NFL overtime rule change PASSED. (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

Reading over what I posted (maybe too quickly), it looks like if "Team B" (the initial receiving team) turns the ball over, Team A's actual possession subsequent to that turnover does not count as an "opportunity to possess" (because, under 4(g), opportunity to possess only applies during kicking plays).So, if Team A does not score on possession following turnover, and Team B kicks FG on its next possession, Team A still gets the ball back again because it has not yet had an "opportunity to possess".That seems weird to me, but that's how I read it.

No. In your example, each team had the ball at least once. A FG would end the game. The "opportunity to possess" is only considered as a chance to have gained possession of the ball. If a team actually HAD possession of the ball at one point, the kickoff rules don't apply.

 

[rick6668]

Reading over what I posted (maybe too quickly), it looks like if "Team B" (the initial receiving team) turns the ball over, Team A's actual possession subsequent to that turnover does not count as an "opportunity to possess" (because, under 4(g), opportunity to possess only applies during kicking plays).So, if Team A does not score on possession following turnover, and Team B kicks FG on its next possession, Team A still gets the ball back again because it has not yet had an "opportunity to possess".That seems weird to me, but that's how I read it.

I don't think so. This is covered here:(f) A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (3-2-7). The defense gains possession when it catches, intercepts, or recovers a loose ball.Unless you're saying that actual possession does not include and "opportunity to possess", but I think it does.

 

[Don Quixote]

Reading over what I posted (maybe too quickly), it looks like if "Team B" (the initial receiving team) turns the ball over, Team A's actual possession subsequent to that turnover does not count as an "opportunity to possess" (because, under 4(g), opportunity to possess only applies during kicking plays).

So, if Team A does not score on possession following turnover, and Team B kicks FG on its next possession, Team A still gets the ball back again because it has not yet had an "opportunity to possess".

That seems weird to me, but that's how I read it.

No. In your example, each team had the ball at least once. A FG would end the game. The "opportunity to possess" is only considered as a chance to have gained possession of the ball. If a team actually HAD possession of the ball at one point, the kickoff rules don't apply.

I don't see how actual possession turns off opportunity to possess. Article 4(a) states, in its entirety, that "Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff (Team B) scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner." I think that it would need to state that "Both teams must have the (i) opportunity to possess the ball or (ii) actual possession of the ball once during the extra period..."

 

[Don Quixote]

Reading over what I posted (maybe too quickly), it looks like if "Team B" (the initial receiving team) turns the ball over, Team A's actual possession subsequent to that turnover does not count as an "opportunity to possess" (because, under 4(g), opportunity to possess only applies during kicking plays).So, if Team A does not score on possession following turnover, and Team B kicks FG on its next possession, Team A still gets the ball back again because it has not yet had an "opportunity to possess".That seems weird to me, but that's how I read it.

I don't think so. This is covered here:(f) A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (3-2-7). The defense gains possession when it catches, intercepts, or recovers a loose ball.Unless you're saying that actual possession does not include and "opportunity to possess", but I think it does.

I don't think it does. 4(g) states that "opportunity to possess" only applies during kicking plays, and, on turnover, Team A would not have had "opportunity to possess" on kicking play.

 

[David Yudkin]

Didn't see that if an onside is attempted, it counts as a possession opportunity for the kicking team. Thought I saw somewhere that an onside attempt would count as a possession opportunity for the kicking team.

It does indicate that an onside kick counts as a possession opportunity.

(g) The opportunity to possess applies only during kicking plays. A kickoff is the 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 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 receiving team. Normal touching rules by the kicking team apply.

No where does it say that a kickoff is a possession opportunity for the kicking team.

If the kicking team recovers the kickoff, then both teams have met their requirment to have "an opportunity to possess" the football.

 

[dutch]

I don't see how actual possession turns off opportunity to posses. Article 4(a) states, in its entirety, that "Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff (Team B) scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner." I think that it would need to state that "Both teams must have the (i) opportunity to possess the ball or (ii) actual possession of the ball once during the extra period..."

You're overthinking this; you can't actually possess the ball without first having the opportunity to posess the ball. Team B got their opportunity when Team A coughed the ball up.

 

[David Yudkin]

Reading over what I posted (maybe too quickly), it looks like if "Team B" (the initial receiving team) turns the ball over, Team A's actual possession subsequent to that turnover does not count as an "opportunity to possess" (because, under 4(g), opportunity to possess only applies during kicking plays).

So, if Team A does not score on possession following turnover, and Team B kicks FG on its next possession, Team A still gets the ball back again because it has not yet had an "opportunity to possess".

