#10 Rule Change (1 Viewer)

[Dismattle]

https://twitter.com/NFLfootballinfo/status/976944078570053632

10) IF there is a turnover a team may win an overtime game even though it scores on its second possession 

Now I was reading comments so I must admit that technically I may misunderstand the rule  But it sure sounds like if Team A turns the ball over thus allowing Team B to score and convert the extra point that Team A can then score and convert a 2-point conversion FTW

Can you explain this rule and/or make sense of this being "fair play"  It would seem much more practical (statistically) too convert two points than force a turnover

 

[-OZ-]

Can a team not win if it scores on its second possession now? 

 

[dutch]

Can a team not win if it scores on its second possession now? 

Team 1 currently does not get the opportunity for a second possession if team 2 scores on their first possession which was created by recovering team 1's turnover.

 

[-OZ-]

Team 1 currently does not get the opportunity for a second possession if team 2 scores on their first possession which was created by recovering team 1's turnover.

So they're trying to stop a team from winning after forcing as turnover and scoring? 

I'd vote no. 

 

[Casting Couch]

So they're trying to stop a team from winning after forcing as turnover and scoring? 

I'd vote no. 

Totally agree. You force a turnover, then score, and that's not good enough in OT ?

Not cool

 

[Jello_Biafra]

What if you force a turnover and recover the ball but instead of scoring, stop at the 1 yard line. Offense comes out and you punch it in. Is that a win?

 

[-OZ-]

What if you force a turnover and recover the ball but instead of scoring, stop at the 1 yard line. Offense comes out and you punch it in. Is that a win?

See, this is just stupid. If the rule doesn't allow a defensive touchdown to win the game, that rule needs to change.

 

[Bronco Billy]

I don’t think you are interpreting the proposed change correctly.

I believe this would have to do with the second team having the ball after the first team either did not score or kicked a FG.  The second team - which is now either tied or behind by a FG at this time if the OT is still going on turns the ball over, but the play has not been ruled over because the player on the first team has not been downed yet.  

If that first team player were then to turn the ball over again during the play, technically that is the second team’s second possession even though that play is still ongoing.  So if the second team recovers the ball on a still-live play where the first turnover had occurred and then scores a TD on the return, that second team would then be declared the winner even though it technically had not scored until its second possession.

That’s the way I see the rule being interpretted so that it is still consistent with the rest of the OT rules.

 

[Anarchy99]

The description was lacking in the Twitter blurb. Billy pretty much has the main part of the proposed rule change. TEAM A would need to get the ball first and score a FG. A TD would end the game, so that part is out. And if they didn't score the game would just continue.

Down a FG, TEAM B would get the ball and would have to turn it over on their drive, force TEAM A to fumble on the same play, and TEAM B would need to recover and score for TEAM B to win. Under the current rules, the game would end on the initial turnover by TEAM B.

What still is unclear to me is what would happen if TEAM B turned the ball over, forced a fumble and recovered BUT DIDN'T score on the play. If the proposed rule passed, would TEAM B be allowed to continue their drive or is the game over because they lost possession? I would guess the intent is to act like the change of possession never happened and overtime would continue, but who knows what the wording is for the actual proposal.

 

[Bronco Billy]

What still is unclear to me is what would happen if TEAM B turned the ball over, forced a fumble and recovered BUT DIDN'T score on the play. If the proposed rule passed, would TEAM B be allowed to continue their drive or is the game over because they lost possession? I would guess the intent is to act like the change of possession never happened and overtime would continue, but who knows what the wording is for the actual proposal.

I believe the ruling would then fall back to the initial rules.  If the game were tied at that point (team 1 had not scored) then the game would continue.  If team 2 were behind by a FG at that point the game would be over because team 2 had not scored on its first possession.  I believe the only reason team 2 could win is because it scored a TD on the still alive turnover and re-turnover play.  Otherwise the rules would be in direct conflict.

