Jack Cheese said:

---

Divining Rod said:

---

great point from Aston 04 on why SF took ball first. I didnt think about the D tired argument, but the point about getting the first sudden death possession after a tied "first possession" by each team is indeed the point that trumps.

---

Since you were such a jerk on your previous post, I'll point out that Romo "literally" said that a reason for taking the ball first is to give a tired defense a rest. "Maybe English as a first language" is something you should work on.

I was the one who stated this thread. What probably happens is (stay with me here...) people talk a lot while watching the Super Bowl - especially during an exciting, close one, so they miss stuff that is explained by the commentators.

---

Amen.

What's that guy's excuse for Romo's lame-a** reason of wanting rest for taking the ball first? 100% was wrong - as reflected by post-game coaching comments and by common sense. Should I get my ears checked to re-hear Romo's incorrect reasoning on that? TV just screwed the pooch on ot. And that's ok. But is what it is.

another issue with Shanahan's strategy...

the best QB in the game was on the opposing sidelines

very few defenses are going to stop Mahomes when he has 4 downs to make 10 yards...and knows it before the drive begins.

Shanahan took a big gamble (and lost) thinking his defense would or could hold KC to a field goal...and thus force the "extra" sudden death possession

Aston04 said:

---

Jack Cheese said:

---

Divining Rod said:

---

great point from Aston 04 on why SF took ball first. I didnt think about the D tired argument, but the point about getting the first sudden death possession after a tied "first possession" by each team is indeed the point that trumps.

---

Since you were such a jerk on your previous post, I'll point out that Romo "literally" said that a reason for taking the ball first is to give a tired defense a rest. "Maybe English as a first language" is something you should work on.

I was the one who stated this thread. What probably happens is (stay with me here...) people talk a lot while watching the Super Bowl - especially during an exciting, close one, so they miss stuff that is explained by the commentators.

---

Amen.

What's that guy's excuse for Romo's lame-a** reason of wanting rest for taking the ball first? 100% was wrong - as reflected by post-game coaching comments and by common sense. Should I get my ears checked to re-hear Romo's incorrect reasoning on that? TV just screwed the pooch on ot. And that's ok. But is what it is.

---

Romo was speculating. Nothing wrong with that. There is and will be a lot of second guessing and different comments about the situation but the fact is that this was the FIRST game played with these overtime rules so we were in uncharted territory. Any decision that Shannahan made would have been second guessed if they lost. As far as romo's comment on not having the defense back in the field first sounded like a great comment. He didn't know, but no one knew because we had never been in that situation before.

Fans are stupid and blame the networks. Got it.

Jack Cheese said:

---

Divining Rod said:

---

great point from Aston 04 on why SF took ball first. I didnt think about the D tired argument, but the point about getting the first sudden death possession after a tied "first possession" by each team is indeed the point that trumps.

---

Since you were such a jerk on your previous post, I'll point out that Romo "literally" said that a reason for taking the ball first is to give a tired defense a rest. "Maybe English as a first language" is something you should work on.

I was the one who stated this thread. What probably happens is (stay with me here...) people talk a lot while watching the Super Bowl - especially during an exciting, close one, so they miss stuff that is explained by the commentators.

---

i guess i'll have to be a jerk to you on two more points since you're wrong on both and really not thinking clear:

1) yes, i acknowledged the tired D comment (do u even read???) but agreed with Aston's great point about the 3rd possession having the sudden death advantage. And this point was ACTUALLY CONFIRMED by SF's coach. so sit down.

2). Yes, people DO talk and party and not listen to half the broadcast, but if the same people who do THAT, then run to the internet complaining about what the broadcasters DIDNT SAY, then theyre idiots, and they were probably at your little super bowl party.

ps above, when i said i didnt think about the D tired argument (before Romo said it) i didnt say i didn't hear Romo say that. i said i didnt think about that (meaning before he said it, and i thiught it was a good point). Reading AND thinking. Try it.

I found it humorous the rule was changed because mahommes beat Allen and they didn't get a chance with the ball and the first time it is applied mahommes gets the ball and gets a walk off touchdown.

ldg397 said:

---

I found it humorous the rule was changed because mahommes beat Allen and they didn't get a chance with the ball and the first time it is applied mahommes gets the ball and gets a walk off touchdown.

---

I liked the OT rules especially for Super Bowl. But it is nonsensical that the final resolution is sudden death after 60 minutes plus two possessions with unlimited time in effect for both possessions and then sudden death. But it was great TV.

Why are the rules so confusing to some of yall? Its the regular season overtime rules EXCEPT a TD by the team with the first possession doesn't instantly end the game and the OT period can't end in a tie.

W said:

---

another issue with Shanahan's strategy...

the best QB in the game was on the opposing sidelines

very few defenses are going to stop Mahomes when he has 4 downs to make 10 yards...and knows it before the drive begins.

Shanahan took a big gamble (and lost) thinking his defense would or could hold KC to a field goal...and thus force the "extra" sudden death possession

---

SF almost scored the TD to end the game If you give KC the ball to start and they score a TD that would be a coaching "mistake" you'd never live down probably would be bigger than C Weber calling TO when he didn't have any left

Sq 17 said:

---

W said:

---

another issue with Shanahan's strategy...

the best QB in the game was on the opposing sidelines

very few defenses are going to stop Mahomes when he has 4 downs to make 10 yards...and knows it before the drive begins.

