Playoff OT rule change

[austro]

Here's an interesting article about the strategic considerations for onside kicks in overtime given the new OT rules:

So Crazy It Just Might Work

I never knew the exactly language of the rule, but this quote

As the site Pro Football Talk explained on Thursday, the overtime rules stipulate that "each team is only guaranteed the opportunity to possess the ball."

raises a different question for me. Imagine that Team A elects to receive the kick opening kick of the OT. They head down the field, but at some point Team B intercepts a pass. During the interception return, the returner fumbles the ball, and Team A recovers it.

If Team A is in field goal range after the fumble recovery and immediately kicks a field goal, does that end the game? I would guess so, since Team B gained possession with the interception. But I'm no referee.

[Limey]

Here's an interesting article about the strategic considerations for onside kicks in overtime given the new OT rules:

So Crazy It Just Might Work

I never knew the exactly language of the rule, but this quote

raises a different question for me. Imagine that Team A elects to receive the kick opening kick of the OT. They head down the field, but at some point Team B intercepts a pass. During the interception return, the returner fumbles the ball, and Team A recovers it.

If Team A is in field goal range after the fumble recovery and immediately kicks a field goal, does that end the game? I would guess so, since Team B gained possession with the interception. But I'm no referee.

What if Team A is the Texans?

[austro]

What if Team A is the Texans?

The field goal attempt will be blocked and returned for a touchdown.

[chuck]

What if Team A is the Texans?

Irrelevant. This discussion concerns the playoffs.

[sporadic]

raises a different question for me. Imagine that Team A elects to receive the kick opening kick of the OT. They head down the field, but at some point Team B intercepts a pass. During the interception return, the returner fumbles the ball, and Team A recovers it.

If Team A is in field goal range after the fumble recovery and immediately kicks a field goal, does that end the game? I would guess so, since Team B gained possession with the interception. But I'm no referee.

absolutely, there was a change of possession (albeit brief).  And, Bravo to Limey, austro and especially Chuck.

[Rebel Jew]

Here's an interesting article about the strategic considerations for onside kicks in overtime given the new OT rules:

So Crazy It Just Might Work

I never knew the exactly language of the rule, but this quote

raises a different question for me. Imagine that Team A elects to receive the kick opening kick of the OT. They head down the field, but at some point Team B intercepts a pass. During the interception return, the returner fumbles the ball, and Team A recovers it.

If Team A is in field goal range after the fumble recovery and immediately kicks a field goal, does that end the game? I would guess so, since Team B gained possession with the interception. But I'm no referee.

The most intriguing scenario to me is if you score a touchdown on your first posession.  Kick onsides and recover it and the game is over.  If not, the other team still has to score a touchdown, and even if they do you still get the ball back with a chance to win the game.

The other lame thing about this rule is that the team that gets the ball second has an advantage in that the first team is essentially working with 3 downs, whereas the second team works with 4 downs knowing that they have to score (assuming that the first team scored).

[sporadic]

The most intriguing scenario to me is if you score a touchdown on your first posession.  Kick onsides and recover it and the game is over.  If not, the other team still has to score a touchdown, and even if they do you still get the ball back with a chance to win the game.

The other lame thing about this rule is that the team that gets the ball second has an advantage in that the first team is essentially working with 3 downs, whereas the second team works with 4 downs knowing that they have to score (assuming that the first team scored).

good points all, although I do not think any NFL coach would risk the short field just because they are assured of getting the ball back.  My question is...what is wrong with the College rules?  If they are afraid of the length of games, just amend the rule where you have to go for 2 right off the bat.  maybe that is just too simple.  OR, if you score a TD on your first possession the game is over.  A FG cannot win the game on the first possession.

[Bench]

good points all, although I do not think any NFL coach would risk the short field just because they are assured of getting the ball back.  My question is...what is wrong with the College rules?  If they are afraid of the length of games, just amend the rule where you have to go for 2 right off the bat.  maybe that is just too simple.  OR, if you score a TD on your first possession the game is over.  A FG cannot win the game on the first possession.

The problem with the college rule is that the NFL didn't think of it.

