49ers players say they didn't know Super Bowl overtime rules

[4th and Long]

How is this even possible?

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/49ers-...20Super%20Bowl.

49ers players say they didn't know Super Bowl overtime rules

Patrick Mahomes and the Kansas City Chiefs capitalized on the NFL's postseason overtime rules to once again beat the San Francisco 49ers in the Super Bowl.

While several Chiefs players and coaches said they had a prepared strategy in the event that the Super Bowl went to overtime, multiple 49ers players admitted they were not even aware of the rules.

"I didn't even know about the new playoff overtime rule, so it was a surprise to me," Niners defensive lineman Arik Armstead said. "I didn't even really know what was going on in terms of that."

Sunday night's game was the second of 58 Super Bowls to be tied after regulation. It was the first played under new overtime rules that ensure both teams get a chance to possess the ball before the game ends -- unless the first drive in OT ends with a safety. This differs from the rules governing overtime in the regular season, where the game ends if the first team to possess the ball scores a touchdown.

After winning the overtime coin toss Sunday, the 49ers elected to receive the ball to start the extra period. But their 13-play drive ended with Jake Moody's 27-yard field goal and set the stage for Mahomes, who orchestrated his own 13-play drive punctuated by a game-winning 3-yard touchdown pass to Mecole Hardman that sealed the Chiefs' 25-22 victory.

Niners coach Kyle Shanahan said he and his analytics staff discussed overtime possibilities before the game, but Armstead and fullback Kyle Juszczyk both said that overtime strategy was not discussed with 49ers players leading up to the Super Bowl.

"You know what? I didn't even realize the playoff rules were different in overtime," Juszczyk said. "I assume you just want the ball to score a touchdown and win.

"I guess that's not the case. I don't totally know the strategy there. We hadn't talked about it, no."

[kstater]

Originally Posted by Sassy Squatch

Receiving it wasn't the worst decision, however, with the rationale Shanahan used not going for it on 4th was inexcusable.

That's what I'm thinking. Why in the world would you give the ball to Mahomes to go win it? With them knowing that they have 4 downs to convert every first down.

Sent from my SM-S906U1 using Tapatalk

[KC_Connection]

Yeah, it made very little sense. Only justification is the 3rd possession benefit, but there's no guarantee it even gets that far and the 2nd team has a significant advantage in knowing what they have to do. You're giving Mahomes 4 downs to win as well as a possible 2PT conversion try (which they would have gone for if necessary).

It was a major coaching mistake.

[ReynardMuldrake]

Originally Posted by O.city

Eh, I'm not sure taking it first is as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. The computer says there isn't much change either way, and taking it first can end up giving you a 2nd possession.

Huh? If you have 2nd possession you know exactly how many points you need to win. And they have the first opportunity to seal the game with the ball in their hands [assuming the other team's drive doesn't end with a 2-point conversion.]

Plus the 2nd team knows if they have all four downs available. It's a big advantage to go 2nd.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

There’s no good justification for taking the ball first.

I almost wonder if Shanahan didn’t know or remember, and then made up that analytic shit to justify it.

Sure there was.

Shanahan's justification was one (though not the best one and IF that was your reasoning, you needed to go for it on 4th down).

The best one was obvious - his defense was GASSED. But/for running out of clock, the Chiefs score a TD in regulation to end it. Shanahan couldn't put that defense right back on the field because you know at that point the Chiefs are going to drive the field and score a TD. And yeah, knowing what you have to work with is nice, but now you've given the Chiefs defense two consecutive drives to get their breath and be ready to get physical with you again after THEY looked tired in the 4th.

I think it's largely a coin-flip decision either way. It didn't work out for them but honestly, I don't think kicking away would've either.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by O.city

Eh, I'm not sure taking it first is as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. The computer says there isn't much change either way, and taking it first can end up giving you a 2nd possession.

Technically it can. It's no different than college football rules. You play defense first, so that you can figure out if you need 3 or 7 after the opponent get their first crack at it. And if my defense is gassed, that sucks, but on the other hand, if they score a TD and get XP, I'd just go get the TD and attempt the 2 point to get it over with.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

The justification is that if both teams score 3 or 7 in their first drives, you have the ball with an ability to win it with a FG.

That obviously needs to be balanced against deferring and knowing the minimum of what you need.

I’d probably favor deferring but it’s close.

Yup. Not to mention it helps to know if you’re playing with 4 down territory. Would the chiefs have played more conservative versus us playing with some late down desperation? The 49ers sure as hell wouldn’t have settled for a FG knowing they had to match a TD.

It was definitely a mess up for shanahan

[Wisconsin_Chief]

I don't care what they thought or who they are, they are irrelevant and not champions like the Kansas City Chiefs.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by ReynardMuldrake

Huh? If you have 2nd possession you know exactly how many points you need to win. And they have the first opportunity to seal the game with the ball in their hands [assuming the other team's drive doesn't end with a 2-point conversion.]

Plus the 2nd team knows if they have all four downs available. It's a big advantage to go 2nd.

Yeah, it allows the 2nd team to play completely differently if they have to (having 4 downs to work with makes playcalling quite a bit easier) and gives them maximum control of the outcome of the game.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by Wisconsin_Chief

I don't care what they thought or who they are, they are irrelevant and not champions like the Kansas City Chiefs.

Well I, for one, am glad the Bills whined about the OT format to the point the league changed the rules to a system that benefits Patrick Mahomes even more than the sudden death they previously had.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Old Dog

I thought it was odd that they took the ball, but I figured it was likely because their defense was gassed.

We were saying our defense was gassed too. Mahomes needed a TD to finish this. If we only got a FG. We thought they would drive down and get the FG to win.

[displacedinMN]

Originally Posted by Dunerdr

Poor coaching.

all of this

many times

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

We were saying our defense was gassed too. Mahomes needed a TD to finish this. If we only got a FG. We thought they would drive down and get the FG to win.

Yeah, I'm not sure there's a world where Andy takes the FG to tie unless they're facing 4th and 6+ from the 35 (where even converting leaves you a fair distance yet to go).

It's why I say I'm not sure what Shanahan did truly would've mattered. If there was a mistake in OT, it was passing the ball on 3rd down and leaving yourself a longer 4th down play that convinced you to kick it.

Shanahan should've treated that gold zone scenario as 4-down territory, ESPECIALLY after CMC had that nice run on 1st down. That was his coaching failure - not taking the ball.

[mr. tegu]

It’s silly to say it’s an obvious decision to defer. For one, you have to factor in your team. Defense was. And do you trust Purdy to get a TD under the pressure if he needs one on their OT possession?

And people are really overplaying the value of the Chiefs knowing what they need to do. This isn’t an end of game scenario. The Chiefs having the fourth down advantage pretty much ends after they get to the opponents 30 yard line unless they need a TD. If the 49ers didn’t score or just get a field goal then the Chiefs aren’t just automatically going for every fourth down in opponents territory.

And in this game specifically, where field goals were more prominent than TDs, a field goal by each team wasn’t that unlikely.

I would lean defer with Mahomes and our team but it’s definitely not a no brainer depending on the game circumstances and team you have.

[redfan]

I love that the new OT rules/strategy will get closely scrutinized.

[FlaChief58]

Now the 9ers will push to have the overtime rules put back the way they were.