49ers Players didn't understand OT rules

[Dunnie]

I think it's a bad strategy. The team getting it second knows exactly what they have to do, and can freely call plays knowing they can use all 4 downs. 
Chiefs planning to go for 2 regardless shows Reid has the advantage in coaching strategy since Kyle's reasoning is nullified.

It's today's race competition version of the game where the officiating and rules are totally biased in favor of the offense .. I concur.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[jamesr]

13 hours ago, Drums said:

I don’t see the big deal with players not knowing because the coaches need to know and call the game the correct way. 

Agree 100%.

From NFL.com ...

Quote

 

Juszczyk doesn't see what difference a larger focus on postseason overtime rules ahead of time would make.

"That changes nothing for me as a player, whatsoever," the fullback told the San Francisco Chronicle's Michael Silver. "If I know the rule or don't know the rule, I'm trying to do the exact same thing on the field. It's just people looking for a way to s--- on (Shanahan)."

 

The coach had the strategy determined in advance, having given it the amount of thought he felt it needed. He didn't feel he needed to run through the detail with his team. Do they really need to know all that, and try to retain it in their minds all week, when it's all ifs and buts?

Coaches coach and deal with the game planning. Players play and focus on execution. SF were within ONE YARD of winning the Superbowl. Overblown non-story if you ask me. Sure, you can question the strategy, but I don't see the big deal about the players not knowing it.

[#27TheDominator]

22 hours ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

The 3rd possession is sudden death (basically like OT used to be until a few years ago).  

Though Andy Reid said if SF scored 7 and then KC got a TD, he'd have gone for 2.  Of course, if they both had gotten FGs (or 0's), then SF would've had the upper hand with this strategy.

More than just the third possession, there is also the time issue to consider.  Getting the ball first gives you way more control.  The Chiefs barely got the TD in within the time period.  Taking the ball gives you more control, particularly with the timing.  To tell the truth the rules about whether it is sudden death are kind of confusing.  They mention it for regular season, but not post-season here.

[TuscanyTile2]

35 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

More than just the third possession, there is also the time issue to consider.  Getting the ball first gives you way more control.  The Chiefs barely got the TD in within the time period.  Taking the ball gives you more control, particularly with the timing.  To tell the truth the rules about whether it is sudden death are kind of confusing.  They mention it for regular season, but not post-season here.

I don't think that time was an issue.  The only thing relevant about the clock afaik, was the change of what EZ each team was defending (which obviously changes after the end of a quarter, and could affect FG attempts and potentially there might be a "loud side of the stadium").  But I don't think KC was under any time pressure to win the game before the OT quarter expired (and there were only a few seconds left).  Unless I'm misunderstanding the rules, the game would've gone to a 2nd OT (and a 3rd, 4th, etc) if needed, regardless of whether SF had the lead at the time the quarter expired.  

[#27TheDominator]

5 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

I don't think that time was an issue.  The only thing relevant about the clock afaik, was the change of what EZ each team was defending (which obviously changes after the end of a quarter, and could affect FG attempts and potentially the might be a "loud side of the stadium").  But I don't think KC was under any time pressure to win the game before the OT quarter expired (and there were only a few seconds left).  Unless I'm misunderstanding the rules, the game would've gone to a 2nd OT (and a 3rd, 4th, etc) if needed, regardless of whether SF had the lead at the time the quarter expired.  

I agree, but read the rules I posted.  They aren't clear.  I assume the teams got more clarity than the nonsense that I posted.  It shouldn't say if the score is still tied at the end of the period.  It should say if neither team has scored.  Also, why do 2 minute timing rule apply on 2nd and 4th OT periods if they are not going to change possession?  Who gives a flaming **** if they can simply wait it out and start with the new quarter?  If the rules posted on NFL.com are all there is I would lgo full lawyer about it if I were the Niners.  It's probably what Mecole Hardman read.

[TuscanyTile2]

7 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

I agree, but read the rules I posted.  They aren't clear.  I assume the teams got more clarity than the nonsense that I posted.  It shouldn't say if the score is still tied at the end of the period.  It should say if neither team has scored.  Also, why do 2 minute timing rule apply on 2nd and 4th OT periods if they are not going to change possession?  Who gives a flaming **** if they can simply wait it out and start with the new quarter?  If the rules posted on NFL.com are all there is I would lgo full lawyer about it if I were the Niners.  It's probably what Mecole Hardman read.

I would assume that they try to keep time accurately because of the change of direction at the end of quarters.  I'd also guess that time can run out at the end of the 6th OT (halftime) or 8th OT (end of the 4th quarter) and so you'd need to score before then or else there would be a kickoff.

[PFSIKH]

44 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

More than just the third possession, there is also the time issue to consider.  Getting the ball first gives you way more control.  The Chiefs barely got the TD in within the time period.  Taking the ball gives you more control, particularly with the timing.  To tell the truth the rules about whether it is sudden death are kind of confusing.  They mention it for regular season, but not post-season here.

Yeah, but...

