Overtime Rule Changes - 2022

Discussion in 'Women's College' started by PlaySimple, Apr 21, 2022.

  1. PlaySimple

    PlaySimple Member

    Sep 22, 2016
    Chicagoland
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    #1 PlaySimple, Apr 21, 2022
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2022
    How does everyone feel about the overtime rule changes for men's and women's soccer that will be adopted for the 2022 season?

    The Highlights:

    For the regular season, overtime has been eliminated, meaning if a game is tied after the regulation 90 minutes, it will end in a tie.

    In conference tournaments and NCAA postseason games, the sudden-victory component has been eliminated, and teams will play two 10-minute overtime periods instead. If the game remains tied, a penalty-kick shootout will be held to determine the winner.

    When a substitution is made by the winning team in the last five minutes of the second overtime, the game clock will stop.

    There was also an expansion of the rules regarding video reviews and protests. Shelved was a change to the reentry rules. Committee members voted in February to move forward with a change where players would not be allowed to reenter a game after being substituted for in the second half. That is now on hold until there is more discussion.

    Personally, I like the changes to the overtime rules. I always felt that it was a bit stupid to have overtime in the regular season. During a busy week of training and matches, that is leading to greater fatigue which, in turn, leads to more injuries. I always felt that there are too many games compacted into too short of a season to have long overtime periods.

    I am glad, though, that the postseason golden goal is gone. I never liked it.

    The substitution by the winning team in the second overtime and the stoppage of the clock that would follow that substitution is a good rule. If that rule were not enacted there would be a lot of time-wasting by the winning team.

    I do hope that reentries are going to be continued to be allowed in the second half of a game. This is NCAA soccer, not FIFA. There is no sense in trying to emulate the FIFA rules at the NCAA level. That was a problem with the Boy's DA, ECNL, and other youth leagues. The reality is that there are only going to be the smallest percentage of players that will go after college in a league where reentry is not allowed. Why have it be a thing for college players?

    More here:

    https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/4/20/media-center-prop-approves-changes-to-soccer-overtime-rules.aspx#:~:text=The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight,effective for the 2022 season.
     
    Fitballer, CoachJon, hykos1045 and 2 others repped this.
  2. Eddie K

    Eddie K Member+

    May 5, 2007
    Happy with dropping regular-season overtime. Refs will be happy too! And parents with 3-4-5 hour drives home after the game.

    I've always liked golden goal. If you want to avoid a draw and so pks, allow for golden goal. Playing OT and then having each team score to get to PKs anyway seems silly to me. If you get that goal in the 20 extra minutes, you should win....imho. Players love the drama of it too....okay only half of them!

    The sub rules are not changing this cycle if you read the end of that release. We could go on and on but I've always said if you want to sub less, just sub less! Any given 2 coaches on game day, or an entire conference, could just decide to limit subs just like some limit rosters for travel for example. Making all of college soccer play less players overall and those few players play even more minutes than necessary, is also silly.
     
  3. sokarcrazy

    sokarcrazy Member

    Dec 19, 2005
    Wish golden goal would’ve stay, it produced the most memorable moments for many players I have talked to.
     
  4. Nooneimportant

    Leeds United
    Jan 12, 2021
    The no overtime is a huge change and long overdue. Playing regular season overtime was always dumb.

    I was fine either way with playoff ot.

    I am also glad that the sub rule wasn’t changed. Everything doesn’t need to be in line FIFA. Let’s keep a few things within reason and allow for more participation. If a coach doesn’t want to use the subs, that is absolutely. If someone wants to be part of a program where they play lots of people, it doesn’t take much for recruits to know this.
     
    Fitballer and CoachJon repped this.
  5. SpeakeroftheHouse

    PSG
    Italy
    Nov 2, 2021
    Agreed. Here is the ironic thing. Let’s do away with OT in the regular season due to health concerns, but add in possibly additional minutes in the post season where the recovery time is usually less between games. Lol.

    I understand the issue with wind and weather playing a factor in OT, but I’d rather have that than a game decided on PK’s. Maybe they should do away with those do to mental health concerns of players involved and just flip a coin?
     
  6. Val1

    Val1 Member+

    Arsenal
    Mar 12, 2004
    MD's Eastern Shore
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    I like sudden death. I would have kept it, but that's not world soccer.
     