That seems weird to me, but that's how I read it.

No. In your example, each team had the ball at least once. A FG would end the game. The "opportunity to possess" is only considered as a chance to have gained possession of the ball. If a team actually HAD possession of the ball at one point, the kickoff rules don't apply.

I don't see how actual possession turns off opportunity to possess. Article 4(a) states, in its entirety, that "Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff (Team B) scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner." I think that it would need to state that "Both teams must have the (i) opportunity to possess the ball or (ii) actual possession of the ball once during the extra period..."

If at any point in OT both teams had possession of the ball, the kicking rules don't matter. Both teams would have met that standard.

 

[Don Quixote]

I don't see how actual possession turns off opportunity to posses. Article 4(a) states, in its entirety, that "Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff (Team B) scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner." I think that it would need to state that "Both teams must have the (i) opportunity to possess the ball or (ii) actual possession of the ball once during the extra period..."

You're overthinking this; you can't actually possess the ball without first having the opportunity to posess the ball. Team B got their opportunity when Team A coughed the ball up.

But my point is that that is not how "opportunity to possess" was defined in the rulebook. It was defined based only on kicking plays. Nothing in the rule states a fumble is viewed as an opportunity to possess for the other team (and because defined as only kicking plays, it thereby excludes all other plays).

 

[rick6668]

Didn't see that if an onside is attempted, it counts as a possession opportunity for the kicking team. Thought I saw somewhere that an onside attempt would count as a possession opportunity for the kicking team.

It does indicate that an onside kick counts as a possession opportunity.

(g) The opportunity to possess applies only during kicking plays. A kickoff is the 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 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 receiving team. Normal touching rules by the kicking team apply.

No where does it say that a kickoff is a possession opportunity for the kicking team.

If the kicking team recovers the kickoff, then both teams have met their requirment to have "an opportunity to possess" the football.

What if they don't recover? This doesn't spell out that they had an opportunity. What if the kicker kicked it directly to a guy on the receiving team who fell on it? What if it went out of bounds without being touched? It doesn't look like it says those are opportunities to possess according to these rules and the kicking team would get the ball back if they hold the other team to anything less than a TD.See my post on page 2.

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't see how actual possession turns off opportunity to posses. Article 4(a) states, in its entirety, that "Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff (Team B) scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner." I think that it would need to state that "Both teams must have the (i) opportunity to possess the ball or (ii) actual possession of the ball once during the extra period..."

You're overthinking this; you can't actually possess the ball without first having the opportunity to posess the ball. Team B got their opportunity when Team A coughed the ball up.

But my point is that that is not how "opportunity to possess" was defined in the rulebook. It was defined based only on kicking plays. Nothing in the rule states a fumble is viewed as an opportunity to possess for the other team.

Because the regular rules of possession apply. The only part that's new is the "opportunity to possess," which they spell out here. The new rules cover kickoffs only because all the other rules of football remain the same. If possession changes at any point on any play in OT, that team had possession of the ball. What happens after that doesn't change the fact that both teams possessed the football AT SOME POINT in OT.

 

[David Yudkin]

What if they don't recover? This doesn't spell out that they had an opportunity. What if the kicker kicked it directly to a guy on the receiving team who fell on it? What if it went out of bounds without being touched? It doesn't look like it says those are opportunities to possess according to these rules and the kicking team would get the ball back if they hold the other team to anything less than a TD.

See my post on page 2.

I'm not sure why some folks are struggling with this. If the kicking team tries an onside kick, either they recover the ball or they don't. If they don't receover the onside kick, the kicking team has not had an opportunity to have a possession. So unless they allow a TD on the first drive while on defense, they will get the ball back.If the receiving team recovers or the ball goes out of bounds, they get the ball and whatever happens happens, but this was their chance to possess the ball.

An onside kick cannot be considered an opportunity to possess the ball ufor the kicking team unless they recover the kickoff and then fumble it on the same play.

 

[Don Quixote]

I don't see how actual possession turns off opportunity to posses. Article 4(a) states, in its entirety, that "Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff (Team B) scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner." I think that it would need to state that "Both teams must have the (i) opportunity to possess the ball or (ii) actual possession of the ball once during the extra period..."

You're overthinking this; you can't actually possess the ball without first having the opportunity to posess the ball. Team B got their opportunity when Team A coughed the ball up.

But my point is that that is not how "opportunity to possess" was defined in the rulebook. It was defined based only on kicking plays. Nothing in the rule states a fumble is viewed as an opportunity to possess for the other team.

