NFL

[LITT]

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.

there's only one decision. regardless of receiving or kicking, defense will need a stop. put yourself in a position to get the ball twice. if the offense cant score a TD or the defense cant get a stop, doesnt matter. how the SF squad managed the subsequent communication about their knowledge of the situation - different story

[CBear3]

You only get the ball twice if your opponent can only match your output. If we're both scoring TDs, the second team is going for two every time to win the game.

ETA: I also think it cannot be overstated the lift you get when your opponent plays right into your strategy, like the 9ers did. The Chiefs had talked at length about their plans and got exactly what they wanted.

[MR25]

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.

This is where I'm at. You had the Chiefs on 4th and 1 and a 3rd and 6. All you needed was a play or two and you win.

[CBear3]

Counterpoint, the reason they went for it on 4th and 1 or would have if they didn't get 3rd and 6 is because they had the ball second and knew they had to score points.
If the hold on McDuffie wasn't called, the 9ers were punting that ball away on 4th and medium.

[genoscoif]

I think people are overthinking it. Getting the ball second and knowing what you need is just such a huge advantage. If you need a TD, 3 downs become 4 for the entire drive...deadly when you're facing an offense like the Chiefs. If you need a FG, 4 down territory until FG range, but once in range it's de facto sudden death if you can score a TD. If your D stuffed them on the first possession, again de facto sudden death if you score. Even giving up a TD...if they kick the extra point the second team can create sudden death with a TD and 2 pt conversion.

If you go first, the only way to ensure you can't lose to the team getting it second is to score a TD and 2 pt conversion. Every other scenario you've given the advantage to the second team. Second team knows what it needs, has more downs to do it, and can 'create' sudden death in all but one scenario.

[CBear3]

Bingo

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

tbh I think this is probably the best possible OT ruleset. Football is a difficult sport for OT because of the imbalance of offense and defense (in that the chances of you scoring while the other team is on offense is difficult…in hockey, basketball and soccer the possessions change very fluidly so it’s less of a concern)

You’ll never get it perfect but I think this adds enough nuance to OT that it makes it what I consider as fair as possible without going to the arcade nature of college football OT which I very much don’t like

[Rylan]

this is why i think it should be the entire period is played regardless of possessions.

[nocera]

49ers would've lost regardless. They were done.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

this is why i think it should be the entire period is played regardless of possessions.

ehhh. while I like the idea in theory, a good, smart team can try to possess the ball for the vast majority of a period. Here are some of the longest drives in recent history, so it's theoretically possible for a team to possess the ball for like ~12+ minutes and wipe out the clock on their offense's terms: https://www.sportskeeda.com/nfl/the-nfl ... since-2001

[LeopardLetang]

this is why i think it should be the entire period is played regardless of possessions.

I'd like it but then getting the ball first is such a huge advantage and it could lead to far more 2nd overtimes

[willeyeam]

college OT is perfect

[dodint]

Stop.

[mikey]

"That rule won't work because there has been one drive in recorded history that was longer than the average NFL possession" is incredible stuff haha

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

ranking of overtime rules by sport/situation:

1. NHL playoff OT

2. Baseball postseason extra innings

2. NFL playoff OT

3. NBA/college basketball regular season/playoff OT - kind of easy with how much scoring there is but it just feels less dramatic than 1 and 2

4. Baseball regular season extra innings - adding the runner on second is a good "let's get this **** over with" rule while avoiding fundamentally changing the game like shootouts and avoids ties

5. NHL regular season OT - ties are the work of the devil but also it's a major disadvantage if a team has to play a very long OT in the regular season so I don't mind shootouts (for the regular season)

6. NFL regular season OT - not bad. Ties are possible but rare

7. College football OT - lame and is a completely different sport (no field positioning battles/considerations at all)

8. Soccer knockout round OT - I wish they'd do something more similar to the NHL with "play until someone scores". While I don't mind shootouts in NHL's regular season, it would be disgraceful to decide a playoff game with that

9. Soccer group stage/regular season OT - aka just ties. So gd lame. At least do PKs

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

"That rule won't work because there has been one drive in recorded history that was longer than the average NFL possession" is incredible stuff haha

I agree, too bad that's not what I am saying at all

the way I interpreted Rylan's post was that it shouldn't matter if both teams get a possession, just that they should play a full period. My point is that a team could theoretically chew up much of the period by possessing the ball and put the other team in a difficult position of not having as much time as would be preferred. The "issue" the NFL has been trying to solve is giving both offenses a fair opportunity to possess the ball. If the first team possesses the ball for 10 minutes (which is a relatively long drive but not far-fetched), the second team has maximum 5 minutes, which is unfair

unless he's implying that a "period" could be more time than the typical 15 minutes, which is fair

[Troy Loney]

The mlb extra innings rule is stupid

[tifosi77]

The 4th-and-1 was such a gut punch. The 49ers (and particularly Bosa) had been so disciplined all game with edge contain, and the one play where it would've won them the game, 97 went fishing and let Mahomes scamper out behind him.

