Would you kneel it out?

[Pappy13]

Being able to run out the clock for a tie at the end of OT and make the playoffs is NOT comparable with the proposed situation where neither team attempts to score for 4 quarters of regulation time.

Not what I said. If you aren't even going to discuss the situation then I'm not going to either.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Not what I said. If you aren't even going to discuss the situation then I'm not going to either.

this is literally the first post of the thread…..

If the Chargers and Raiders each kneel three times and punt every play, they both make the playoffs.

Would you do this?

[Spider-Dan]

Not what I said. If you aren't even going to discuss the situation then I'm not going to either.

You keep trying to have it both ways.  Are the teams obviously not trying to score, or are they trying to score?

Your plan does not work if your opponent is simulating that they are trying to win, because if they are, then YOU need to actually try to win, as a loss knocks you out.  Your plan only works if the two teams collude, which is the whole point!

If your opponent can tell that you are trying to work with them to engineer a tie, everyone else can, too.  And if the commissioner watching the game can't tell that you're trying to not score and engineer a tie, your opponent won't be able to tell either, so they'll assume you're trying to win and will therefore be forced to try to win themselves.  Q.E.D.

[Pappy13]

this is literally the first post of the thread…..

Sorry, I thought you had responded to my post and not his. My bad.

[Pappy13]

If your opponent can tell that you are trying to work with them to engineer a tie, everyone else can, too.  And if the commissioner watching the game can't tell that you're trying to not score and engineer a tie, your opponent won't be able to tell either, so they'll assume you're trying to win and will therefore be forced to try to win themselves.  Q.E.D.

So in other words you're saying it's fine as long as neither team makes it obvious like simply take a knee on every snap? That's what I have been saying.

"Technically I was talking about the start of overtime, could be just sort of a wink and a nod with the other head coach, but still bad form, yes I agree. But would it get reprisal from the NFL? Not sure about that. I'm sure they would deny that it happened. I'm not saying kneel down on every play, just sort of don't play to win. That's pretty much what resting your starters is in my opinion."

In my opinion there needs to be a rule in place to prevent this situation from happening or at the very least some type of communication from the league office to all the teams that in the event the situation ever presents itself again if there's any question the league could have the game be called a forfeit for both teams. I would think that would pretty much put an end to even attempting conservative play calling on either team's part.

[Spider-Dan]

So in other words you're saying it's fine as long as neither team makes it obvious like simply take a knee on every snap? That's what I have been saying.

No.  I'm saying it's "fine" as long as no one, including your opponent who you need to reciprocate, can tell that this is what you are trying to do.  In other words, you can run the ball directly into the line 3 times and punt, but not if your opponent also does it, because then it's obvious what the two of you are trying to do.

I think it's also important to point out that the premise here is that this is going on for 70 full minutes of game time, NOT just the last 90 seconds of OT or whatever.

In my opinion there needs to be a rule in place to prevent this situation from happening or at the very least some type of communication from the league office to all the teams that in the event the situation ever presents itself again if there's any question the league could have the game be called a forfeit for both teams.

And how should this rule be worded, so as not to duplicate already existing rules against teams colluding to fix the outcome of a game?

Again, you keep trying to thread this needle of the precise amount of trying that isn't blatant fixing but still incentivizes your opponent to play along.  So how should this be worded?  "You're not allowed to rest players"?  "You're not allowed to not try to score on every possession"?

What is your solution to this regulatory problem that you believe exists?  Because the rest of us are telling you that your plan is already against the existing rules prohibiting collusion.

[Pappy13]

I think it's also important to point out that the premise here is that this is going on for 70 full minutes of game time, NOT just the last 90 seconds of OT or whatever.

That may have been the initial scenario proposed but it's not the scenario that I have been attempting to discuss. The scenario that I've been attempting to discuss is only that this occurs in overtime which by rule is 10 minutes of game time, the exact scenario that was brought up by the announcers during the Chargers/Raiders game this past Sunday once it became clear the game was headed to overtime. I may have been mistaken but I thought that was the reason that this thread was started, because of the situation in the Charger/Raiders game. It seems to coincide with the timing of the post. If the original post was discussing the game in it's entirety, I find that highly unlikely contrary to my belief that 10 mins of overtime could surely be played ultra conservatively by both teams in an attempt to both make the playoffs and would not fall under the "collusion" rules. At that point it would merely become an attempt by both teams to do what's best for themselves to make the playoffs. They don't have to come to this conclusion jointly, they most certainly could each come to the same conclusion seperately and not necessarily at the same time.

Assume that team A receives the opening kickoff in overtime and begins running the ball which is certainly a viable strategy to produce a win. Keep in mind that being aggressive and passing could easily lead to a turnover and a loss which knocks them out of the playoffs a situation they clearly would want to avoid even more than a tie so running the ball rather than passing cannot be considered not trying to win the game. After several minutes of running the ball it's fourth down and short and they punt the ball to team B. Team B now has a choice to make, they can be aggressive and pass in an attempt to win the game, however they too want to avoid a loss and could choose to play it conservatively as well and run the ball. Team B now reaches fourth down and punts the ball back to team A. Again team A is under no obligation at this point to be aggressive so they in turn play conservatively and run out the clock which produces a tie and both teams make the playoffs. Is this collusion? In my opinion it's not and cannot even be construed as collusion however it did produce a tie and both teams making the playoffs. Would there be consequences for such actions is what I'm trying to discuss? I don't see how there could be as what was done was not technically against the rules while it might be considered somewhat questionable behavior on both coaching staffs. In my opinion a rule that prevents this type of thing from happening which would be very easy to create or at the very least a letter from the NFL instructing teams that this sort of thing will not be tolerated and could result in forfeiture of the game by both teams is warranted.