NFL overtime rule change PASSED. (1 Viewer)

[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?

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.

Rule 7, Section 5 of the NFL rule book states (concerning fumbles by the offensive team):(e) A fumble which occurs in a team's own end zone or in the field of play and the ball goes out of bounds in the end zone will result in a safety if that team provided the impetus that put the ball into the end zone. If the impetus was provided by the opponent, the play will result in a touchback.

Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but it sounds to me like Team B scores a safety in that 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.

Rule 7, Section 5 of the NFL rule book states (concerning fumbles by the offensive team):(e) A fumble which occurs in a team's own end zone or in the field of play and the ball goes out of bounds in the end zone will result in a safety if that team provided the impetus that put the ball into the end zone. If the impetus was provided by the opponent, the play will result in a touchback.

Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but it sounds to me like Team B scores a safety in that situation.

I don't know if the fact that it says "fumbles by offensive teams" makes a difference or not.I still think that in a scrum for the ball unless there was blatant evidence that the defense intentiionally batted the ball into the end zone that they would not score it as a safety.

 

[TommyGilmore]

I still think that in a scrum for the ball unless there was blatant evidence that the defense intentiionally batted the ball into the end zone that they would not score it as a safety.

That's what I meant by "deliberately bats the loose ball" in my original post.

 

[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?

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.

Rule 7, Section 5 of the NFL rule book states (concerning fumbles by the offensive team):(e) A fumble which occurs in a team's own end zone or in the field of play and the ball goes out of bounds in the end zone will result in a safety if that team provided the impetus that put the ball into the end zone. If the impetus was provided by the opponent, the play will result in a touchback.

Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but it sounds to me like Team B scores a safety in that situation.

That rule is for when you fumble at your own 2 yard line, and you kick the ball out of our own end zone. That's an obvious safety against your team. I don't think it's a safety against your team if your opponent fumbles at your 2 yard line and you kick the ball out of your end zone. I think that's a touchback (but I could be wrong).

 

[smashingsilver]

I still think that in a scrum for the ball unless there was blatant evidence that the defense intentiionally batted the ball into the end zone that they would not score it as a safety.

That's what I meant by "deliberately bats the loose ball" in my original post.

Agreed; it would have to be conclusive that the defense deliberately pushed the ball through their own end zone. If this was the case, however, then it would definitely be a safety. And therein lies the problem: does a safety automatically end the game, or does Team A still get an "opportunity to possess the ball"? Remember, the opportunity to possess provision only applies to the kickoff, and Team A at no point in this scenario actually had possession on the fumble. I've seen various descriptions of what the safety provision of this rule actually implies, but have yet to see the official rule somewhere.

 

[smashingsilver]

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.

Rule 7, Section 5 of the NFL rule book states (concerning fumbles by the offensive team):(e) A fumble which occurs in a team's own end zone or in the field of play and the ball goes out of bounds in the end zone will result in a safety if that team provided the impetus that put the ball into the end zone. If the impetus was provided by the opponent, the play will result in a touchback.

Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but it sounds to me like Team B scores a safety in that situation.

That rule is for when you fumble at your own 2 yard line, and you kick the ball out of our own end zone. That's an obvious safety against your team. I don't think it's a safety against your team if your opponent fumbles at your 2 yard line and you kick the ball out of your end zone. I think that's a touchback (but I could be wrong).

It's the impetus that is the issue, accoring to NFL rules. If the referee ruled that the ball would have gone in the end zone on its own as a result of the fumble, or if the ball goes through as the natural result of players attempting to recover the fumble, then it's not a safety. However, if the defensive player intentionally forces the ball out of the end zone (by kicking it, for example), then it is the defense that is supplying the impetus.

 

[GregR_2]

...

Rule 7, Section 5 of the NFL rule book states (concerning fumbles by the offensive team):

(e) A fumble which occurs in a team's own end zone or in the field of play and the ball goes out of bounds in the end zone will result in a safety if that team provided the impetus that put the ball into the end zone. If the impetus was provided by the opponent, the play will result in a touchback.

Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but it sounds to me like Team B scores a safety in that situation.

That rule is for when you fumble at your own 2 yard line, and you kick the ball out of our own end zone. That's an obvious safety against your team. I don't think it's a safety against your team if your opponent fumbles at your 2 yard line and you kick the ball out of your end zone. I think that's a touchback (but I could be wrong).

It's a safety. The main rule governing safeties is in Rule 11 (Scoring) Section 4 (Safety):

When an impetus by a team sends the ball in touch behind its own goal, it is a safety if the ball is either:

(a) dead in the end zone in its possesion; or

(b) out of bounds behind the goal line

Doesn't matter who had possession last, just matters who gave it the impetus and was it their goal that it went out of bounds through.

 

[DropKick]

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?

No need. Just as there isn't a need to kick the PAT. And there isn't a need to give one team possession of the ball after the team receiving the opening kick scores a TD.

 

[DropKick]

(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)

Even with the very low probability a team goes down 3-2, they've lost. Do they deserve the loss? Sure - They've turned the ball over on their possession and the only thing they earned, after holding their opponent to a FG, was one possession.

 

[craxie]

Even with the very low probability a team goes down 3-2, they've lost. Do they deserve the loss? Sure - They've turned the ball over on their possession and the only thing they earned, after holding their opponent to a FG, was one possession.

