Atlanta fans watched helplessly as the coin twirled in the air, landing in New England’s favor. The Patriots opted to receive the ball, initiating a quick jaunt downfield that resulted in a NE overtime victory. The sudden death OT rule has divided fans, causing some to support the swift end to lengthy games, while others want both sides to receive a fair shake.
The official rules are as follows: “Each team must possess or have the opportunity to possess the ball unless the team that has the ball first scores a touchdown on its initial possession. Play continues in sudden death until a winner is determined, and the game automatically ends upon any score (by safety, field goal, or touchdown) or when a score is awarded by the Referee for a palpably unfair act.”
Without allowing Atlanta a chance to move the ball, leaves the NFC faithful with the sensation of being cheated. Surely, a score can’t cut out the beating heart of a potential Falcons comeback bid.
In 2012, the NFL changed the rule, allowing both teams the chance to hurl the rock, unless one navigates into the end zone. Some have argued that giving a team a second chance to score if both managed touchdowns would be problematic; another possession without the opposition having the same number of possessions would be as unfair as the current rules. Some have proposed extra time in the fourth, equivalent to futball, continuing regulation until some breaks a tie.
There’s nothing wrong with extra football, especially when it’s on the biggest stage for the first time in Super Bowl history. I understand the concerns of more play time translating to more risk for injury, but both sides of the ball should definitely get their fair shake. Allow both team an opportunity to score, and then — if both are still notched — let the next points on the board win the ballgame. Why teams have a chance for possession following a field goal kick, but not a TD, makes zero sense to a ardent football fan.
Brought to you by: XENITH