I understand your point.  I actually agree. 

Probably in most cases it applies.  In this case the rules state the game would have continued to a second OT.  "If the score is still tied at the end of an overtime period — or if the second team’s initial possession has not ended — the teams will play another overtime period. "

 

[#27TheDominator]

Just now, PFSIKH said:

Yeah, but...

I understand your point.  I actually agree. 

Probably in most cases it applies.  In this case the rules state the game would have continued to a second OT.  "If the score is still tied at the end of an overtime period — or if the second team’s initial possession has not ended — the teams will play another overtime period. "

 

Right.  The Chiefs would have kept the ball.  No doubt about that.  It's still stupidly written.  Bottom line is that If it is sudden death after the 1st possession, having the 3rd possession is monumental and anybody passing on it is an idiot.  Andy Reid saying he'd go for 2 is meaningless.

[PFSIKH]

37 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Right.  The Chiefs would have kept the ball.  No doubt about that.  It's still stupidly written.  Bottom line is that If it is sudden death after the 1st possession, having the 3rd possession is monumental and anybody passing on it is an idiot.  Andy Reid saying he'd go for 2 is meaningless.

I always agreed with your original point.  I do not see why there was so much criticism of Shannahan over taking the ball.  What was it, the last 6 or 7 drives of both teams resulted in scores?  

You can tell it is confusing it actually made sense to me.  Might be my years of reading gov documents.  🤣

[#27TheDominator]

10 minutes ago, PFSIKH said:

I always agreed with your original point.  I do not see why there was so much criticism of Shannahan over taking the ball.  What was it, the last 6 or 7 drives of both teams resulted in scores?  

You can tell it is confusing it actually made sense to me.  Might be my years of reading gov documents.  🤣

Been there.  Done that.  Complained that they changed what I wrote to this moronic sh*t in clearance.

Why does the regular season rule say: 

• Sudden death play — where the game ends on any score (safety, field goal or touchdown) — continues until a winner is determined.

with no mention in the post-season rules which add:

• If the score is still tied at the end of an overtime period — or if the second team’s initial possession has not ended — the teams will play another overtime period. Play will continue regardless of how many overtime periods are needed for a winner to be determined.

How can the score be tied?  If nobody scores sure, but if a team scores does that end the game or can the other team tie it?  We know the answer but this doesn't seem to followthat.  There is no mention of sudden death or first score winning.  Why would it say "overtime periods" instead of "until a team scores?"  Poorly written.  I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!

[DonCorleone]

On 2/13/2024 at 12:31 AM, Fantasy Island said:

Bobby Saleh comes from this coaching tree.  

Makes sense.

Yet we will never even sniff a SB with him. 

[PepPep]

On 2/13/2024 at 3:58 AM, JoeNamathsFurCoat said:

Ouch.

Keep up those speeches and slogans, Bobby.

The Jets “CEO” head coach is good with his team getting clowned 🤡 so long as Woody’s checks clear

 

Charvarius....

[JetsFlyer]

did the 49ers take a team vote to take the ball or not in OT.. wtf does not knowing rules have to do with anything?

(3) three and outs in a row to start the 2nd half for 9ers...then a muffed punt  not buying the D lost this game

[Prodigal Syndicate]

 

[batman10023]

On 2/13/2024 at 11:32 AM, August said:

They did the right thing. Get the ball first and score and pray your defense stops them. Obviously it didn’t work. 

i would rather get the ball second.  reason being -

if the other team scores either FG/TD -  you know exactly what you need - always 4 down territory.

but also, if you are able to stop the other team and they have to put from their 30, you are potentially in a very good scenario to just need a FG.  

[August]

58 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

i would rather get the ball second.  reason being -

if the other team scores either FG/TD -  you know exactly what you need - always 4 down territory.

but also, if you are able to stop the other team and they have to put from their 30, you are potentially in a very good scenario to just need a FG.  

Yeah but I’m not giving the ball to Mahomes first. I can see if this was Daniel Jones. 

[jamesr]

16 hours ago, batman10023 said:

i would rather get the ball second.  reason being -

if the other team scores either FG/TD -  you know exactly what you need - always 4 down territory.

but also, if you are able to stop the other team and they have to put from their 30, you are potentially in a very good scenario to just need a FG.  

There's also the small, but non-zero, value of a defensive TD (or safety, I think) ends it there and then.

You can win in playoff OT without your offense taking the field, but you cannot lose without your offense seeing the field.

[batman10023]

21 hours ago, August said:

Yeah but I’m not giving the ball to Mahomes first. I can see if this was Daniel Jones. 

Why does giving him the ball first matter?

[August]

On 2/16/2024 at 1:43 PM, batman10023 said:

Why does giving him the ball first matter?

Because the context matters. 49ers defense was just on the field for a long drive at the end of regulation. They needed a break, secondly we all knew KC was going to score a TD. Why put the pressure of matching that with Purdy. It’s better to hope to score first preferably a TD and hope your defense can stop them. The strategy was fine.