Because the regular rules of possession apply. The only part that's new is the "opportunity to possess," which they spell out here. The new rules cover kickoffs only because all the other rules of football remain the same. If possession changes at any point on any play in OT, that team had possession of the ball. What happens after that doesn't change the fact that both teams possessed the football AT SOME POINT in OT.

I just don't see the last sentence as the rules are drafted. 4(a) requires both teams to have an "opportunity to possess" (with TD exception); 4(g) defines "opportunity to possess" and states that only applies during kicking plays. So, if Team A never had "opportunity to possess" within meaning of 4(g), then I don't see how 4(a) is met.(a) Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff (Team B) scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner....

(g) The opportunity to possess applies only during kicking plays. A kickoff is the 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 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 receiving team. Normal touching rules by the kicking team apply.

 

[rick6668]

What if they don't recover? This doesn't spell out that they had an opportunity. What if the kicker kicked it directly to a guy on the receiving team who fell on it? What if it went out of bounds without being touched? It doesn't look like it says those are opportunities to possess according to these rules and the kicking team would get the ball back if they hold the other team to anything less than a TD.

See my post on page 2.

I'm not sure why some folks are struggling with this. If the kicking team tries an onside kick, either they recover the ball or they don't. If they don't receover the onside kick, the kicking team has not had an opportunity to have a possession. So unless they allow a TD on the first drive while on defense, they will get the ball back.If the receiving team recovers or the ball goes out of bounds, they get the ball and whatever happens happens, but this was their chance to possess the ball.

An onside kick cannot be considered an opportunity to possess the ball ufor the kicking team unless they recover the kickoff and then fumble it on the same play.

I'm not struggling with it. I agree with what you are saying, but I'm wondering that since trying an onside kick doesn't count as a possession opportunity unless you recover, that it may be feasible for a team that has to kickoff in OT to go for an onside kick.

 

[David Yudkin]

What if they don't recover? This doesn't spell out that they had an opportunity. What if the kicker kicked it directly to a guy on the receiving team who fell on it? What if it went out of bounds without being touched? It doesn't look like it says those are opportunities to possess according to these rules and the kicking team would get the ball back if they hold the other team to anything less than a TD.

See my post on page 2.

I'm not sure why some folks are struggling with this. If the kicking team tries an onside kick, either they recover the ball or they don't. If they don't receover the onside kick, the kicking team has not had an opportunity to have a possession. So unless they allow a TD on the first drive while on defense, they will get the ball back.If the receiving team recovers or the ball goes out of bounds, they get the ball and whatever happens happens, but this was their chance to possess the ball.

An onside kick cannot be considered an opportunity to possess the ball ufor the kicking team unless they recover the kickoff and then fumble it on the same play.

I'm not struggling with it. I agree with what you are saying, but I'm wondering that since trying an onside kick doesn't count as a possession opportunity unless you recover, that it may be feasible for a team that has to kickoff in OT to go for an onside kick.

Maybe teams will try more onside kicks. But they could also be giving up 40+ yards in field position if they fail to recover.

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't see how actual possession turns off opportunity to posses. Article 4(a) states, in its entirety, that "Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff (Team B) scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner." I think that it would need to state that "Both teams must have the (i) opportunity to possess the ball or (ii) actual possession of the ball once during the extra period..."

You're overthinking this; you can't actually possess the ball without first having the opportunity to posess the ball. Team B got their opportunity when Team A coughed the ball up.

But my point is that that is not how "opportunity to possess" was defined in the rulebook. It was defined based only on kicking plays. Nothing in the rule states a fumble is viewed as an opportunity to possess for the other team.

Because the regular rules of possession apply. The only part that's new is the "opportunity to possess," which they spell out here. The new rules cover kickoffs only because all the other rules of football remain the same. If possession changes at any point on any play in OT, that team had possession of the ball. What happens after that doesn't change the fact that both teams possessed the football AT SOME POINT in OT.

I just don't see the last sentence as the rules are drafted. 4(a) requires both teams to have an "opportunity to possess" (with TD exception); 4(g) defines "opportunity to possess" and states that only applies during kicking plays. So, if Team A never had "opportunity to possess" within meaning of 4(g), then I don't see how 4(a) is met.(a) Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff (Team B) scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner....

(g) The opportunity to possess applies only during kicking plays. A kickoff is the 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 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 receiving team. Normal touching rules by the kicking team apply.

I can't help you if you don't understand that once a team actually POSSESSES the ball that all the kickoff stuff doesn't matter. "Opportunity to possess" only applies to kicks.

