Super bowl overtime rules

[El guapo]

The niners won the coin flip in overtime. They chose to receive. Big mistake. Why?

When they kicked the field goal, the chiefs went into four down football mode. Even good quarterbacks go right down the field playing with four downs. Giving Mahomes that advantage was dumb.

Or am I way off base?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[TheCincinnatiKid]

I think you could argue this either way really. The counter would be that if the Niners go out and kick a FG on the 1st drive... if the defence (which had been good mostly all night) keeps the Chiefs to a FG as well, then you get a shot at a FG drive to win it all and there's nothing Mahomes can do at that point.

Whereas if you send Mahomes out first, the Niners then likely need to win it on their first OT drive (or Mahomes only needs a FG drive to win it after).

I think with the above in mind I agree with what the Niners did, however the trade off that Mahomes is in 4 down mode for almost all of the following drive is a big one.

[Bengalitis]

The stronger, better team won, the chiefs could have easily gone 4 and out. They did not and they won, they were the better team.

[cinci4life]

I think it had more to do with the 49ers defense just being on the field for the KC FG drive and giving them a chance to rest instead of the throwing them right back out there.

[*Nately120*]

I have to admit Tony Romo pointing out that the Chiefs didn't have to score before the clock ran out on "quarter 1" of OT blew my mind.  I was pretty confused before that.

(02-12-2024, 10:14 AM)cinci4life Wrote: I think it had more to do with the 49ers defense just being on the field for the KC FG drive and giving them a chance to rest instead of the throwing them right back out there.

This.  The 49ers made the right call, they just didn't get the TD after that lucky defensive holding saving them from going 3 and out to start OT.

[TecmoBengals]

(02-12-2024, 12:31 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I have to admit Tony Romo pointing out that the Chiefs didn't have to score before the clock ran out on "quarter 1" of OT blew my mind.  I was pretty confused before that.

Likewise, he didn't get a chance to expand his thoughts since the Chiefs immediately ended the game with a victory.

[CKwi88]

I'm sure the 49ers are paying a guy much more than I make to think about this, but I see absolutely no reason to take the ball with these overtime rules.

Your absolute best outcome is scoring a touchdown. Cool, you're up 7 and force the other team to tie. Or you get 3, which is nice, but even then the other team can win with a TD or force true sudden death. In that case it is decent because you get the first possession of sudden death.

However, you can also go three and out and potentially leave a short field where the opponent only has to score 3 to win the game. Or a fumble, or an interception or a bad snap or any other fluke to potentially lose the game on the spot.

I think it boils down in my mind it to the fact that you simply cannot, by definition of the overtime rules, win the game outright if you possess the ball first. If you put your defense out there you can win the game outright with a defensive score. You can put yourself in a high probability win scenario by forcing a turnover or a quick 3 and out and then needing only a field goal. You have a chance to block any potential kick. If your D gives up three you still can win the game on offense, and your offense has the benefit of playing with 4 downs the rest of the way. The team possessing the ball first almost HAS to take 3 if they can, making the play calling more conservative. And worst case scenario you're down seven and need to tie the game, but even then you have the benefit of knowing exactly what you need to do and having 4 downs.

Maybe there's an angle I'm not understanding here. But an oversimplification of probability is # of successful outcomes ÷ # of total outcomes. And I just see more successful outcomes putting your defense on the field first.

[El guapo]

(02-12-2024, 01:41 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I'm sure the 49ers are paying a guy much more than I make to think about this, but I see absolutely no reason to take the ball with these overtime rules.

Your absolute best outcome is scoring a touchdown. Cool, you're up 7 and force the other team to tie. Or you get 3, which is nice, but even then the other team can win with a TD or force true sudden death. In that case it is decent because you get the first possession of sudden death.

However, you can also go three and out and potentially leave a short field where the opponent only has to score 3 to win the game. Or a fumble, or an interception or a bad snap or any other fluke to potentially lose the game on the spot.

I think it boils down in my mind it to the fact that you simply cannot, by definition of the overtime rules, win the game outright if you possess the ball first. If you put your defense out there you can win the game outright with a defensive score. You can put yourself in a high probability win scenario by forcing a turnover or a quick 3 and out and then needing only a field goal. You have a chance to block any potential kick. If your D gives up three you still can win the game on offense, and your offense has the benefit of playing with 4 downs the rest of the way. The team possessing the ball first almost HAS to take 3 if they can, making the play calling more conservative. And worst case scenario you're down seven and need to tie the game, but even then you have the benefit of knowing exactly what you need to do and having 4 downs.

