haven't checked how much this was discussed, but how much else is there to talk about at this pt

last drive of 4th felt like Chiefs were only playcalling to get into/improve FG position and never really took shots to win it in regulation, :06 on the clock from inside the 5 was plenty of time for a quick endzone shot, plus a bailout TO, but they concede to a FG to tie

end of OT also seemed they were just waiting for SF to finally stop them on 3rd down so they could kick it to extend the game further but kept finding holes to drive deep into redzone, then 1st and goal with >30sec and two timeouts left they let the clock run all the way down under 10 for a single shot at the win which they lucked out on miscoverage, if that play doesn't get in there'd only be time left for one play forcing them to kick for double OT
absolutely no reason to run down clock on 1st down since SF won't get the ball back after a TD anyways

despite how it worked out inexcusable for them to not use a timeout to give them 3 potential shots for the sudden death W before having to kick for tie

safety guy said:

---

One thing is for sure. The nfl and broadcast partners need to do a better job of explaining the overtime rules. The amount of confusion is off the charts. Heck even Maurice Jones Drew after the game on the NFL Network post game show was thinking the Chiefs were going to run out of time in ot. . I was amazed he did not know the rule and he works in pro football. I follow football and knew the rule but hearing mjd last night and reading multiple comments during the game, it was clear that the league and broadcast partners need to do a better job of explaining.

---

Yeah they said it's a brand new game and didn't really clarify after that

EliteZags said:

---

haven't checked how much this was discussed, but how much else is there to talk about at this pt

last drive of 4th felt like Chiefs were only playcalling to get into/improve FG position and never really took shots to win it in regulation, :06 on the clock from inside the 5 was plenty of time for a quick endzone shot, plus a bailout TO, but they concede to a FG to tie

end of OT also seemed they were just waiting for SF to finally stop them on 3rd down so they could kick it to extend the game further but kept finding holes to drive deep into redzone, then 1st and goal with >30sec and two timeouts left they let the clock run all the way down under 10 for a single shot at the win which they lucked out on miscoverage, if that play doesn't get in there'd only be time left for one play forcing them to kick for double OT
absolutely no reason to run down clock on 1st down since SF won't get the ball back after a TD anyways

despite how it worked out inexcusable for them to not use a timeout to give them 3 potential shots for the sudden death W before having to kick for tie

---

I totally disagree. You can lose the game a lot easier with 6 seconds than win it. (Ask Dan Campbell)

Turns out this was the way to go.

Quote:

---

end of OT also seemed they were just waiting for SF to finally stop them on 3rd down so they could kick it to extend the game further but kept finding holes to drive deep into redzone, t

---

not sure if serious

It's an interesting scenario... I doubt anybody on the broadcast side thought it would take more than 1 OT Quarter so it wasn't worth mentioning (and technically, it didn't take more than one OT Quarter).

For me, it was pretty obvious what the rules were watching how laid back KC was once it got under 1 minute. But I bet there were quite a few KC fans freaking the heck out. "Call a time out, what are you doing!?!!!!".

gougler08 said:

---

EliteZags said:

---

suppose the bigger story is the Niners players not even knowing the new OT rules until after choosing to receive thinking they could get in the endzone to end the game, where if they knew in playoffs the other team gets a possession regardless you'd always choose to kick so you'd know whether a FG/TD would be needed after getting the ball

---

Except if you get the ball first and both teams score equally (FG or TD) then you get the ball back with any score winning the game.

Pros and cons to both ways

---

well Niners players admitted to not realizing the rule until it was shown on the jumbotron, so seems they would've chosen to kickoff instead, but ended up settling for a FG on inside the 10

EliteZags said:

---

gougler08 said:

---

EliteZags said:

---

suppose the bigger story is the Niners players not even knowing the new OT rules until after choosing to receive thinking they could get in the endzone to end the game, where if they knew in playoffs the other team gets a possession regardless you'd always choose to kick so you'd know whether a FG/TD would be needed after getting the ball

---

Except if you get the ball first and both teams score equally (FG or TD) then you get the ball back with any score winning the game.

Pros and cons to both ways

---

well Niners players admitted to not realizing the rule until it was shown on the jumbotron, so seems they would've chosen to kickoff instead, but ended up settling for a FG on inside the 10

---

Except the coaches DID know the rule and had predetermined that they would go on offense first to allow themselves to have the ball for the third possession. Where it fell apart was Chris Jones pressuring Purdy into throwing the ball away and having to settle for a FG. Then Mahomes did his thing and the Chiefs won.

The Niners players admitted that they didn't know the rules, while Mahomes said the Chiefs had that rule drilled into them for weeks and even practiced that exact situation.

safety guy said:

---

One thing is for sure. The nfl and broadcast partners need to do a better job of explaining the overtime rules. The amount of confusion is off the charts. Heck even Maurice Jones Drew after the game on the NFL Network post game show was thinking the Chiefs were going to run out of time in ot. . I was amazed he did not know the rule and he works in pro football. I follow football and knew the rule but hearing mjd last night and reading multiple comments during the game, it was clear that the league and broadcast partners need to do a better job of explaining.

---

MJD didn't know and even now many of the talking heads still don't quite understand the rule and why SF made the choice they did to go on offense.

And they glom on to Hardeman's comment about not knowing they'd won as him not knowing the rule despite Mahomes saying they had been taught how the new rule works.

4th quarter they took a shot and it could have been picked by the LB who easily knocked it down

Yeah they mad the right call to kick with 6 seconds left

EliteZags said:

---

gougler08 said:

---

EliteZags said:

---

suppose the bigger story is the Niners players not even knowing the new OT rules until after choosing to receive thinking they could get in the endzone to end the game, where if they knew in playoffs the other team gets a possession regardless you'd always choose to kick so you'd know whether a FG/TD would be needed after getting the ball

---

Except if you get the ball first and both teams score equally (FG or TD) then you get the ball back with any score winning the game.

Pros and cons to both ways

---

well Niners players admitted to not realizing the rule until it was shown on the jumbotron, so seems they would've chosen to kickoff instead, but ended up settling for a FG on inside the 10

---

coaches knew. Kyle wanted the ball. Players played the same either way

So, if you take the ball and score a TD, the other team can score a TD and go for 2 and win, correct?

Wasn't that KCs plan?

Southlake said:

---

So, if you take the ball and score a TD, the other team can score a TD and go for 2 and win, correct?

Wasn't that KCs plan?

---

Correct, and yes, Reid said that was their plan.