 

[Don Quixote]

[You're overthinking this; you can't actually possess the ball without first having the opportunity to posess the ball. Team B got their opportunity when Team A coughed the ball up.

But my point is that that is not how "opportunity to possess" was defined in the rulebook. It was defined based only on kicking plays. Nothing in the rule states a fumble is viewed as an opportunity to possess for the other team.

Because the regular rules of possession apply. The only part that's new is the "opportunity to possess," which they spell out here. The new rules cover kickoffs only because all the other rules of football remain the same. If possession changes at any point on any play in OT, that team had possession of the ball. What happens after that doesn't change the fact that both teams possessed the football AT SOME POINT in OT.

I just don't see the last sentence as the rules are drafted. 4(a) requires both teams to have an "opportunity to possess" (with TD exception); 4(g) defines "opportunity to possess" and states that only applies during kicking plays. So, if Team A never had "opportunity to possess" within meaning of 4(g), then I don't see how 4(a) is met.(a) Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff (Team B) scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner....

(g) The opportunity to possess applies only during kicking plays. A kickoff is the 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 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 receiving team. Normal touching rules by the kicking team apply.

I can't help you if you don't understand that once a team actually POSSESSES the ball that all the kickoff stuff doesn't matter. "Opportunity to possess" only applies to kicks.

Yes, as I've stated multiple times, "opportunity to possess" applies only to kicks. And 4(a) requires "opportunity to possess." You have not pointed to anything in the rule that actual possession turns off the "opportunity to possess" requirement that is defined in 4(g). The "I can't you help if you can't understand" part is a bit uncalled for.

 

[David Yudkin]

Yes, as I've stated multiple times, "opportunity to possess" applies only to kicks. And 4(a) requires "opportunity to possess." You have not pointed to anything in the rule that actual possession turns off the "opportunity to possess" requirement that is defined in 4(g). The "I can't you help if you can't understand" part is a bit uncalled for.

I'm not saying anything to be mean. If a team actually has the ball at any point in OT, they meet the possession requirement, thus their "opportunity to possess" on a kickoff becomes irrelevant.Put another way, section a states that both teams neet to possess the ball. Section g outlines what it means to have an "opportunity to possess the ball." Once both teams meet Part a, the possession requirment has been met.

 

[Don Quixote]

Yes, as I've stated multiple times, "opportunity to possess" applies only to kicks. And 4(a) requires "opportunity to possess." You have not pointed to anything in the rule that actual possession turns off the "opportunity to possess" requirement that is defined in 4(g). The "I can't you help if you can't understand" part is a bit uncalled for.

I'm not saying anything to be mean. If a team actually has the ball at any point in OT, they meet the possession requirement, thus their "opportunity to possess" on a kickoff becomes irrelevant.Put another way, section a states that both teams neet to possess the ball. Section g outlines what it means to have an "opportunity to possess the ball." Once both teams meet Part a, the possession requirment has been met.

I don't read the rule as having an alternative "possession requirement." As currently drafted, it only refers to the "opportunity to possess the ball" (which we both agree is only limited to kicks). That is why I commented earlier that I think 4(a) should be revised to state that "both teams must have (i) the opportunity to possess the ball or (ii) possession of the ball..." to add the italicized language. Maybe I'm just being overly pedantic (but it's a rule, so it presumably should be read pedantically), but I think the language could be tighter.

 

[Topes]

My main gripe about it is if Team A kicks a field goal, Team B will have the advantage of going for it on 4th down throughout their possession to try and score either a FG or TD (to win it).

Which may make a team want to kick off after winning the coinflip.

Marty Mornhinweg, welcome back to the NFL. You may now dominate the rest of the league with your forward-thinking strategy.

 

[SSOG]

Other than that, I really don't get how the obvious answer here isn't "play continues from where it left off at the end of the 4th quarter". If the kickoff at the beginning of OT is unfair, then remove the kickoff. Whoever had the ball at the end of the 4th keeps the ball. First team to score, wins. Keeps the brevity of the current OT system (actually, the average OT would probably be SHORTER with this rule), but doesn't leave anybody whining about how "unfair" it all is.

Out of all the proposals I've seen, this is the one that irritates me the most. Why the fourth quarter instead of the second quarter? Both of them presented an end to a half. Each half is self-contained. Why should the order of the halves matter? Who had the ball where at the end of the first half should count just as much as who had the ball where at the end of the second half.

