Potential loophole in Playoff OT rules

[BLeonard]

Hopefully, one day, the Bills will be back in the playoffs and this will be more "Bills Related" than it is now, but, reading the NFL Overtime Rules in the playoffs, I thought this was interesting discussion topic:

First here's the link: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81d817d7/article/postseason-overtime-rules

The relevant parts:



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.




Key Definitions:

» 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.


So, here's my loophole...

Say I'm the coach of a team and we're about to start Overtime in the playoffs. My team has lost the toss and the other team has elected to receive.

My playcall? Surprise onside kick.

Initially, the thought probably is "Is this guy NUTS?" But, read the parts of the rules I have quoted again...



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.


So, if my team recovers the onsides kick, the opposing team has had their opportunity. I can now go down, kick a FG and win the game.

Even if the other team recovers the onsides kick, as long as they don't score a TD, my team is gonna get the ball.

Yes, not recovering the kick gives my opposition a short field in which to get a TD, but if my Defense is playing well, combined with the obvious surprise an onsides kick in that situation would be, I have a fairly decent chance of getting that kick, as the opposing team wouldn't be expecting it, wouldn't have their hands team out, etc.

Of course, if they do recover and score a TD, the media is gonna kill me for making the call... But, if it works, I'm the smartest guy in Pro Football.

-Bill

[Skooby]

A have a better one, what if you kickoff in OT, do an onside kick and get it, fumble it to your opponent, they run in towards the endzone, the ball gets punched out & it goes through the endzone ?

[YardRat]

I don't see it as a loophole as much as a strategic opportunity. For any of the four teams yesterday, the way their defenses were playing, IMO it would've been worth the risk, although realistically you are conceding a FG and putting your offense in a position to have to score.

Personally, I think the 'unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession' qualifier is a terrible part of the rules...both teams should have the opportunity to possess, end of story.

Found this interesting, and can admit to never seeing it before..." 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." Can't wait for that little nugget to be pulled out and employed to hand the Patriots a victory sometime in the future.

[YardRat]

A have a better one, what if you kickoff in OT, do an onside kick and get it, fumble it to your opponent, they run in towards the endzone, the ball gets punched out & it goes through the endzone ?

Touchback, your ball, both teams possessed so it's sudden death.

[Skooby]

Touchback, your ball, both teams possessed so it's sudden death.

LOL, true enough.

[BLeonard]

Touchback, your ball, both teams possessed so it's sudden death.

I would have to agree on that one.

-Bill

[mikemac2001]

what about a safety say u kick it backwords....

[Oaf]

What about one point safeties?

[G Wolly]

Or they recover the ball and start near midfield and score a TD anyways.

[THRILLHO]

what about a safety say u kick it backwords....

A safety is an automatic win.

[MikeInRoch]

This thought came out right after they rolled out these new rules... I'm not sure what the NFL did about it.

[G Wolly]

Even if someone had the balls to try an onside kick in OT and recover, I'm sure the counter to your "loophole" would be the first offensive drive after gaining possession.

[Forward_Lateral]

I was thinking about this during the SF Giants game. Why not onside kick?

[RedEyE]

Fun look at the rules but probably not likely to happen.

I don't know the exact percentage, but I think it's around 13% of onside kicks are recovered by the kicking team.

So, you're right, it would be crazy to even consider the attempt as there is an 87% chance the receiving team recovers with excellent field position.

Curious - Can anyone think of a game where a team opened up with an onside kick?

[Johnny Bugmenot]

The league has been making it almost impossible to successfully execute an onside kick anyway.

[Mahdi]

If my defense was playing well though as you said, why would I give my opponent great field position and a good chance at a FG forcing my offense to respond with at least a FG when I could kick the ball out of the endzone for a touchback and force the opposing offense to gain 50 yards on my defense to get a reasonable FG try?

And if even if my defense does stop them, we will most likely have bad field position because they will punt from around the 50. So we could end up starting our drive from inside the 20...

It just doesn't make sense to onside kick in OT.

[Ickybaluky]

Curious - Can anyone think of a game where a team opened up with an onside kick?

Yes:

Onside kicks to open NFL games since 2001

Year Wk Team Kick Result
2010 5 Rams Failed Lost to Lions, 44-6
2010 5 Chiefs Failed Lost to Colts, 19-9
2009 12 Eagles Failed Beat Redskins, 27-24
2008 14 49ers Failed Beat Jets, 24-14
2008 9 Steelers Failed Beat Redskins, 23-6
2003 6 Eagles Failed Lost to Cowboys, 23-21
2001 12 Eagles Recovered Beat Chiefs, 23-10
2001 4 Bills Recovered Lost to Jets, 42-36

Source: ESPN.com

[Ickybaluky]

BTW, the biggest issue with that is an unsuccessful onside kick would hand the other team possession of the ball over the 50 yard line. They would only need one first down for a FG attempt, which would win the game since both teams would have possession.

