Interesting debate (1 Viewer)

[houndirish]

Few of us bounced this topic around during the game. The conversation didn't last long since we all preferred to focus on the action but one dude suggested that with the new OT rules that allow a second possession if the first team gets a field goal, that the Giants should've elected to kick off versus receive. The justification was that for the bulk of the 4th quarter neither team could move the ball. Since it was becoming a field position game why not kick off, get a hold and then hopefully get the ball close to midfield? At that juncture that looked like an easier feat than driving approximately 50 yards to kick a field goal?

Normally I'd consider this Marty Morningwheg lunacy but in this case it seemed like it made sense. Incredibly ballsy call by any coach, but justifiable.

Thoughts?

 

[RUSF18]

Tebow to Thomas.

 

[AcerFC]

No.

 

[bostonfred]

If you couldn't lose on a td, then sure. This way, though, id only do it in extreme wind

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

never, ever. other teams scores a TD, you lose

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

If you couldn't lose on a td, then sure. This way, though, id only do it in extreme wind

Hi Marty

 

[bostonfred]

If you couldn't lose on a td, then sure. This way, though, id only do it in extreme wind

Hi Marty

If you could give the opponent a nasty headwind and you could only lose on a td, I take the field position. Kick with the wind, start them on their 20 with a touchback, let them drive a short distance, and play aggressive defense with deep safety help because you're not worried about a field goal.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Only go 2nd in college O.T.

 

[David Yudkin]

Having more possessions is still the recipe for winning. If neither team scored on the first possession, then the team that kicked off in OT is at a disadvantage (back to sudden death with one less possession).

 

[Pipes]

never, ever. other teams scores a TD, you lose

Yeah but if you hold them and then kick a FG you win. In a game like Sunday where neither team was moving the ball it definitely warranted some consideration.

 

[David Yudkin]

never, ever. other teams scores a TD, you lose

Yeah but if you hold them and then kick a FG you win. In a game like Sunday where neither team was moving the ball it definitely warranted some consideration.

Let's try this another way. In a duel, would you ever elect to fire the SECOND shot?

 

[Run It Up]

Its such an overwhelming advantage to receive in OT.

 

[Sam Quentin]

absolutely

 

[bostonfred]

never, ever. other teams scores a TD, you lose

Yeah but if you hold them and then kick a FG you win. In a game like Sunday where neither team was moving the ball it definitely warranted some consideration.

Let's try this another way. In a duel, would you ever elect to fire the SECOND shot?

Does the other guy have to shoot from 80 yards away while I shoot from fifty or sixty?

 

[Perfect Tommy]

Historically, receiving the kickoff in overtime has been a small advantage. It only feels overwhelming because the kicking team's offense might not take the field.

With the current playoff overtime rules, I suspect that small advantage is pretty much eliminated. The receiving team no longer wins on a FG. That means they won't get to the 20 yard line and then run up the middle and kick on 3rd down any more. They have to try to get the TD. Sometimes they will turn the ball over or lose yardage with the new rules when they would have safely won with the old rules. When they do get the FG, the kicking team now gets to use all four downs to aggressively try to get at least a FG. Those are big swings in favor of the kicking team.

My guess is that it is now close enough between kicking and receiving that if one direction is only a little better, they should take that direction. If there is no advantageous direction, then they should receive if the offenses have the advantage and kickoff if the defenses have had the upper hand. In this game, I think the NYGs should have chosen to kick.

 

[David Yudkin]

never, ever. other teams scores a TD, you lose

Yeah but if you hold them and then kick a FG you win. In a game like Sunday where neither team was moving the ball it definitely warranted some consideration.

Let's try this another way. In a duel, would you ever elect to fire the SECOND shot?

Does the other guy have to shoot from 80 yards away while I shoot from fifty or sixty?

