The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

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

Would you do this?

It's such a bizarre situation tonight that it's worth asking about for fun. They would obviously not do this the whole game but if this somehow went into OT and it got late, I can see the team with the ball with 2 minutes left doing this. The other team wouldn't object because then they would run the risk of missing the playoffs.

If it kept Brady out of the playoffs, I'd offer the other team every penny I have to do it with me

Damn. I mean logically yes, don’t risk any injuries, basically get a free bye week and a guaranteed shot at the tournament.

I mean it won’t happen, no way the league would allow it, but I think it makes sense.

If it gets to OT and there’s 5 minutes left, maybe something like it happens.

Weird situation. Would be nuts if it ended in a tie. I kind of hope it does.

No, teams would not do this.  It doesn't take very much imagination to think of what the NFL would do to two teams intentionally and obviously colluding for 70 minutes to engineer a tie.

Offhand: the game is determined to be a forfeit for both teams, LAC and LV both receive a loss, both teams are disqualified from playoff contention and PIT/IND take their place.  To be honest, by the end of one quarter of this nonsense, I would expect both teams to get a call from New York informing them of the consequences unless they shape up.

That plus a fine, loss of draft picks, pressure to fire both head coaches, a class action lawsuit by the ticket holders of the game for a refund.

No, but can I say that I would have tried that hard to kick that last FG that won the game? No I can't say that I would have been trying that hard to do that either.

Is there anything in the rulebook that forbids kneeling it out?

Also, would the Raiders have been fined if they tried to run out the clock?  Or if they did not kick the field goal?

Not so sure about all of this. Don't teams rest their starters the last week of the season essentially forfeiting the game? What if both teams just pulled all their starters off the field and agreed to NOT score? Would the NFL step in then? Why would they? If you don't have to play your players if you have already made the playoffs then why should you have to play your players if you will make the playoffs if you don't?

I understand what you are saying, but I'm saying that I have a problem with resting your players for a week to end the season as well and that's been happening for years. Seems a bit hypocritcal to me.

I think this would be "illegal" per the rules of the NFL on a basis of collusion.

There's nothing wrong with sitting your starters if you don't need the win.  But to only sit your starters after agreeing with your opponent that they'll sit their starters is 2-team collusion and an unfair disadvantage to their competition.

I wouldn't have an issue with the Raiders having the last possession with time to run out the clock and then independently deciding to kneel to eliminate their risk.  That would be fine.  It's not trying to win the game, but it's a self-serving decision.

But to do that at the beginning of the game would be bad form.

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.

It's the wink and the nod that's the problem.  If you kneel in OT, you have to punt the ball to the other team and they can just drive the field and beat you with a FG.   It's not a self-serving decision not to try to advance the ball on offense unless you can run out the clock.

Even team resting their starters are generally playing to win.  Running plays, trying to prevent the other team from scoring.  And sometimes the team resting their starters even win.  Agreeing not to score is an entirely different matter.

Actually a closer situation would be two teams in last place playing each other with each playing to lose for the 1st pick.

Are they? Not really. Playing to win with backups is not the same thing as trying to win. If it is then like I said if both teams took out all their offensive starters and kept in all their defensive starters, there's nothing wrong with doing that and the NFL wouldn't do a damn thing about it. Is that what you are saying?

How would you know? I'm not saying kneel down, I'm saying run plays, just don't try to score. Similar to when you are ahead and just try to run the clock. Be pretty easy to do and not really much way to prove you aren't trying to win.

And there's your problem.

You can play who you want to play.  And if one team decides not to score, oh well... thems the breaks.  But that's not collusion.   BOTH teams deciding not to score, in a situation where they both clearly benefit from working together, on a national prime-time broadcast?  There are definitely phones ringing after two series.

So when 2 teams playing each other announce before the game that they are not playing their starters, that's NOT collusion? Sure it is, just the kind that the NFL agrees with. It's hypocritical.

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT in favor of it happening, I'm just saying that it's not beyond the NFL to do this, it's already happening it's just that we accept it in the one situation and we don't in the other. Would the phones ring? You bet. To determine how they were going to assure everyone that neither team was trying to end in a tie.

The scenario isn't the same.

When you don't start your players because it doesn't matter if you win or lose, that's a choice you make, to better yourself. 

But if you don't start your starters in a game you need to win, that's an issue.

In the scenario we listed, you need a win or a tie -- kneeling doesn't help improve those odds unless you can coordinate with your opponent.  That coordination is against the rules.

Or a tie. For that all you need to do is prevent the other team from scoring, you don't need to score for that to happen. The fact that it's true for both sides is irrelevant, they don't necessarily have to come to that agreement together, they could have each reached that determination seperately. There's no way to prove they coordinated anything.

And this isn't a choice to better yourself? Sure it is. The fact it's mutually beneficial is just a side benefit.