So... that is why it would never happen. If it failed the team would look foolish because they would basically be giving the game away.

[Forward_Lateral]

BTW, the biggest issue with that is an unsuccessful onside kick would hand the other team possession of the ball over the 50 yard line. They would only need one first down for a FG attempt, which would win the game since both teams would have possession.

So... that is why it would never happen. If it failed the team would look foolish because they would basically be giving the game away.

What? It wouldn't end the game, the kicking team would have yet to have possession. What's the matter with you?

[Ickybaluky]

What? It wouldn't end the game, the kicking team would have yet to have possession. What's the matter with you?

Only in the post-season, should have specified that. In the postseason it takes a TD or safety or both teams get possession. In the regular season it is not true.

Even so, nobody is going to hand the other team the ball on the +50 YL. It is a field position game, and you don't hand the other team a short field. It has the same effect as a turnover.

[Forward_Lateral]

Only in the post-season, should have specified that. In the postseason it takes a TD or safety or both teams get possession. In the regular season it is not true.

Even so, nobody is going to hand the other team the ball on the +50 YL. It is a field position game, and you don't hand the other team a short field. It has the same effect as a turnover.

This discussion is about the post season OT rules. Learn to read for Christ's sake.

[Mski]

Fun look at the rules but probably not likely to happen.

I don't know the exact percentage, but I think it's around 13% of onside kicks are recovered by the kicking team.

So, you're right, it would be crazy to even consider the attempt as there is an 87% chance the receiving team recovers with excellent field position.

Curious - Can anyone think of a game where a team opened up with an onside kick?i think the bills did it once with mularkey as HC

[Ickybaluky]

This discussion is about the post season OT rules. Learn to read for Christ's sake.

Wow, someone's edgy.

Even if it is post-season, it would be monumentally stupid to do. You are going to potentially hand the opponent the ball on your 40 YL? A TD would end it and a FG would mean you have to score. It makes zero sense.

[mikemac2001]

Wow, someone's edgy.

Even if it is post-season, it would be monumentally stupid to do. You are going to potentially hand the opponent the ball on your 40 YL? A TD would end it and a FG would mean you have to score. It makes zero sense.


Ya like an onside kick in the SB coming out of half. If you think you have a shot or want to limit there chances you might attempt it, knowing they might settle on a FG because they want to force a TD to lose

[Forward_Lateral]

Wow, someone's edgy.

Even if it is post-season, it would be monumentally stupid to do. You are going to potentially hand the opponent the ball on your 40 YL? A TD would end it and a FG would mean you have to score. It makes zero sense.

Not edgy, just annoyed with stupid posts and the posters that can't freaking read.

[Ickybaluky]

Not edgy, just annoyed with stupid posts and the posters that can't freaking read.

I read well. I think you are edgy.

[G Wolly]

Not edgy, just annoyed with stupid posts and the posters that can't freaking read.

From original post


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.

But I feel like that doesn't fall under an onside kick, but a normal kickoff resulting in a fumble or any other happening to which the kicking team recovers.

But for an onside kick if the kicking team were to recover it would probably be considered as the first possession, as well as if the receiving team recovered.

Besides, this rule was implemented to give both teams an opportunity and to extend playoff OT, so I'm sure they would have a solution if that were to ever happen.

[mikemac2001]

From original post



But I feel like that doesn't fall under an onside kick, but a normal kickoff resulting in a fumble or any other happening to which the kicking team recovers.

But for an onside kick if the kicking team were to recover it would probably be considered as the first possession, as well as if the receiving team recovered.

Besides, this rule was implemented to give both teams an opportunity and to extend playoff OT, so I'm sure they would have a solution if that were to ever happen.


But they do have a chance to catch it, thats what he is saying it becomes a fumble on a normal kickoff even past 10 yards... (i kick it 40 yards its very windy the blocker misses it kicking team recovered) its the same outcome different ways of happening

[G Wolly]

Then it would make sense to have an onside-kick recovering team win playoff OT with a field goal.

The contrary would result in the first offensive drive of OT.

/thread

[Skooby]

The field position game that's played during the playoff OT has percentage values that can be measured in defensive positioning, especially if you lose the coin toss now. An average starting position of your own 45 versus a likely potential for their 20-25 for a playoff bouys the whole argument for just kicking off as deep as possible. If your opponent's ability to score a TD on a short field in OT is hugely raised by your actions (which loses you the game), you just can't do it.

