We had debate at our party over whether the chiefs should have run one more play. I agreed with the decision to kick the field goal, reset and trust your championship team in the pressure cooker of overtime especially given some bad snaps from the center. Others felt they should have taken one last crack with the safety of a timeout (or option to throw the ball away) citing examples of how that led to touchdowns in other games. Where did you stand on that decision?
Then they ran a play which was incomplete leaving 6 seconds left on the clock and Romo says that the Chiefs can't go for it again it's too risky with just 6 seconds left.
Take the easy points. The Chiefs have the best QB in football and he was eating up the 49ers in the late 2nd half. Place your bet on Mahomes in OT.
Then they ran a play which was incomplete leaving 6 seconds left on the clock and Romo says that the Chiefs can't go for it again it's too risky with just 6 seconds left.
Romo sometimes has good insights, but he is all over the place with stuff like this. It seems like he terrified to let a second run off where he is not talking. And much like the retired refs they have on the broadcasts now, it seems like his primary goal is to explain why what happened was absolutely the correct decision.
Mahomes, OT - take the points.
but I thought for sure the Chiefs would run one more play.
You have to take the points there, it's OT.
Interesting viewpoint. I wasn't thinking about that when it happened.
If they got a 1st down instead of having to kick the go ahead
score they could have possibly ran down the clock and kicked the winner with no time remaining. In OT when they were inside the 10 yd line a TD means victory
KC down there at the very end of overtime and they're not using a timeout. I'm watching the clock run and run and run ... and they snap the ball with 6 seconds left.
All's well. They get the win. But ... what if the ball is dropped? Three seconds left and they go for the FG? They go for the win, again?
Was it a big risk, letting the clock run that far down? Maybe it's a nuance ... interested to hear thought. Was anyone else a little perplexed?
KC down there at the very end of overtime and they're not using a timeout. I'm watching the clock run and run and run ... and they snap the ball with 6 seconds left.
All's well. They get the win. But ... what if the ball is dropped? Three seconds left and they go for the FG? They go for the win, again?
Was it a big risk, letting the clock run that far down? Maybe it's a nuance ... interested to hear thought. Was anyone else a little perplexed?
Maybe I am unsure of the rule, but wouldn't it simply go to the next period?
This wasn't a one period thing, right?
OT in regular season is simply a one period OT, with a tie definitely in order.
Unless you are Tony Romo who thinks you can do 2 plays in 9 seconds. That would be stupid to try that in the SB.
Then they ran a play which was incomplete leaving 6 seconds left on the clock and Romo says that the Chiefs can't go for it again it's too risky with just 6 seconds left.
Lol that cracked me up too
Then they ran a play which was incomplete leaving 6 seconds left on the clock and Romo says that the Chiefs can't go for it again it's too risky with just 6 seconds left.
He was a complete moron last night. That "analysis" was as dumbfounding a thing as I've ever heard. Nantz wasn't much better.
The center almost cost them the game the play prior. He gave mahomes a dirt ball while he was in shotgun. They weren't going to risk it.
I agree there was time.
The bigger concern was the "what if" stuff like a tipped ball or batted up in air or fumbled snap. They seem to be having some low snaps all night too.
Quote:
6 seconds is absolutely enough time for a fade or a slant. the prior play took 4 seconds. I think you have to give yourself the chance to win there.
I agree there was time.
The bigger concern was the "what if" stuff like a tipped ball or batted up in air or fumbled snap. They seem to be having some low snaps all night too.
On the other hand, Kadarius Toney wasn't playing so that lowers the overall risk on KC of somebody doing something really stupid to fck up the game.
KC down there at the very end of overtime and they're not using a timeout. I'm watching the clock run and run and run ... and they snap the ball with 6 seconds left.
All's well. They get the win. But ... what if the ball is dropped? Three seconds left and they go for the FG? They go for the win, again?
Was it a big risk, letting the clock run that far down? Maybe it's a nuance ... interested to hear thought. Was anyone else a little perplexed?
If the clock runs out in OT you switch sides of the field like you do from 1st quarter to 2nd quarter, same down and distance. The clock doesn't mean anything in playoff OT.
With 10 seconds left, the Chiefs most likely thought that they would have two chances at the endzone and wanted to minimize time spent for the first play to have time left enough for a second shot. That meant that Kelce (on a play that worked last week) was the only target in that instance or it was going to be a throw away to preserve enough time for a second play, which actually did work since it only took 4 seconds. If he would have looked off Kelce and thrown it to Rice, it may have been a 6-8 second play, leaving no time for a second play.
Hindsight is 20/20 and knowing they didn't even go for a second play but instead kicked a FG with 6 seconds left, Mahomes should have thrown it to Rice, but in that moment, it was Kelce or no one else.
Quote:
some explanation on this.
KC down there at the very end of overtime and they're not using a timeout. I'm watching the clock run and run and run ... and they snap the ball with 6 seconds left.