Again I'm not advocating this, I'm saying that it's hypocritical to say that teams can just pull all their starters in a game because they don't need to win but then say you can't pull just your offensive players in overtime of a game you only need to tie. Pulling your starters and not playing to win is wrong anyway you slice it, but if you are going to allow it in one situation, then you might get something that you really don't want. The NFL has already gone down that rabbit hole is all I'm saying.

Pappy, it's all well and good to say "How can anybody tell if you're colluding?" but when the announcers are absolutely laying into both teams for intentionally trying not to win over a 3-hour-long national broadcast, it will be obvious to everyone.

There is a huge difference between "getting young players some developmental experience" or even "trying to avoid injury to starters"... and "coordinating with your opponent to throw a game."  The NFL doesn't want to see that ever, but it ESPECIALLY doesn't want to see it on a national prime-time game.

If you and your opponent (<--- this part is important!) both decide that neither one of you want to try to win the game, but instead prefer a tie, it is textbook collusion.  You can't allow it.

Just for contrast: back in 2001, there was a situation where PHI and TB were scheduled to play the final game of the season, but both teams had already clinched their seeds and they would be meeting again the next week in the Wild Card round no matter what happened.  So they both played a bunch of backups because the game didn't matter.  This is not collusion, and no one cared (PHI won 17-13).

In that game between the Chargers and the Raiders the announcers absolutely brought it up prior to the overtime. Luckily neither the Chargers nor the Raiders decided to play it that way, but if they would have, just the overtime not the whole game, what do you do? Can you blame either team for trying NOT to lose? Isn't that the VERY thing that many coaches already try to do, NOT lose the game.

Again I want to stress that I'm not FOR doing this, merely saying that I don't think there's much the NFL could have done afterwards other than assure the fans that neither team was playing for a tie.  I don't think anyone is getting fined or anything else because I think the NFL would try to play it off as both teams playing conservatively and trying NOT to lose which knocks them out of the playoffs. What's wrong with that?

You can NOT try to win if it doesn't matter but you can't try to NOT lose if it does?

Oh, it's collusion alright, it was mutually beneficial to both teams to not play their starters and they both announced their intention prior to the game, just no one cared. That's the point I'm making. The only difference is that it didn't change who would make the playoffs, in this case it has implications to who makes the playoffs which doesn't just affect the 2 teams, but other teams as well (Steelers for instance) so we cared. We care about collusion in some cases, in other cases we really don't or at least we don't care if there is collusion if we don't perceive that someone is being hurt by it. What if in that game above it mattered to another team who won and lost for instance lets say Dallas needed TB to win to make the playoffs? Is it ok then for them to do what they did in that case? Do we care then? So then it's collusion?

I wouldn't be surprised to see a new rule next year that says that if 2 teams are tied in the last week of the regular season and both teams will make the playoffs if the game ends in a tie then in that case the game will be played till one team wins the game. Problem solved.

^ How would you go about trying not to lose without colluding with your opponent? If you just run the ball three times, not really trying to do anything and then punting, you are gambling that your opponent is going to do the same thing and not play to win. Take your starters out? What if the other team doesn't?

You can certainly play conservatively and that happens quite often in overtime, but without collusion there's a limit to what you can do without actually increasing your risk of losing.

There was a sf sea game two years ago where sf tried to win.  I criticized their play calling.  I said they should have run the ball on first down, let the clock run, and then tried for the win.  I was criticized for this

I swear that the Raiders were going to sit on the ball at the very end of OT and take the tie. Then the Chargers called that timeout.

And had they done that, I think that's acceptable.  The Raiders controlled their own destiny at that point and not kicking puts their playoff chances at 100%.  Attempting the kick lowers it to 99.5% or whatever.

I equate it to a RB "trying not to score" late in a game so that his team can run out the clock, so he falls on the 1 yard line on purpose.

You're missing the rather significant and drastic difference.

If you don't play your starters (or you run the ball directly into the line over and over, etc.) because you are willing to accept a loss, then fine!  But a problem arises if you AREN'T willing to accept a loss, and you want to engineer a tie.  Because, in the scenario you provide, engineering a tie would involve the other team ALSO working towards the same game result.

In other words, the teams are working in concert to directly fix the outcome of the game (i.e. collusion).  Do you understand why this is a major problem in a professional sports league?

What kind of spineless coach kneels the ball to take a tie against a division rival rather than kick a field goal with time running out and eliminating them? I  hate this discussion.

Got to love the way they seem to say "yeah, nah, fuck you" to the Chargers and then knocked them out of the playoffs...

Somewhere in the afterlife you just know Al Davis is smiling at this.

Just win baby

Yeah, I understand why it's a problem which is why there needs to be a rule against it so that teams can't do it. Right now there is nothing preventing it, which is EXACTLY what the announcers in that game were talking about right before the game went to overtime. I don't think any coaches would actually do it, but just saying that it can never happen isn't stopping it from happening, a rule preventing it would.

