NFL 2018 AFC Championship Game - New England at Kansas City

[kaiserchief13]

Well you can't exactly lament a certain rule, which is in place for the entire league, when a team lays an egg for half the game - this game wasn't lost on the officiating or the OT rules, it's entirely on KC

Nah maybe maybe not the rule doesn't need to be changed. In the Saints Rams game both teams had a chance with the ball so it's rare that it occurs, but Patriots also won the superbowl vs Atlanta in the same scenario so either the rule needs to be changed or they are very very lucky.

Hopefully superbowl goes to OT Rams win the toss score the TD on the first possession then the NFL changes the rules next season

 

[Southerntakeover]

It's not about offences. Both teams are on the field with a chance to win the game

I don't think that really holds.

Otherwise, why do we even play with two full units of offences and defences? We should just line up one offence and one defence for the entire game and call the winner from that.

We don't do that, because we expect a team to play all three phases, and we understand that it is the complete performance of those three phases that determines a winner. You cannot win a game in regulation by only playing on one phase.

Essentially we have a situation where two teams who have played in all phases have tied. They have not been distinguished in regulation time. We allow the tie to be broken with the performance of only one phase.

That seems inequitable to me, and it doesnt seem to follow any logic. Leaving aside whether the Chiefs could have defended better, why should the Patriots win without defending at all?

It would be akin to a tennis tie breaker where only one player serves, or a soccer penalty shoot out where only one team kicks.

It's inequitable, it's illogical, and it's a terrible way to allow great contests to end. The coin toss is often determinative. It shouldnt be.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Well you can't exactly lament a certain rule, which is in place for the entire league, when a team lays an egg for half the game - this game wasn't lost on the officiating or the OT rules, it's entirely on KC

Nah, this argument's not much good. If the Chiefs were much the worse for one half, they must have been much the better for the other to have tied in regulation.

Neither team in a tie deserves to win more before overtime is played. The only question is whether a fair overtime should be played or not.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Never understood when they changed the OT why both teams were not guaranteed possession. Just as I didn’t understand why this year they reduced OT from 15 mins to 10.

Can only think networks had something to do with it.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Never understood when they changed the OT why both teams were not guaranteed possession. Just as I didn’t understand why this year they reduced OT from 15 mins to 10.

Can only think networks had something to do with it.

You'd think that given that they already modify the rule in playoffs to ensure a winner they could fix it at the least for playoffs.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

I don't think that really holds.

Otherwise, why do we even play with two full units of offences and defences? We should just line up one offence and one defence for the entire game and call the winner from that.

We don't do that, because we expect a team to play all three phases, and we understand that it is the complete performance of those three phases that determines a winner. You cannot win a game in regulation by only playing on one phase.

Essentially we have a situation where two teams who have played in all phases have tied. They have not been distinguished in regulation time. We allow the tie to be broken with the performance of only one phase.

That seems inequitable to me, and it doesnt seem to follow any logic. Leaving aside whether the Chiefs could have defended better, why should the Patriots win without defending at all?

It would be akin to a tennis tie breaker where only one player serves, or a soccer penalty shoot out where only one team kicks.

It's inequitable, it's illogical, and it's a terrible way to allow great contests to end. The coin toss is often determinative. It shouldnt be.

Ok you've persuaded me to an extent

 

[ausbacker]

Never understood when they changed the OT why both teams were not guaranteed possession. Just as I didn’t understand why this year they reduced OT from 15 mins to 10.

Can only think networks had something to do with it.

NFL administrators had the foresight to project New England's OT dominance and subsequent forum meltdowns.

 

[Taylor]

If you have a solid defense you'd back your side to not start with the ball in overtime. They start trying to move the ball 75 yards to touchdown, second down, third down, punt back to you and then you drive fifty yards for a field goal attempt and win.

If you had to score a touchdown it would be a different story but any score being enough and no real time constraints you really only need to block a 75 yard drive which shouldn't be hard.

...unless your offense was off the field for most of the first half and are pooped but that's your own fault.

 

[quotemokc]

If you have a solid defense you'd back your side to not start with the ball in overtime. They start trying to move the ball 75 yards to touchdown, second down, third down, punt back to you and then you drive fifty yards for a field goal attempt and win.

If you had to score a touchdown it would be a different story but any score being enough and no real time constraints you really only need to block a 75 yard drive which shouldn't be hard.

...unless your offense was off the field for most of the first half and are pooped but that's your own fault.

Didn't that backfire on Belichick a few years ago against Denver?

I can't think of any reason to not start with the ball in OT

 

[GreyCrow]

KC had 3 chances at 3 and 10

 

[Cockliff38]

Didn't that backfire on Belichick a few years ago against Denver?

I can't think of any reason to not start with the ball in OT

Yeah against New York - I think there was a wind consideration too, from memory

 

[juice t]

Didn't that backfire on Belichick a few years ago against Denver?

