goalie, and selectively cite stats that support their views while ignoring those that don't.
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

Peyton Manning voiced the same complaint right after the game. I thought this was poor form on Manning's part, portraying him as a poor loser. As you say, nota, all the Broncos' defense had to do was stop the Seahawks short of a TD to get the ball themselves. The suggestion of playing additional quarters until a team wins is not really feasible in football, as exhaustion sets in in a way it doesn't in baseball (where a game can go many extra innings), and this can lead to injuries. Although it's not purrfect, I vote for continuing the present NFL format.

Here's Pro Football Talk's brief discussion of Manning's statement:

Peyton Manning: Overtime rules put a premium on the coin toss
Posted by Michael David Smith on September 22, 2014, 6:33 PM EDT

Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning led his team to a stunning comeback in Seattle on Sunday, tying a game in the final minute after it appeared to be lost. Then Manning made a mistake that cost his team the game: He called tails.

After the Broncos lost the overtime coin toss, Manning could do nothing more than stand on the sideline and watch as Russell Wilson led the Seahawks down the field toward a game-winning touchdown. After ending the fourth quarter with a touchdown pass and a two-point conversion pass, Manning never touched the ball in overtime.

As Manning noted afterward, that coin toss loomed large.

“It puts a premium on the coin toss,” Manning said. “I called tails at the beginning of the game, and went with it again in overtime. It was heads, and it proved to be a significant call. But that’s the way it is. And you’d like to not leave it to that, leave it to get to that situation.”

For years, overtime in the NFL was true sudden death, with the first team to score winning. The newer rules make the coin toss a bit less important, as a team can’t win with a field goal on the first possession. But the coin toss still matters. Some fans prefer the college format, where teams alternate possessions from the 25-yard line, but winning the coin toss matters in college, too, as it’s advantageous to win the toss, play defense first and then know on the subsequent possession whether to play it safe for a field goal or whether a touchdown is necessary. An auction-style overtime rule, where the teams would “bid” on a yard line to start from in overtime, could eliminate the coin toss but has never really caught on.

The NFL probably won’t change the rules on overtime any time soon, if ever. So players who don’t want to deal with a rule that puts a premium on the coin toss will just have to win the game in regulation.
__________________________________________________________________

The advantage of winning the coin toss in OT isn't as great as one might think in the NFL. Between 1974, when sudden-death OT came into the NFL, and 2003, about 52% of the teams that have won the coin toss have won the game. 43.4% of teams losing the coin toss have won, and 4.6% of the games have ended in a tie. However, beginning with the 2012 season, the OT rules were changed to "modified sudden-death," where only if the team having the first possession scored a TD was the game over. A FG, for example, was followed by a kickoff, and the team that lost the coin toss got the ball. I couldn't find figures on the two seasons since this change occurred, but the effect should be to reduce the advantage of winning the coin toss. That was the intent, in any case.
User avatar
notahomer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 12:09 pm
Location: Vancouver

Darn, I usually respect Manning but that does make him seem like a whiner. I guess you could say competitor but NAH, its whining. The rules are cut and dry. Broncos made the call too.

I voted as you did, how it is now is fine, IMO.
User avatar
notahomer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 12:09 pm
Location: Vancouver

Sports reporting is pretty solid too. So, if Manning/Broncos win a coinflip in overtime and get a game winning TD drive (like Mannings predecessor Tim Tebow did in a playoff game versus the Steelers, IIRC) I hope the reporters grill him about his opponnents QB not getting a shot. Somehow, I think this is one of those items where you get biased by what you experience. When you lose, you want to find a way so you can get one more drive, one more shot, one more whatever.... So, I'm backpedalling on calling Manning a whiner, I do believe its competitive drive that had him complain in the moment. When he gets to leave an opponent chilling on the bench due to a strong drive to end an overtime via a TD, I'm pretty sure he'll LOVE the current format..... :cool:

(IIRC, the last regular season overtime game Manning was part of was in 2004 according to the broadcast crew! Amazing it doesn't come up more often, IMO).
Post Reply