Topic: Question about the playoff overtime rules.

[Chus-Kay]

But what about a safety? In regulation, if you get a safety, you get possession of the ball... But you wouldn't need it because you scored 2 points, the other team had a possession, and didn't score..right?

yeah, that one is weird because the rule talks about FGs and TDs and doesn't mention safetys.  If the rule said FG or Safety, then yeah, the game would be over (going by all the other examples), but since it doesn't, who knows?

[FreebirdSTF]

That's why I said score twice.  If Team A scores a FG, Team B scores a FG and then the next score wins, the winning team had to score twice.

I think a safety would count as a score.  Also, I guess if you force a safety on the team who gets the ball first, you win at that moment, correct?

[Chus-Kay]

I think a safety would count as a score.  Also, I guess if you force a safety on the team who gets the ball first, you win at that moment, correct?

in the spirit of the rule, yeah, i guess that's correct, but the rule i quoted above specifies FG and TD, but doesn't mention safeties.  this really shouldn't be that complicated.   

[FreebirdSTF]

Here's another thing I wasn't sure about (although I should have been).

If the team with the ball first has to punt, or there is a turnover, it goes straight to sudden-death. The nice tweak they added gives teams more incentive to score a touchdown, and makes the chance higher that both teams will have the ball.

http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/2011-nfl-overtime-rules-explained/

[Chus-Kay]

take this for what its worth...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=fleming/110106&sportCat=nfl

Scenario 4: On the opening possession of OT in the divisional round, the Jets drive to the Patriots' 35-yard line. Coach Rex Ryan fakes the field goal and pooch-kicks it to the 3-yard line. On the Patriots' first play from scrimmage, the Jets send every available body on a blitz. The A-gap gives way like it was Super Bowl XLII, and Tom Brady tucks the ball and makes a run for it but is brought down in the end zone, by his hair, for a Jets safety. Jets win.

Scenario 5: The Eagles kick a field goal, then give up a touchdown to the Falcons to lose the NFC title game in OT. And afterward, Eagles fans whine, like Matt Cooke on HBO's "24/7" on Wednesday night, that the rule never should have been changed in the first place. Because, they say, in the record 19 overtime games in the 2010 regular season, only two were decided by field goals on the opening drive. That's a neat, but incomplete, stat you're going to see, hear and read a lot in the next few weeks. But it is meaningless compared with the 16 years of data and debate the NFL used to determine that its best games were being decided by chance far too often. What's more, the rule was changed because the NFL decided -- correctly -- that, even at 1-in-10, the odds of a Super Bowl's being decided by a coin toss was an unacceptable risk. And I agree. Falcons win.

   

Here's another thing I wasn't sure about (although I should have been).

If the team with the ball first has to punt, or there is a turnover, it goes straight to sudden-death. The nice tweak they added gives teams more incentive to score a touchdown, and makes the chance higher that both teams will have the ball.

http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/2011-nfl-overtime-rules-explained/

that sounds right to me.  basically, the winner of the cointoss doesn't score (punts, turns the ball over) then the other team gets their possession.  basically, unless the cointoss winner gets a TD, each team gets at least one possession...unless the first team gets safetied??  /ugh

[BlackLight]

that sounds right to me.  basically, the winner of the cointoss doesn't score (punts, turns the ball over) then the other team gets their possession.  basically, unless the cointoss winner gets a TD, each team gets at least one possession...unless the first team gets safetied??  /ugh

Yes.

1). Essentially, the first team to score a TD wins
2). or, the first team to score a safety wins
3). or, the team leading after both teams have had an "opportunity to possess" wins
4). or, if the score is tied after both teams have had an "opportunity to possess," we immediately go to sudden death scoring rules - and the first team to score in any manner wins.

[Chus-Kay]

Yes.

1). Essentially, the first team to score a TD wins
2). or, the first team to score a safety wins
3). or, the team leading after both teams have had an "opportunity to possess" wins
4). or, if the score is tied after both teams have had an "opportunity to possess," we immediately go to sudden death scoring rules - and the first team to score in any manner wins.

they should have written like that.

[BlackLight]

Having said all that, I'd still like to know the answer to my hypothetical. If the Jets kicks a FG on the opening possession of OT, then Peyton throws an INT on the ensuing possession. Is the play whistled dead/game over at the instant the Jets player establishes complete control of the ball, or is the play live until he's tackled, or runs out of bounds, or downs himself?

And if the refs let the play resolve itself, and the Jets player is stripped and the Colts recover it, do they HAVE to score on that same play, with some wacky lateral-fest, to win the game? One would think so, since the Colts will have had their possession, but I'm just curious.

[Chus-Kay]

Having said all that, I'd still like to know the answer to my hypothetical. If the Jets kicks a FG on the opening possession of OT, then Peyton throws an INT on the ensuing possession. Is the play whistled dead/game over at the instant the Jets player establishes complete control of the ball, or is the play live until he's tackled, or runs out of bounds, or downs himself?

i would assume they wouldn't decide anything till the play was completely over.  hopefully the defender is smart enough to step out of bounds or kneel down.  of course, that's my ASSUMPTION and they need to work out these scenarios beforehand.

And if the refs let the play resolve itself, and the Jets player is stripped and the Colts recover it, do they HAVE to score on that same play, with some wacky lateral-fest, to win the game? One would think so, since the Colts will have had their possession, but I'm just curious.

now that's a good question.  i would assume the game would continue?  i don't know.