Personally, I'd love to see play begin in the third where it left off at the second, too. Since I'll never manage to get that, I'd be happy enough with it happening in OT, instead. It also provides the same advantage that having the coin flip before the game provides (i.e. both teams have access to perfect information before the overtime begins). Plus, it puts the burden of making a comeback on the team making the comeback, which I like. There are no back-to-back possessions, which is inherently fair.

 

[FUBAR]

My main gripe about it is if Team A kicks a field goal, Team B will have the advantage of going for it on 4th down throughout their possession to try and score either a FG or TD (to win it).

Is there anything (A) stopping team A from going for it on 4th down or (B) statistically showing that going for it on 4th down, while losing, makes it more likely that the team wins?

 

[SSOG]

My main gripe about it is if Team A kicks a field goal, Team B will have the advantage of going for it on 4th down throughout their possession to try and score either a FG or TD (to win it).

Is there anything (A) stopping team A from going for it on 4th down or (B) statistically showing that going for it on 4th down, while losing, makes it more likely that the team wins?

The second team has more information. Going for it on 4th down increases the likelihood of scoring a TD, but it also increases the likelihood of scoring nothing. When you don't know what you need to win, then you won't go for it on 4th down. When you know that you need a TD to win, then you will go for it on 4th down. The advantage isn't that you can go for it and the other team can't, the advantage is that you have more information and you KNOW you need to go for it while the other team doesn't. This is why every college football team ever chooses to go on offense second when they win the toss in OT- because they have that extra information of knowing when they need a TD and knowing when a FG is good enough to win it.

 

[dickey moe]

A lot of people are going to hate this the 1st time something funky happens in a post-season OT game.

 

[DropKick]

Yes, as I've stated multiple times, "opportunity to possess" applies only to kicks. And 4(a) requires "opportunity to possess." You have not pointed to anything in the rule that actual possession turns off the "opportunity to possess" requirement that is defined in 4(g). The "I can't you help if you can't understand" part is a bit uncalled for.

I'm not saying anything to be mean. If a team actually has the ball at any point in OT, they meet the possession requirement, thus their "opportunity to possess" on a kickoff becomes irrelevant.Put another way, section a states that both teams neet to possess the ball. Section g outlines what it means to have an "opportunity to possess the ball." Once both teams meet Part a, the possession requirment has been met.

I don't read the rule as having an alternative "possession requirement." As currently drafted, it only refers to the "opportunity to possess the ball" (which we both agree is only limited to kicks). That is why I commented earlier that I think 4(a) should be revised to state that "both teams must have (i) the opportunity to possess the ball or (ii) possession of the ball..." to add the italicized language. Maybe I'm just being overly pedantic (but it's a rule, so it presumably should be read pedantically), but I think the language could be tighter.

Just keep it simple.Other than a TD on the opening drive, each team is guaranteed a possession. The concept of "opportunity to possess the ball" is introduced because, on kick-offs, the receiving time might not actually get possession of the ball. This is just the part of the rule that says the "opportunity" effectively counts as a possession.

Of course an actual possession satisfies any "possession" requirements. We're making this too complicated.

ETA: Great input on this thread everyone. As I read through it, every time an angle occurred to me, the next poster was right on it. Overall, I'm not a fan of the change. I'd prefer to move the kick-off up 5 yards.

 

[craxie]

As I read through it, every time an angle occurred to me, the next poster was right on it.

I'm still not a fan of the fact that scoring points can cause you to loose

 

[Mr. Retukes]

It's pretty sloppy about safeties as well. (Does a safety on the first possession win the game? If both teams are supposed to get a possession, after Team B gives up a safety it should get the chance to score a safety of its own.)

If Team B scores a safety, then wouldn't it qualify for the "opportunity to possess the ball" by virtue of the fact that it now has the opportunity to receive Team A's safety kick?And couldn't Team B simply decline to receive the safety kick, thereby ending the game?

The rules don't state that you must accept an opportunity to possess the ball, right?

 

[smashingsilver]

Yes, as I've stated multiple times, "opportunity to possess" applies only to kicks. And 4(a) requires "opportunity to possess." You have not pointed to anything in the rule that actual possession turns off the "opportunity to possess" requirement that is defined in 4(g). The "I can't you help if you can't understand" part is a bit uncalled for.

I'm not saying anything to be mean. If a team actually has the ball at any point in OT, they meet the possession requirement, thus their "opportunity to possess" on a kickoff becomes irrelevant.Put another way, section a states that both teams neet to possess the ball. Section g outlines what it means to have an "opportunity to possess the ball." Once both teams meet Part a, the possession requirment has been met.

