1 minute ago, theguru said:

Also on the rules, I thought the time aspect of it and it counting down right as the Chiefs scored was warping my mind a little. 

Would they have turned off the game clock if KC had kicked a game tying field goal?

Also, why did the 49ers defer in OT? 

Here is our fan of the year at the game!

23 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Also, why did the 49ers defer in OT? 

They didn't defer they won the toss in OT and took the ball. I asked the same thing about the clock in OT yes if time had run out before they finished the first possession the clock would have started another 15 minute OT period until they finished their possession if they kicked a FG and tied it then it would have been like the old days next team to score wins it was actually hard to find anything about the scenario that was playing out.

2 minutes ago, 16thBBall Fan said:

They didn't defer they won the toss in OT and took the ball. I asked the same thing about the clock in OT yes if they had not scored the TD or kick the FG and time ran out they would have lost.

Romo said if the clock ran out on the Chiefs it would just be like the end of a quarter and play would have continued into another quarter.

4 minutes ago, Jumper_Dad said:

Romo said if the clock ran out on the Chiefs it would just be like the end of a quarter and play would have continued into another quarter.

Right, which is still ambiguous but I expected a nice graphic that was comprehensive.  

7 minutes ago, 16thBBall Fan said:

They didn't defer they won the toss in OT and took the ball. I asked the same thing about the clock in OT yes if they had not scored the TD or kick the FG and time ran out they would have lost.

Sorry. Misspoke on the OT toss. Why didn't the 49ers take the ball second? I would want the ball second under the new rules. 

My second question is if KC kicks the field goal and ties the game in OT, is there no clock from that point on? Next team that scores, wins.

I like that each team gets a possession but the fact that the Chiefs didn’t need to score before the end of OT is absurd. Obviously they did it anyway, and you’re probably not getting two drives of that length often, but I thought that was an insane wrinkle to the rule. 

42 minutes ago, Jumper_Dad said:

That's true about the Patriots, but two big differences. 1) Andy Reid is very likable while Belichek wasn't and 2) Patriots caught up in video scandal very early on in their run.

Kelce and Gronk are basically the same version of moron TE as the other. Another factor, right or wrong deserved or not Mahomes doesn't come off as arrogant as Brady did.

I'm not a Chiefs fan at all, my Rams allegiance had me rooting against the 49ers tonight though.

He may not come off as arrogant, but I think his likability took a real hit this year with a lot of people. 
 

People do not frequently like rooting for the team that stays on top all the time. And a large portion of the population really felt it this year with the impression Mahomes and Kelce were being shoved down their throats (especially with the Swift stuff). I do not feel people in general will be rooting for the Chiefs for a while. It’s just time for a change. It’s like it was with Golden State in the NBA. You just get tired of it. 

2 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

My second question is if KC kicks the field goal and ties the game in OT, is there no clock from that point on? Next team that scores, wins.

No I finally found the answer they would keep putting 15 minutes up after each team had the ball once until someone won. The breakdown I finally found on it said that after 4-15 minute OT they would have a coin flip again.

Romo said the reason he thought that the Niners took the ball instead of deferring was due to the defense being gassed from that last Chief's drive to get it to OT and give  them some time to rest.

Here are the official rules from the NFL’s rule book:

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.

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

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.

Each team will have an opportunity to possess the ball in overtime.

Each team gets three timeouts during a half.

The same timing rules that apply at the end of the second and fourth regulation periods also apply at the end of a second or fourth overtime period.

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.

7 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

My second question is if KC kicks the field goal and ties the game in OT, is there no clock from that point on? Next team that scores, wins.

I would think so but that should have been clearly defined.  If the Chiefs don't score and time runs out even though it is like 3rd down, is there a break in play (time out) because it is the end of the quarter?

18 minutes ago, Jumper_Dad said:

 

 

11 minutes ago, DragonFire said:

I like that each team gets a possession but the fact that the Chiefs didn’t need to score before the end of OT is absurd. Obviously they did it anyway, and you’re probably not getting two drives of that length often, but I thought that was an insane wrinkle to the rule. 

Overtime can’t be looked at as a finite thing in the playoffs where someone has to win. Each team gets at least one possession no matter how long it takes.   I guess the only reason for a 15-minute stanza is to give the teams a break (and a chance for some more commercials) if the outcome is still in doubt. 

2 minutes ago, mcpapa said:

 

Overtime can’t be looked at as a finite thing in the playoffs where someone has to win. Each team gets at least one possession no matter how long it takes.   I guess the only reason for a 15-minute stanza is to give the teams a break (and a chance for some more commercials) if the outcome is still in doubt. 

Sorry. Late to the party. 

6 minutes ago, mcpapa said:

 

Overtime can’t be looked at as a finite thing in the playoffs where someone has to win. Each team gets at least one possession no matter how long it takes.   I guess the only reason for a 15-minute stanza is to give the teams a break (and a chance for some more commercials) if the outcome is still in doubt. 

We spent a long, long time where each team didn’t get at least one possession. I’ve no doubt KC would have kicked the FG to tie the game and it would have spun on, but I don’t see why we would treat the end of overtime any differently than we would the end of the 4th Quarter. If the game is tied, things march on. If one team is leading, it’s over. 
 

I get that I apparently have a minority opinion, but I found that wrinkle to be totally unnecessary.