Wednesday’s Champions League Final pitted two English teams—Manchester United and Chelsea—against each other for the first time in the 53-year history of the tournament.
It was a fierce battle, as both teams missed opportunities to put the game out of reach during regulation, and ultimately the game was forced into overtime with the scores knotted up at one.
After neither team was able to net a goal during the two overtime periods, the match moved into penalty kicks to determine the winner.
And it was at that point that a beautiful sporting event was ruined yet again by a terrible overtime system.
Now don’t get me wrong—the penalty kicks proved to be very exciting.
Cristiano Ronaldo, arguably the greatest soccer (or football, depending on where you are) player in the world currently, missed the third kick for United, opening the door for Chelsea.
And then, when you thought Chelsea had it wrapped up, Captain John Terry slipped on the team’s fifth shot for the win, sailing the ball far right of the post.
United went on to win when keeper Edwin Van der Sar made a diving save to his right, and the celebrations began.
But lost in the celebration was how United managed to win the historic matchup, by beating Chelsea in a challenge that is entirely different than the game that had taken place over the initial 90 minutes of regulation, and extra 30 minutes of overtime.
And herein lies the problem that many of our college and professional sports are facing today—overtime rules.
For starters, let’s take a look at some of the main sports and see how their respective overtimes are currently formatted:
Hockey
The NHL currently uses a combination of points, extra time, and a shootout. When regulation ends, each team is awarded one point in the standings.
They then play a five-minute extra period, four on four plus goalies, in sudden-death format.
If the game remains tied after the five minute extra period, they move on to three penalty shots each, which then becomes one for one sudden-death penalty shots thereafter to determine the winner, if necessary.
Football
The NFL currently uses the simple sudden-death overtime period. If the score is tied after all four quarters of regulation, there is a 15-minute overtime period, in which the first team to score wins.
Possessions for both teams are not guaranteed. If the score remains tied after the 15-minute period, a regular season game ends in a tie, whereas a playoff game continues having extra periods until someone scores and a winner is determined.
College football uses an entirely different format.
If regulation ends in a tie, the teams each get one possession, starting from their own 25-yard line. From there, the game action takes place like that of a normal game, in that a team can get first downs, and can score a touchdown or choose to kick a field goal at any time.
Any sort of turnover ends that team’s possession, and the other team restarts the attempt to score from the 25-yard line.
After each team gets a possession, if there is still a tied scored, the teams switch sides of the field and first possession, and repeat.
After three of these cycles, if necessary, teams are forced to go for a two point conversion after scoring a touch down, as opposed to kicking an extra point.
Within each cycle, both teams are guaranteed one possession, and this continues until a cycle ends without a tie. At that point, the team with more points wins.
Baseball
In the MLB, when there is a tied score after the culmination of nine innings of play, the game moves onto extra innings, one inning at a time.
In this format, each team gets an opportunity to bat, with the home team maintaining the right to bat second each inning.
Additional innings will continue to be added on until either three outs are recorded with the home team batting and the visiting team having a lead, or until the home team acquires a lead while batting, at which point there is a winner.
Basketball
Both the NBA and NCAA basketball are the same on their overtime rules. When regulation ends, there is a five-minute extra period to determine the winner.
If the score remains tied after the five-minute extra period, additional five-minute periods continue to be added until one ends with a winner.
So what should be done?
There you have the current formats of overtime for some of the major sports that are followed in the United States. Some of the methods are great as-is, and do not need to be refined.
Meanwhile, others desperately need to be revamped so we can avoid travesties like yesterday’s Champions League Finals.
Starting with what needs fixing, I'd move right away into a problem that encompasses the overtime systems for soccer and hockey.
In sports like those, where scoring does not happen as often as basketball, I can appreciate a sudden death overtime period.
It’s great to see teams playing with such concentration as to know that any mistake they make can result in an immediate and sudden ending to the game, and perhaps their season.
With that thought, hockey initially gets it right.
On the other hand, I would like to see that method used more frequently in soccer—as they call it the “golden goal” method—as opposed to the “silver goal” method that was demonstrated in yesterday’s game.
To watch top-level athletes perform with the sense of urgency that a sudden-death format encourages is to witness those athletes perform at their highest levels. That is always my ultimate goal with sports.
But the real issue that I have with both sports’ overtime methods is what happens after the extra periods are finished without a winner.
Moving to a penalty kick or shot format to determine a winner ultimately takes a step away from the great action. Action that usually has led to such an exciting game throughout regulation and extra periods.
Of course, an argument can be made that the penalty shots are a part of the game, but they are without a doubt not a focus of the game, and therefore I do not believe they should be the deciding factor in who wins.
The Champion League Final yesterday proved that decisive penalty kicks can be very exciting to watch, but I would much rather see two highly-talented teams continue doing what they have been doing all game long to determine the champion.
Imagine a scenario in which a baseball game winner was determined by a home run derby? Or even worse, imagine a basketball game being determined by a dunk contest?
I’m sure it would be exciting, but events like that should be left for the All-Star Game “extra” activities, just like penalty shots perhaps should, and they should be left out of the decision making for who moves onto the next round or hoists the championship trophy.
My proposition for soccer and hockey would be for them to maintain one simple extra period, adding additional periods if necessary, in the standard sudden- death format—play as if a win or loss can be determined at any second, and we’re bound to see the best our athletes have to offer.
Determining a proper overtime format for football is not so easy.
Both the NFL and NCAA are close to getting it right in their current formats, but both has issues that must be fixed.
Starting with the NFL, I like that they play the game as it’s supposed to be played, continually adding on extra periods if needed, until there is a winner (in the playoffs).
However, a major issue that plagues the NFL is that so often, games can be determined before the clock even starts, when both teams meet in the middle of the field for the coin toss.
The fact that a team can win the toss, elect to receive the ball, drive to somewhere around the 35-yard line, and then kick a long field goal for the win—all without the other team ever touching the ball—is disgraceful.
One way or another, each team absolutely has to have the opportunity to get a possession.
College football, on the other hand, correctly ensures that each team gets a possession in their current format. And in fact, I have always appreciated watching a college football overtime game, and think that they are very close in getting it correct.
Unfortunately, I still find a flaw. Football is known as a game with three parts: offense, defense, and special teams.
Further, special teams are comprised of different parts, being kickoffs, punts, and field goals (consider extra points in the same category as field goals for this discussion).
In the current overtime method for college football, the kickoffs and punting portion of the game are completely eliminated.
This creates a situation similar to that of soccer and hockey, in that the game is played during regulation with all parts of the game involved, then suddenly in overtime only portions of the traditional game play are used.
Granted, college football is not as off as soccer and hockey in that the main aspects of the game—offense, defense, and field goals—are still concerned. Nevertheless, they should enforce the usage of all aspects of the game to determine a winner.
I think a solution to football overtime formats, in both the NFL and college, could be two five-minute periods, in which both periods happen regardless of score.
In my suggested format, both the first and second periods would begin with a kickoff, with the team who receives alternating between the two periods. This would more than likely allow each team a challenging but reasonable five minutes to drive the length of a field in an attempt to score a touchdown or field goal.
However, since all five minutes would be used regardless of turnovers or scores, it would force both teams to play a full game, involving all three key components to playing football.
The fact that there would be a guaranteed two periods would ensure that both teams get an equal opportunity at possession. With that, we would see an exciting continuation of the full game being played, and from there we would have the true winner.
And finally, that brings me back to both basketball and baseball. To be perfectly honest, for their given games, I feel that this is where the lone positives shine on our professional sports overtime methods.
I like how basketball has a simple five minute continuation of game play in both the NBA and NCAA. The last five minutes of regulation in a competitive basketball game are always the most exciting and challenging, from a coaching perspective, portions of the game.
The same can be said for both the top and bottom of the ninth inning in a close baseball game.
Waiting on each pitch, wondering if it will be a ball or strike, or whether or not the sacrifice fly will be deep enough to score the winning run on third, is one of the ultimate rushes while watching sports.
So is holding your breath when that last-second three-pointer is heaved at the basket with a team down by two points.
With each sports’ current overtime method, we continue the most exciting portions of the game until necessary to determine an ultimate victor. We continue some of the best moments possible while watching sports—and that is what I like to witness as a spectator.
In the end, we all love to watch sports, and we all love when sports competition is played at is best and truest forms. Under all of our sports current overtime methods, it is not evident to me that we have fully achieved this goal.
I think it is imperative that these issues are fixed, so that we are not left hoping a championship matchup never extends beyond regulation.
comments (17) write a comment »
write a new comment
4 months ago
"The Champion League Final yesterday proved that decisive penalty kicks can be very exciting to watch, but I would much rather see two highly-talented teams continue doing what they have been doing all game long to determine the champion. Imagine a scenario in which a baseball game winner was determined by a home run derby? Or even worse, imagine a basketball game being determined by a dunk contest?"
Very well said... I think, across the sports board, you make an excellent point. Sadly, I'm with you. While I think a change should be made, I'm yet to propose any suggestions. Nonetheless, very nicely written. Winning or losing on PKs definitely takes away from the magic that brought the two evenly matched teams to that point anyway - but what to do about it?
4 months ago
God no, penalties are awesome...
A real test after 120 minutes of open play...
Alby
4 months ago
it's only a travesty for chelsea supporters. penalties have long been a tradition in football, and there is no hope of that changing.
Penalties asks a team if they can hold their nerve, and the team that does hold their nerve, wins.
4 months ago
yes, leave the penalties. Its part of the game. In the penalty shoot-out, we saw:
1) arrogance can almost cost you a championship (Ronaldo)
2) men with ice in their veins can mess up (Terry)
3) all it takes is being in the right place at the right time just ONCE, and you can win a match (Van Der Saar)
It is just like any other part of the game. A golden goal could happen on a fluke, and allow the team that didn't play as well to win. Same with penalties.
from 4 months ago
I agree with John on this..Penalties are not just a formality..
4 months ago
I agree with Tom. Great article. But I wouldn't limit football overtime to two 5-minute periods, I would keep it at 15 and let them play it out and ensure that both teams touch the ball the same amount.