Especially in the case where the opposing team 'impels' it out the endzone, it could be argued they didn't turn the ball over.At no time did the other team gain possession of the ball, a prerequisite for a turnoverAfter a safety, they get the ball right back, it could almost be regarded as a continuation of the same possession.Why should their possession be arbitrarily ended?

 

[GregR_2]

Even with the very low probability a team goes down 3-2, they've lost. Do they deserve the loss? Sure - They've turned the ball over on their possession and the only thing they earned, after holding their opponent to a FG, was one possession.

Especially in the case where the opposing team 'impels' it out the endzone, it could be argued they didn't turn the ball over.At no time did the other team gain possession of the ball, a prerequisite for a turnover

After a safety, they get the ball right back, it could almost be regarded as a continuation of the same possession.

Why should their possession be arbitrarily ended?

The rules don't talk about turnovers, they talk about opportunities to possess the ball. If the team lost the ball, points were put on the board, and a team would be kicking off if the game continues, I'd say that's pretty clear cut that their possession ended. And they are behind, so game over.

 

[craxie]

a team would be kicking off if the game continues

nope, it's a free kick

I'd say that's pretty clear cut that their possession ended.

if their possession has ended, that must mean the opposing team has gotten the balloh wait, that doesn't happenanyways, the TommyGilmore situation is beginning to intrigue me moreif Team A receives the ball and scores a safety, the game can't be over because1) they didn't score a TD and2) Team B has never had a possessionso Team B free kicks back to Team A who then scores a FG. Team A leads 5-0 but the game still isn't over because1) they didn't score a TD and2) Team B has never had a possessionIt can get even more fun if Team A keeps scoring safeties. Theoretically they could rack up a 100 point lead in overtime if they keep scoring safeties every time.The fact that Team A can extend their possession by scoring safeties argues for the fact that Team B should be able to respond in kind. If Team A scores 3 safeties and a FG (for a 9 point lead), there's no way for Team B to come back . . . unless they can keep scoring safeties tok, so this is all getting slightly zany but the rules have to cover zany situations too

 

[GregR_2]

a team would be kicking off if the game continues

nope, it's a free kick

If you think free kick vs kick off matters then you're missing the point that a kick of either type is the start of a new possession.

I'd say that's pretty clear cut that their possession ended.

if their possession has ended, that must mean the opposing team has gotten the balloh wait, that doesn't happen

No it means a new possession starts and in this case it's the same team who had it last possession.

 

[TommyGilmore]

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?

No need. Just as there isn't a need to kick the PAT.

You are overlooking one very important difference:There is no way for the losing team to score on a PAT. However, the losing team CAN score on a Safety Kick.

If the rules call for Team A to get an opportunity to possess the ball -- and that opportunity would give Team B a chance to win (or tie) the game, wouldn't it be patently unfair to deny the opportunity?

 

[David Yudkin]

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?

No need. Just as there isn't a need to kick the PAT.

You are overlooking one very important difference:There is no way for the losing team to score on a PAT. However, the losing team CAN score on a Safety Kick.

If the rules call for Team A to get an opportunity to possess the ball -- and that opportunity would give Team B a chance to win (or tie) the game, wouldn't it be patently unfair to deny the opportunity?

The chances of this ever happening are so remote that I can't even envision them addressing it in the rules. Whatever the rule actually says once this becomes integrated into the rule book, I don't see any other way for this to be rules except as follows: Your team had a possession in OT and didn't score (fulfilling the possession requirement for your team). The other team scored, game over.The clear intent of the rule is that the team that ends up LOSING in OT had a possession (unless they gave up a TD on the first drive). That's all they were trying to accomplish and they did that with their new OT rule.

 

[TommyGilmore]

There is no way for the losing team to score on a PAT. However, the losing team CAN score on a Safety Kick.

If the rules call for Team A to get an opportunity to possess the ball -- and that opportunity would give Team B a chance to win (or tie) the game, wouldn't it be patently unfair to deny the opportunity?

The chances of this ever happening are so remote that I can't even envision them addressing it in the rules.

There are lots of things in the NFL rules that rarely (or never) happen. That's no reason to omit them from the rules.

I don't see any other way for this to be rules except as follows: Your team had a possession in OT and didn't score (fulfilling the possession requirement for your team). The other team scored, game over.

Again, as pointed out earlier in the thread: it is possible for Team B to score a safety without Team A ever fulfilling the possession requirement.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Yes, it passed. Here was an article on what they were voting on . . .

LINKAGE

This should have been the first post. So many times in the Pool we see people posting a topic just to be the person that started it but there's no meat and potatoes behind the post.To me, this was the first post in the thread.

The overtime rule needed some tweaks and they finally got one. This won't be the end of the tweaks, they'll be fine tuning this now that they've finally started down this road for years to come.

 

[David Yudkin]

Again, as pointed out earlier in the thread: it is possible for Team B to score a safety without Team A ever fulfilling the possession requirement.

Again, the intent was to ensure that a team could not lose without getting the ball in OT (first drive TD excluded) . . . NOT to ensure that the winning team got the ball.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Again, as pointed out earlier in the thread: it is possible for Team B to score a safety without Team A ever fulfilling the possession requirement.

Again, the intent was to ensure that a team could not lose without getting the ball in OT (first drive TD excluded) . . . NOT to ensure that the winning team got the ball.

Then the rules contradict the intent.