I don't read the rule as having an alternative "possession requirement." As currently drafted, it only refers to the "opportunity to possess the ball" (which we both agree is only limited to kicks). That is why I commented earlier that I think 4(a) should be revised to state that "both teams must have (i) the opportunity to possess the ball or (ii) possession of the ball..." to add the italicized language. Maybe I'm just being overly pedantic (but it's a rule, so it presumably should be read pedantically), but I think the language could be tighter.

I love this discussion. Yudkin is right, of course, possession logically should include the term "opportunity to possess", and I can't fathom that it would be interpreted differently by an official. Unfortunately, the rules shouldn't allow for any interpretation in this area. Technically, Quixote is also right; the rule is poorly written and should have that second clause added ("possession of the ball"). However, in real world interpretation, any coach who challenged a ruling on that angle would be shot down instantly by the referee or the league. Still, it would be nice if any potential loopholes such as this one did not exist.

 

[David Yudkin]

Yes, as I've stated multiple times, "opportunity to possess" applies only to kicks. And 4(a) requires "opportunity to possess." You have not pointed to anything in the rule that actual possession turns off the "opportunity to possess" requirement that is defined in 4(g). The "I can't you help if you can't understand" part is a bit uncalled for.

I'm not saying anything to be mean. If a team actually has the ball at any point in OT, they meet the possession requirement, thus their "opportunity to possess" on a kickoff becomes irrelevant.Put another way, section a states that both teams neet to possess the ball. Section g outlines what it means to have an "opportunity to possess the ball." Once both teams meet Part a, the possession requirment has been met.

I don't read the rule as having an alternative "possession requirement." As currently drafted, it only refers to the "opportunity to possess the ball" (which we both agree is only limited to kicks). That is why I commented earlier that I think 4(a) should be revised to state that "both teams must have (i) the opportunity to possess the ball or (ii) possession of the ball..." to add the italicized language. Maybe I'm just being overly pedantic (but it's a rule, so it presumably should be read pedantically), but I think the language could be tighter.

I love this discussion. Yudkin is right, of course, possession logically should include the term "opportunity to possess", and I can't fathom that it would be interpreted differently by an official. Unfortunately, the rules shouldn't allow for any interpretation in this area. Technically, Quixote is also right; the rule is poorly written and should have that second clause added ("possession of the ball"). However, in real world interpretation, any coach who challenged a ruling on that angle would be shot down instantly by the referee or the league. Still, it would be nice if any potential loopholes such as this one did not exist.

This would be on par with a team getting fined for not interviewing minority candidates for their head coaching vacancy when they went ahead and hired a black head coach.

 

[DropKick]

As I read through it, every time an angle occurred to me, the next poster was right on it.

I'm still not a fan of the fact that scoring points can cause you to loose

Scoring points can't cause you to lose. Only scoring less points than your opponent can cause you to lose.

 

[road warrior]

My main gripe about it is if Team A kicks a field goal, Team B will have the advantage of going for it on 4th down throughout their possession to try and score either a FG or TD (to win it).

Is there anything (A) stopping team A from going for it on 4th down or (B) statistically showing that going for it on 4th down, while losing, makes it more likely that the team wins?

What I was saying is Team A dictates the first drive. If they get a FG, then Team B knows they need to score (minimum FG) or it's Game Over. So it's safe to say that Team B is more LIKELY to go for it on 4th down given this circumstance?.

 

[DropKick]

My main gripe about it is if Team A kicks a field goal, Team B will have the advantage of going for it on 4th down throughout their possession to try and score either a FG or TD (to win it).

Is there anything (A) stopping team A from going for it on 4th down or (B) statistically showing that going for it on 4th down, while losing, makes it more likely that the team wins?

What I was saying is Team A dictates the first drive. If they get a FG, then Team B knows they need to score (minimum FG) or it's Game Over. So it's safe to say that Team B is more LIKELY to go for it on 4th down given this circumstance?.

I prefer sudden death. Special teams and defense are major parts of the game. If it needed adjustment just kick off from the 35 and if you give up a FG... so be it.Let's say you're playing the Colts and you win the toss. After a touch back, you drive 70 yards (to the 10) where you convert the Field Goal. Now you must kick off to Peyton Manning, who is most definitely in "4 down mode" and without clock limitation. Not an appealing proposition when you (at least historically) have already done enough to win the game.

 

[thecoolnamesarealltaken]

The new rule change is an improvement, but the vast majority of teams will still choose to take the ball first. If the team who wins the toss still has an advantage, then the system is still flawed.