In the old system, if I remember the numbers right, teams receiving the kickoff had a 60% chance of winning in OT (so a 50% greater chance than not getting the ball to start OT).To win with a FG, teams had to advance the ball to roughly the opponent's 30 yard line to have a decent chance of making a FG. Assuming they make the same FG as they would in the new system (and assuming most kickoffs end in a touchback, their defense would take the field with a 3 point lead and the opposing offense needing to go 50 yards to get into field goal range. As a coach, I like those odds.Any other result other than a FG would not change what would happen in the new OT rules. Get the ball and score a TD in either system = a win. Don't get any points at all with the first possession and your team has to play defense = same result in either system. Up 3 points, the only way you would lose in OT is if your defense gave up a long TD scoring drive (probably 80 yards). If your defense can't stop a team from driving 80 yards, you shouldn't have won the game in the first place.I see no downside to getting the ball first, as the only difference is having to prevent an 80 yard drive. All the other results are the same outcomes as in the old system.

 

[bostonfred]

Sure, which is why I said in extreme wind. That's the difference. Your kickoff goes further, their passing is worse, their field goal attempts miss more, their punts dont go as far, your passing is potentially improved, your kicking is improved, and your punting is improved. You tilt the playing field so much in your favor in return for giving your opponent a single shot at a td. I think its worth it.

 

[Warrior]

Get with the times, people.

Mathematically, kicking is no longer a disadvantage, unless you're going up against a team you're confident will shred your defense and score a TD on the first drive. Against the Pats, you receive. Against the 49ers, there's no real advantage either way and kicking is a valid choice.

Step 1: kick to the 20.

Step 2: 3 and out (just like the last ~10 posessions of regulation)

Step 3: Receive ball on your own ~40.

Now you have a ~20 yard advantage. All you need for a game-winning FG on the second posession is about 25 yards, compared to the ~45 yards that the other team would have had to go.

In some situations, vs some teams, that ~20 yard advantage is almost free (assuming both teams have very solid defenses and crappy ofenses).

 

[RUSF18]

Get with the times, people.Mathematically, kicking is no longer a disadvantage, unless you're going up against a team you're confident will shred your defense and score a TD on the first drive. Against the Pats, you receive. Against the 49ers, there's no real advantage either way and kicking is a valid choice.Step 1: kick to the 20.Step 2: 3 and out (just like the last ~10 posessions of regulation)Step 3: Receive ball on your own ~40.Now you have a ~20 yard advantage. All you need for a game-winning FG on the second posession is about 25 yards, compared to the ~45 yards that the other team would have had to go.In some situations, vs some teams, that ~20 yard advantage is almost free (assuming both teams have very solid defenses and crappy ofenses).

It's just as feasible that the offense gains two first downs, approaches the 50, and then punts, pinning the other team inside the 10. Now how do you feel? Of course if you only look at the optimal scenario it would seem like a good idea.

 

[David Yudkin]

Get with the times, people.Mathematically, kicking is no longer a disadvantage, unless you're going up against a team you're confident will shred your defense and score a TD on the first drive. Against the Pats, you receive. Against the 49ers, there's no real advantage either way and kicking is a valid choice.Step 1: kick to the 20.Step 2: 3 and out (just like the last ~10 posessions of regulation)Step 3: Receive ball on your own ~40.Now you have a ~20 yard advantage. All you need for a game-winning FG on the second posession is about 25 yards, compared to the ~45 yards that the other team would have had to go.In some situations, vs some teams, that ~20 yard advantage is almost free (assuming both teams have very solid defenses and crappy ofenses).

In this scenario, teams should kick off all the time even in the old overtime rules.If you are so sure that your team can force a 3 and out, then you should be even more willing to receive the kick, get a FG, hold them withoout a first down, and go home with a win.

 

[CalBear]

I see no downside to getting the ball first, as the only difference is having to prevent an 80 yard drive. All the other results are the same outcomes as in the old system.