I can't think of any reason to not start with the ball in OT

Nah it was against the Jets in 2015 who promptly went down field and ended the game- Which helped cause the Pats lose the #1 seed

They did do it against the Broncos in 2013 when there was a breeze and it ultimately worked

 

[samFFC]

Well you can't exactly lament a certain rule, which is in place for the entire league, when a team lays an egg for half the game - this game wasn't lost on the officiating or the OT rules, it's entirely on KC

Both teams struggled in first half and dominated second half. I don’t get your point. Both defenses were going to struggle to stop a score.
If KC wins the toss they likely win the game.

 

[samFFC]

If you have a solid defense you'd back your side to not start with the ball in overtime. They start trying to move the ball 75 yards to touchdown, second down, third down, punt back to you and then you drive fifty yards for a field goal attempt and win.

If you had to score a touchdown it would be a different story but any score being enough and no real time constraints you really only need to block a 75 yard drive which shouldn't be hard.

...unless your offense was off the field for most of the first half and are pooped but that's your own fault.

But if neither team has a solid defence then it’s more down to coin toss and clutch offensive play.

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

It doesn't sit well with me that a team can allow the opposition to drive straight down for a TD on the first possession in OT and still be allowed a chance to win the game.

Team sports are not about each player/group having equal opportuniry to contribute, they're about a player or group doing their job when it's their turn to do so and if your D can't get one single stop when the game/season is on the line, then tough t***ies

 

[kirky]

KC had 3 chances at 3 and 10

This is the story - the KC defence had the chance not once but 3 times (3 times the Pats required a 3rd and 10) and they failed each time.

The touchdown shouldn’t occurred if the KC D did it’s job.

Hey, but I’m a happy little camper today and will continue to be for the next two weeks.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

The team who receives first gets the advantage of having an easier route to getting that first score, but the oppo has the advantage of only needing a FG if they can get the stop

 

[Broken]

Congrats to the Pats for another SB appearance, they always seem to find a way.
That first half was outstanding, but I thought they needed more points to show for it.
Credit to the Chiefs for making a game of it, should be up there for a while.

And, my god, did Romo have a Brady hard on or what?

Never understood when they changed the OT why both teams were not guaranteed possession. Just as I didn’t understand why this year they reduced OT from 15 mins to 10.

Can only think networks had something to do with it.

Only reason I can think is they want to distance themselves from the NCAA.

 

[Cockliff38]

Pretty interesting breakdown of the historical results of all OT games since the TD rule came in...

Possession a game-winning score in OT was made
Possession #1 32.9%
Possession #2 31.5%
Possession #3 13.7%
Possession #4 11%
Possession #5 5.5%
Possession #6 1.4%
Tie 4.1%

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Yeah Romo loves Brady Broken

But also I think part of it is he has such a staunch following, if you don't call him the GOAT at literally every possible opportunity you get called a hater by his/Pats fans

This goes for all media personalities as it pertains to all teams and players and it's stupid and ridiculous. The amount of dumbarse Broncos fans who thought Phil Simms had something against Denver was embarrassing. Kind of like Pats fans with Chris Simms. Even though Chris has strong relationships from his time there, is extremely keyed in and switched on about them and the league, etc. Etc. Just a rant about how you're not automatically a hater if you have a different opinion

 

[Exe Gesis]

I reckon the NFL rules committee will tweak the OT rules after what happened today. It won't be College system, but they'll have some proviso where if team A scores a TD from their opening possession, team B is allowed a possession to score a TD. After each team has definitely had one possession each, then the current OT rules come into play -- where a Def TD or Defensive Safety or offensive TD ends the game immediately, but if a FG is kicked, the other team is given another possession again.

 

[juss]

No its not - it was decided by the fact KC's defence weren't good enough to stop the Pats - KC could have won it with a TD to end regulation if they wanted to

Regulation time is irrelevant at that point, both sides were deadlocked. Neither offence or defence broke this deadlock. However in OT, without the right of reply, one team has an advantage in that their offence gets a chance to win the game immediately. The other doesnt. And that opportunity is decided by a coin toss.

The game doesnt lose anything by adding the right of reply, it just creates a balanced scenario where evenly matched teams get a fairer way to duke it out for the win. This would allow the offence and defence of both sides to have a say in the outcome, not just one or the other.

I cant see any reason that is not a fairer system.

LicoriceAllsorts pjcrows
This is what I meant earlier, why would a fairer system where both sides offence and defence get to contribute not be a fairer way of getting a winner after regulation time? The best side is still going to win because they need to be good on both sides of the ball, not just one.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Or.....just start bringing in rules to balance Off and Def more.

 

[PP34]

This is the story - the KC defence had the chance not once but 3 times (3 times the Pats required a 3rd and 10) and they failed each time.

The touchdown shouldn’t occurred if the KC D did it’s job.

Hey, but I’m a happy little camper today and will continue to be for the next two weeks.

Yeah their defence constantly gave up easy plays to the Patriots.

The OT rules probably are a bit dumb but the Chiefs continually gave up easy passing plays to Brady. Don't really think they deserved a right of reply.