For years, fans, players, and the media have all wondered when we could see a Super Bowl end in overtime.
Finally, in the game’s 51st edition, it happened. Then, after just 3:58 elapsed on the game clock, it was over, without the Atlanta Falcons even possessing the football.
The New England Patriots overcame a 28-3 third-quarter deficit to score a game-tying touchdown and conversion with :57 left in regulation, leading to the historic extra period, played under the NFL’s overtime rules.
Those rules gave the Patriots an unfair advantage simply because they won the coin toss. Unlike college and high school football, in the NFL the team that gets the ball first in overtime can win the game with a touchdown.
The league justifies this by saying both teams are guaranteed to possess the ball unless the first team scores a touchdown by driving all the way down the field after the extra session’s opening kickoff.
And yet, that’s exactly what the Patriots did, going 75 yards in eight plays to score just 3:58 into the overtime period, without the Falcons ever having a possession.
As a result of these rules, the team that wins the coin toss almost always takes the ball, with a few rare exceptions (including, once, the Patriots), because they know their chances to win are enhanced by possessing the ball first.
This doesn’t make sense. While the rule is better than it used to be–until 2010 the first team to score in any way won, meaning the first team with possession could win with a field goal–it is still preposterous that one team or the other got an advantage in the Super Bowl based on whether a coin landed on heads or tails.
What I would like to see would not be a major overhaul: the NFL could simply require the team that loses the coin toss to also get a possession. To use last night’s game as an example, after the Patriots took a lead that would have likely been 35-28 after an extra point, the Falcons would have had a chance to match. Had they not scored, the game would be over, or if they scored to tie, then the next team to score would win.
While tweeting my discontent with the overtime rule after the game’s conclusion, multiple users replied to me that the Falcons deserved to lose because they led by 25 late in the third quarter and didn’t score over the last quarter and a half.
But that doesn’t change the flaw in the overtime rule. If the Falcons had won the coin toss and marched down the field and scored, wouldn’t it be right for the Patriots to get a possession after fighting so hard to tie the game and reach overtime? (That scenario happened to the Packers, last season, as I mentioned here.)
Furthermore, in a hypothetical back-and-forth game that both teams play all 60 minutes at a high level, isn’t it only right that both teams get a possession, instead of one having the ability to win on the first possession because they won a coin toss?
This rule has been a problem for a long time, and I’ve been a critic of it for as long as I’ve been watching pro football.
Now, as football enters its offseason, if the occurrence of one team being robbed of a chance to possess the ball in a historic Super Bowl overtime doesn’t get the league to change the rule, nothing will.
The overtime problem in the NFL has gone on far too long, and now the rule gave one franchise a disadvantage as it tried to win its first Super Bowl title.
It’s long past time for a change.