NFL Wildcard Weekend

[bukie]

This is probably the weirdest potential scenario:

 

Let's say the Ravens and Steelers play in the AFC championship, and the game goes to OT. The Ravens orchestrate a 10 minute drive that stalls at the 5, and kick the FG to go up 3. Then, the Steelers respond with a drive that gets into the red zone, but the Ravens sack Big Ben with Pitt out of timeouts, and time runs out. According to the rules, another 15 minutes is put back onto the clock so the Steelers can potentially finish their drive, and in the case of a FG, return the ball to the Ravens, at which point sudden death applies.

 

What's the point of a clock then? Why have it timed at all?

Not sure, it's kind of pointless, aside from each team getting an additional timeout after the first OT.

[dew1679666265]

This is probably the weirdest potential scenario:

 

Let's say the Ravens and Steelers play in the AFC championship, and the game goes to OT. The Ravens orchestrate a 10 minute drive that stalls at the 5, and kick the FG to go up 3. Then, the Steelers respond with a drive that gets into the red zone, but the Ravens sack Big Ben with Pitt out of timeouts, and time runs out. According to the rules, another 15 minutes is put back onto the clock so the Steelers can potentially finish their drive, and in the case of a FG, return the ball to the Ravens, at which point sudden death applies.

 

What's the point of a clock then? Why have it timed at all?

Not sure, it's kind of pointless, aside from each team getting an additional timeout after the first OT.

 

Yeah I hadn't heard that. It's kind of a dumb rule.

[Garwilly]

This is probably the weirdest potential scenario:

 

Let's say the Ravens and Steelers play in the AFC championship, and the game goes to OT. The Ravens orchestrate a 10 minute drive that stalls at the 5, and kick the FG to go up 3. Then, the Steelers respond with a drive that gets into the red zone, but the Ravens sack Big Ben with Pitt out of timeouts, and time runs out. According to the rules, another 15 minutes is put back onto the clock so the Steelers can potentially finish their drive, and in the case of a FG, return the ball to the Ravens, at which point sudden death applies.

 

What's the point of a clock then? Why have it timed at all?

Not sure, it's kind of pointless, aside from each team getting an additional timeout after the first OT.

 

Yeah I hadn't heard that. It's kind of a dumb rule.

 

It serves the same purpose as it did under the old rules. For the possession following 2OT.

[dew1679666265]

It serves the same purpose as it did under the old rules. For the possession following 2OT.

 

But if they're losing when the clock runs out, they shouldn't get another 15 minutes to try to score. If they tie the game as the clock runs out and then they put another 15 minutes on that's fine (and the only option), but if the Steelers have the ball, are trailing, and the clock runs out, the game should be over.

[dew1679666265]

Schefter reporting Hasselbeck will start for Seattle.

[Garwilly]

It serves the same purpose as it did under the old rules. For the possession following 2OT.

 

But if they're losing when the clock runs out, they shouldn't get another 15 minutes to try to score. If they tie the game as the clock runs out and then they put another 15 minutes on that's fine (and the only option), but if the Steelers have the ball, are trailing, and the clock runs out, the game should be over.

 

I don't disagree with you. I was just answering the question that was posed.

[dew1679666265]

It serves the same purpose as it did under the old rules. For the possession following 2OT.

 

But if they're losing when the clock runs out, they shouldn't get another 15 minutes to try to score. If they tie the game as the clock runs out and then they put another 15 minutes on that's fine (and the only option), but if the Steelers have the ball, are trailing, and the clock runs out, the game should be over.

 

I don't disagree with you. I was just answering the question that was posed.

 

Ah, I see. I thought the comment was directed at me.

[chuckywang]

This is probably the weirdest potential scenario:

 

Let's say the Ravens and Steelers play in the AFC championship, and the game goes to OT. The Ravens orchestrate a 10 minute drive that stalls at the 5, and kick the FG to go up 3. Then, the Steelers respond with a drive that gets into the red zone, but the Ravens sack Big Ben with Pitt out of timeouts, and time runs out. According to the rules, another 15 minutes is put back onto the clock so the Steelers can potentially finish their drive, and in the case of a FG, return the ball to the Ravens, at which point sudden death applies.

 

What's the point of a clock then? Why have it timed at all?

 

You could say the same thing about the old playoff overtime.

[Guest]

This is probably the weirdest potential scenario:

 

Let's say the Ravens and Steelers play in the AFC championship, and the game goes to OT. The Ravens orchestrate a 10 minute drive that stalls at the 5, and kick the FG to go up 3. Then, the Steelers respond with a drive that gets into the red zone, but the Ravens sack Big Ben with Pitt out of timeouts, and time runs out. According to the rules, another 15 minutes is put back onto the clock so the Steelers can potentially finish their drive, and in the case of a FG, return the ball to the Ravens, at which point sudden death applies.

 

What's the point of a clock then? Why have it timed at all?

 

You could say the same thing about the old playoff overtime.

 

Kicking into the wind/against the wind is one reason. If it happens to go into a second overtime, this is a factor.

[Banedon]

This is probably the weirdest potential scenario:

 

Let's say the Ravens and Steelers play in the AFC championship, and the game goes to OT. The Ravens orchestrate a 10 minute drive that stalls at the 5, and kick the FG to go up 3. Then, the Steelers respond with a drive that gets into the red zone, but the Ravens sack Big Ben with Pitt out of timeouts, and time runs out. According to the rules, another 15 minutes is put back onto the clock so the Steelers can potentially finish their drive, and in the case of a FG, return the ball to the Ravens, at which point sudden death applies.