If you think about it, if your defense is that good to hold a team to only a FG in OT & you can normally move offensively at least move into FG position, then there is no reason to take any risks like an onside kick. GB & NO were almost assured to be able to score some kind of points on most drives based on normal scenarios, so they would of had the most to lose during an onside kick.

[Forward_Lateral]

BTW, the biggest issue with that is an unsuccessful onside kick would hand the other team possession of the ball over the 50 yard line. They would only need one first down for a FG attempt, which would win the game since both teams would have possession..

Someone please explain to me how this makes any sense whatsoever.

[mush69]

Fun look at the rules but probably not likely to happen.

I don't know the exact percentage, but I think it's around 13% of onside kicks are recovered by the kicking team.

So, you're right, it would be crazy to even consider the attempt as there is an 87% chance the receiving team recovers with excellent field position.

Curious - Can anyone think of a game where a team opened up with an onside kick?


Yes and I want to say it may have happened in regular season game though.

[G Wolly]

Someone please explain to me how this makes any sense whatsoever.

The rule states that a kickoff is an opportunity for the receiving team to gain posession.

If they fail to do so and the kicking team recovers an onside kick, meaning that the other team had essentially forfeited their attempt for possession.

Icky seems to think that if this were to happen, that the kicking team recovery would actually count as the second possession of OT, which by playoff rules would win the game by a FG.

[Forward_Lateral]

The rule states that a kickoff is an opportunity for the receiving team to gain posession.

If they fail to do so and the kicking team recovers an onside kick, meaning that the other team had essentially forfeited their attempt for possession.

Icky seems to think that if this were to happen, that the kicking team recovery would actually count as the second possession of OT, which by playoff rules would win the game by a FG.

Did you read what he posted?

Re-read it, and get back to me.

[G Wolly]

Did you read what he posted?

Re-read it, and get back to me.

About getting one first down to be in field goal range to win?

EDIT: If the receiving team recovers. They can't win with a field goal.

[BLeonard]

The rule states that a kickoff is an opportunity for the receiving team to gain posession.

If they fail to do so and the kicking team recovers an onside kick, meaning that the other team had essentially forfeited their attempt for possession.

Icky seems to think that if this were to happen, that the kicking team recovery would actually count as the second possession of OT, which by playoff rules would win the game by a FG.


Icky is wrong, then.

Only if the kicking team recovers, would it be the "second posession" and, as a result, the game would them be sudden death.

The rule clearly states that "The system guarantees each team a possession or the opportunity to possess"

It further states that "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."

So, if Team A kicks off and soes an onside kick, one of these will happen:

1: Team B (receiving team) recovers, which would allow Team A a chance with the ball, unless Team B scores a TD

2: Team A (kicking team) recovers, which means Team B is "considered to have had its opportunity" as stated above and Team A would then be eligible to drive down the field, kick a field goal and win the game.

The only disadvatage the kicking team has would be giving the receiving team a short field, if the receiving team recovers the onside kick. But, as long as the kicking team holds the receiving team to a FG (and doesn't allow a TD) the field position isn't a major deal.

Given the way the 49ers and Giants defenses were playing this past Sunday, I would have strongly considered trying the onside kick.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

BTW, the biggest issue with that is an unsuccessful onside kick would hand the other team possession of the ball over the 50 yard line. They would only need one first down for a FG attempt, which would win the game since both teams would have possession.

If the kicking team fails to recover an onside kick, they never would have had posession, or the attemt to posess. The receiving team would need a TD to win. If the receiving team recovers the onside kick, then kicks a FG, the kicking team would then get a shot as well, as they would never have had a posession, or the opportunity to posess.

With the way the Giants and 49ers Defenses were playing last weekend, again, I could have made a strong case for it.

-Bill

[G Wolly]

Yes.

That sounds better.

P.S. this is ALL your fault.

[BLeonard]

Only in the post-season, should have specified that. In the postseason it takes a TD or safety or both teams get possession. In the regular season it is not true.

See, that's why the title of the thread is "Potential loophole in Playoff OT rules"

Also, both teams don't get a "possession." They get either a posession, or the opportunity to possess. That's where my idea comes in, as a failure by the receiving team to get the onside kick would be their "opportunity to possess."

-Bill

[BLeonard]

Yes.

That sounds better.

P.S. this is ALL your fault.

If a team ever wins a game by using this, that coach will be considered the smartest guy in Football for knowing what the rule actually says, as opposed to what most people think it says.

