Raiders were gonna kneel it..

[Kodiak.]

It would have been a real stain on the NFL had that game ended in a tie when, as someone mentioned, the NFL usually goes out of its way to avoid such a scenario. I kept expecting the refs to intervene somehow to avoid a tie.

That game should have been at 1pm, with Colts/Jags in the afternoon and then LAC/LV would have played like the elimination game it was supposed to be.

But as has been pointed out many many times, the NFL is far from singularly focused on a fair competition.

[jeemie]

The Raider were not going to take a knee. Before the timeout was called, they were in a regular formation to run a play. It looks like the plan was to simply run the ball and if they got into makeable FG range then kick it and if not just run out the clock for the tie. Staley called the TO to get his best run D (5 DL) out there to prevent the Raiders from getting into makeable FG range. Honestly, if this is actually how it went down, pretty reasonable decisions by both coaches. It didn't work out for Staley as his "best run D" was not able to prevent Jacobs from ripping off 10 yards.

His “best run D” inexplicably did not contain one of his best run stoppers. That’s what Staley is getting raked over the coals for right now.

And I disagree with anyone that thinks these coaches would have been blackballed if they played for a tie.

The goal of a coach is to get his team into the playoffs by any means possible. It’s not to help a team out that didn’t help itself.

Neither the Raiders’ coach nor the Chargers’ coach owed the Steelers anything, nor would they have “threatened the integrity of the game” had they played for a tie at the end had conditions warranted. Maybe if they eschewed a 47 yard FG attempt with a kicker who had never missed in that stadium the Raiders would have been questioned…but still their goal is to make the playoffs…by any means necessary.

If the positions had been reversed, we would have pilloried Mike Tomlin to no end if he had done any different.

Now…I can find fault with the NFL for having put this game at 8:15, which allowed the specter of a tie to rear its ugly head.

But this game was linked with three other games…Steelers/Ravens, Colts/Jags and Pats/Dolphins. What do they do? Put them all at 4:25? And what game do they show at 8:15 that wouldn’t have any playoff implications?

The NFL probably had no choice so they went with the game they thought would get the most eyebrows. Also show off Allegiant Stadium in the last prime time game of the season.

Getting down to the last play and deciding between a 57 yard FG and running the clock out is one thing. Intentionally stopping, not trying to win and run the clock out is completely different. If they got to 2 minutes and just kneeled 3 times and ran off the field like Collingsworth suggested, that Raiders coach is stained for life. I don't even think the Chargers coach would have let that happen. He would have called time outs to get the ball back. That would have been the biggest cowardly move of all time. Yeah, the league has tackling too hard penalties, forces you to let a guy make a tackle instead of blocking him when he's not looking which are ridiculous but agreeing to quit and accept a tie has to still be unacceptable. Why not just flip a damn coin in place of overtime so they don't have to work more hours without extra pay?

I don't think there was ever any intention of either coach to take a knee with over two minutes to go, but I would not have faulted the Raiders, nor do I think anyone else would have, if, having been stuffed on 3rd down, eschewed a risky FG that had a chance of being blocked and simply let the clock run out- and I do not think the Chargers would have used their timeout on 4th down to stop it.

I think Collinsworth was engaging in hyperbole to bring home the idea that the longer OT went, the more it behooved both teams not to try anything risky. I didn't take Collinsworth's suggestions too seriously for the very reason you brought up.

The scenario where they both try not to win is negated by game theory- they were in a classic prisoner's dilemma. The optimal outcome for both is a tie, but neither team would play for a tie because of the risk the other team wouldn't (without some sort of prior agreement between the two teams, which would have been patently obvious). I think we can see that played out before our eyes because it was obvious in regulation both the Raiders and Chargers were going all out to win.

But late in OT that calculus changes. You're not going to give up, but you're not going to do anything too risky either.

Anyhow, if Jacobs gets stuffed on 3rd down, and the Raiders simply let the clock run out and the Chargers let them? No one is blackballing these two coaches.

[jeemie]

It would have been a real stain on the NFL had that game ended in a tie when, as someone mentioned, the NFL usually goes out of its way to avoid such a scenario. I kept expecting the refs to intervene somehow to avoid a tie.

That game should have been at 1pm, with Colts/Jags in the afternoon and then LAC/LV would have played like the elimination game it was supposed to be.

But as has been pointed out many many times, the NFL is far from singularly focused on a fair competition.

You are going to make them play a game at 10 AM? Las Vegas is in the Pacific time zone.

[SteelPro]

It would have been a real stain on the NFL had that game ended in a tie when, as someone mentioned, the NFL usually goes out of its way to avoid such a scenario. I kept expecting the refs to intervene somehow to avoid a tie.

That game should have been at 1pm, with Colts/Jags in the afternoon and then LAC/LV would have played like the elimination game it was supposed to be.

But as has been pointed out many many times, the NFL is far from singularly focused on a fair competition.

You are going to make them play a game at 10 AM? Las Vegas is in the Pacific time zone.