 

[Anarchy99]

I believe the ruling would then fall back to the initial rules.  If the game were tied at that point (team 1 had not scored) then the game would continue.  If team 2 were behind by a FG at that point the game would be over because team 2 had not scored on its first possession.  I believe the only reason team 2 could win is because it scored a TD on the still alive turnover and re-turnover play.  Otherwise the rules would be in direct conflict.

I think what the rule proposal is asking for is that a team losing and reacquiring the ball on the same play should not cause the game to be over (whether there is a score on that play or not). In essence, they are asking for possession to be determined after the play is over, and whatever happened during the play shouldn't impact the one possession rule until AFTER the end of the play. Not sure there would be many times where a team with the lead would force a turnover and not down the ball immediately, but I guess crazy plays have been known to happen and players aren't always the brightest bulbs in the pack.

 

[Bronco Billy]

I think what the rule proposal is asking for is that a team losing and reacquiring the ball on the same play should not cause the game to be over (whether there is a score on that play or not). In essence, they are asking for possession to be determined after the play is over, and whatever happened during the play shouldn't impact the one possession rule until AFTER the end of the play. Not sure there would be many times where a team with the lead would force a turnover and not down the ball immediately, but I guess crazy plays have been known to happen and players aren't always the brightest bulbs in the pack.

You could be correct, but I’d be surprised if that were the case.  Guess we need some further clarification.

 

[Anarchy99]

You could be correct, but I’d be surprised if that were the case.  Guess we need some further clarification.

A NY Times article explains it as only that play will count, so you are probably right.

 

[Bronco Billy]

A NY Times article explains it as only that play will count, so you are probably right.

We’re smarter than they are.  If we can’t figure it out with certainty, how could they possibly do so?

 

[Anarchy99]

We’re smarter than they are.  If we can’t figure it out with certainty, how could they possibly do so?

They can't get calls right with 40 camera angles, ultra hi def, and super duper slo mo.  So yeah, they've got issues.

 

[Dismattle]

Info via Search:

Overtime rules in the NFL

The NFL uses a "modified sudden death" overtime format. The first team to score wins, with one exception: If the team to receive the opening kickoff scores a field goal on their first possession, the game continues with them kicking off to the other team. If the other team fails to score on their first possession, the first team wins. If they score a touchdown, they win. If they tie the game with a field goal, the game continues and the next score wins. If the first team to receive the ball is downed in their own end zone, resulting in a safety, then the team that does not have possession of the ball wins.

How does NFL overtime work?

In case you need a refresher, here you go: NFL overtime works as a modified sudden death, where, to quote the rule book, "each team gets a chance to possess the ball unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession.".

Link to story on the subject: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nfl-might-close-a-loophole-in-the-overtime-rules/ar-BBKBqix

Basically, while I appreciate the responses I sorta feel like I'm gonna wind up stuck watching the game that goes into overtime leading to more questions than answers  (ie. Was it a catch? Did the WR make a football move kind of stuff) Just being honest from what you all have posted it does appear to make sense for the change  

 

[GregR]

You worry over Rule Change #10?  Just wait until you find out Goodell is implementing an Order #66 this year.

 

[GregR]

Yes, PFT article suggests it would only apply to plays there are dual turnovers on.

So in other words, you throw an INT, defense fumbles it back on that play, and you recover and score a TD.  By the old rules, the TD would not count because the game ended mid-play as soon as possession changed. 

And everyone would rise up about how stupid the NFL is about their rules because it's common sense they should at least have the game events through the play's whistle count.  So that's all they are doing.  The whole play will now count including if you get the ball back and score. 

But the game would then end after the play is done.

 

[Bronco Billy]

You worry over Rule Change #10?  Just wait until you find out Goodell is implementing an Order #66 this year.

 Just as long as he doesn’t order the league to work up a number 6.

 

[barackdhouse]

I believe the ruling would then fall back to the initial rules.  If the game were tied at that point (team 1 had not scored) then the game would continue.  If team 2 were behind by a FG at that point the game would be over because team 2 had not scored on its first possession.  I believe the only reason team 2 could win is because it scored a TD on the still alive turnover and re-turnover play.  Otherwise the rules would be in direct conflict.

