Postseason OverTime - Thought Experiment

[Gumby]

Based on Broncos win in OT; it seems pretty obvious almost every team should elect to receive. But what do you do when your opening drive stalls?

What are your standards? In the following situation where on the field do you kick it, go for it, or punt?

Assuming Pats are first team to receive and it is now 4th and short (1-3 yards) at what spots on the field would you elect to go for it?

Also assuming:
1. You are not in Denver. (a sea level game)
2. Pats are playing a playoff caliber opponent (at least one of opponents D and/or O are top 10 )

With our porous secondary; I think from the Goal line to the 35 you need to go for it and just skip attempting to kick a FG. (only do the FG if you it is 4th and 4 yds or more)

From anything beyond 35 I would punt or pooch it and try to pin them back inside the 10.

YOUR GAMEPLAN???

 

[UK_Pat37]

I myself thought at the time it might be better to defer.....and it's an interesting tactic teams with trust in their defenses may use. If you have been doing pretty well all game against their offense and have some faith you can force a 3 & out, then I'd kick it.

If you go 3 & out yourself, you're punting from around your 20, and that can be a huge field position factor for the rest of OT. If you force the 3 & out, then you have every chance of turning field position in your favour.

I think we could see a team like the Ravens opt towards doing something like that.

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

I honestly don't think kicking it would be a good thing to do at all for any team in overtime. You have the chance to get the ball and win it, you're not going to allow the other team to have that chance.

 

[Haterproof]

The new playoff OT rules are still a little confusing to me. Can someone still explain them to me? I was kinda hoping the Steelers got a chance to get the ball too.

 

[xmarkd400x]

So, lets assume a team has 4th and 2. Not a no-brainer of 4th and inches, and not a no-brainer of 4th and long. If you have a 0% chance of converting, you punt. If you have a 100% chance of converting, you go for it.

Now consider when you have a 50% chance of making it. If you are within field goal range of the other team (your own 35 or closer), I think you have to punt. A failed conversion all but guarantees a loss, while a made conversion does not all but guarantee a win (although it increases the probability).

I think you absolutely punt on your own 35 or closer. I think you kick the field goal from their 35 or closer. I think in between, it depends on the game situation. If their offense is tearing it up, I would tend to go for it. If their offense is not tearing it up, I play for field position.

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

Well I would also factor in the opponent to help me decide If I would go for it or not. I'd be opt to go for it on 4th and 2 rather than punting it to the Packers, and I'd be more likely to punt it on 4th and 2 if it meant punting it to the Broncos.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The new playoff OT rules are still a little confusing to me. Can someone still explain them to me? I was kinda hoping the Steelers got a chance to get the ball too.

Each team must be given the opportunity to possess the ball except if a TD is scored (which always ends the game).

So, if the team receiving the kickoff doesn't score a TD, then they can't win until the other team has the opportunity to possess the ball. The most common case would be the receiving team goes down the field and kicks a field goal and then kicks off to the opposing team. At this point, the opposing team has to score at least a field goal or they'll lose. Of course, if they score a TD, they win. If they do score a field goal to tie the game, then they'll kickoff and it will be sudden death overtime.

Note that being on the receiving end of a kickoff is considered an "opportunity to possess the ball". So a team could potentially lose the coin flip, kick off (perhaps an onside kick), recover the ball, score a field goal and win the game because both teams had an opportunity to possess the ball.

 

[DarrylS]

Each team must be given the opportunity to possess the ball except if a TD is scored (which always ends the game).

So, if the team receiving the kickoff doesn't score a TD, then they can't win until the other team has the opportunity to possess the ball. The most common case would be the receiving team goes down the field and kicks a field goal and then kicks off to the opposing team. At this point, the opposing team has to score at least a field goal or they'll lose. Of course, if they score a TD, they win. If they do score a field goal to tie the game, then they'll kickoff and it will be sudden death overtime.

Note that being on the receiving end of a kickoff is considered an "opportunity to possess the ball". So a team could potentially lose the coin flip, kick off (perhaps an onside kick), recover the ball, score a field goal and win the game because both teams had an opportunity to possess the ball.

As I understand it, the only way the game ends the way it did, was because the Bronco's scored on their first play.. if they scored a TD after a drive. Pittsburgh would have been given a similar opportunity..

BB was talking about this yesterday, and he noted that this rule has 7 pages of explanation... so there is a lot to this new rule.

 

[patchick]

As I understand it, the only way the game ends the way it did, was because the Bronco's scored on their first play.. if they scored a TD after a drive. Pittsburgh would have been given a similar opportunity.

I don't believe that's correct -- a TD ends the OT, period.

 

[patsfan-1982]

As I understand it, the only way the game ends the way it did, was because the Bronco's scored on their first play.. if they scored a TD after a drive. Pittsburgh would have been given a similar opportunity..

BB was talking about this yesterday, and he noted that this rule has 7 pages of explanation... so there is a lot to this new rule.

i think any TD or Saftey at any point in the game wins it, if denver got a FG then they would have a shot to tie it or win it witha TD denver just so happen to get there TD on the first play

 

[TruthSeeker]

As I understand it, the only way the game ends the way it did, was because the Bronco's scored on their first play.. if they scored a TD after a drive. Pittsburgh would have been given a similar opportunity..

BB was talking about this yesterday, and he noted that this rule has 7 pages of explanation... so there is a lot to this new rule.

As others have noted, your understanding is incorrect. I stand by the statement that any TD by any team at any time ends overtime.

On Sunday, the ref explained 2 exceptions to the "both team must have an opportunity to possess the ball" rule. The first was if the offensive team scores a touchdown. The second was if the defensive team scored a touchdown (special teams or defensive takeaway leading to a TD). From my perspective, it's simply easier to say that a TD always ends the game. (Note that it's interesting that gaining possession of the ball by the defense and scoring a TD seems to not technically be considered an "opportunity to possess the ball". I never would have guessed that.)