All's well. They get the win. But ... what if the ball is dropped? Three seconds left and they go for the FG? They go for the win, again?
Was it a big risk, letting the clock run that far down? Maybe it's a nuance ... interested to hear thought. Was anyone else a little perplexed?
Maybe I am unsure of the rule, but wouldn't it simply go to the next period?
This wasn't a one period thing, right?
Yes, game would have continued until KC's possession was over.
Talked to my buddy about this earlier. A day later its easy to question the decision and especially now that I have a better understanding of the OT change in the playoffs.
I have seen multiple 49ers quoted as not knowing the new rules. And the KC folks have been discussing playoff OT all season and had an OT discussion every day leading up to the Super Bowl. KCs plan, if they won the toss was to defer and then chase to the points and go for 2, if they were chasing a TD. If SF had known the new rule, maybe they defer the kick and chase the points
Quote:
was SF kicking in OT. If they missed on 4th down they have the Chiefs pinned down at the goaline.
Talked to my buddy about this earlier. A day later its easy to question the decision and especially now that I have a better understanding of the OT change in the playoffs.
I have seen multiple 49ers quoted as not knowing the new rules. And the KC folks have been discussing playoff OT all season and had an OT discussion every day leading up to the Super Bowl. KCs plan, if they won the toss was to defer and then chase to the points and go for 2, if they were chasing a TD. If SF had known the new rule, maybe they defer the kick and chase the points
The guy who caught the game winning TD for KC admitted he didn't know the game was over when he caught it.
The coaches are the ones who need to know, and Shanahan did. The players didn't decide whether to kickoff or receive. Shanahan explained his rationale for the decision. You can disagree with it all day, but there is no basis to conclude that the coach didn't know the rule.
Quote:
some explanation on this.
KC down there at the very end of overtime and they're not using a timeout. I'm watching the clock run and run and run ... and they snap the ball with 6 seconds left.
All's well. They get the win. But ... what if the ball is dropped? Three seconds left and they go for the FG? They go for the win, again?
Was it a big risk, letting the clock run that far down? Maybe it's a nuance ... interested to hear thought. Was anyone else a little perplexed?
Maybe I am unsure of the rule, but wouldn't it simply go to the next period?
This wasn't a one period thing, right?
I get that IF the Chiefs kicked it there for 3, it goes to a second period.
So the fact they ran the clock down to almost appear to force them to hurry ... makes no sense to me. If they score a TD they win ... with the clock winding down at 6 seconds, if they don't score there and time runs out? They lose.
Was it ballsy as hell?
Quote:
In comment 16396297 Beezer said:
Quote:
some explanation on this.
KC down there at the very end of overtime and they're not using a timeout. I'm watching the clock run and run and run ... and they snap the ball with 6 seconds left.
All's well. They get the win. But ... what if the ball is dropped? Three seconds left and they go for the FG? They go for the win, again?
Was it a big risk, letting the clock run that far down? Maybe it's a nuance ... interested to hear thought. Was anyone else a little perplexed?
Maybe I am unsure of the rule, but wouldn't it simply go to the next period?
This wasn't a one period thing, right?
Yes, game would have continued until KC's possession was over.
That doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying if time expired there in the first OT period, they run the clock back and KC continues? How is that possible?
KC down there at the very end of overtime and they're not using a timeout. I'm watching the clock run and run and run ... and they snap the ball with 6 seconds left.
All's well. They get the win. But ... what if the ball is dropped? Three seconds left and they go for the FG? They go for the win, again?
Was it a big risk, letting the clock run that far down? Maybe it's a nuance ... interested to hear thought. Was anyone else a little perplexed?
My understanding — which could be wrong — is that under the new post-season OT rules, both teams get to possess the ball, and the clock can't run out on either team's first possession. So if one team starts the OT with an 8 minute drive, and the other team is still driving as the 15-minute period expires, it's treated like the end of the first quarter: The teams switch ends and play resumes.
That's why KC wasn't sweating the clock as the 15-minute OT was winding down. The clock wasn't going to run out on their drive.
If KC had kicked a field goal to tie the game, it would have been sudden death OT from then on. In theory, I guess, they could play out a scoreless 15-minute OT for the rest of the period, and I believe if that happened there'd be a second "halftime" break and then they'd kick off for a 3rd OT.
I would love to see that happen in a Super Bowl just to see how the TV network would handle it. No big "halftime" show with Usher. The game would be going very, VERY late. I assume they have deals for those contingencies with advertisers, but it'd be a headache for them. And the halftime show gang would have to vamp/analyze for a normal 12-minute halftime.
It's nearly impossible, though, because by the time the teams have played most of an extra half, the players would be exhausted and there'd be a defensive breakdown. It's not like hockey, or baseball under the original extra innings rule, where once a game went into OT/extra innings, scoreless periods and very long games were fairly common. At some point, in NFL football, guys' muscles are just spent.