Not OT: Did the Chargers just lose by triggering a prisoner's dilemma defection?

Submitted by stephenrjking on January 10th, 2022 at 12:56 AM

Spectacular Sunday Night NFL game between the Raiders and the Chargers, with a ton riding on it. One of the things that may be riding on it is the future position of Michigan's head football coach, who is rumored to be considering the Raiders with at least some seriousness. 

The Steelers would get into the playoffs with a win by either team... but they would miss and both LV and LA would make the playoffs with a tie.

And, of course, after a thrilling game that was tied with a TD on the last play, both teams traded field goals in OT and the Raiders had the ball and were running the clock down at the outer fringes of FG territory... when the Chargers called time out with 38 seconds to go just before the Raiders were to run a 3rd down play.

Discussion on social media is quite animated, even Zapruder-level. Did the Chargers just blow the game by defecting in a prisoner's dilemma? Or were the Raiders going to kick and win anyway? Seems worth discussing here. 

Absolutely fascinating game on a multitude of levels, one of which is unfortunately that I was rather invested in the result due to rumors surrounding Harbaugh. Result is good, game was great, I'm happy. 

MGoBoard
Football

FB Dive

January 10th, 2022 at 1:40 AM ^

Well there were only 4 seconds on the play clock when they called timeout, so the Raiders definitely had to run the third down play. 

My hypothesis is that the timeout confused the Raiders into thinking the Chargers were going to call timeout again if they got a stop and go for the win, so once the Raiders got the 1st down, they went for the win as payback. I don't think the Chargers were actually going to do that, but it was extraordinarily dumb to call timeout at all when it was clear the Raiders were running the clock out. Just pack the box and go to the playoffs

Joined: 08/03/2019

MGoPoints: 14486

EverybodyMurders

January 10th, 2022 at 1:47 AM ^

Incorrect - there was 4 seconds on the playclock, 38 on the game clock. They needed to run at least one more play 

the open question I think we need to work backwards from is: what would LV do if they did not get the 1st down. Would they try a long kick last second or just run the clock out. If the chargers think LV would attempt a long 55 yarder to win the game and screw you over then it doesn’t matter if they miss. Time after a make does you no good if they make it since it’s OT and the game is over if they make it. Now would the chargers benefit with a miss? Probably not either - since a tie and a win they were in the 6th seed regardless. So at this point you can assume that STOPPING THE CLOCK HAS NO BENEFIT to the chargers from a strategy standpoint. However with this timeout that twitter is all upset about, since it was taken 4 seconds on the playclock and 38 seconds it isn’t a standard timeout for clock management. There is no time advantage by taking a TO at that point and it’s exactly what LA was doing since they waited until the playclock was low enough. So in essence this was a timeout for planning and rest, not clock. The issue itself was they came out of the timeout and gave up a long run on 3rd down and screwed themselves. I’m baffled by anyone including the announcers who kept saying the timeout taken changes the LV strategy or play call aggressiveness. I don’t think so - it just so happened the 3rd down low risk run worked. They would’ve called a similar play if this timeout wasn’t taken

Now as mentioned the interesting part is if the 3rd down came up short - what would LA do and what would LV do? But we never got to that point 

Joined: 09/27/2009

MGoPoints: 2233

GoingBlue

January 10th, 2022 at 1:15 AM ^

Yes! They didn’t save them much time, but it signaled they were not going to let the Raiders run the clock out if they didn’t pick up their 3rd down run. 

Joined: 01/04/2017

MGoPoints: 1545

Solecismic

January 10th, 2022 at 2:08 AM ^

They figured the Raiders were thinking 5-seed is better than 7-seed (especially with KC waiting - 41-14 and 48-9 losses already endured this season) and worried they could get caught by a pass. So they called the TO toward the end of clock cycle to make sure their defense was set.

The problem was they gave up 17 yards on basic runs on the last two plays. Not time outs. Not strategy.

Both teams played hard and put on a good show - that's ultimately good for the league.