    SpeakeroftheHouse repped this.
  7. L'orange

    L'orange Member+

    Ajax
    Netherlands
    Jul 20, 2017
    I'm cognizant of the need to protect the health of the players, but I've always liked the sudden death, golden-goal rule far more than the pro way of fully playing two extra periods. In a sport where scoring can be difficult, the sudden-death rule makes a lot more sense to me than just playing another 20 or 30 minutes. You see pro games where two teams battle for 95 minutes--maybe it's 0-0 or 1-1---just make the team that scores next the winner. What's the point of playing an entire extra period--or two?
     
    SpeakeroftheHouse repped this.
  8. Sledhead

    Sledhead Member

    Atalanta
    United States
    Jul 14, 2019
    As a parent and fan, I will miss the excitement of a golden goal but the change to no OT in the regular season makes a lot of sense from a wear and tear standpoint.
     
  9. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Having grown up and played in the days when there were two 15-minute overtimes, I believe two 10-minute overtimes is a far better and fairer way to go. One of the most fun games I ever played in went the full distance and ended in a tie.
     
    CoachJon repped this.
  10. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Fitballer repped this.
  11. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    The rules have changed several times over the years, not always for the better, IMO.

    in 1967 men’s co-champions were declared when the game was ended for inclement weather and Michigan state and St Louis shared the title.

    in 1968 Michigan state and Maryland shared the title when the game was tied 2-2 after two overtimes.

    Nobody was happy with that so the rules were changed to keep playing until someone scored ( Golden Goal)
    In 1974, Howard and St Louis played 4 ten minute overtimes before Howard scored.

    In 1982 it took Indiana 160 minutes and 8 overtimes to beat Duke 2-1 in the championship game.

    In 1985 The UCLA men battled American U for 166+ scoreless minutes through 8 ten minute overtimes before UCLA scored to end the game. That match was played on old Astroturf in the Seattle Kingdome. I remember playing Lacrosse on an early astroturf surface and came away looking like I had a motorcycle accident.and dropped the bike wearing shorts.

    Nobody was happy playing 8 overtimes, especially on Astroturf. As a result, the rules were changed to no overtime at all and in 1989 Santa Clara and Virginia were declared co- champions after 90 minutes of scoreless play.

    So the rules changed again the next year to provide for shootouts after two 10 minute and two five minute overtimes. The next two years were settled in shootouts.
    UCLA beat Rutgers in 1990 and Virginia beat Santa Clara in 1991 after four scoreless regulation games and overtimes and were settled in shootouts each time.


    The four overtime rule was in effect as late as 1998 when the UNC women scored on Portland just before shootouts at the end of the fourth overtime in a semifinal.

    That Winter the rule became 2 overtimes, then kicks from the mark.
     
    Fitballer, CoachJon and hykos1045 repped this.
  12. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #12 cpthomas, Aug 19, 2022
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2022
    In the past, 10.8% of games ended in ties. For the first two days of the current season, with the elimination of golden goal overtimes, 39 of 157 games have ended in ties. That is 24.8%. In the article linked in post #10, I had suggested roughly 23% was what the statistics suggested as likely.

    It is a small sample so far.
     
    Fitballer, CoachJon and Eddie K repped this.
  13. Eddie K

    Eddie K Member+

    May 5, 2007
    Thanks @cpthomas

    So, previously in an 18 game regular season, nearly 2 games would be draws, but so far this season, that number has doubled. Haven't you suggested, this makes it harder to compare teams for rankings and post-season evaluations? It seems it would.

    So far, the players and families I'm closest to are going to really like staying on-time (w/o overtime). There are more double-headers on the same field, and just other stuff being scheduled, than some realize- at least below the P5 level.

    Nothing worse than pulling up to Chipotle 5 minutes after they closed!
     
    Fitballer repped this.
  14. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As I think about the rule change, here are some of the things I wonder about:

    1. It seems logical that having overtimes would favor teams with greater depth off the bench. Even if I assumed that stronger conferences have greater bench depth, however, doing a data anaysis, to see if this is true, with sufficient data, would be a very big task as it would involve going back through great numbers of games to extract all the overtime games and then analyze whether there are any patterns related to what the matchups were for games with OT golden goals as compared to matchups for games ending in ties.

    2. I create a result statistical probability table that shows the likelihood of a team winning, losing, or tieing based on a comparison of its RPI rating as compared to its opponent’s rating, as adjusted for home field advantage. I wonder how much the elimination of OT games will affect the probabilities. It seems like quite a bit, as the probability of ties overall looks like it at least will double, which means that the win and loss probabilities will have to go down.

    3. So far as NCAA Tournament decisions are concerned, which would be better information for the Committee about team strength as measured by how two opponents performed when they played each other: (1) That at the completion of regular time, the two teams were tied; or (2) That in OT, one of the teams scored a golden goal? One could make the case that winning in OT with a golden goal is deceptive, especially if all the Committee sees is a win-loss result. Rather, the better information for the Committee, so far as the game result is concerned, is that the two teams performed about equally. (I did do an experiment years ago, to see what would happen RPI-wise if I weighted OT golden goal wins as less valuable than regular time wins. As I recall, from an RPI rank perspective it did not make a big difference.)

    4. I suspect that with more ties, team records will become a little less extreme -- in other words, teams that have had a great number of wins in the past will have fewer and likewise with teams that have had a great number of losses. If so, this should cause some compression in the ratings. Will that make any significant difference in how far teams can move in the ratings from one game to the next? Will it make any difference in the Committee decision-making?
    I did look back at a study of the 2019 season I did last year related to a potential shift to no OT games. It suggested that although it likely would change a few seed and at large selection decisions, there were not (for that year) any obvious patterns to the changes. Rather, the changes seemed fairly random. Thus my conclusion was that we would not be likely to see anything significantly different than what we have been used to in the past.
     
    Fitballer repped this.
  15. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Through the first weekend, 22.7% of games ended in ties as compared to 10.8% when there were overtimes. My analysis, matched with data from the NCAA, had suggested the number would be 23%, which means that the numbers so far have been just as predicted.
     
    Cliveworshipper, Fitballer and ytrs repped this.
  16. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  17. SpeakeroftheHouse

    PSG
    Italy
    Nov 2, 2021
    Agree on this. Also, some ridiculous records so far this year. Teams with 5, 6 even 7 draws a little more than halfway through. The mindset and strategy has changed this year as weaker teams are more likely to bunker in knowing they won’t need to last an additional 20 minutes any longer. The first goal also becomes crucial as teams start to chase a draw instead of having the opportunity to win the game in regulation. Curious as to how many 2 goal leads have been lost this year as opposed to ending in a draw.

    Have a feeling that there will be an awful lot of tiebreakers used to determine playoff spots this year. This was something that wasn’t well thought out IMO.
     
  18. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #18 cpthomas, Sep 27, 2022
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2022
    The report to which I posted a link covers the effect of the new rule on changes in RPI ranks of individual teams, changes in standings of teams within conferences, and changes in the average ranks of teams within conferences. It also covers the effect of the new rule on home field advantage (minimal benefit to the home team!), and on the rating difference between teams at which one should anticipate that neither team has a 50 percent or better chance of winning. It also covers whether the rule change will make RPI ratings match better with game results (in my opinion, it will).

    I think you may be right on the need for more use of tiebreakers to determine conference standings for conference tournament purposes. I do not consider that as bad, and maybe it will give a better picture of how teams within a conference stack up.

    Regarding changes in tactics, I did not see anything in my study that indicates a change so far as this year is concerned. Since 2010, if there had been no overtimes, the percentage of ties would have ranged across the years from 20.3% to 21.9%. This year so far, the percentage is 21.6%, which is right in line with past history. This does not suggest any great change in tactics. One of the things that will be interesting to see is whether the percentage of ties changes in the future, which might indicate a tactical change. My instinct is that the impact of any change will be small.

    My sense is that the change was very well thought out, in terms of protecting player health and providing for fairness of competition in the second games of weekends. I do not think that anyone did a serious study of how the change might affect the RPI, but to me the deciders get a pass on that as it turns out that the change is not likely to make a big difference. It will affect individual team ratings and ranks, sometimes considerably, and team standings within conferences, but the conferences in most cases will end up with close to the same average ranks as they had in the past. (There will be a few exception conferences, at least some of which will be due to a conference having scheduling partner conferences where it has better support for soccer and depth and thus was able to win a disproportionate number of golden goal games. That no longer will be the case. I do not see this happening among the Power 5 conferences, but maybe it will happen some with the next tier.)
     