The downside to getting the ball first is that you can't win with a FG, and if you don't get a FG, the other team can win with a FG. So receiving the ball you get:1) Probability of driving for TD (15%?) [win]2) Probability of driving for FG (20%?) [lead]3) Probability of failing to drive for score (65%?) [tie]As the team kicking off, you have the inverse of these options on the first possession. Then you have (let's say) the same probabilities when you get the ball. So the scenarios for the team kicking off are:4) .85*.15 (they don't score a TD, you score a TD) [win]5) .65*.35 (they don't score, you score) [win]6) .20*.20 (both score FGs) [tie]7) .65*.65 (no one scores) [tie]8) .20*.65 (they score FG, you don't score) [lose]9) .15 (they score TD) [lose]I pulled these probabilities out of thin air, but it seems clear that #4+#5 should be a higher probability than #8+#9.Edit to fix: Forgot the #9 scenario. I think the logic still holds.

 

[David Yudkin]

I see no downside to getting the ball first, as the only difference is having to prevent an 80 yard drive. All the other results are the same outcomes as in the old system.

The downside to getting the ball first is that you can't win with a FG, and if you don't get a FG, the other team can win with a FG. So receiving the ball you get:1) Probability of driving for TD (15%?) [win]2) Probability of driving for FG (20%?) [lead]3) Probability of failing to drive for score (65%?) [tie]As the team kicking off, you have the inverse of these options on the first possession. Then you have (let's say) the same probabilities when you get the ball. So the scenarios for the team kicking off are:4) .85*.15 (they don't score a TD, you score a TD) [win]5) .65*.35 (they don't score, you score) [win]6) .20*.20 (both score FGs) [tie]7) .65*.65 (no one scores) [tie]8) .20*.65 (they score FG, you don't score) [lose]9) .15 (they score TD) [lose]I pulled these probabilities out of thin air, but it seems clear that #4+#5 should be a higher probability than #8+#9.Edit to fix: Forgot the #9 scenario. I think the logic still holds.

No matter what numbers you use in your scenario, it still doesn't change that IT'S THE SAME OUTCOME IN NOT SCORING FIRST AS IT WAS WITH THE OLD RULES. That was my point, and you just spelled it out for me.Any time the team that gets the ball first doesn't score, they are at risk of the other team getting a FG. But getting the ball first and scoring a FG in the playoffs also ensures you can't lose by a FG on the other team's possession.The bottom line for either team in OT is that at some point your defense will have to make a stop. But if you get the ball first, your defense may not have to ever take the field (if you score a TD).Assuming the receiving team starts at their own 20, gaining 20 yards and then punting could easily give the ball to the other team at their 20 . . . so basically the same result as losing the coin toss in the regular season rules and having to kickoff (it becomes sudden death and either team could win with a FG).I really don't see the downside to getting the ball first. MAYBE if there are hurricane force winds blowing exactly from one end zone, and even then that might not be worth giving the ball away.

 

[CalBear]

No matter what numbers you use in your scenario, it still doesn't change that IT'S THE SAME OUTCOME IN NOT SCORING FIRST AS IT WAS WITH THE OLD RULES. That was my point, and you just spelled it out for me.Any time the team that gets the ball first doesn't score, they are at risk of the other team getting a FG. But getting the ball first and scoring a FG in the playoffs also ensures you can't lose by a FG on the other team's possession.

The change in the new rules is that you can get the ball first and score a FG, and still lose because the other team scores a TD. In the old system a FG on the first possession pruned all other results (the game is over); that's no longer true if you receive the kick. And it's still true on your first possession, if you kick off.

 

[David Yudkin]

No matter what numbers you use in your scenario, it still doesn't change that IT'S THE SAME OUTCOME IN NOT SCORING FIRST AS IT WAS WITH THE OLD RULES. That was my point, and you just spelled it out for me.Any time the team that gets the ball first doesn't score, they are at risk of the other team getting a FG. But getting the ball first and scoring a FG in the playoffs also ensures you can't lose by a FG on the other team's possession.

The change in the new rules is that you can get the ball first and score a FG, and still lose because the other team scores a TD. In the old system a FG on the first possession pruned all other results (the game is over); that's no longer true if you receive the kick. And it's still true on your first possession, if you kick off.