If I have a team with a very strong defense and am in that situation, I think I try it.

1: My guess is, the other team isn't expecting it, which increases my chances of it being successful.

2: The other team probably isn't aware that, by my team recovering the ball, we can now kick a FG and win. They would probably think that they would still get a "posession." That would affect their defense (willing to give my team underneath stuff, but nothing deep). That inceases my chances of getting into FG range.

3: Worst case, they recover the kick, all's my defense has to do is not let them score a TD. If they hold the offense to a FG (or better, no points) my team will still get the ball.

-Bill

[Ickybaluky]

With the way the Giants and 49ers Defenses were playing last weekend, again, I could have made a strong case for it.

The exact opposite is true. If you have confidence in your defense you kick away and try to pin them deep. You then can get a stop and decent field position after the punt, only needing a FG to win because the other team already had possession. The only time you might is if your defense is terrible, so you are afraid if you give the other team the ball the game will be over.

The NFL is all about field position. Surprise onside kicks only work about 13% of the time, historically. It is a hard play to execute, as there ball might not go 10 yards, it might go out of bounds or you just might not recover. Kicks are hard to control.

A 13% chance you get the ball on about your 40-45 YL, and you still need several first downs to get into field goal range. A 87% chance you hand the other team the ball on your side of the field needing a touchdown. Even if they don't get the TD, they are far more likely to get at least a FG, or punt and pin you deep in your own territory. The field position makes it a dumb move.

[YardRat]

You'd be singing a different tune if/when Darth Belicheck tries it.

[Ickybaluky]

You'd be singing a different tune if/when Darth Belicheck tries it.

He'd never do it. It isn't even a "loophole". It was one of the things discussed when the rule was written and talked about extensively. It makes no sense, though.

[Forward_Lateral]

Thank you, BLen for being able to read and saying what I've been trying to say in between deep breaths caused by increased blood pressure from reading some of the posts in this thread.

[Ickybaluky]

2: The other team probably isn't aware that, by my team recovering the ball, we can now kick a FG and win.

That is where you are wrong. Of course they are aware, this isn't some "loophole" or state secret. Teams know the rules.

When the new overtime rules were introduced the NFL explicitly stated (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81d817d7/article/postseason-overtime-rules) the effect of an onside kick:


Opportunity to possess: The opportunity to possess occurs only during kicking plays. A kickoff is an opportunity to possess for the receiving team. <b>If the kicking team legally recovers the kick, the receiving team is considered to have had its opportunity</b>.

At the time, it was discussed by various media people, such as Peter King (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/01/07/nfl-overtime-rule/index.html) and others (http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2011/01/so_crazy_it_just_might_work.html).

The NFL Rulebook spells possession out in detail:


Article 4 For postseason games, following a coin flip (Article 2 above) and an intermission of no more than
three minutes after the end of the regular game, the following shall apply:
(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, or Team A scores a safety on Team B’s initial possession, in which case Team A
is the winner.
(b) If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team
(Team A) shall have the opportunity to possess the ball. If Team A scores a touchdown on its
possession, it is the winner. If the score is tied after Team A’s possession, the team next scoring by
any method shall be the winner.
(c) If the score is tied at the end of a 15-minute overtime period, or if Team B’s initial possession has not
ended, another overtime period will begin, and play will continue, regardless of how many 15-minute
periods are necessary.
(d) Between each overtime period, there shall be a two-minute intermission, but there shall be no halftime
intermission after the second period. At the beginning of the third overtime period, the captain who
lost the coin toss prior to the first overtime period shall have the first choice of the two privileges in
Rule 4, Section 2, Article 2, unless the team that won the coin toss deferred.
(e) At the end of the first and third extra periods, etc., teams must change goals in accordance with Rule
4, Section 2, Article 3.
(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.
(g) The opportunity to possess applies only during kicking plays. A kickoff is the opportunity to possess
for the receiving team. <b>If the kicking team legally recovers the kick, the receiving team is considered to
have had its opportunity.</b> 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.
(h) Each team is entitled to three timeouts during a half. If there is an excess timeout the usual rules shall
apply (4-5).
(i) At the end of a second overtime period, timing rules shall apply as at the end of the first half. At the
end of a fourth overtime period, timing rules shall apply as at the end of the fourth quarter.
(j) All replay reviews will be initiated by the replay official. Coaches’ challenges will not be allowed

The downside to this is huge, though. If you don't recover the kick the other team is handed incredible field position. That is a huge risk to take.

If you have a strong defense, it makes even less sense because your defense can get a stop and you get the ball punted back with good field position anyway.