UEFA threatened to suspend the Russian Football Union’s UEFA and FIFA memberships after the country’s soccer body formally declared an interest in hosting either Euro 2028 or Euro 2032.
Russia was banned from international and continental club competitions on Feb. 28 over its invasion of Ukraine.
“The UEFA Executive Committee will … remain on standby to convene further extraordinary meetings, on a regular ongoing basis where required, to reassess the legal and factual situation as it evolves and adopt further decisions as necessary, including in light of the declaration of interest expressed by the Russian Football Union (RFU) for hosting the UEFA Euro,” UEFA said in a statement Wednesday, according to The Guardian’s Paul MacInnes.
Russia’s current punishment resulted in the men’s team’s removal from the 2022 World Cup qualifiers. The country is also barred from this summer’s European Women’s Championship in England and from its youth teams’ qualifiers for European Championships of various age groups.
Spartak Moscow were unable to continue their Europa League journey; their last-16 opponents, RB Leipzig, were given a bye to the quarterfinals.
The RFU said it would “support the decision to declare interest” in hosting the 2028 or 2032 European Championship following a meeting of its executive members earlier Wednesday, The Associated Press’ Rob Harris reports. RFU board member Sergei Anokhin reportedly told Match TV an official bid will be filed with UEFA.
Russia already has the facilities in place to host a major football tournament after it staged the 2018 World Cup in 12 venues across 11 different cities. The 2022 Champions League final was scheduled to be played in Saint Petersburg but was moved to the Stade de France, located just north of Paris, in February due to the war in Ukraine.
The United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland have pledged to launch a joint bid to host the European Championship in 2028, while Turkey has declared its interest in staging either the 2028 or 2032 edition. Italy is competing to host the tournament in 2032.
No one thinks about NFL overtime until it happens, which isn’t that often in the grand scheme of things and is usually pretty tame when it does. But all hell breaks loose when the format impacts the outcome of a playoff game, as it did in January’s divisional matchup between the Buffalo Bills and Kansas City Chiefs. And so here we are in March, once again trying to figure out if there is a better way to do it.
The NFL tweaked its overtime rules in 2010, 2012 and 2017, putting the current debate right on schedule. At issue is whether it’s still tenable for a team to win on the first possession of overtime, as the Chiefs did while Bills quarterback Josh Allen and his offense stood on the sideline and watched without getting a chance to match.
The existing rule allows a team to win on the first possession if it scores a touchdown. Otherwise, both teams get a possession, and the game is either decided by sudden death or ends in a tie (unless it’s a postseason game). The Indianapolis Colts and Philadelphia Eagles have combined on a proposal that mandates a possession for each team, regardless of what happens on the first possession. The Tennessee Titans have proposed requiring a 2-point conversion after a touchdown for a team to win on its first possession.
The league’s competition committee has yet to weigh in on either proposal, or make any of its own, as the owners prepare to gather next week for their annual meeting in Palm Beach, Florida. NFL rule changes require approval from at least 24 owners.
2 Related
A possible compromise is to focus on a rule change for the playoffs only. Since the current requirement for an opening-possession touchdown was instituted for the 2012 regular season, teams winning the coin toss have won 50% of the time, according to league data. That number has ticked up a bit to 54% since the league shortened overtime from a maximum of 15 minutes to 10 in 2017, but there has been a big jump in the postseason. Since the current format was implemented, seven of 12 overtime postseason games have been won on the opening possession, and 10 of those 12 were won by the team that won the coin toss.
Part of the issue is that the NFL has tried to balance various and competing priorities for overtime. Is it trying to optimize fairness? Entertainment? Does it want to stay true to regulation formats? Should postseason games have a separate set of rules?
What about avoiding ties? Since reducing overtime to 10 minutes in 2017, the NFL has had five ties in 64 overtime games, a rate of 7.8%. From 2000 to 2016, there were a total of seven ties in 270 overtime games (2.6%).
What follows is an evaluation — pros, cons and grades — of the majority of overtime possibilities, some of which
Pros: This adds strategy and lowers the impact of luck as a factor in determining the opening possession, in theory making it fairer. Also, it would potentially be more entertaining.
Cons: Ultimately, it would lead to homogenous coin-toss decisions. Smart teams would identify the yard line where neither team would have an advantage — probably around the 13-15-yard line — and the coin-toss winner would likely make that the start of the opening possession most every time. It introduces an approach that isn’t used at other points in a game. Also, this format would heavily favor teams that embrace analytic thinking, which as we know is not all of them. Ties aren’t addressed here, either.
Grade: B. This structure is innovative but ultimately had no support when the Baltimore Ravens proposed it in 2021. NFL owners and their advisers aren’t ready to accept rules based on game theory, or even those that look like it — at least not yet.
Full OT period with no sudden death
What would happen: The teams would play a fifth quarter, be it 15 minutes or perhaps 10, and the team that is leading when the clock expires would win.
Pros: It’s exceedingly fair and reflects the structure of other games such as basketball. In suggesting this approach earlier this month, Buffalo’s Beane said: “[T]hat way, both teams will definitely have a chance and maybe even more than one possession.” It’s as close to following the structure of regulation as you can get. Remember, sudden death introduces a convenient but ultimately unique way of determining the outcome.
Cons: This brings a guarantee of longer games and would serve as a detriment to player health — and potentially entertainment value, as well. There could still be ties, even after the additional time and plays. And you would probably see a determined effort by teams in possession to drain the clock, which would detract from the point of adding a full-time period.
Grade: C. This approach could be an option for a playoff-only proposal, but to play a full 10 or 15 extra minutes in the regular season is probably too much football from a variety of perspectives. There are more efficient ways to declare a winner.
Shootout
What would happen: Broadly speaking, each team gets a certain number of red zone (or near-red zone) plays to score. This general format has been used at the high school and college levels, as well as by some alternative pro leagues. The specifics can vary, including requirements to use a 2-point conversion, but in most scenarios, the sides alternate until one team has more points than the other at the end of a round. (The new USFL will use a best-of-three-round format.)