I think most coaches in the league would rather have a 3 point lead and force the other team to drive 80 yards to win than be down 3 points and have to drive 80 yards to win. Especially if you 1) win if you stop them in the first 40 yards, and 2) get the ball in a sudden death situation if you only allow a FG. And that doesn't even account for the fact that you had a chance to end the game by scoring a TD on your first possession in OT.IMO, adding in the dual possession rule in OT gives the kicking team a better chance to win than the old rules, but I still don't think it's a greater chance to win than the team that gets the ball first (or even a 50/50 chance to win).

 

[IrishTwinkie]

I was pondering this during the game and then I had another thought. Say you get the ball first in OT and score your field goal. Can you then do an onsides kick? If so, what happens if you recover? Did that count as the second possession and is the game over? What if I am kicking it first and proceed to kick it onsides and recover it first? It would take some serious guts, but this seems to mess up the new OT rules in my mind. Anyone know?

 

[dutch]

I was pondering this during the game and then I had another thought. Say you get the ball first in OT and score your field goal. Can you then do an onsides kick? If so, what happens if you recover? Did that count as the second possession and is the game over? What if I am kicking it first and proceed to kick it onsides and recover it first? It would take some serious guts, but this seems to mess up the new OT rules in my mind. Anyone know?

Team kicking and recoverying the onside kick wins the game:From the NFL, here’s what happens in OT in the playoffs:

“The modified system of determining the winner shall prevail when the score is tied at the end of regulation for postseason NFL games. The system guarantees each team a possession or the opportunity to possess, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession.

“At the end of regulation time, the Referee will immediately toss a coin at the center of the field in accordance with rules pertaining to the usual pregame toss. The captain of the visiting team will call the toss prior to the coin being flipped.

“Following a three-minute intermission after the end of the regulation game, play will be continued in 15-minute periods until a winner is declared. Each team must possess or have the opportunity to possess the ball unless the team that has the ball first scores a touchdown on its initial possession. Play continues in sudden death until a winner is determined, and the game automatically ends upon any score (by safety, field goal, or touchdown) or when a score is awarded by the Referee for a palpably unfair act. Each team has three timeouts per half and all general timing provisions apply as during a regular-season game. The try is not attempted if a touchdown is scored. Disqualified players are not allowed to return.”

As for instant replay, “No challenges are allowed. All reviews are initiated by the replay official.”

Now, just what does the NFL mean by “possession” and “opportunity to possess.” Seems clear, but let’s set forth the rule...just because.

“Possession: Actual possession of the ball with complete control. The defense gains possession when it catches, intercepts, or recovers a loose ball.

“Opportunity to possess: The opportunity to possess occurs only during kicking plays. A kickoff is an opportunity to possess for the receiving team. If the kicking team legally recovers the kick, the receiving team is considered to have had its opportunity. A punt or a field goal that crosses the line of scrimmage and is muffed by the receiving team is considered to be an opportunity to possess for the receivers. Normal touching rules by the kicking team apply.”

Washington Post

 

[IrishTwinkie]

“Opportunity to possess: The opportunity to possess occurs only during kicking plays. A kickoff is an opportunity to possess for the receiving team. If the kicking team legally recovers the kick, the receiving team is considered to have had its opportunity. A punt or a field goal that crosses the line of scrimmage and is muffed by the receiving team is considered to be an opportunity to possess for the receivers. Normal touching rules by the kicking team apply.”

Washington Post

Heh. I'd LOVE to see someone have the guts to try an onsides kick in OT.Thanks for the quick post.

 

[CalBear]

No matter what numbers you use in your scenario, it still doesn't change that IT'S THE SAME OUTCOME IN NOT SCORING FIRST AS IT WAS WITH THE OLD RULES. That was my point, and you just spelled it out for me.Any time the team that gets the ball first doesn't score, they are at risk of the other team getting a FG. But getting the ball first and scoring a FG in the playoffs also ensures you can't lose by a FG on the other team's possession.