 

What's the point of a clock then? Why have it timed at all?

 

You could say the same thing about the old playoff overtime.

 

I think I have actually...though I'm not about to go look it up.

[bcl412]

Have the new playoff OT rules been discussed already? I think they are going to cause some mass confusion at least once before the Super Bowl is done.

 

I think the rules are pretty clear cut. There is one scenario I thought about where it can cause confusion though:

 

Say Aaron Rodgers throws an INT to Brian Dawkins in the first possession of OT. Dawkins tries to return it but then fumbles and the Packers recover. The Packers eventually kick a FG. Is the game over?

 

I'm pretty sure, yes.

 

It may not happen at all, but an onside kick to begin OT may cause confusion as well. I heard if a team opens OT by recovering its own onside kick, a FG can win the game because the other team had an opportunity to take possession.

 

It might be beneficial to try an onside kick. If they kick a field goal you still get the ball but if you recover it than you can go win the game than.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Have the new playoff OT rules been discussed already? I think they are going to cause some mass confusion at least once before the Super Bowl is done.

 

I think the rules are pretty clear cut. There is one scenario I thought about where it can cause confusion though:

 

Say Aaron Rodgers throws an INT to Brian Dawkins in the first possession of OT. Dawkins tries to return it but then fumbles and the Packers recover. The Packers eventually kick a FG. Is the game over?

 

I'm pretty sure, yes.

 

It may not happen at all, but an onside kick to begin OT may cause confusion as well. I heard if a team opens OT by recovering its own onside kick, a FG can win the game because the other team had an opportunity to take possession.

 

It might be beneficial to try an onside kick. If they kick a field goal you still get the ball but if you recover it than you can go win the game than.

You're also making it a whole lot easier for a TD to be scored against you.

[Guest]

Surprise onside kicks have what, a 50% success rate, right? I think I might take those odds if I had a decent defense.

[bcl412]

I'd also be tempted to try it if I kicked the three, get the ball back and you win. Either choice would take some guts though but if you have crappy return coverage and a good defense (Hey, like Green Bay) I'd consider trying it.

[rawaction]

Wait, are you saying that if a team onside kicks and recovers it they can win on a FG?

 

Oh and I know it was just an example, but Brian Dawkins is on the Broncos.

[Guest]

Wait, are you saying that if a team onside kicks and recovers it they can win on a FG?

 

Yes, that's the assumption we've been going with these last few posts. Not 100% sure if that's the case though.

[bcl412]

Wait, are you saying that if a team onside kicks and recovers it they can win on a FG?

 

Oh and I know it was just an example, but Brian Dawkins is on the Broncos.

 

That's what everyone seems to be saying.

[rawaction]

Wait, are you saying that if a team onside kicks and recovers it they can win on a FG?

 

Yes, that's the assumption we've been going with these last few posts. Not 100% sure if that's the case though.

 

That can't be true can it? The team that was to receive the kickoff never had a possession. They had a chance to have a possession, but never actually had the ball.

 

I think if the team runs back the kickoff and the returner fumbles it, then that may count as a possession, but not getting an onside kick doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the rules.

[chuckywang]

Wait, are you saying that if a team onside kicks and recovers it they can win on a FG?

 

Oh and I know it was just an example, but Brian Dawkins is on the Broncos.

 

Oh, hmm ... I'm just not familiar with teams in the NFL.

[dew1679666265]

That can't be true can it? The team that was to receive the kickoff never had a possession. They had a chance to have a possession, but never actually had the ball.

 

I think if the team runs back the kickoff and the returner fumbles it, then that may count as a possession, but not getting an onside kick doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the rules.

 

PFT and Rich McKay:

 

As Competition Committee co-chair Rich McKay explained on NFL Network, each team is only guaranteed the opportunity to possess the ball. Which means that an onside kick recovered by the kicking team would count as a possession for the receiving team. Ditto for a muffed punt, or a fumble on a punt or kickoff return.

 

“There’s two instances in which that could really come into play,” McKay said. “One would be the onside kick and the other would be if the team receiving a punt muffed the punt. At that point they’re deemed to have possessed the ball.”

[rawaction]

That can't be true can it? The team that was to receive the kickoff never had a possession. They had a chance to have a possession, but never actually had the ball.

 

I think if the team runs back the kickoff and the returner fumbles it, then that may count as a possession, but not getting an onside kick doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the rules.

 

PFT and Rich McKay:

 

As Competition Committee co-chair Rich McKay explained on NFL Network, each team is only guaranteed the opportunity to possess the ball. Which means that an onside kick recovered by the kicking team would count as a possession for the receiving team. Ditto for a muffed punt, or a fumble on a punt or kickoff return.

 

“There’s two instances in which that could really come into play,” McKay said. “One would be the onside kick and the other would be if the team receiving a punt muffed the punt. At that point they’re deemed to have possessed the ball.”

 

Seems to defeat the purpose of the rule. Hell, every team has an opportunity for a possession. Every play the opponent runs is an opportunity to get a turnover.

[SouthSideRyan]

I hope some game ends on a muffed punt.

[Guest]

Which coach has the guts to try an onside in OT with these rules? Belichick and Haley?

[dew1679666265]

Which coach has the guts to try an onside in OT with these rules? Belichick and Haley?

 

Rex Ryan

[chuckywang]

Now what if the Eagles went ahead and kicked a FG on the first possession of OT. Then the Rodgers throws an INT and the Eagles defensive player stupidly tries to run it back and fumbles and the Packers recover. Is the game over or what?