4 months ago
I wanted to see a trophy decided by a football game. Penalty kicks are not football.
Simple solution: the team that scores first wins if it is tied. Alternatively, if penalty kicks must be used to decide a game (if the game is stalemated at 0-0 for 120 minutes for example), then take them BEFORE the game starts. That way one team knows that they have to win a game of football.
Deciding a game of such magnitude by a lottery is horrible! I am a Chelsea fan, but I would not have celebrated had JTs penalty gone in. In fact I didn't even watch the PKs. I have no interest. I want to watch football.
Les.
4 months ago
I agree with the author. And I have talked to plenty of people in Europe who have been brought up in the traditions of the game who still think penalties suck.
One improvement would be to go "hockey style"--since soccer has twice as many (non-goalie) players, you drop two for then OTs, and then you allow an extra sub for the effect of fresh legs (did you notice how many guys were cramping up out there? Most of them had run 10km, or about 6 miles, before the OT had even started). I think that would cause most games to get settled in OT.
In this particular match, ManU would have in all probabliliy won the game, because no one man can guard Cristiano Ronaldo right now. Chelsea was very organized and always had a guy to cover, but that's a LOT harder to do when you're two men down. And if ManU can bring Anderson or Nani on, I think it's game over.
The other idea, and I say this because Chelsea was clearly getting beat until they decided to foul ManU every time they started the break, is that which ever team committed more fouls during the game (I don't even know if that's Chelsea, as I haven't looked it up, but I bet it is) has to take a man off, and again with the additional sub. 11-on-10 with a fresh sub for 30 minutes is also pretty likely to generate a score.
from 4 months ago
sorry stan but that is a stupid idea. what if one team commits one more foul than the other and it's a nothing shoulder barge that shouldn't have been given? that could cost them the champions league! players would be scared to go into tackles and football would become a non contact sport in finals! also you get cheats like drogba diving to win fouls, so him cheating could win his team a trophy! wheres the sense in that?!
4 months ago
I just looked it up.
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/fixturesresults/round=15109/match=301604/report=st.html
Chelsea did commit more fouls, even though it was only by three, 25-22.
4 months ago
ah no way penalties are amazing! they're gutwrenching if your teams in them, but they're one of the most exciting things in sport! if anything i think extra time should be scrapped and go straight to penalties!
4 months ago
Well, that was the second of two ideas, Britney, but come on. Games get changed on bad calls all the time--does that mean you want to do away with the foul completely?
Fouls don't get punished enough in the game (not the only game where that's true, look at basketball as well)--there's hardly any relationship between commiting fewer fouls and winning the game.
4 months ago
For some reason I read your name as Britney, Barney, sorry about that. No offense intended.
4 months ago
Firstly, the Champions League Final or any other football game doesn't use the Silver Goal method to determine the winner.. this was a standard extra time - a period of 30 minutes split into 15 mins. each and the winner is determined (if any) at the end of 30 mins.
Secondly, the Golden Goal method has been tried and tested and it has failed. The margin for error in one goal is far lesser than 5 penalties each. The Golden Goal may require more concentration, but it can have an adverse effect on certain teams, which may look to defend the entire extra time period rather than play football. So, as far as using the Golden Goal method goes, it is not a good idea.. it flopped pretty badly.
I think the system that is used now is perfect. It is sad to see a team lose on penalties and it is cruel but, you really cannot say scrap the system. The fact is that people know the rules when they enter and so cannot really whine about it after. Besides, it is difficult to conclusively determine who is a winner in sport when a game is drawn. So, I don't think it is a bright idea to bring back the Golden Goal system in football.
4 months ago
i agree with michael, you hold your nerve and you win. its been the same for years, the players know they have to score in regulation or its penalties, its simple.
take another famous shootout, the 1994 world cup final, those players were exhausted, no way they could have played some extra overtime system. baggio had been the star performer for italy yet in the shootout he lost his nerve and put it over.
if you can't score during regulation its penalties. they arent very nice but it has to be done, i missed in a shootout last year costing my team a place in a cup final. absolutely gutted, but no way around it.
4 months ago
I'm more of a Hockey fan than a Football fan (the real football, not American football), but I really dislike the shootout in both disciplines. In College hockey, they play one 5 minute sudden-death period, and, after that, the game is a tie. I see nothing wrong with a tie between two teams who have fought hard for 65 minutes - the only reason the NHL uses the shootout is to pander to the fans who do not understand the game and are only attending for the thrill factor of watching boxers on skates duke it out (and a chance to get drunk in public).
In the playoffs, hockey moves to 20 minute sudden-death periods, with additional periods added on. To me, this is the most exciting thing in all of sports - watching a game between two evenly matched teams go on long into the night, the players tired and out of energy but finding that extra strength to go just one more shift on the ice. Shootouts do not offer this - as the author said, they are totally different from the way in which the game is fundamentally played - and, in my mind, are a travesty to the sports which use them.
4 months ago
There was a golden goal system.
It took eight years to implement but months to remove after Brazil lost to Nigeria and then Italy lost to Korea.
Something about big sides losing apparently did not rub well with FIFA.
write a new comment