Topic: Question about the playoff overtime rules.

[Little Jimmy]

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..

[BlackLight]

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?

I believe the game would be over in all three scenarios.

EDIT: Here's my twisted hypothetical. Suppose the Jets take the ball first and score a FG in overtime. So the Colts receive the next kickoff and start driving. But Peyton throws an INT, but because the Jets are idiots, instead of sitting on the ball to end the game, they fumble it back to the Colts on the INT return. Do the Colts have to basically score a TD right then and there to win the game, or are they allowed to start fresh with a new possession. Or is the play immediately whistled dead from the moment the Jets defender takes possession of the ball on the INT?

[Chus-Kay]

i don't think the game would be over if the jets kicked and recovered an onside kick because the colts never had possession of the ball.

[BlackLight]

i don't think the game would be over if the jets kicked and recovered an onside kick because the colts never had possession of the ball.

I believe it's treated the same way as a fumble on a kickoff return, though. Put it this way - suppose the Jets do a long kickoff, but the ball hits the idiot returner in the head, bounces around and never gets picked up. And then the Jets make it down and fall on it. Do the Colts have a legit argument that they "never got to possess the ball?"

An onside kick is basically the same scenario.

[Chus-Kay]

but that technically means they never had possession of the ball and so in that instance, i would think the jets would have to kick off again after scoring.

[BlackLight]

but that technically means they never had possession of the ball and so in that instance, i would think the jets would have to kick off again after scoring.

Unless you think there's a fundamental difference between a 'fumble' (ball fielded cleanly on the return but then stripped away), and a 'muff' (ball never fielded cleanly before kicking team recovers), then I don't think that argument holds up.

Basically, under your interpretation, the returning team is effectively rewarded with a later possession based on the fact that they don't know how to catch.

[Chus-Kay]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5022064

New postseason overtime rules

NFL • Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner.

• If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team shall have the opportunity to possess the ball. If [that team] scores a touchdown on its possession, it is the winner. If the score is tied after [both teams have a] possession, the team next scoring by any method shall be the winner.

• If the score is tied at the end of a 15-minute overtime period, or if [the overtime period's] initial possession has not ended, another overtime period will begin, and play will continue until a score is made, regardless of how many 15-minute periods are necessary.

if these are the correct rules, then the key is the word possess.  in football, muffing a punt is NOT possession (to my knowledge).

[FreebirdSTF]

It's an "opportunity to possess" though.  In that scenario a muffed punt would count.  You can't field the punt?  That's your own problem. 

[BlackLight]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5022064

if these are the correct rules, then the key is the word possess.  in football, muffing a punt is NOT possession (to my knowledge).

Personally, I think the key word in the rules is "opportunity," but I guess that all opens another can of worms.

Do you at least agree with the implications of your interpretation - that a team which can't cleanly field a kickoff is basically awarded (or rewarded) with a possession after the FG, while the team that fields the ball cleanly, but fumbles the ball away on the return is SOL? And if so, do you think that's fair?

Here's another hypothetical for you. Suppose you're right - Jets kick off, Colts muff it, never gain full possession, and the Jets recover, then kick the FG. But then on the ensuing kick off to Indy, the exact same thing happens. Colts muff it, Jets recover. What now? Is the game over? It shouldn't be - the Colts still haven't possessed the ball. What if the Jets kick another FG, so now they're up 6? Is the game over now? If you score a TD to go up six, the game is over, but they didn't score a TD - they scored two FGs. And the Colts STILL haven't possessed the ball yet (under your interpretation).

[FreebirdSTF]

I know I heard today that if you onside kick and recover that would count as "an opportunity to possess" by the receiving team. 

[Chus-Kay]

I do agree, but I'm not sure it matters.  I mean, if we are talking about fair, then you are right and I agree with you.  I'm just considering what the rule actually is and how it would probably be interpreted by refs who typically go with the letter of the rule.  i mean, just go back to the tuck rule.  that was completely inane and yet the refs went strictly by the book with it.

i would still have to say that the colts would get a possession.  your examples just point out how the rules (or at least the summaries we have been given) don't take these weird things into consideration and show how poorly thought out it was (which was dorian's original point).

ETA:

I know I heard today that if you onside kick and recover that would count as "an opportunity to possess" by the receiving team. 

ah, well if the rule is "opportunity to possess" then that's different and i would agree with BL. 

[TH]

Are we really splitting hairs over an onside kick?

[FreebirdSTF]

Yes, why wouldn't we?  If you want to understand the ramifications of the OT rule then you absolutely should be having this conversation.  Of course you like McNabb and he didn't understand them....