The change in the new rules is that you can get the ball first and score a FG, and still lose because the other team scores a TD. In the old system a FG on the first possession pruned all other results (the game is over); that's no longer true if you receive the kick. And it's still true on your first possession, if you kick off.

I think most coaches in the league would rather have a 3 point lead and force the other team to drive 80 yards to win than be down 3 points and have to drive 80 yards to win. Especially if you 1) win if you stop them in the first 40 yards, and 2) get the ball in a sudden death situation if you only allow a FG. And that doesn't even account for the fact that you had a chance to end the game by scoring a TD on your first possession in OT.IMO, adding in the dual possession rule in OT gives the kicking team a better chance to win than the old rules, but I still don't think it's a greater chance to win than the team that gets the ball first (or even a 50/50 chance to win).

It's clearly a benefit for the kicking team, the question is whether the benefit is enough to make it worth kicking. The answer to that is the answer to whether P(TD)+P(FG+stop) for the receiving team is greater than P(give up FG, score TD)+P(stop, score) on the first possession for each team. (We'll call it a wash after that).I think, especially given the new kickoff rules which make a touchback more or less automatic if you want one, I'd rather kick.

 

[ivnabru]

I see no downside to getting the ball first, as the only difference is having to prevent an 80 yard drive. All the other results are the same outcomes as in the old system.

The downside to getting the ball first is that you can't win with a FG, and if you don't get a FG, the other team can win with a FG. So receiving the ball you get:1) Probability of driving for TD (15%?) [win]2) Probability of driving for FG (20%?) [lead]3) Probability of failing to drive for score (65%?) [tie]As the team kicking off, you have the inverse of these options on the first possession. Then you have (let's say) the same probabilities when you get the ball. So the scenarios for the team kicking off are:4) .85*.15 (they don't score a TD, you score a TD) [win]5) .65*.35 (they don't score, you score) [win]6) .20*.20 (both score FGs) [tie]7) .65*.65 (no one scores) [tie]8) .20*.65 (they score FG, you don't score) [lose]9) .15 (they score TD) [lose]I pulled these probabilities out of thin air, but it seems clear that #4+#5 should be a higher probability than #8+#9.Edit to fix: Forgot the #9 scenario. I think the logic still holds.

Don't forget if Team 1 scores a FG Team 2 has a higher probability of a FG and a higher probability of a TD because they're playing 4 downs until they're in FG range.Assume you start at the 20 that means you have about 50 yards before you're in FG range and 30 yards after. Just assuming you have a 1/3 better chance of scoring on the yards you have an extra down and equal on the yards you have the same amount of downs. So your 15% TD would be 15% over 30 yards and 20% over 50 yards. That would be around 18% chance at a TD and you would have about 27% chance of a FG. That's assuming that you don't miss a kick. Maybe you subtract an additional 15-20% of the additional 7%. So maybe it's 26%. Either way you have some better odds as Team 2 than Team 1 if they score that FG.Then again that assumes an average drive of 20 yds for Team 1 when they don't score and a net punt of 40.So 1st drive odds for Team 1 are 15% win, 20 FG (3.6 loss, 5 tie, 11.4 win).On 1st drive for Team 2 (65% chance) 35% win (about 23% win)So on the first drive (using the numbers you brought) Team 1 has about 26.4% win and Team 2 has about 26.6% win.Assuming these numbers the advantage is very slight for Team 1 when you consider that they have the next possession in sudden death.Increase the FG chances and that helps Team 2. Increase the TD chances and that helps Team 1.It would be interesting to use actual numbers including 1st drive scoring percentages, drive length average, TOs and whatever else you would need to figure out actual percentages.

 

[David Yudkin]

Accoring to an 8 year study at Advanced NFL Stats, a drive starting at the 20 yard line results in a TD 15% of the time and a FG 8% of the time. If a team is forced to go for it on 4th down, that might up the chances slghtly, but more than likely there is still probably an 80% chance the team won't score a TD and a 70% chance they don't score at all.

I still say the better option is being up by a FG and making the other team go down the field and beat you or tie you.