[austro]

good points all, although I do not think any NFL coach would risk the short field just because they are assured of getting the ball back.  My question is...what is wrong with the College rules?  If they are afraid of the length of games, just amend the rule where you have to go for 2 right off the bat.  maybe that is just too simple.  OR, if you score a TD on your first possession the game is over.  A FG cannot win the game on the first possession.

If they do the college rules, they have to move the starting point back to a point where there's a reasonable chance that the offense won't score. If you used the existing college setup with NFL-caliber kickers, it would never end.

[austro]

The problem with the college rule is that the NFL didn't think of it.

That's exactly why it took so long to adopt the 2-point conversion.

[Bench]

If they do the college rules, they have to move the starting point back to a point where there's a reasonable chance that the offense won't score. If you used the existing college setup with NFL-caliber kickers, it would never end.

I think college should do that too.  Start it from the 40 or even 50.

[Lurch]

If they do the college rules, they have to move the starting point back to a point where there's a reasonable chance that the offense won't score. If you used the existing college setup with NFL-caliber kickers, it would never end.

Isn't the bench depth on college teams almost 2x that of NFL teams?  I've got to believe NFL players are pretty much done after 4 quarters, and 1 OT is already stretching them.

[Rebel Jew]

The problem with the college rule is that the NFL didn't think of it.

I think the college rules are pretty lame actually, as are soccer and hockey games decided by penalty kicks and shots.

Seems to me the best and far simpler approach would be based on the old high school rule of penetrations deciding the winner of the game.  Why not keep the overtime rules the same sudden death way they were, except instead of first possession being decided by a coin flip make it decided by whoever got the most penetrations into the opponent's territory, or whoever had the biggest yard differential or some other thing like that?

[Lurch]

as are soccer and hockey games decided by penalty kicks and shots.

While I understand why purists hate it, shoot outs to finish a hockey game are pretty damn awesome to watch.  I also like their point system which makes losing a shootout a little less painful

[BudGirl]

While I understand why purists hate it, shoot outs to finish a hockey game are pretty damn awesome to watch.  I also like their point system which makes losing a shootout a little less painful

shootouts are only in the regular season, playoff hockey goes on until someone scores a goal, full strength and 20 minute periods.

[sporadic]

I think the college rules are pretty lame actually, as are soccer and hockey games decided by penalty kicks and shots.

Seems to me the best and far simpler approach would be based on the old high school rule of penetrations deciding the winner of the game.  Why not keep the overtime rules the same sudden death way they were, except instead of first possession being decided by a coin flip make it decided by whoever got the most penetrations into the opponent's territory, or whoever had the biggest yard differential or some other thing like that?

My dad's Ganado team was tied with Tidehaven* back in the late 70's late in the 4th quarter, ahead by TWO penetrations (this was back when ONE team out of every district went to the playoffs, and Tidehaven was ranked #1 in the state in 2A).  Threw a swing pass on 1st and 10 from his own 20-ish that ended up in a pick 6.  Lost 13-7.

That being said...

uh, hu, hu, hu, hu, hu, you said penetration, uh, hu, hu, hu, hu, hu

*it could have been Brookshire Royal or East Bernard.  Good story when dad tells it, though

[sporadic]

forgot my point...penetrations are a good barometer of who played better (score aside, of course).  Not that the NFL, or college for that matter, would ever allow them to determine the outcome of a game.  Not entertaining enough...

[austro]

forgot my point...penetrations are a good barometer of who played better (score aside, of course).  Not that the NFL, or college for that matter, would ever allow them to determine the outcome of a game.  Not entertaining enough...

My memory is fuzzy now, but I think that in my high-school soccer youth, some ties were eventually broken (when ties needed to be broken, like in playoffs) in favor of the team with the most corner kicks. Pretty much the same idea as penetrations.

[Bench]

Seems to me the best and far simpler approach would be based on the old high school rule of penetrations deciding the winner of the game. 

This meant something completely different to me when I was in high school. 

Seriously though, what constitutes a football penetration?

[sporadic]

This meant something completely different to me when I was in high school.  