From a fairness standpoint you’d make every game start 4pm EST on week 18. But that just isn’t workable for your TV partners. A more reasonable way to avoid this would be just to make week 18 follow playoff OT rules.

[gpclay]

A more reasonable way to avoid this would be just to make week 18 follow playoff OT rules.

Maybe this has been discussed somewhere, but what are the changes between regular season and playoff OT rules? We were talking about that in our house during both the Stillers and Raiders games but we never found the answer. I like the Stanley Cup playoff OT rules but that wouldn’t work for football (sudden death, that is). I think a better approach would be like basketball, where you play a set time and whoever is winning at the end wins, or you play another set amount of time if still tied...

[Jobu]

A more reasonable way to avoid this would be just to make week 18 follow playoff OT rules.

Maybe this has been discussed somewhere, but what are the changes between regular season and playoff OT rules? We were talking about that in our house during both the Stillers and Raiders games but we never found the answer. I like the Stanley Cup playoff OT rules but that wouldn’t work for football (sudden death, that is). I think a better approach would be like basketball, where you play a set time and whoever is winning at the end wins, or you play another set amount of time if still tied...

I think the main (only?) difference is that instead of just a single 10 minute period, they play as many 15 minute “ sudden death” periods that it takes for someone to win.

[jeemie]

A more reasonable way to avoid this would be just to make week 18 follow playoff OT rules.

Maybe this has been discussed somewhere, but what are the changes between regular season and playoff OT rules? We were talking about that in our house during both the Stillers and Raiders games but we never found the answer. I like the Stanley Cup playoff OT rules but that wouldn’t work for football (sudden death, that is). I think a better approach would be like basketball, where you play a set time and whoever is winning at the end wins, or you play another set amount of time if still tied...

The only difference between regular season and playoff OT rules are the periods are 15 minutes long and play goes on until someone wins.

I mean the "each team gets a possession unless the team getting the ball first scores a TD or there's a defensive score- safety or TD" rule still holds (think our OT loss to Denver in the 2011 playoffs), but otherwise they just keep playing.

[jeemie]

It would have been a real stain on the NFL had that game ended in a tie when, as someone mentioned, the NFL usually goes out of its way to avoid such a scenario. I kept expecting the refs to intervene somehow to avoid a tie.

That game should have been at 1pm, with Colts/Jags in the afternoon and then LAC/LV would have played like the elimination game it was supposed to be.

But as has been pointed out many many times, the NFL is far from singularly focused on a fair competition.

You are going to make them play a game at 10 AM? Las Vegas is in the Pacific time zone.

From a fairness standpoint you’d make every game start 4pm EST on week 18. But that just isn’t workable for your TV partners. A more reasonable way to avoid this would be just to make week 18 follow playoff OT rules.

I think the Raiders and Chargers proved there's nothing to avoid. Ties are so rare this just isn't going to come up that often...this is, as far as I know, the first time it ever has (ironically the Steelers win was what was needed to make it happen. If the Ravens had won, it wouldn't have been mutually beneficial for a tie game- the Raiders would have clinched a spot already).

And how is this any different than a team with nothing to play for resting its starters so they can be injury-free for the playoffs?

The teams that can "help" another team make the playoffs owe nothing to that team. Don't put yourself in position of needing help.

[955876]

And how is this any different than a team with nothing to play for resting its starters so they can be injury-free for the playoffs?

Because that doesn’t guarantee a loss for the team resting it’s starters or a win for the team facing an opponent who rested their starters.

[jeemie]

And how is this any different than a team with nothing to play for resting its starters so they can be injury-free for the playoffs?

Because that doesn’t guarantee a loss for the team rearing it’s starters or a win for the team facing an opponent who rested their starters.

I think there is a guardrail in place here...two teams are not going to collude for a farce of a game.

Both teams tried really hard yesterday when they had no need to (Raiders lost to the Chiefs badly but also lost to the Bungles badly...maybe that provided them with a little more impetus to win, but my guess is very little).. The only time the guardrails may have run out is at the very end, and I don't mind that.

But it took a perfect storm of events to even get to the end of OT...and now that my drunkenness has worn off, I don't think it was scripted...it just turned out that way because these two teams were evenly matched.

The public eye was very much turned on these two teams, as it will be turned on two teams that ever find themselves in this situation again.

I don't think we need worry about it to the point where we change the rules to prevent it. Don't we complain about overly-regulating the game to begin with?

Football might be moving towards the WWE...but it's not soccer or Formula 1 racing (the heads of that sport actively interfered in ways Roger Goodell only can dream of to engineer the result it wanted).

Yet.

[bradshaw2ben]

It would have been a real stain on the NFL had that game ended in a tie when, as someone mentioned, the NFL usually goes out of its way to avoid such a scenario. I kept expecting the refs to intervene somehow to avoid a tie.

That game should have been at 1pm, with Colts/Jags in the afternoon and then LAC/LV would have played like the elimination game it was supposed to be.

But as has been pointed out many many times, the NFL is far from singularly focused on a fair competition.

You are going to make them play a game at 10 AM? Las Vegas is in the Pacific time zone.