Joined: 11/27/2016

MGoPoints: 7124

not TOM BRADY

January 10th, 2022 at 1:15 AM ^

The timeout thing is way overblown. They didn’t stop the run play. Also Raiders going for the win moved them from 7 seed (if game ended in tie) to 5 seed (with win). So there was some reason to think the raiders could be trying to trick you into thinking they were playing for a tie. 

Joined: 06/02/2012

MGoPoints: 30458

DCGrad

January 10th, 2022 at 7:39 AM ^

I think the Raiders scored to get a better match up in the playoffs (cincy) instead of KC, and to stick it to a division rival. 
 

Still, the Raiders went from 100% in the playoff by letting the clock expire to something less than 100% by kicking the FG. 

Joined: 09/20/2014

MGoPoints: 9255

Kevin14

January 10th, 2022 at 9:54 AM ^

It seems obvious that the Raiders had a tangible interest in winning the game as opposed to tying.   I think people got so caught up by the tie scenario, they seemed to miss this. 

Raiders have played the Chiefs twice this year and lost by 39 and 27.  Why would they voluntarily choose a matchup at Arrowhead when there is an alternative?  Sure there's so small level or risk to having a kick blocked / returned.  But that's so miniscule compared to the benefit of a better playoff matchup. 

Joined: 03/07/2017

MGoPoints: 2447

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

January 10th, 2022 at 8:55 AM ^

Prisoner's dilemma is this:

Two guys are arrested for a crime that the police know they did but can't prove in court.  Each of them are individually told that if they flip on the other guy, they'll get six months for a misdemeanor and the other guy will get 20 years.  If they both keep their mouth shut, they'll get two years for a lesser crime.  If they both talk, they'll each get 10.

Their best move is to both clam up, but they can't communicate with each other.  So there's a big incentive to "betray" by talking, because if one guy clams up but the other flips (i.e., betrays) then the silent guy gets put away for a long time.

The Raiders-Chargers game is kind of a prisoners dilemma.  They can't collude, but if they both "stay silent", that is, play for the tie, they'll both come out ahead.  The Chargers TO is sort of a "betrayal," because that was seen as a way of playing for the win instead of running out the clock for the tie.

It's not really a prisoner's dilemma, though, because in the real case, there are bad consequences for both prisoners if they both betray, but in the Chargers-Raiders game, they can both betray but one will still get out with the best outcome.  It's more like: if you both talk, one of you will go to jail and we'll write the other one a big check and send him on his way.  So it's not a good prisoners dilemma.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 41586

Meeeeshigan

January 10th, 2022 at 12:23 PM ^

The Prisoners’ Dilemma is sort of the primary example of Game Theory, which is a niche area of economics. The above poster explained it nicely. It mostly deals with scenarios like this: where usual human/economic behavior of acting in pure self-interest by everyone is actually worse than choosing to cooperate with others. The trick is trusting that others won’t “betray” and act in their own self-interest.
 

Interesting, but kind of specific stuff. I actually took a whole class on it in college, believe it or not. John Nash is largely credited for starting this field, and the movie “A Beautiful Mind” is based on his story.

Joined: 11/01/2010

MGoPoints: 736

SD Larry

January 10th, 2022 at 8:30 AM ^

My view is after all the incredible 4th down plays the Chargers managed to make to get to that point, the time out was a cluster.   Helped setup Raiders for shorter field goal.  Spanos karma.  They belong in San Diego.

The retractable grass field is an engineering wonder and truly amazing. 

Joined: 10/05/2014

MGoPoints: 40986

Grampy

January 10th, 2022 at 8:47 AM ^

This thread would seem to assume the actions NFL head coaches are influenced by esoteric thinking.  I’m pretty sure that’s not the case.

Joined: 06/29/2012

MGoPoints: 24115

Double-D

January 10th, 2022 at 9:23 AM ^

It seemed to me the Raiders were good to run the clock out, take the tie, and the playoffs vs risk making a negative play.  This puts the Chargers in as well.