    Fitballer and ThePonchat repped this.
  19. Nooneimportant

    Leeds United
    Jan 12, 2021
    The change was very well thought out. It was absolutely the correct decision and in the best interest of player well-being.
     
    ThePonchat repped this.
  20. ThePonchat

    ThePonchat Member+

    #ProRelForUSA
    United States
    Jan 10, 2013
    I've Been Everywhere Man
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And…it’s about time the rule change happened. Thanks for the data @cpthomas!
     
  21. SpeakeroftheHouse

    PSG
    Italy
    Nov 2, 2021
    We can agree to disagree on that. 20 extra minutes (max) maybe 4 times all season isn’t going to do much. That’s wishful thinking. Here is a thought. Cut back on the total number of games allowed. Problem solved.

    Heaven forbid coaches use some of their 30+ player rosters to keep people fresh. And the argument that won’t happen is a weak one. It will if the coach is interested in keeping players healthy. Funniest thing is that there is no OT in the regular season, but it’s ok to run players into the ground during the post season when the games are even closer together.

    No, this wasn’t well thought out.
     
  22. SpeakeroftheHouse

    PSG
    Italy
    Nov 2, 2021
    Love your stuff and can’t believe the time it must take you to do. I have a question on the OT effect though. I just glanced at four conferences. Patriot. MAAC. NEC. America East. They were easy to find and All in the same area. Those four are on pace to be over 30% higher than last year. One of them already has more draws (considerably so) than they had all of last year with 40% of the season remaining.

    I see what you are saying about 22% ending in draws compared to 10.9%, but when you look at the straight numbers, it’s a jump of more than 30% from the previous year. That’s pretty substantial.
     
  23. NaBUru38

    NaBUru38 Member+

    Mar 8, 2016
    Las Canteras, Uruguay
    Club:
    Club Nacional de Football
    Here's an idea: the home team must win, otherwise it loses the match.

    Here's another idea: do a shootout before the match.
     
  24. MFF1910

    MFF1910 Member

    Sep 11, 2018
    I've been all in favor of this change for player well-being. There very well may be a change in tactics for a seemingly "weaker" team to play for the draw. That happens at all other levels of the game. This will force the "stronger" team to have to change tactics as well if they want to go for the win, play more open. That can lead to some excitement as well. Teams will have to have several ways to attack, not just be better because their players are more athletic, but because they can unlock a teams defense as well. The argument of playing more kids when you go into overtime is interesting, but if you are coaching that "weaker" team, your bench most likely has a considerable drop-off in talent where the better funded, bigger programs have better players on the bench to bring in. Most of those coaches with the weaker team will not put on their weaker players against a better opponent.

    With the golden goal games, I'm sure there were plenty of games where the better team didn't win and thus gave the weaker team a bit of a bump in their record where it wasn't necessarily was deserved.

    I agree that the overtime in the playoffs is harder when the schedule is more packed, but why not just extend the season another week or two or reduce a game or two in the season to reduce the congestion?

    I would love to see a change to the subbing rule next. No re-entry in the second half. Maybe a 7 player limit per half. Subbing will have to be more thought out. The bigger programs that have deep benches love to rotate players out for a break and then back on to finish strong...they'll need to be more savvy with their tactical subs. I see the potential side-effect of that being that talent would be more evenly distributed across teams rather than all the big, well-funded schools keeping all the talent. It would be very hard to keep the lower end players who are still good players (and could play and make an impact at another program) happy who can't see the field, even for those few minutes some get each game.
     
    Fitballer repped this.
  25. SpeakeroftheHouse

    PSG
    Italy
    Nov 2, 2021
    One other issue not talked about is that the NCAA uses RPI as a criteria for selection and seeding for the tournament. RPI uses 2 points for a win and 1 for a draw. A substantial increase in draws will change the RPI. At the same time, all conferences use 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw. It’s possible to have a team finish below another team in the conference and have a better RPI. This is why I said it wasn’t well thought out. Shouldn’t they all be on the same page if you’re going to make a decision like this?
     

Share This Page