[BlackLight]

i would assume they wouldn't decide anything till the play was completely over.  hopefully the defender is smart enough to step out of bounds or kneel down. 

Let's just say there's a reason I picked the Jets for this possible scenario...

[FreebirdSTF]

I think it ends unless the Colts get it back and run it in on that very play.

[Little Jimmy]

I think the biggest problem is that we are asking all of these questions in the first place. This is the kind of stuff that the NFL should have worked out and clearly explained to the fans and the players. Shit if McNabb didn't even know games could end in a tie before, can you imagine what this is doing to his brain? I know he's not playing, I'm just saying. If a bunch of guys on a message board can think to ask all of this, shouldn't the suits have thought this all through and made that public?

And starting these rules in the playoffs was always dumb to me, you can't just make up a whole new set of rules at the end of the season and expect people to know WTH is going on.

[BlackLight]

I think the biggest problem is that we are asking all of these questions in the first place. This is the kind of stuff that the NFL should have worked out and clearly explained to the fans and the players.

In fairness, we should only be speaking for the fans on this. The players and coaches probably do have a pretty clear sense of what's what. And the questions being asked in this thread have pretty simple answers - they just seem to be getting bogged down in fine-tuning definitions and semantics which were likely settled (on the player and coach level) a long time ago.

Even my question, as unlikely a scenario as I'm proposing, has a pretty logical solution, that if adhered to, likely wouldn't spur any real controversy.

[Little Jimmy]

In fairness, we should only be speaking for the fans on this. The players and coaches probably do have a pretty clear sense of what's what. And the questions being asked in this thread have pretty simple answers - they just seem to be getting bogged down in fine-tuning definitions and semantics which were likely settled (on the player and coach level) a long time ago.

Even my question, as unlikely a scenario as I'm proposing, has a pretty logical solution, that if adhered to, likely wouldn't spur any real controversy.

Honestly, most people I have spoken to could take or leave the college way of handling overtime, but I think that's the best way to do the NFL overtime, except tweak it so that if you score a TD, you automatically have to go for 2, instead of after the 3rd overtime.

[FreebirdSTF]

I agree about going for 2 from the first OT on in the college game.  I think that would stop some of these 7 OT college games we've seen.  Also, they should probably move it back to at least the 35.

[KoppoKick]

re: Blacklite's question

The game should end when the Jets (up by 3) get the INT. The Colts should have no chance to strip the ball carrier and earn another possession.

If the NFL wanted to spice up OT, they would play till someone gets to 8 points in OT. Let the 90+% of these coaches who manage a game as conservatively as can be, have to actually think and make calculated risks for once.

[Murphys Law]

This is a pretty good explanation from NFL.com


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81d817d7/article/postseason-overtime-rules

[Murphys Law]

Okay ESPN did an article on Page 2 about the overtime rules, but it was stupid so I won't bother linking it. The article did bring up a couple of legit questions though, maybe someone here knows the answer.

So let's say in the wild card round.. Jets/Colts go into overtime... The Jets kick off to the Colts, and on the return, the Colts fumble. The Jets recover the fumble and kick a field goal.. Is the game over, counting the kick return as a possesion for the Colts? What if the Jets did an onside kick and recovered, kicking a field goal afterwards?

What if the Colts get the ball, and Peyton gets sacked in the endzone for a safety.. Does that end the game?

There's a few more scenario's that I could question, but those are the ones that stand out in my mind..

In both instances, the game is over.




instance one:The Colts had legal possession of the ball and lost it. a field goal wins it.


Instance two. a safety wins the game since the jets would get possession after the free kick.

[FreebirdSTF]

"If the defense scores, the game is over."

That's how ESPN broke it down on their graphic.  They did a pretty good job of spelling out the rules, but I wasn't watching on my DVR TV so I couldn't pause it to type it up here.  

[FreebirdSTF]

The safety doesn't win it because the Jets get possession after free kick.  It wins it because it was a score after the other team had a possession.  They wouldn't even do the free kick.  The game is over if the defense scores.

[Chus-Kay]

i think people were questioning the safety because the rules we had heard about up to that point were about FGs and TDs.

[FreebirdSTF]

Yeah, specifying FGs and TDs in these scenarios probably actually confused the issue.

I do find it interesting that once a ball is INT that the play will be blown dead and game over.  I mean, it makes sense that way under the rule, but it will be a funny looking ending to a game.  Of course we already see that in college.

[BlackLight]

I do find it interesting that once a ball is INT that the play will be blown dead and game over.  I mean, it makes sense that way under the rule, but it will be a funny looking ending to a game.  Of course we already see that in college.

I personally think the play should continue until it's actually over. You'd end up seeing a lot of pissed off/thrilled gamblers, if that were the case.

[Chus-Kay]

i agree with bl.

anyway, this whole thing is weird in that a game can end w/ time on the clock, but after a turnover (no score).  seems like it will be LESS exciting.

[FreebirdSTF]

I personally think the play should continue until it's actually over. You'd end up seeing a lot of pissed off/thrilled gamblers, if that were the case.

I don't have a huge problem with that.  Of course anyone who intercepts or recovers a fumble and doesn't immediately get down would have to be a huge idiot.