HS Football Penalty in OT

[HLin NC]

The key to NFHS philosophy on OT is they want the game over. It doesn't always work out that way but we rarely see sextuple OT games in HS. Its not that uncommon to have multiple periods in college.

If you want to foul your way out of it, then that's the team's problem.

[SC Official]

I wouldn't be surprised if more states use their own procedure than use the NFHS procedure.

[ilyazhito]

DC uses their own procedure (this was developed by DCIAA, the governing body for DC public schools, but is used throughout DC by the DCSAA, the umbrella organization for scholastic sports in DC). In DC, there is a coin toss before the 1st overtime period with 3 choices (offense 1st, defense 1st, end of the field). The 1st overtime period starts 1/10 for A from the 20 (unless moved by penalty). If needed, the 2nd overtime period starts 1/10 for A' (the team that played defense 1st in the 1st overtime period). If that does not resolve the situation, there is a 3rd and final coin toss before the 3rd overtime, which starts 1/G for A from the 10. Options alternate in any additional overtime periods, which also start 1/G from the 10.

In DC, succeeding spot enforcement in the 1st 2 overtime periods would result in B getting the ball 1/10 from the 35 yard line.

[Tom.OH]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I wouldn't be surprised if more states use their own procedure than use the NFHS procedure.

Ohio starts 1st & 10 at the 20

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by Tom.OH

Ohio starts 1st & 10 at the 20

Georgia starts 1st & 10 from the 15.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

The key to NFHS philosophy on OT is they want the game over. It doesn't always work out that way but we rarely see sextuple OT games in HS. Its not that uncommon to have multiple periods in college.

If you want to foul your way out of it, then that's the team's problem.

Maybe your area doesn't see multiple OT games, but Michigan seems to. This season only three games though have gone multiple OT's. Of those, two went three OT's and the other went 4OT's.

I still think if they want to end the games earlier, increasing the distance from start to the endzone would do that more than going from the 10. From the 10 you are in FG range for most HS teams. Going back to the 20 or 25 and now you need a kicker to win the games. (With that said, a lot of OT games appeared to be 1 point margins in Michigan, so maybe a PAT isn't that easy for a lot of teams in this state.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I still think if they want to end the games earlier,

...then they should call it a tie and quit, like they used to.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

...then they should call it a tie and quit, like they used to.

The only reason we don't in OH is for playoff rankings. As mentioned by Tom, we start 1st/10 on the 20, and there is no overtime for any sub-varsity games at any level.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by scrounge

The only reason we don't in OH is for playoff rankings.

What do they do for standings purposes, count an overtime win as something between a tie and a regulation win?

In most cases, having a few tie games sprinkled around helps spread out the standings to determine championships, as long as it isn't the top teams that tie each other. But that goes only if only conference championships go on to play off. If they have one of these systems where many more teams than you'd need (to realistically determine a champion) qualify for playoffs, then I've no idea whether season ties help resolve qualifications or make them harder to figure.

Of course in playoffs themselves you need to break ties. However, in the finals you don't!

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What do they do for standings purposes, count an overtime win as something between a tie and a regulation win?



In most cases, having a few tie games sprinkled around helps spread out the standings to determine championships, as long as it isn't the top teams that tie each other. But that goes only if only conference championships go on to play off. If they have one of these systems where many more teams than you'd need (to realistically determine a champion) qualify for playoffs, then I've no idea whether season ties help resolve qualifications or make them harder to figure.



Of course in playoffs themselves you need to break ties. However, in the finals you don't!

An overtime win is a win. An overtime loss is a loss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Of course in playoffs themselves you need to break ties. However, in the finals you don't!

You gotta be kidding me. Why in the wide world of sports would you NOT want to determine a champion?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by CT1

You gotta be kidding me. Why in the wide world of sports would you NOT want to determine a champion?

Who do they play if they advance from the finals? What game are they knocked out of if they lose in the finals?

When you get right down to it, it's a game like any other. There's as much reason to determine a winner or leave it tied as in any other game. Tying for the title is the same as tying for anything else. It's only in knockouts that you must determine who advances and who gets knocked out.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What do they do for standings purposes, count an overtime win as something between a tie and a regulation win? (I couldn't help but think "This is a question BillyMac would ask in the basketball forum" when I read this.)

In most cases, having a few tie games sprinkled around helps spread out the standings to determine championships, as long as it isn't the top teams that tie each other. But that goes only if only conference championships go on to play off. If they have one of these systems where many more teams than you'd need (to realistically determine a champion) qualify for playoffs, then I've no idea whether season ties help resolve qualifications or make them harder to figure.

Of course in playoffs themselves you need to break ties. However, in the finals you don't!

This post brought to you by the 1950s.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What do they do for standings purposes, count an overtime win as something between a tie and a regulation win?

In most cases, having a few tie games sprinkled around helps spread out the standings to determine championships, as long as it isn't the top teams that tie each other. But that goes only if only conference championships go on to play off. If they have one of these systems where many more teams than you'd need (to realistically determine a champion) qualify for playoffs, then I've no idea whether season ties help resolve qualifications or make them harder to figure.

Of course in playoffs themselves you need to break ties. However, in the finals you don't!

One of the reasons for "having more teams than you need to realistically determined a champion" is that not all schools compete in the same playoff division within a conference.

I will use this season's Michigan High School State Champions as an example.

In Division 2, Mona Shores High School won the state title in Division 2. They did not win their conference championship this season because they were in a conference with Muskegon High School, a team that spent much of the season ranked in the USA Today national Top 25 (and lost the D3 title game). If we only allowed conference championship winning teams into the playoffs we would not not allow a team that was obviously deserving of winning a state title into the post-season.

This is not the first time a team has failed to win a conference title, but won a state championship. This year alone, from the 8 divisions of MHSAA 11 man football playoffs, the champions in Division 1 (Davison), Division 2 (Mona Shores), Division 5 (Lansing Catholic), and Division 6 (Monroe St. Mary's CC) won state titles without winning their conference. Mona Shores and Monroe St. Mary's CC both lost their conference titles to teams in other divisions. Davison and Lansing Catholic both beat the team in the playoffs that won their conference title.

I don't agree with the 6 win and in system Michigan uses, but that is being replaced for 2020. It will now be pre-determined divisions based on enrollment, with the top 32 teams (out of roughly 67 teams) in each division, making the playoffs based on the new playoff point system that will be used. Those teams will then be bracketed geographically like they are now.

The reason for systems like this is there are teams who may not play well early in the season, but that could make a deep playoff run late in the season when they gel as a team. I've seen 5-4 teams (that get in to "fill the field") win state titles in Michigan before. Farmington Hills Harrison did that the first year of the 6 wins and in playoff system. They lost 2 games in the first 6 weeks, then forfeited two games as well. They sat 2-4 after 6 weeks, but won a state title. One of their losses that season was the state champion in a higher division.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

One of the reasons for "having more teams than you need to realistically determined a champion" is that not all schools compete in the same playoff division within a conference.

I will use this season's Michigan High School State Champions as an example.

In Division 2, Mona Shores High School won the state title in Division 2. They did not win their conference championship this season because they were in a conference with Muskegon High School, a team that spent much of the season ranked in the USA Today national Top 25 (and lost the D3 title game). If we only allowed conference championship winning teams into the playoffs we would not not allow a team that was obviously deserving of winning a state title into the post-season.

How were they "obviously deserving"? Did they choose to play Division 3 schools? If so, then why should they get two bites of the apple? If they were in a Division 3 conference, then as far as I'm concerned, Muskegon knocked them out.

If there's some sort of dual competition going on, where a team's record counts for more than one division, then I don't know what to say, except that that's not an argument for how to arrange playoffs in a state where division competition is separate. Michigan may just require some unique playoff format to go with a unique season format.

The reason for systems like this is there are teams who may not play well early in the season, but that could make a deep playoff run late in the season when they gel as a team. I've seen 5-4 teams (that get in to "fill the field") win state titles in Michigan before.

So why should "knockouts" count more heavily for actually knocking an entrant out than the regular season is? If you want to discount games from early in the season, just call them exhibitions and not count them in deciding playoff berths.

Farmington Hills Harrison did that the first year of the 6 wins and in playoff system. They lost 2 games in the first 6 weeks, then forfeited two games as well. They sat 2-4 after 6 weeks, but won a state title. One of their losses that season was the state champion in a higher division.

There again, it should be only one bite of the apple. Why not just not count games played out of division? If you want those games to count, you take your chances.