NFL Playoff OT Scenarios

[starman]

Here is one interesting case that I was considering....

The score is 0-0 going into OT.
Team A kicks a field goal on the first possession. The score is now 3-0.
Team B drives down the field to team A's 1-yard line.
Team B fumbles and the ball and the ball is nearly at rest on the 1 yard line.
Team A bats the ball into and out of its own end zone.
This would be a safety for team B.
I think that the game would then be over and Team A would the game 3-2.

[football-1]

intersting spin to the new rule.


Team with first kickoff should always try onside kick.

successful - of course only need FG for win

unsuccessful - the other team can score FG
you still get the ball for one possession and you have always 4 downs to convert on that drive.


loophole ?
but of course if the other team scores a TD -> game over.

[Robert Goodman]

What happens if, following the OT kickoff (either K or R recovering) and no further change of possession, a safety is scored? Does the team that scored the safety need to gain possession of the ball for the game to end?

Or: Team B leads 3-0 in OT with team A scrimmaging 4th down and 8 to go at B's 30. B1 is offside and A1's FG attempt is deflected and rolling at B's 27. B2 muffs the ball and A2 recovers there and is down, with B2's touch being ruled to have occurred beyond whatever neutral zone the NFL allows. Does A have to accept the penalty to keep the game going, or can they take the recovery as still part of their team possession?

Here's another: On the opening drive, A1's FG attempt is first touched by B1 clearly beyond the neutral zone and recovered by A2. Without losing team possession, A eventually makes a FG. Game over?

[starman]

To answer you first question, I heard several sources report that overtime ends on a TD or a safety. Regardless of possession opportunities.

[Robert Goodman]

Suppose OT scores are tied 3-3, or even 0-0, and 2 OT quarters have been played. After the KO to start the 3rd period, can you win by sudden death with a FG on the 1st possession, or does it revert to the situation at the start of OT?

Another thing I wonder about this "opportunity" Flem mentions: If at some point team possession of the ball depends on whether a penalty is enforced or declined, does that choice in and of iitself constitute an "opportunity" a team had to possess the ball?

[rulesmaven]

Any score that is not a field goal ends the game immediately -- TD, safety, or points awarded for palpably unfair act. You don't need to get into possession or the details of the rule if any of that occurs.

Otherwise, I think the NFL has answered pretty much all the scenarios one can think of in their recent guidance on the issue. Here's the link: NFL.com news: Postseason overtime rules. Basically, the trickiest plays are kicks and muffs. A muff does not constitute possession, but it does constitute an opportuntity for possession if it's the receiving team. I think the blocked punt on first possession scenarios and explanations go a long way to toward understanding the entire rule:

A.R. 16.11 BLOCKED PUNT
Fourth-and-5 on A45. On the opening possession of overtime, Team A's punt is blocked by B3 at the A35. The ball hits the ground beyond the line at the B48 and bounces back to the A43 where it is recovered by A4 who runs to the B40 for a first down.
Ruling: A's ball, first-and-10 on B40. Team B is not considered to have had an opportunity to possess the ball because it did not touch the ball beyond the line of scrimmage.

A.R. 16.12 BLOCKED PUNT
Fourth-and-5 on A45. On the opening possession of overtime, Team A's punt is blocked by B3 at the A35. The ball bounces beyond the line to the A48, where B4 muffs the loose ball to the A45 where it is recovered by A4.
Ruling: A's ball, first-and-10 on A45. By touching the punt beyond the line of scrimmage, a new series is awarded to Team A. Since Team B had the opportunity to possess the ball, both teams have met the minimum requirements for possession.

In my view, they've created a problem worse than they had in the first place. The rule was, as I understand it, based on a perception that the team that gets the ball wins too often. If think if you could have lots of experience with the new rule, it would be revealed that the kicking team will win more.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by rulesmaven

Otherwise, I think the NFL has answered pretty much all the scenarios one can think of in their recent guidance on the issue. Here's the link: [url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81d817d7/article/postseason-overtime-rules]

If they have, they sure haven't done it well. Looking at those A.R.s, any of us could reverse engr. rules that are clearer than the rule given at the top -- if indeed that is the official rule (which must be Rule 16). I'd never get A.R. 16.19 from that Rule 16.

I'm going to guess that "opportunity to possess" is judged only after enforcements, not while they're pending. Therefore if team B accepts a penalty instead of taking the result of a play that would have left them in possession of the ball, that their chance to decline it is not such an "opportunity", and that their possession that was canceled by penalty enforcement did not count. Similarly if team A accepts a penalty whose declination would've resulted in possession by their opponents. And same regarding downs that are replayed due to fouls against both teams. But that's just a guess, figuring it's "the right thing".

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by starman

Here is one interesting case that I was considering....

The score is 0-0 going into OT.
Team A kicks a field goal on the first possession. The score is now 3-0.
Team B drives down the field to team A's 1-yard line.
Team B fumbles and the ball and the ball is nearly at rest on the 1 yard line.
Team A bats the ball into and out of its own end zone.
This would be a safety for team B.
I think that the game would then be over and Team A would the game 3-2.

So B shouldn't have fumbled.