Shanahan took a big gamble (and lost) thinking his defense would or could hold KC to a field goal...and thus force the "extra" sudden death possession

---

SF almost scored the TD to end the game If you give KC the ball to start and they score a TD that would be a coaching "mistake" you'd never live down probably would be bigger than C Weber calling TO when he didn't have any left

---

Both teams are guaranteed at least one possession.

The game would not have been over if SF had scored the TD.

Yeah that's not how it works anymore. Go back and read the rest of the thread.

I'm not sure if I want the ball first or not there. Depends on the type of game you've been playing so far I guess. If both teams score you get the first shot at sudden death. But kicking you get the first real shot on a stop or FG like last night.

The old college rules were just the best.

Aston04 said:

---

spherical said:

---

He literally said "for everyone screaming about the clock right now…."

---

while they were showing a replay of the previous play and not showing what's the hell is going on, while people are freaking out bc they hadn't explained it prior?

Yeah that's good execution.

---

I dunno what to tell ya… the guys were meandering to line… and just as I thought "what the hell?"… Romo explained it.


Also- freaking out? Whew unless you're a born and bred chiefs fan… let's take a step back?

LB12Diamond said:

---

Romo was to busy going off on one of his tangents and talking through almost every play.

---

Romo missed an opportunity to talk about how Chief's superior understanding of the playoff overtime rules gave them better "leverage". I'm sure he'd love to squeeze that word in one more time during the broadcast and just couldn't figure out how.

spherical said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

spherical said:

---

He literally said "for everyone screaming about the clock right now…."

---

while they were showing a replay of the previous play and not showing what's the hell is going on, while people are freaking out bc they hadn't explained it prior?

Yeah that's good execution.

---

I dunno what to tell ya… the guys were meandering to line… and just as I thought "what the hell?"… Romo explained it.


Also- freaking out? Whew unless you're a born and bred chiefs fan… let's take a step back?

---

We live in Missouri. Yes, rooting for the Chiefs.

Although, when I say freaking out... I mean wtf is going on... there's less than 15 seconds, clock is running and they are just showing a replay, not showing the team quickly get ready.

It was very confusing and then everyone in the room shared their wtf is going on conversation?



My sole contention is they presented the new OT rule info very poorly, as evidenced by so many people (simply on here alone) getting confused. Even apparently some of the NFL network guys didn't know what was going on... It's not even debatable - that obviously happened. The tv crew didn't even bother trying to explain the OT rules before the ref was talking to the players. Given they were different than normal, one would think they would have had a package ready to go explain? I even had a conversation with my wife after the ref explanation--- did he just say BOTH teams get the ball? Then the OT clock ---- again in regular season, it's meaningful.. Probably worthwhile making a point about that as the Chiefs were driving, not right before scoring...They just screwed up the coverage all around.

Jack Cheese said:

---

What the hell was Andy Reid thinking?!? Commentators missed it, but watch the clock on the last 2 plays.

Kelce gets 1st down inside the 10 with about 40 seconds to go. Chiefs leave 2 TOs on the board while the clock runs down to :06 before the last play. Luckily for KC the play went for a TD.

They could have run at least 4 plays given that they had 2 time outs. But they put it all on one play. Absolutely CRIMINAL clock mismanagement. I'm utterly shocked that no one seemed to catch this.

Edit: thanks for the explanation! I thought I was losing my mind. The new rules are pretty foreign to me.

---

If you don't understand something, it might be a good idea to learn about it before you bash someone that actually knows the rules.

LB12Diamond said:

---

They would have just set the clock 15:00 more minutes.

Game clock not really needed unless the thinking was giving both teams a break after 15:00 minutes of play.

---

They would also swap ends of the field just like any other qtr ending.

LB12Diamond said:

---

Romo was to busy going off on one of his tangents and talking through almost every play.

---

Romo explained it clearly and I understood it before the last play. Not sure what the fuss is about.

LincolnBorglum79 said:

---

The only purpose of the clock running in playoffs overtime is to limit timeouts to 3 per team for each 2 quarter period. I assume the second quarter has a 2 minute warning and is like a third "half". Like the ref said it's like a new game. We may never know unless a game goes that long.

---

That's not the only purpose. Years ago, while they were still in sudden death rules, the Raiders/Colts "ghost to the post" game went to the second OT period. A few seconds prior to the end of the first period when the Colts still had the ball, Madden called a TO which forced the Colts to punt into the wind rather than running out the clock and punting with the wind. So the change of ends at the quarter, as in regulation, as well as clock management techniques as in regulation, serves as a purpose.

LOL at anyone that honestly thinks the game would have ended at the first OT and ended in a tie. I mean good lord.

Anagrammatic Nudist said:

---

LOL at anyone that honestly thinks the game would have ended at the first OT and ended in a tie. I mean good lord.

---

Literally no one thinks it would have ended in a tie.