 

[Potstickas]

at 4th and 2+, and you go for it, if you don't score or get a first down, and the other team comes back and hits a field goal, do you lose?

If so, I think you have to attempt the FG and get the 3 points. This forces the other team to either match the 3 points (if not they, lose) or get a TD.

Otherwise, a missed 4th down conversion will give the opponents a short field with only the need for a FG to win.

 

[Wax Frog]

The second was if the defensive team scored a touchdown (special teams or defensive takeaway leading to a TD). From my perspective, it's simply easier to say that a TD always ends the game.

Went to confirm my memory - a safety would also end the game, so it's not quite that simple.

NFL Videos: Playoff overtime rules explained

We may never see it happen, but it does satisfy the dual possession requirement.

 

[tmpg2000]

I don't believe that's correct -- a TD ends the OT, period.

A.R. 16.5 TOUCHDOWN ON FIRST POSSESSION
Team A drives down the field on the opening possession of overtime and scores a touchdown.
Ruling: Game over. Team A wins.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Based on Broncos win in OT; it seems pretty obvious almost every team should elect to receive.

I don't think it's obvious at all. And, happily, we have the one coach in the NFL who is most likely to understand that a sample size of one means absolutely nothing. Ask yourself this question -- suppose a coach in the first quarter goes for it on 4th and 40 from his own one yard line, the QB throws a hail mary, and it's caught. Was it the right decision? Of course not. You can't judge what is better based on hindsight.

I hope that if it comes to it, BB takes the option he truly believes is better than a 50/50 proposition. My personal guess is that if you crunched all the numbers, particularly considering kickoffs have been moved up to the 35, kicking gives you a much higher win percentage. My instinct is it is close to 60/40, but I'm just guessing. I've read reports that moving the kick off up to the 35 this year evened out the OT stats so there isn't so much of a disparity this year. Adding in the advantage of not getting beaten with a FG tips the scales, I think.

As for confusion about the rule, boy is this strange. It's a very simple rule.

Any score ends the game, with a single exception: If the team that had the first opportunity to possess the ball scores a field goal on that possession, you go into the modified rules. And the modified rules are simple: The other team gets one possession in which one of three things can happen: (1) they fail to score before turning it over (with a turnover, turnover on downs, or unsuccessful field goal), (2) they score a field goal, or (3) they score a TD. 1 = loss. 2= game extended under normal OT rules. 3=win.

If you really want a thought experiment, here is the one play that I think nobody in the NFL has yet thought about. Team A scores a FG on its first possession. Team B is driving. The QB throws an interception on the 2 yard line, instead of going straight down, the defender takes two steps and and is hit, dislodging the football and causing it to go out the back of the end zone for a safety. What result?

My guess of the spirit of the rule is that as soon as the interception is complete, the game is over and Team A wins. But that's very odd, because it would mean the game ended before the play ended. The result of the play is a safety, and you could make the case that team B wins under the modified rules, because it scored a safety. Note that in this circumstance, Team B would win with fewer points -- for example 20 to 19. What if it's a fumble recovered by Team B for a TD? Not nearly as clear.

 

[Wax Frog]

The result of the play is a safety, and you could make the case that team B wins under the modified rules, because it scored a safety. Note that in this circumstance, Team B would win with fewer points -- for example 20 to 19.

Assuming the INT isn't dead-ball, I would think Team A would still win, as team B, while scoring, still failed to match Team A's score. Or am I missing something?

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Assuming the INT isn't dead-ball, I would think Team A would still win, as team B, while scoring, still failed to match Team A's score. Or am I missing something?

I think that's the right answer, but not the right reason. I think the answer has to be that once the interception was complete -- that is, it was a catch and not an incomplete pass -- the game ended. That is, even though the play wasn't over, the game was over because as soon as the receiver established possession, Team B's opportunity to possess the ball ended.

The reason I say that is my last reference to the TD. Imagine that instead of the fumble going out of the end zone, it is in the end zone and recovered by Team B for a TD. In this case, they have more points than Team A, but I still think they lose. I think the answer, and the intent of the rule, is that as soon as the interception happened, Team B's first opportunity to possess the ball ended, and since they did not match the FG, they lose. The recovered fumble is actually their second opportunity to possess the ball, because of the intervening turnover.

But, again, this is why I think the safety example is so interesting -- there was no second possession -- they scored with only having possessed the ball once, because it went out of the back of the end zone, but they scored a safety.

The true answer is that the rules just don't envision this scenario. I'm pretty sure nobody in charge has thought about it. So it's kind of just guessing what the spirit of the rules would be.

 

[Wax Frog]

I'm still confused I spent the last 5 minutes or so re-editing my post, and not really getting anywhere. I'm going to reread your prior post, as I'm just OCD enough to need to get my head around this.

 

[Wax Frog]

OK - what I'm trying to understand is why you think Team B, by any interpretation, could be awarded a win. They would still be in a 1-point hole, that is, failing to match Team A's FG, which opportunity I take to be the intent of the rule change. To my understanding, a safety is only relevant when it prevents Team A from scoring, while producing Team B points and 'using up' both possessions.

Another point came to mind. How much risk will teams take passing in the red zone, knowing that a turnover ends the game and a FG keeps it going? Nice to be a power running team in that situation.

I do agree it's a puzzle as to how the quirkier scoring plays in regulation would be handled in playoff OT.

 

[lamafist]

i think any TD or Saftey at any point in the game wins it, if denver got a FG then they would have a shot to tie it or win it witha TD denver just so happen to get there TD on the first play

So a safety immediately wins the game, but not a FG. Thus, in the NFL, in overtime, 2>3.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk