ESPN says 49ers players did not know the new OT rules

I’m pretty sure I read there would be a halftime though, if it went that long. I suppose they could just pickup from where they left at the end of the 2nd quarter and not have another kickoff. I really have no idea and didn’t see it anywhere. It would have to be a lot of score free football obviously, when all you need is a field goal to win.

There will be a two-minute intermission between each overtime period. There will not be a halftime intermission after the second period.


So lots of coin tosses but it sounds like this possession rule only applies to the first coin toss? So defer on the original coin toss and take the ball on 2nd, 3rd, 4th,… coin tosses. It’s kind of a messy.

There is only 1 coin toss.

ok, I got it now.

At what would be halftime (but it’s only 2 minutes long)…

  • The captain who lost the first overtime coin toss will either choose to possess the ball or select which goal his team will defend, unless the team that won the coin toss deferred that choice.

So like a coin toss, but the original coin toss loser, already won this 2nd coin toss by default. But what about the possession rule?

And then if you end the 4th quarter of the OT game, you get this gem…

  • If there is still no winner at the end of a fourth overtime period, there will be another coin toss, and play will continue until a winner is declared.

A second coin toss, for real this time.

Looking Let Me Think GIF by

1 Like

I am looking at this in its purest mathematical form. I do not normally approach things like that.

But when I remove everything else associated with the decision, being on defense first has the most pure chances of winning. Because its literally impossible to win the game on the first possession on offense. But you CAN win the game the first time on defense. So when you take the ball first, your first chance to win is the other team’s second chance to win…unless the first team scores a TD and gets a 2 point coversion. That levels the playing field and makes the second offense on the field a “non-chance” at winning.

After typing this out a couple ways, I think you have to consider (if I understand you):

A defensive “win” is holding the opponent to either 3 or 0 points.
That requires less of your offense, scoring 3 to beat 0 or 6 to beat 3.
In football terms, you could say the defense won the game in that 1st OT possession (though with some help by the offense in its ensuing possession).

An offensive win is scoring 8.
With that offensive win, though, NOTHING is required of your defense. They could roll over for 75 yards and the 2-point conversion, and your offense will still take the field again, this time in sudden death.

Lots of people think they “knew what they were doing” when they make the wrong decisions.

The 3rd possession stuff is STUPID if team that possesses the ball 2nd has no intention of there being a 3rd possession.

If San Fran scores a TD and kicks extra point, KC has 4 downs to get each 1st down and then goes for 2.

If San Fran scores a FG, KC has 4 downs to get each 1st down and scores a TD to win.

If San Fran commits a turnover has to punt, KC, knowing they are now in sudden death, is more incentivized to use all 4 downs to make 1sts to get into FG range.

The ONLY scenario this makes any sense is if KC gets into FG range and then is sacked on 3rd down, leaving a 4th and super long.

1 Like

When I say “win,” I don’t mean theoretically win. I mean literally walk off the field with a win right then and there. The only way that can be done on the first drive is on defense. Safety…pick 6…fumble return…blocked punt, etc.


Thats true. I guess they were in FG range, but it was almost sloppy.

They had plenty of time to put it away. :man_shrugging:

um THE OFFICIAL EXPLAINED TO YOU very clearly, hell 5 million people watching on TV watched the ref explain to both sides how the OT was going to go…it was damn clear–how could you not know ???

Everyone is doing some serious mental gymnastics to come up with any justification to take the ball first.

You never and I mean never take the ball first in that situation. Only someone who thinks they are the smartest in the room does that. Which totally tracks as Shanny fancies himself a savant. When SF took the ball I immediately was like KC is about to win this game. Because you knew they were gonna score a TD with their possession.


My original response was to take the ball first however, as the rules got fleshed out postgame, for this scenario @Mr.Peabody has changed my mind. You go on defense first.

Season 3 Wall GIF by The Simpsons

1 Like

Plus depending on the score and field location… you’re going to use 4 plays.

1 Like

Exactly. The guys who want the ball first and want to play sudden death

No punts
No FGs
No xtra points

Just doesn’t make sense because if you miss the other team can beat you and not have to do all that. They can kick a FG or XP.

They are saying that the advantage to get the ball 3rd possession to win (if there even is one) is more than

Getting the ball 2nd knowing what you can/can’t do to win.

And I firmly disagree

1 Like

If I had to make the call, I’d defer.
That said, choosing to go 1st isn’t what loses you the game, it’s what you do with the opportunity.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

While my own preference is probably inline with yours, I get choosing the ball 1st. You have to play aggressive. You have to play as though you’re going 2nd and the TD is necessary. That’s the only way it works, unless it’s a defensive show-down. I would be willing to bet MCDC takes the ball 1st.

1 Like

The one thing that I guess that’s being overlooked is wasn’t SF defense on the field a lot the 2nd half because they kept going 3 and out?

Giving them a rest had to be part of the thought process

1 Like

Is it really a given that a team goes for 2 in that scenario? I really don’t know either way. I think Dan would go for 2.

In any case, on your first point: I agree with you. Taking the ball first if you have the choice only confers an advantage if you get the ball third. But, no matter how you slice it, odds are that the game is over after two total possessions. And, as you say, the team getting the ball second can guarantee that that’s the case.

If you play the odds and make decisions AS IF each offense will have only one possession, it’s clearly better to have the ball second.