Michaels and Collinsworth were tongue in cheek about the Raiders and Chargers game being played purposefully to a tie. They were not advocating for that game to be "thrown".

No of course they were not advocating it but they weren't saying it was out of the question either. They were both insinuating that it's a problem which it is. There needs to be a rule in place to prevent it becoming an issue again.

^ There is a rule.

If both teams kneel, that's collusion.  If one team kneels, fully in control of the outcome, it's not.

Once the Raiders could run out the clock and not lose the game, they'd be free to kneel all they want and that would be ethically fine and within the spirit of the game.

For the final time I'm going to say this, I never said anything about KNEELING every play, in fact I've said several times that I'm NOT talking about KNEELING every play, just running the ball, punting on 4th down and playing conservatively the way teams do when they have a lead. I'm also only talking about in overtime, not during regulation.

Playing conservatively isn't collusion.  But if both teams are intentionally not scoring, that's collusion.  It's the same idea.

Whatever you're talking about, if you're requiring another team to do something so that you can get the outcome you desire, that's collusion.  If you can do it all by yourself, it's not.

Pappy, I'm pretty sure the NFL already has rules in place against collusion to fix the outcome of a game, so I'm not sure what you're asking for here.

When I said that the teams would be getting a call from New York midgame, I was referring to the league office advising them that their actions are against the rules (and also potentially illegal).

Agreed

No it's not as long as they are not working in concert to that effect which is my point. How do you know if both teams are working in concert to produce the desired outcome and not just both teams intentionally playing conservative to avoid a loss and make the playoffs as you mentioned above? They both look the same to the naked eye.

Playing conservatively (IE not trying to score) is not against the rules as long as you are not doing it in concert with the other team. Exactly how can you know for certain whether it's being done in concert with the other team and each team not choosing the same conservative gameplan on their own? For example we already have plays where the offensive player is allowed to score a TD by the defense and they go down on their own accord. That's not collusion, but it most certainly is trying NOT to score. It's a slippery slope that can be leveled by simply changing the rules as I mentioned that if both teams can make the playoffs by way of a tie in the final week of a season and the game is tied at the end of regulation, then the game will continue until a winner is produced. Problem solved. Don't know why this would be an issue unless you are afraid that such a rule might give someone the impression that it could be done without the rule which is EXACTLY what I'm saying. What exactly are you 2 afraid of with a rules change? If that rule were in place this past Sunday during the Raiders/Chargers game the 2 announcers would have had nothing to talk about. The very fact they did talk about it is evidence there is a potential problem to be addressed. Maybe it could just be addressed with a letter to all the teams about the possibility of the league deciding to have both teams forfeit the game in such an event if it seems warranted. Much easier to do that in the off-season than during a game.

The action IS the evidence.  Put simply: you cannot get away with not trying to win if the other team is also not trying to win and a tie benefits you both.  When everyone is well aware that a tie gets both of the teams into the playoffs, you cannot both "coincidentally decide" not to try to win.
Because that's collusion and match fixing.

Are you trying to argue for some version of this where no one can figure out what they're doing?  If this kind of argument actually worked, then the Patriots would have been able to say, "We weren't recording the other team's practice, we were just trying to scout the quality of the field surface, how much space there will be on our sideline, and where our families will be sitting in relation to the bench" and the league office would have to throw up its hands and say "oh well, can't prove anything, guess there's nothing we can do!"  No one is this stupid.

Lets clarify some things.  The NEP didn’t film other teams practices..  They filmed the teams sidelines which was in clear view of everyone in the stadium.  And their argument was that the rule started that you couldn’t film opposing teams sidelines for use during the game.  The patriots defense was that they weren’t using it during that game but for future.  Despite the rule suggesting what the Patriots did was legal, they were punished and the rule was changed to make the conduct they did now banned. 

The action is only evidence that both teams are trying NOT to lose the game. That's it. That's not against the rules. Many teams try this every game, sometimes both at the same time. Why are they not colluding? A tie in this case is a favorable result for both teams. Is that not what every team is doing every single time they step on the field? Didn't BOTH teams go into the game thinking all we need to make the playoffs is to win or TIE? How can you say than when the circumstances are right going for a TIE is evidence of collusion?

Huh?  Team want to win, not tie.  Even a team that needs a tie or win to make the playoffs is going to try to win.  Even a team that is behind wants to tie up the game and then take the lead.  Nobody goes into a game seeking a tie.  The best way not to lose a game is to win by a comfortable margin, not trying to tie. 

Once in 2006, the Broncos were playing the 49ers.  They could have run out the clock and gotten a tie in overtime, which would have put them in the playoffs.  They went for the win and SF won, putting KC in the playoffs.

I think Ross needs to tell the new coach this:

"If we can get a tie, and a tie gets us in the playoffs TAKE THE TIE!!!!!!!!"   

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.