I've been thinking about it a lot... it probably wouldn't have mattered, because once LVR-LAC got into the 4th Quarter, they'd have realized Indy lost, which was all they needed to know about a tie sending them both to playoffs.

You'd have to play Raiders/Chargers in a foolproof bubble with no access to the outside world to ensure no collusion/satisfaction with the tie.

[jeemie]

It would have been a real stain on the NFL had that game ended in a tie when, as someone mentioned, the NFL usually goes out of its way to avoid such a scenario. I kept expecting the refs to intervene somehow to avoid a tie.

That game should have been at 1pm, with Colts/Jags in the afternoon and then LAC/LV would have played like the elimination game it was supposed to be.

But as has been pointed out many many times, the NFL is far from singularly focused on a fair competition.

You are going to make them play a game at 10 AM? Las Vegas is in the Pacific time zone.

I've been thinking about it a lot... it probably wouldn't have mattered, because once LVR-LAC got into the 4th Quarter, they'd have realized Indy lost, which was all they needed to know about a tie sending them both to playoffs.

You'd have to play Raiders/Chargers in a foolproof bubble with no access to the outside world to ensure no collusion/satisfaction with the tie.

The guardrail of pubic opinion proved to be enough last night (although it is an open question if the Raiders would have attempted a 57 yard FG had they gotten no yardage on the third down play).

I don't want new rules in place to govern a situation which has only happened one time in the 56 year Super Bowl era.

[SteelPro]

You are going to make them play a game at 10 AM? Las Vegas is in the Pacific time zone.

I've been thinking about it a lot... it probably wouldn't have mattered, because once LVR-LAC got into the 4th Quarter, they'd have realized Indy lost, which was all they needed to know about a tie sending them both to playoffs.

You'd have to play Raiders/Chargers in a foolproof bubble with no access to the outside world to ensure no collusion/satisfaction with the tie.

The guardrail of pubic opinion proved to be enough last night (although it is an open question if the Raiders would have attempted a 57 yard FG had they gotten no yardage on the third down play).

I don't want new rules in place to govern a situation which has only happened one time in the 56 year Super Bowl era.

The rules have changed though and ties, although still rare, are more prevalent now than ever before.

[Jobu]

His “best run D” inexplicably did not contain one of his best run stoppers.

But is he really one of his best run defenders? In 11 games, Moore has 28 combined tackles, 14 solo,14 assists. That’s below JAG-ish for an ILB. I guess he’s in the Bince mood of great run stoppers!
I think everyone is trying to blow this up to something it isn’t. The Raiders likely ran the same play after the TO as they planned to run before it. I agree that had they not gotten the yardage for a more comfortable FG attempt, they don’t run another play and the game ends in a tie. But they did, and Bisaccia did what any football coach would do…kick the winning FG. Both coaches played their cards LV came out on top.

[El Kabong]

I'm still stunned sitting here thinking about everything that had to happen to get us into the playoffs. Everything that had to happen just for us to win our game--picking off Huntley in the end zone when a running play might have put the game out of hand, converting two 3rd and longs and a 4th and long, Najee getting a good run to get us into FG range. Then the improbability of the Jags beating the Colts. And even so, we're still hanging by a thread as the Raiders and Chargers get to the end of OT, and it all comes down to Josh Jacobs making 10 yards on a running play at the end so the Raiders can kick a FG to win. Unbelievable. We pulled an inside straight.

If I didn't still think we were going to lose to the Chiefs, I'd call this a team of destiny. I will call them that if they beat the Chiefs.

[Kodiak.]

You are going to make them play a game at 10 AM? Las Vegas is in the Pacific time zone.

Don't they play at "10 AM" most of the time they play someone on the East Coast?

Regardless, the NFL could easily have all games impacting each other at 1 (or 4:30, if that makes you happy). They ignored the small (but hardly improbable) chance JAX beat IND for a ratings grab pitting what was expected to be a play-in game. Of course, that only works if the other game isn't a blowout or over before your game.

The fairest and simplest solution was just to put IND/JAX at night, but of course they weren't going to do that for SNF.

If that game had ended in a tie, when not one but TWO other seasons recently eliminated PIT on officiating calls bordering on criminal?!?

[RemoAZ]

NFL’s Chargers-Raiders game saved one sportsbook from losing over $10 million
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-w ... nk=sfmw_tw

This potential tie scenario led thousands of bettors to wager on the long-shot possibility of a tie game in the NFL, something that happens less than 1% of the time.

Normal odds for a tie in the NFL from sportsbooks are about +6000, or 60/1. This would profit the bettor 60 times what he or she originally bet. However, as sportsbooks received more and more bets as the game drew closer, they considerably lowered the odds to counteract their massive liability — DraftKings DKNG, -4.07% for example changed the odds to +1400 about an hour before the game.

Representatives from the Flutter Entertainment-owned FanDuel Sportsbook confirmed to MarketWatch that the company was at risk of losing “more than $10 million” if the game ended in a tie.

Fellow legal U.S. sports betting operator, PointsBet, also stated that liability on a potential tie in the Raiders-Chargers game was over a million dollars for their sportsbook.