Sudden death overtime could be fair if the opening kickoff is moved to the 45 or 50 yard line. One team gets the ball first, the other team gets field position. Under this system, teams would start choosing to kick the ball off first, and the percentage of wins for the team who kicks off first would be much closer to 50%.

 

[craxie]

I'm still not a fan of the fact that scoring points can cause you to loose

Scoring points can't cause you to lose. Only scoring less points than your opponent can cause you to lose.

Normally scoring points (FG, TD) gives the other team possession. Thus you could fairly say your turn is over.But when scoring a safety you get the ball right back. It should still be your ball with a chance to score more points.

 

[cdwood]

Cite the case when a safety is scored that the game is not then over.

If team A has not scored a field goal on their first possession, then it is sudden death.

If team A scores a field goal, then team B concedes a safety, its game over, 5-0.

If team A concedes a safety, its game over as they've lost 2-0.

 

[craxie]

Cite the case when a safety is scored that the game is not then over.If team A has not scored a field goal on their first possession, then it is sudden death.If team A scores a field goal, then team B concedes a safety, its game over, 5-0.If team A concedes a safety, its game over as they've lost 2-0.

In all those situations, the team that SCORES the safety WINSHere the problem is that the team that SCORES the safety LOSESI have no problem with winning by scoring a safety, I have a problem with losing by scoring a safetyI guess that if you're going to go with this format, my proposal would be that if you are down 3 and score a safety, you are allowed to receive the ball again like you normally would after a safety. At that point any method of scoring (TD, FG or even another safety) gives you the win.Scoring points should be rewarded, in this case by granting a stay of sudden death execution.Think of it like baseball where you can't strike out on a foul ball.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

For instance Team A kicks a FG to start OT, Team B is driving and turns it over, but the Team A player goes the wrong way and runs out the end of his own end zone, giving 2 points to Team B. Team B just 'scored' but lost because of the sudden death provision?

Why would you want to reward Team B for fumbling the game away? They had their chance and they blew it.You think it's unfair that Team B loses 3-2, but it would be even more unfair to penalize Team A by giving Team B two possessions.

 

[craxie]

Why would you want to reward Team B for fumbling the game away? They had their chance and they blew it.You think it's unfair that Team B loses 3-2, but it would be even more unfair to penalize Team A by giving Team B two possessions.

Team B is being rewarded for changing the fumble into points.If they fumble and just lose possession, fine, they lose.BUT we already know if they fumble and regain possession (force a fumble themselves) and score a TD they can still win.So fumbling is NOT an automatic loss.Converting a fumble into a safety should be enough to stave off sudden death.Also, Team A is not being penalized. If they hadn't recovered the ball, Team B likely would have won then and there.By recovering the ball, they saved themselves from losing and gave themselves another chance.Both teams get 'rewarded' with another chance.

 

[TommyGilmore]

If they fumble and just lose possession, fine, they lose.BUT we already know if they fumble and regain possession (force a fumble themselves) and score a TD they can still win.

Are you sure the rules allow play to continue after Team A (already up 3-0) recovers Team B's fumble?

 

[craxie]

Are you sure the rules allow play to continue after Team A (already up 3-0) recovers Team B's fumble?

Yup, play continues. Team B has an opportunity to force a fumble themselves and run it back for a TD.http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...nder-new-rules/

"If the defensive team turns the ball over while returning the turnover, the team that started the play on offense can then recover the ball and take it to the end zone for a touchdown, winning the game by three. If the offensive team fails to score a touchdown on that same play, the game ends."

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm still trying to figure out how there could be a safety and have the game continue.

1) Team A gets ball first and gives up a safety while on offense. Team B wins 2-0.

2) Team A gets the ball first and Team B somehow gives up a safety. Team A wins 2-0 (unless there is a way to give up a safety without ever having had possession of the ball).

3) Team A gets the ball first and scores a FG. Team B allows a safety at any point thereafter. Team A wins 3-2.

4) Team A gets the ball first and doesn't score. Team B gets the ball and allows a safety. Team A wins 2-0.

5) Both teams get the ball and don't score. Either team gets a safety and wins.

So I don't see where there's a safety scored that doesn't end the game (unless I'm missing something).

 

[craxie]

3) Team A gets the ball first and scores a FG. Team B allows a safety at any point thereafter. Team A wins 3-2.

I would phrase it 'Team A allows a safety' or 'Team B scores a safety', but yes, this is the scenario I'm talking about.It is the ONLY scenario in which the team scoring the safety loses.

So I don't see where there's a safety scored that doesn't end the game

You are correct, under the new OT rules, it would end the game.My point is it shouldn't.Scoring a safety shouldn't cause you to lose, it should be enough to stave off sudden-death and give you another chance. Kind of like a foul ball is enough to stave off a strike-out.