Crazy scenario. Both teams played their asses of. It’s remarkable the Lions were not somehow a part of losing because of this. 

Joined: 12/21/2013

MGoPoints: 87518

OldBlueVa

January 10th, 2022 at 9:41 AM ^

I'm a lifelong Steelers and UM fan, so the late night paid off.

Collinsworth was a riot, as was Al Michaels doing everything but actually telling him to shut up and pretend it wasn't happening.

Joined: 11/21/2009

MGoPoints: 813

WFNY_DP

January 10th, 2022 at 9:45 AM ^

I was of the mind that the timeout was stupid as hell in the moment they took it. However, once the Raiders came out and ran it--again, clearly--and the Chargers played 10-ply-Charmin-soft running defense--again, clearly--it made the timeout really a moot point. I don't think the Raiders changed their approach. The Chargers may have overthought it and played themselves out of it.

 

Really, as someone who thinks Ben Roethlisberger is a giant piece of shit, I just wanted them to tie to keep him out of the playoffs and force him off into the sunset. I'll try to take solace in the fact that the Chiefs are going to eviscerate them this coming weekend instead.

Joined: 02/03/2010

MGoPoints: 2995

BlueMk1690

January 10th, 2022 at 10:30 AM ^

I think the most interesting aspect is how quickly people on social media were willing to assail the Chargers coach because of that possible but by no means probable or even guaranteed scenario.

It reminds me of the way people went after Carroll after calling for a pass rather than a run in that goal line situation at the end of the Super Bowl. The pass of course famously being intercepted. Of course, there's no guarantee a run play would have succeeded either, but I do think that criticism was a bit more founded in real evidence than the belief that somehow the timeout caused the L for the Chargers.

What the situations have in common though is that people are eager to find a scapegoat for outcomes and are really just looking for some theory or explanation to justify that because they get actual immense joy from it. It's not like in either case most of the folks were fans of the defeated team. It was just folks who really really wanted to shit on someone. Social media meanwhile allows those folks to organize pretty spontaneously and what in the olden days would have just been the forgotten drunk chatter across many bars and living rooms is now a *story* that will affect people in a real way.

Joined: 02/04/2011

MGoPoints: 12933

B-Nut-GoBlue

January 10th, 2022 at 10:46 AM ^

An incredible game.  Really unlike anything I've seen when doing a quick memory check.

And yes...we'll never know.  But it SEEEEEEMED Oakland may have been playing to kneel (edit:not kneel, on the move and my brain typed that....more run the ball and clock out) and leave it as a tie.

It really sucks we have to watch Roethlisberger try to throw the ball around next weekend instead of Herbert's youthful amazingness.

Joined: 09/30/2011

MGoPoints: 43697

HollywoodHokeHogan

January 10th, 2022 at 12:32 PM ^

I’m not so sure.  Raiders had to run a play given the game clock and were definitely running a run, as it were, just like they did after the time out.  It’s not like the Raiders were going to just kneel on third down.
 

Regardless of the timeout, once the third down run is successful and the Raiders are within 50 yards for a field goal, it’s a no brainer.  A blocked field goal returned for a td is about as likely as a fumbled snap on a kneel down.  And the Raiders had strong incentive to take such a mild risk— Chiefs at Arrowhead would probably obliterate them (again) while they have a punchers chance at Cincy.  The idea that making the playoffs by itself is the single and sole goal is misguided here, you also want the best seed possible and to win the fucking game against a rival.

 

However, going for it at your own 19 was a whole new level of dumb.

Joined: 02/12/2011

MGoPoints: 20454

Jon06

January 10th, 2022 at 5:26 PM ^

That was their only time out, right? If so, they have to have been wasting it to signal that it was safe for the Raiders to kneel on 3rd down. If they're still holding the time out, the Raiders don't know if they'll let the clock run out, so they have to try for a first down. On this interpretation, the TO was an olive branch, not a defection.

Joined: 09/19/2009

MGoPoints: 15308