Maybe there's an angle I'm not understanding here. But an oversimplification of probability is # of successful outcomes ÷ # of total outcomes. And I just see more successful outcomes putting your defense on the field first.

I totally agree with this. Maybe the niners never even thought about the overtime scenario.

If you put a great quarterback in four down mode with no time management to consider, he'll carve you up most every time.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[*rfaulk34*]

(02-12-2024, 08:12 AM)El guapo Wrote: The niners won the coin flip in overtime. They chose to receive. Big mistake. Why?

When they kicked the field goal, the chiefs went into four down football mode. Even good quarterbacks go right down the field playing with four downs. Giving Mahomes that advantage was dumb.

Or am I way off base?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

I would have kicked so you know exactly what you need to tie or win.

[Nicomo Cosca]

The 9ers defense was totally gassed after being on the field at the end of regulation. Taking the ball made sense.

[El guapo]

https://sports.yahoo.com/how-kyle-shanahans-49ers-lost-the-super-bowl-after-winning-the-ot-coin-flip-160726090.html

Shanahan faced a decision never before made in Super Bowl history thanks to the new playoff overtime rules, and he proceeded to defer an advantage three posses...

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[TheCincinnatiKid]

(02-12-2024, 01:41 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I'm sure the 49ers are paying a guy much more than I make to think about this, but I see absolutely no reason to take the ball with these overtime rules.

Your absolute best outcome is scoring a touchdown. Cool, you're up 7 and force the other team to tie. Or you get 3, which is nice, but even then the other team can win with a TD or force true sudden death. In that case it is decent because you get the first possession of sudden death.

However, you can also go three and out and potentially leave a short field where the opponent only has to score 3 to win the game. Or a fumble, or an interception or a bad snap or any other fluke to potentially lose the game on the spot.

I think it boils down in my mind it to the fact that you simply cannot, by definition of the overtime rules, win the game outright if you possess the ball first. If you put your defense out there you can win the game outright with a defensive score. You can put yourself in a high probability win scenario by forcing a turnover or a quick 3 and out and then needing only a field goal. You have a chance to block any potential kick. If your D gives up three you still can win the game on offense, and your offense has the benefit of playing with 4 downs the rest of the way. The team possessing the ball first almost HAS to take 3 if they can, making the play calling more conservative. And worst case scenario you're down seven and need to tie the game, but even then you have the benefit of knowing exactly what you need to do and having 4 downs.

Maybe there's an angle I'm not understanding here. But an oversimplification of probability is # of successful outcomes ÷ # of total outcomes. And I just see more successful outcomes putting your defense on the field first.

For me it's short game vs long game.... if you go first you're not really in 4 down territory at any stage (other than say short yard 4th downs), whereas the 2nd team is in 4th down territory for MOST of their drive if they need it (if KC is 4th & 10 in FG range yesterday, they are kicking it I'd have thought, so it's not a full 4 down drive). Advantage to the team that goes 2nd on this front, I agree.

But long game... if it goes to sudden death, you absolutely want to be the team who went first, as you'll only need a FG drive to win the game. That to me is an enormous advantage, but relies on the game going that far. 

Most OT games won't go to sudden death I imagine. This isn't the NHL and OT games 'tend' to reach an end pretty quick, so maybe going first due to the 'sudden death' implications isn't really that meaningful. But I think with yesterday's game... it was a low scoring game with great defence, so it's not that crazy to think they trade FGs on their first drives, and then its huge advantage SF knowing a few first downs wins them the game.

[El guapo]

I'm starting to think they should go to college overtime rules.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[CKwi88]

(02-12-2024, 03:11 PM)TheCincinnatiKid Wrote: For me it's short game vs long game.... if you go first you're not really in 4 down territory at any stage (other than say short yard 4th downs), whereas the 2nd team is in 4th down territory for MOST of their drive if they need it (if KC is 4th & 10 in FG range yesterday, they are kicking it I'd have thought, so it's not a full 4 down drive). Advantage to the team that goes 2nd on this front, I agree.

But long game... if it goes to sudden death, you absolutely want to be the team who went first, as you'll only need a FG drive to win the game. That to me is an enormous advantage, but relies on the game going that far. 