Seriously though, what constitutes a football penetration?

having possession of the ball inside the opposing team's 20

[Rebel Jew]

having possession of the ball inside the opposing team's 20

I thought it was just the 50

[BudGirl]

http://www.uiltexas.org/files/athletics/manuals/dec-handbook.pdf

[Ebby Calvin]

Seriously though, what constitutes a football penetration?

I'm still waiting for Alkie's definition.

[Bench]

http://www.uiltexas.org/files/athletics/manuals/dec-handbook.pdf

What am I supposed to be looking for in there?

[BudGirl]

the rule for the possession determining the win or you can ignore it.

[Alkie]

I'm still waiting for Alkie's definition.

Rhinoceros: massive powerful herbivorous odd-toed ungulate of southeast Asia and Africa having very thick skin and one or two horns on the snout

[MusicMan]

Rhinoceros: massive powerful herbivorous odd-toed ungulate of southeast Asia and Africa having very thick skin and one or two horns on the snout

And they charge your ass.

[Limey]

good points all, although I do not think any NFL coach would risk the short field just because they are assured of getting the ball back.

The clock becomes an issue at this point too.  Plus, I presume that the team scoring the matching TD has the option to go for two FTW.

[Limey]

Seems to me the best and far simpler approach would be based on the old high school rule of penetrations deciding the winner of the game. 

Are we talking on the field or under the bleachers?

[MikeyBoy]

My dad's Ganado team was tied with Tidehaven* back in the late 70's late in the 4th quarter, ahead by TWO penetrations (this was back when ONE team out of every district went to the playoffs, and Tidehaven was ranked #1 in the state in 2A).  Threw a swing pass on 1st and 10 from his own 20-ish that ended up in a pick 6.  Lost 13-7.

That being said...

uh, hu, hu, hu, hu, hu, you said penetration, uh, hu, hu, hu, hu, hu

*it could have been Brookshire Royal or East Bernard.  Good story when dad tells it, though

This has nothing to do with your story, but I am a (not so) proud alumni of Royal High School in Brookshire and this may be the first time my school was mentioned in internet history.

[austro]

My dad's Ganado team was tied with Tidehaven* back in the late 70's late in the 4th quarter, ahead by TWO penetrations (this was back when ONE team out of every district went to the playoffs, and Tidehaven was ranked #1 in the state in 2A).  Threw a swing pass on 1st and 10 from his own 20-ish that ended up in a pick 6.  Lost 13-7.

Please tell me that's a team your dad was coaching, and not one he was playing on.

[sporadic]

Please tell me that's a team your dad was coaching, and not one he was playing on.

he was indeed, coaching

[sporadic]

This has nothing to do with your story, but I am a (not so) proud alumni of Royal High School in Brookshire and this may be the first time my school was mentioned in internet history.

That is quite alright, my stories generally have nothing to do with anything around here...I just like telling them

[chuck]

And they charge your ass.

A thick-skinned, odd-toed, horned ungulate that charges your ass. For some reason this tandem of posts involuntarily brought to my mind the image of Pam Gardner. It must be getting close to baseball season.

[austro]

he was indeed, coaching

Thank you. I don't think I'm yet ready for a walker, but there are troubling signals that show up occasionally.

[Waldo]

And they fucking charge your ass.

FIFY

[94CougarGrad]

having possession of the ball inside the opposing team's 20

Which the "experts" on the talking picture box today call "in the red zone." Maybe "penetration" is too politically incorrect?

[JimR]

having possession of the ball inside the opposing team's 20

you have to run one play inside the 20.

[MikeyBoy]

Which the "experts" on the talking picture box today call "in the red zone." Maybe "penetration" is too politically incorrect?

Depends on the time of month.

[sporadic]

you have to run one play inside the 20.

I did not know that.  If you turned the ball over on that one play did it negate the penetration?

[Bench]

If you turned the ball over on that one play did it negate the penetration?

Not unless you're catholic.

[Rebel Jew]

Not unless you're catholic.

I once had a girlfriend whose mother was a nurse.  She said she saw quite a few virgin births on her job.  Meaning that, you know, some penetration is okay for Catholics and other kids choosing to keep the vow as long as it's not, you know, THE penetration.

[94CougarGrad]

Depends on the time of month.

So it's dangerous, at times, to penetrate the red zone?