 

[TommyGilmore]

I'm still trying to figure out how there could be a safety and have the game continue.

1) Team A gets ball first and gives up a safety while on offense. Team B wins 2-0.

But....technically, Team B has not had an "opportunity to possess the ball".Team A should kickoff to Team B to give them the opportunity to possess the ball, as stated in the rules.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm still trying to figure out how there could be a safety and have the game continue.

1) Team A gets ball first and gives up a safety while on offense. Team B wins 2-0.

But....technically, Team B has not had an "opportunity to possess the ball".Team A should kickoff to Team B to give them the opportunity to possess the ball, as stated in the rules.

On the flip side, Team A had their chance to possess the ball and were losing, so they should not get another opportunity to possess the ball (but that is more implied than explicit).

 

[Chase Stuart]

3) Team A gets the ball first and scores a FG. Team B allows a safety at any point thereafter. Team A wins 3-2.

I would phrase it 'Team A allows a safety' or 'Team B scores a safety', but yes, this is the scenario I'm talking about.It is the ONLY scenario in which the team scoring the safety loses.

So I don't see where there's a safety scored that doesn't end the game

You are correct, under the new OT rules, it would end the game.My point is it shouldn't.Scoring a safety shouldn't cause you to lose, it should be enough to stave off sudden-death and give you another chance. Kind of like a foul ball is enough to stave off a strike-out.

Team B couldn't score a safety unless Team A was on offense, and Team A won't ever be on offense with the lead in overtime. Under the new OT rules -- just like the old ones -- if you score a safety, you win. No matter what.(The only exception to this that I see would be if Team A scores a field goal, and team B drives down the field, fumbles, Team A recovers and runs backwards and gets tackled in the end zone.)

 

[TommyGilmore]

I'm still trying to figure out how there could be a safety and have the game continue.

1) Team A gets ball first and gives up a safety while on offense. Team B wins 2-0.

But....technically, Team B has not had an "opportunity to possess the ball".Team A should kickoff to Team B to give them the opportunity to possess the ball, as stated in the rules.

On the flip side, Team A had their chance to possess the ball and were losing, so they should not get another opportunity to possess the ball (but that is more implied than explicit).

I agree. But if the rules explicitly state that both teams get an "opportunity to possess the ball", then shouldn't Team A be required to kick off after a safety?

 

[craxie]

(The only exception to this that I see would be if Team A scores a field goal, and team B drives down the field, fumbles, Team A recovers and runs backwards and gets tackled in the end zone.)

yup, that's exactly itslight variation, Team B fumbles, Team A bats/kicks the ball into the endzone and falls on it there(since they forced the ball into the endzone, they don't get the touchback)

 

[TommyGilmore]

Team B couldn't score a safety unless Team A was on offense

Scenario:Team A kicks off to start overtime. Team B returns kick 98 yards and fumbles on 2-yard-line. Player from Team A deliberately bats the loose ball from the 2-yard-line through the endzone to prevent someone on Team B from recovering the ball.Question 1: did Team B just score a safety? Question 2: was Team A on offense at any point during overtime?

 

[craxie]

Team A kicks off to start overtime. Team B returns kick 98 yards and fumbles on 2-yard-line. Player from Team A deliberately bats the loose ball from the 2-yard-line through the endzone to prevent someone on Team B from recovering the ball.

Interesting situation

 

[David Yudkin]

Team B couldn't score a safety unless Team A was on offense

Scenario:Team A kicks off to start overtime. Team B returns kick 98 yards and fumbles on 2-yard-line. Player from Team A deliberately bats the loose ball from the 2-yard-line through the endzone to prevent someone on Team B from recovering the ball.Question 1: did Team B just score a safety? Question 2: was Team A on offense at any point during overtime?

Last I remember, a team needed to have possession of the ball to get charged with a safety (hitting around a ball from the opponent didn't count). So in this case, unless they had recovered a fumble, fumbled it, and THEN kicked it into or out of the endzone this would not be a safety. And at that point they would have had possession.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Team B couldn't score a safety unless Team A was on offense

Scenario:Team A kicks off to start overtime. Team B returns kick 98 yards and fumbles on 2-yard-line. Player from Team A deliberately bats the loose ball from the 2-yard-line through the endzone to prevent someone on Team B from recovering the ball.Question 1: did Team B just score a safety? Question 2: was Team A on offense at any point during overtime?

I think in this scenario, it would be Team A's ball following a touchback; i.e., not a safety.