Most OT games won't go to sudden death I imagine. This isn't the NHL and OT games 'tend' to reach an end pretty quick, so maybe going first due to the 'sudden death' implications isn't really that meaningful. But I think with yesterday's game... it was a low scoring game with great defence, so it's not that crazy to think they trade FGs on their first drives, and then its huge advantage SF knowing a few first downs wins them the game.

There is also the added wrinkle that the defenses are going to be gassed going into overtime.

Even with KC having a good defense, I'd much rather their defense be the side to have to win the game instead of the best player currently in the NFL. If Mahomes goes out there first he can't win the game outright. But San Fran only scoring 3 opened the door for Mahomes to do Mahomes things. 

Hindsight is 20/20, but going forward I think that teams will give their defenses a chance to win the game first and then their offenses. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(02-12-2024, 02:56 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: The 9ers defense was totally gassed after being on the field at the end of regulation. Taking the ball made sense.

There was about 10 minutes between the XP, commercials, coin flip and kickoff. I'd have to go back and watch--which i'm not really inspired to do right now...--to find out the exact time, but i'd think they had enough time to catch their breaths. 

[Nicomo Cosca]

(02-12-2024, 03:52 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: There was about 10 minutes between the XP, commercials, coin flip and kickoff. I'd have to go back and watch--which i'm not really inspired to do right now...--to find out the exact time, but i'd think they had enough time to catch their breaths. 

NFL Super Bowl overtime rules 2024
For playoff games, including Super Bowl LVII, OT works like this: Following an intermission of no more than three minutes after the end of the regular game, an extra period of 15 minutes shall commence.

Not sure how long the coin toss took (seemed pretty quick) but it didn’t feel like 10 minutes to me.

[KillerGoose]

(02-12-2024, 04:08 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: NFL Super Bowl overtime rules 2024
For playoff games, including Super Bowl LVII, OT works like this: Following an intermission of no more than three minutes after the end of the regular game, an extra period of 15 minutes shall commence.

Not sure how long the coin toss took (seemed pretty quick) but it didn’t feel like 10 minutes to me.

I have it recorded on YouTube TV. From the FG to the OT kickoff was about seven minutes. From end of regulation to OT kickoff was about five minutes. Some of that was coin flip and whatnot. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(02-12-2024, 04:08 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: NFL Super Bowl overtime rules 2024
For playoff games, including Super Bowl LVII, OT works like this: Following an intermission of no more than three minutes after the end of the regular game, an extra period of 15 minutes shall commence.

Not sure how long the coin toss took (seemed pretty quick) but it didn’t feel like 10 minutes to me.

It's on NFLN right now so i went ahead and timed it. A tick over 7 minutes, so not quite 10 but i'd still kick the ball. 

EDIT: Killer! You son of a... j/k. I started to reply, rewound the game and started my timer then had to go help a couple customers so you beat me to the punch. 

[Nicomo Cosca]

(02-12-2024, 04:25 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It's on NFLN right now so i went ahead and timed it. A tick over 7 minutes, so not quite 10 but i'd still kick the ball. 

EDIT: Killer! You son of a... j/k. I started to reply, rewound the game and started my timer then had to go help a couple customers so you beat me to the punch. 

Fair. I didn’t think it was that long.

[TheCincinnatiKid]

(02-12-2024, 03:51 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: There is also the added wrinkle that the defenses are going to be gassed going into overtime.

Even with KC having a good defense, I'd much rather their defense be the side to have to win the game instead of the best player currently in the NFL. If Mahomes goes out there first he can't win the game outright. But San Fran only scoring 3 opened the door for Mahomes to do Mahomes things. 

Hindsight is 20/20, but going forward I think that teams will give their defenses a chance to win the game first and then their offenses. 

Yeah definitely, might be why the Niners sent the offense out there first. 

Tbh I don't think there's a lot in it either way really, I could argue for both. It's all hindsight and if the Niners send Mahomes out there first, and then they lose on a 'sudden death' drive, people would ask why the didn't take the ball first. 

Ultimately the team that wins will be the team that makes the right plays at the right time. The Chiefs got a good stop when the Niners were in scoring range, and the Niners D gave up a 2nd & 14 without it even going to a 4th down. That decided the OT period way more than the coin toss did.