[mikey]

"That rule won't work because there has been one drive in recorded history that was longer than the average NFL possession" is incredible stuff haha

I agree, too bad that's not what I am saying at all

the way I interpreted Rylan's post was that it shouldn't matter if both teams get a possession, just that they should play a full period. My point is that a team could theoretically chew up much of the period by possessing the ball and put the other team in a difficult position of not having as much time as would be preferred. The "issue" the NFL has been trying to solve is giving both offenses a fair opportunity to possess the ball. If the first team possesses the ball for 10 minutes (which is a relatively long drive but not far-fetched), the second team has maximum 5 minutes, which is unfair

unless he's implying that a "period" could be more time than the typical 15 minutes, which is fair

I understood exactly what you said and simplified it. You took marked exceptions - historical exceptions - to the rule and applied it to this game theory. And even with the historical exceptions, it still doesn't really register as a stopper.

I don't think it's necessarily ideal...but we played for 4.2 million years where the team that won the coin toss in OT had an enormous advantage. Yes, having the ball first here would provide an advantage. But how much of an advantage could a team have if they're tied with them after 60?

In the drives that you provided, only one of them resulted in a TD (it was the only one where the team that did the drive was tied or behind)...a number of them came in games that didn't matter at all.

So, again, you used 99+th percentile data and it still doesn't appear to play even that significant of a role in the rule proposal...

Surely, there are better reasons to hate that rule proposal out there...

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

fwiw I tried using pro football reference to see the distribution of how long TD drives took in this last season but it’s behind a paywall and I’m too lazy to use the free trial


but even the theoretical possibility of a drive lasting 7:31, which is not near the “99th percentile”, is enough of an asymmetric disadvantage for me to not like that rule vs guaranteeing a full possession

[mikey]

No, it's not. But you didn't link any drives that were 7:31. You linked the longest drives in easily reachable history. Not even all of them outlasted the quarter to such a degree that the opposing team could have a league average possession of 2:48. Which doesn't factor in the context of the drive itself. It's also not clear that long (time) drives result in touchdowns. So, perhaps we're talking about getting the ball back and only needing to go X number of yards for field goal attempt.

Point being, still, not that I necessarily agree with the play-all-15-minutes thing...but I don't think using historically long drives (especially ones that resulted in no points) has much to do with that. Nor does a drive taking 7:31 provide even a shred of an advantage to the team that took that drive. The only thing that would possibly matter in that case is the amount of points that drive produced.

[CBear3]

The 4th-and-1 was such a gut punch. The 49ers (and particularly Bosa) had been so disciplined all game with edge contain, and the one play where it would've won them the game, 97 went fishing and let Mahomes scamper out behind him.

He's pretty well cooked on that play regardless. Rice is open on a little in cut as well. And if Bosa attacks Mahomes he leaves Kelce open as an option. He'd have to engage and beat Kelce (likely, but requires time) and still prevent that pass to Rice. He's good, but he got schemed into a no win situation there. Probably rather make 15 have to throw the ball then waltz for that yard, but it's likely a first down either way.

[Blue Canary]

The mlb extra innings rule is stupid

This happened to catch my eye, and yes, it is.

[willeyeam]

mimh out here acting like it's easy to go on a 10 minute drive - if you can do that then you deserve a better chance to win. imo

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

ok I ran the numbers

There are 499 drives that ended in a TD in 2023.

4 lasted 10 minutes plus (0.8%)

21 lasted 9 minutes plus (4.2%)

71 lasted 8 minutes plus (14.2%)

and this is the full distribution of drives where teams aren't really incentivized to possess it. if I'm the Chiefs and I get teh ball first in OT you're sure as **** I'm going to try to take as long as a drive as possible

so yeah, that validates my position imo