If team 2 scored in the still alive turnover there would be no reason for a rule change. The TD would end the game before the rule change, and it would end the game after the rule change. The idea is that if they *didn't* score on the still alive turnover, the rule change would allow for the game to continue. Whereas it wouldn't have before.

 

[barackdhouse]

By the old rules, the TD would not count because the game ended mid-play as soon as possession changed. 

Wow. Really? They wouldn't let it go through the whistle? Then I suppose that does need changed.

 

[Bronco Billy]

If team 2 scored in the still alive turnover there would be no reason for a rule change. The TD would end the game before the rule change, and it would end the game after the rule change. The idea is that if they *didn't* score on the still alive turnover, the rule change would allow for the game to continue. Whereas it wouldn't have before.

The initial turnover by Team 2 would end the game even though the play was still alive.  Technically the turnover ends the first possession, which would end the game despite the play still being active under the previous rule.

 

[Hankmoody]

Yes, PFT article suggests it would only apply to plays there are dual turnovers on.

So in other words, you throw an INT, defense fumbles it back on that play, and you recover and score a TD.  By the old rules, the TD would not count because the game ended mid-play as soon as possession changed. 

And everyone would rise up about how stupid the NFL is about their rules because it's common sense they should at least have the game events through the play's whistle count.  So that's all they are doing.  The whole play will now count including if you get the ball back and score. 

But the game would then end after the play is done.

That's not what is suggests.  It's likely the possession would be allowed to continue if they got the ball back under these circumstances since they don't explicitly say "on the turnover play".  Unless this is just a summary and the Rules Committee does indeed intend that and just didn't flesh out that detail in the release.

Regardless, an NFL caliber defender should know to just take a knee on the turnover and end it.

 

[GregR]

That's not what is suggests.  It's likely the possession would be allowed to continue if they got the ball back under these circumstances since they don't explicitly say "on the turnover play".  Unless this is just a summary and the Rules Committee does indeed intend that and just didn't flesh out that detail in the release.

Regardless, an NFL caliber defender should know to just take a knee on the turnover and end it.

I'd feel pretty sure that the NFL's statement is just a blurb about what it is being proposed. That could not just be dropped into the rules as-is and have it make sense with the rest of the context around it.

Incidentally, I checked and the current situation (that nothing after the initial turnover would matter) was not just implied by the current rules, it's there explicitly:

Notes:

(1) If the second team loses possession by an interception or fumble, the down will be permitted to run to its conclusion, but if the second team’s possession has legally ended with the fumble recovery or interception, any subsequent action will not affect the outcome of the game. (If the change of possession occurs in the second team’s end zone, the score counts.

 

[Hankmoody]

Great find, so it's very likely they are looking to nuke that clause.

 

[Dismattle]

You worry over Rule Change #10?  Just wait until you find out Goodell is implementing an Order #66 this year.

I'm not so sure "worry" is the right word  In my youth I actually enjoyed discovering the outcome of a play via the referees post play calling  However I do not enjoy such learning experiences as much at this point  For instance it appears Bronco Billy knows the "new" policy proposed but can he say for certain what happens when the ball is fumbled out the opponents End Zone??  I'm almost certain that announcers will have immediately jumped to a conclusion as to the results which could be wrong too  (I personally dislike learning things wrong) I believe the word in question is disgust because of the potential for so many variables to an outcome/ruling on the field/in the booth  (imho) This all means the HC should be allowed to throw a challenge flag?  Talk about potential for working Fans up into a frenzy  (Victory and Defeat acting as if on a teeter-totter)  But yeah the change appears to make sense but I do hope the Ref's are educated enough to make the best calls on the field

 

[zftcg]

Since the NFL adopted its new OT rules a few years ago, how many games have ended on a turnover? The only one I can remember was the Broncos-Cinci MNF game in (I think) 2015. Denver kicked a FG, Bengals fumbled it on the subsequent possession and the game immediately ended.

So yeah, mark me down as not losing much sleep over a rule change for a scenario that will probably occur once every 50 years, if that.