Winning an NFL game by 9 points in overtime

[Velocity]

If an NFL team wins the opening coin toss in OT, it could drive downfield for a field goal. The other team would then get the ball.

If the other team subsequently threw an interception that got returned for a touchdown, would the first team have won by 9 points? Or would the game be whistled and declared over as soon as the ball was intercepted?
Obviously, the smart thing to do would be for the defender to go to the ground as soon as he secured the interception (thus ending the game,) but let’s say he’s the hotheaded type and returns it for a touchdown anyway.

[etv78]

Under the new rules, which I despise BTW, the game can’t end on a FG until both teams have had the ball.

[Mince]

Nine-point overtime win is possible under new rules

So what happens under the new overtime rule if the team that receives the kickoff to start the process scores a field goal, kicks off, and forces a turnover?

It’s not as simple of a question as you might think.

A reasonable argument could be made that, because the other team’s possession ends at that point, the game ends at that point as well, with the defense leading (and winning) by three.

But this isn’t the same thing as a failed two-point attempt. The play is still alive and, in theory, the defensive team can return the ball for a touchdown, extending the final margin to nine points.

We ran the concept by the league office, and outgoing V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira said (via spokesman Greg Aiello) that the play would indeed continue until completion. So the team that scored the field goal on the first drive could score a touchdown and win by nine.

[Velocity]

Aha, thanks!

[JSexton]

That seems only fair. There’s every chance that the intercepting player fumbles, allowing the original offense to recover and score.

[Tread]

@JSexton

That seems only fair. There’s every chance that the intercepting player fumbles, allowing the original offense to recover and score.

But they would have to do it on the same play. If they Defense intercepts, then fumbles, and Offense recovers, then that is a new possession. So game would end at completion of play

[OneCentStamp]

@Tread

But they would have to do it on the same play. If they Defense intercepts, then fumbles, and Offense recovers, then that is a new possession. So game would end at completion of play

But the offense could recover the fumble while the ball was still “live,” scoop it up and run it back for a TD. A recovered fumble is only automatically dead if the recovering player dives/falls on it, or picks it up while he has (at least) a knee on the ground. Otherwise, he’s good to pick it up and start running.

[BobLibDem]

Or let’s say the team that was down by three is driving toward a score. They throw an interception at the 2 yard line, the intercepting player runs backward and out of his own end zone for a safety and his team wins by 1 point in overtime.

[ekweizn]

@BobLibDem

Or let’s say the team that was down by three is driving toward a score. They throw an interception at the 2 yard line, the intercepting player runs backward and out of his own end zone for a safety and his team wins by 1 point in overtime.

I would love to see this sometime with the right point spread.

[Quercus]

@OneCentStamp

A recovered fumble is only automatically dead if the recovering player dives/falls on it, or picks it up while he has (at least) a knee on the ground. Otherwise, he’s good to pick it up and start running.

Is that true in the NFL? Because normally a player on the ground in possession of the ball is not down unless an opposing player touches them while they’re down (or they were brough down by an opposing player, or for the nitpicky, intentionally downed themselves by kneeling). For instance, a player can dive to catch a pass, then if not touched, get up and start advancing the ball. Are fumbles specifically different?

[Telemark]

@Quercus

Is that true in the NFL? Because normally a player on the ground in possession of the ball is not down unless an opposing player touches them while they’re down (or they were brough down by an opposing player, or for the nitpicky, intentionally downed themselves by kneeling). For instance, a player can dive to catch a pass, then if not touched, get up and start advancing the ball. Are fumbles specifically different?

There are some cases where the ball is dead upon fumble recovery:

On a play from scrimmage, if an offensive player fumbles anywhere on the field during fourth down, only the fumbling player is permitted to recover and/or advance the ball. If any player fumbles after the two-minute warning in a half, only the fumbling player is permitted to recover and/or advance the ball. If recovered by any other offensive player, the ball is dead at the spot of the fumble unless it is recovered behind the spot of the fumble. In that case, the ball is dead at the spot of recovery. Any defensive player may recover and/or advance any fumble at any time.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/fumble

But a knee down doesn’t change any application of that rule. In general, you can recover a fumble on the ground, get up and run.

[Tread]

@Tread

But they would have to do it on the same play. If they Defense intercepts, then fumbles, and Offense recovers, then that is a new possession. So game would end at completion of play

@OneCentStamp

But the offense could recover the fumble while the ball was still “live,” scoop it up and run it back for a TD. A recovered fumble is only automatically dead if the recovering player dives/falls on it, or picks it up while he has (at least) a knee on the ground. Otherwise, he’s good to pick it up and start running.

Yes that’s what I meant by have to do it on the same play. …Game would end at completion of play.

[Mince]

@BobLibDem

Or let’s say the team that was down by three is driving toward a score. They throw an interception at the 2 yard line, the intercepting player runs backward and out of his own end zone for a safety and his team wins by 1 point in overtime.

No, because the refs would collaborate and determine that the defender was being an arrogant ass, nullify the play, and call an unsportsmanlike penalty on him and award the offense the ball and one play.

[ZenBeam]

@Mince

No, because the refs would collaborate and determine that the defender was being an arrogant ass, nullify the play, and call an unsportsmanlike penalty on him and award the offense the ball and one play.

Highly doubtful. If he intercepts the ball in the endzone, he’s at risk for fumbling the ball, and giving up a touchdown. Running out of the endzone is a safe play.

[Telemark]

@Mince

No, because the refs would collaborate and determine that the defender was being an arrogant ass, nullify the play, and call an unsportsmanlike penalty on him and award the offense the ball and one play.

Even if they somehow decided it was an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, there’s no basis for awarding the ball back to the other team, and the game would be over on change of possession.

[BobLibDem]

@Mince

No, because the refs would collaborate and determine that the defender was being an arrogant ass, nullify the play, and call an unsportsmanlike penalty on him and award the offense the ball and one play.

It needn’t be deliberate, the player could be just outside the endzone and fall back into it. I can’t see why that would be an unsportsmanlike and how you could nullify a game-ending change of possession.

[Quercus]

@BobLibDem

It needn’t be deliberate, the player could be just outside the endzone and fall back into it. I can’t see why that would be an unsportsmanlike and how you could nullify a game-ending change of possession.

If the defender ‘fell’ back into the end zone, that’s either a touchback, or defense’s ball on the 1-yard line. For a safety, the defender would have to deliberately carry the ball across the goal line (or, be deliberately trying to run the ball out of the end zone).

I could see a defender grabbing a ball on the one yard line, instinctively swerving backward a yard around an offensive player, then realizing that the right thing to do is to take a knee, and doing so in the end zone. That would technically be a safety.

My guess is that in such a case, if possible the referees would probably all agree to pretend the defender’s momentum carried him across the line, rather than a deliberate decision, and so call it a touchback, just to avoid the craziness of a safety (that wouldn’t affect the game at all).

[TroutMan]

If the defender intercepted the ball while already in the end zone and then inadvertently stepped out of the back or side of the end zone while running, would that be a safety or touchback?

ETA: actually, I think your parenthetical “(or, be deliberately trying to run the ball out of the end zone)” answers that question - it would be safety, correct?

[Saint_Cad]

Isn’t this the exact same scenario as a team kicking a field goal, the other team then attempts a field goal which falls short and is returned?

[TroutMan]

Theoretically yes, but it wouldn’t happen. There’d be no point in the opposing team positioning someone to return a short field goal attempt. If the attempt misses, the game is over. It’s much better to put all 11 men on the line to attempt a block.