[Chus-Kay]

http://otrsportsonline.com/2011/01/04/onsides-kick-may-be-the-way-to-go-in-the-playoffs/

Scenario 3: Perhaps the most interesting scenario of all. If Team B decides to get a little sneaky they can elect the onsides kick. I would suggest not informing the receiving team of this prior to actually attempting it. At any rate, if they are able to recover the kick, it will count as a possession lost by the receiving team. Therefore, the recovering team will have the ability to settle for a field goal to win the game.

if this guy is right about it counting as a possession lost (i didn't know that's how they stat it), then i'm all the way wrong.

this is interesting tho (again, if he's right)...

In a different twist, if the kickoff is received and Team A puts up points on the board…the ensuing kickoff should be paid attention to as well. Team A can then attempt an onsides kick to effectively end the game. If Team A has the balls to kick an onsides kick after scoring three on their opening possession, they would, in fact, end the game by recovering the attempt. Ballsy…but interesting. Keep in mind Team B wins the game with a touchdown if Team A only scores 3.

[FreebirdSTF]

I like the gamesmanship of it.  It is stupid that we are playing with different OT rules in the PLAYOFFS! than the regular season though.

[jerseyboy]

This thread makes me wish the NFL instituted the college OT rules.

[FreebirdSTF]

In a different twist, if the kickoff is received and Team A puts up points on the board…the ensuing kickoff should be paid attention to as well. Team A can then attempt an onsides kick to effectively end the game. If Team A has the balls to kick an onsides kick after scoring three on their opening possession, they would, in fact, end the game by recovering the attempt. Ballsy…but interesting. Keep in mind Team B wins the game with a touchdown if Team A only scores 3.

I don't think he's right about that unless I'm misunderstanding what he's saying.  You have to score either a TD or score twice to end a game.  A FG and an onside kick doesn't win the game unless you tack on another FG.  It's not that the game is over after each team has an opportunity to possess.  It's that the game is sudden death after opportunity to possess for both teams. 

Am I misunderstanding what he's saying?

[Chus-Kay]

I don't think he's right about that unless I'm misunderstanding what he's saying.  You have to score either a TD or score twice to end a game.  A FG and an onside kick doesn't win the game unless you tack on another FG.  It's not that the game is over after each team has an opportunity to possess.  It's that the game is sudden death after opportunity to possess for both teams. 

Am I misunderstanding what he's saying?

no, that's the way i read it too.  i saw the same scenarios in some other articles as well.

eta: well, imagine your team goes up by a FG, kicks off and the other team starts to drive and throws an INT.  wouldn't the game be over then?  if we are saying that a team that a receiving team muffs the kickoff or the kicking team gets an onside kick counts as opportunity to possess (same as possession), then I think they are right.  it's the same as turning the ball over after being down a FG.

[TH]

This thread makes me wish the NFL instituted the college OT rules.

Oh great, now you REALLY want McNabb to be confused, don't you?

[jerseyboy]

Oh great, now you REALLY want McNabb to be confused, don't you?

He'd have time to brush up on the rules, seeing as Mr. McNabbyboots is nowhere near the playoffs this year.

[FreebirdSTF]

no, that's the way i read it too.  i saw the same scenarios in some other articles as well.

eta: well, imagine your team goes up by a FG, kicks off and the other team starts to drive and throws an INT.  wouldn't the game be over then?  if we are saying that a team that a receiving team muffs the kickoff or the kicking team gets an onside kick counts as opportunity to possess (same as possession), then I think they are right.  it's the same as turning the ball over after being down a FG.

I read it again and you might be right.  It's only sudden death after two opportunities of possessions if it is tied.  So if you score, onside and retain then the receiving team didn't tie you on their opportunity to possess so the game is over.

Although I thought in general you had to either a) score a TD to win or b) score twice, but I suppose that is incorrect.

[Chus-Kay]

I read it again and you might be right.  It's only sudden death after two opportunities of possessions if it is tied.  So if you score, onside and retain then the receiving team didn't tie you on their opportunity to possess so the game is over.

Although I thought in general you had to either a) score a TD to win or b) score twice, but I suppose that is incorrect.

it's really convulted if that is the way it works.  it's going to be weird enough just to see a game end on an INT with over 10 minutes remaining on the clock.

[FreebirdSTF]

So basically (now as basic as you can make this sound).  You need to either score and stop a team from scoring on their opportunity to possess, score a TD or score twice first to win.

[Chus-Kay]

well, yeah.  i mean, if you score a FG and then the other team fails to score (ie, turnover on downs), you win.

(tho I'm not sure what you mean by "score twice".  if you score a fg and the other team doesn't, then you win...right?)

[Little Jimmy]

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?