NFL

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

they should go to the XFL kickoffs

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

also instead of onside kicking, allow for a team to try the 4th and 15 or whatever. that's a good rule if they think old onside kicks are too dangerous

[tifosi77]

Outside of just playing a full 15-minute OT period (extended if necessary to accommodate the 'opportunity to possess' the ball consideration), I'm not sure what else can or should be done to change NFL overtime.

[mac5155]

no. playoff OT should just be full qtr and not about possessions. So last night, they shouldve had to kickoff and then the game ends.

Regular season OT is fine.

But again last night was basically regular season OT also..

[Gaucho]

NFL overtime should be paper scissors rock imo.

[RonnieFranchise]

They should switch regular season OT to the playoff model.

[tifosi77]

They should square off 1:1 Family Feud style, and instead of survey questions just do general knowledge. Loser of each round gets a toe kick directly in the taint. There is no endgame here, but I think it would be good fun for TV.

[King Colby]

They should switch regular season OT to the playoff model.

Yes

[meow]

They should square off 1:1 Family Feud style, and instead of survey questions just do general knowledge. Loser of each round gets a toe kick directly in the taint. There is no endgame here, but I think it would be good fun for TV.

Let’s have a spelling contest

[meecrofilm]

They should square off 1:1 Family Feud style, and instead of survey questions just do general knowledge. Loser of each round gets a toe kick directly in the taint. There is no endgame here, but I think it would be good fun for TV.

Forgot what thread I was in and when I looked at this I thought it was referring to the presidential debates.

[JC2]

They should square off 1:1 Family Feud style, and instead of survey questions just do general knowledge. Loser of each round gets a toe kick directly in the taint. There is no endgame here, but I think it would be good fun for TV.

Let’s have a spelling contest

Ain't nobody got time for that...

[genoscoif]

They should square off 1:1 Family Feud style, and instead of survey questions just do general knowledge. Loser of each round gets a toe kick directly in the taint. There is no endgame here, but I think it would be good fun for TV.

Let’s have a spelling contest

[Dickie Dunn]

Apparently 49ers players had no idea what the new playoff OT rules were. Nice coaching.

[MR25]

Thanks Morkle

[LITT]

im not convinced that receiving the ball was the wrong decision

[Rylan]

im not convinced that receiving the ball was the wrong decision

Its the only option that would limit the Chiefs to having the ball only once.

[MWB]

im not convinced that receiving the ball was the wrong decision

Its the only option that would limit the Chiefs to having the ball only once.

Huh?

[skullman80]

im not convinced that receiving the ball was the wrong decision

Its the only option that would limit the Chiefs to having the ball only once.

Huh?

I read the below tweet ...and I think Rylan is right. So if SF takes the ball scores a fg, then holds the chiefs to a fg, any score on the following possession by the 49ers would win the game.

"If the team that gets possession first doesn't score, or if the score is tied after each team has had the ball, the next score would end the game."

Point C here

[Troy Loney]

I don't think there's a right or wrong decision there.

Only big play by the 49ers defense after that FG and the game is over. So the game is not necessarily over if the offense had to punt, so you have the option on 4th.

[Troy Loney]

im not convinced that receiving the ball was the wrong decision

Its the only option that would limit the Chiefs to having the ball only once.

Huh?

I read the below tweet ...and I think Rylan is right. So if SF takes the ball scores a fg, then holds the chiefs to a fg, any score on the following possession by the 49ers would win the game.

"If the team that gets possession first doesn't score, or if the score is tied after each team has had the ball, the next score would end the game."

Point C here

It's conditionally correct, but if they both score and then SF gets stopped, the Chiefs would get the ball back.

[mikey]

I had no idea the rules changed. Neither did the entire room of folks I was with haha

[Orlando Penguin]

I thought CBS did a very poor job of explaining things. As soon as the tying FG went through, they should have started with the graphic breaking things down and then strategies with coin toss, etc. It would have also helped to explain clock rules so people (like me) wouldn’t have thought KC had to beat the game clock.

[mikey]

Agree. I was also expecting a two minute warning in that OT, but they blew right through that with a running clock. I feel like rule changes are beaten to death, but in the biggest spot in history for it to date, it was left up to two bumbling idiots and evidently one slack-jawed producer...

[CBear3]

My team being involved in the game that brought about the change, KC folks were acutely aware of the new rules. The only thing we didn't understand was the clock situation.

[MWB]

im not convinced that receiving the ball was the wrong decision

Its the only option that would limit the Chiefs to having the ball only once.

Huh?

I read the below tweet ...and I think Rylan is right. So if SF takes the ball scores a fg, then holds the chiefs to a fg, any score on the following possession by the 49ers would win the game.

"If the team that gets possession first doesn't score, or if the score is tied after each team has had the ball, the next score would end the game."

Point C here

Yeah, I get that part, but it’s not a guarantee, or even close to it. The stops by your defense dictates how many times your offense gets the ball. So yes, it gives a slightly higher chance that your opponent only gets the ball once, but again I’d think knowing exactly what you need and that you have four downs each time is a bigger advantage.