Football

[tpols]

Bro, they each get one possession, so of course they’re not going to cut off the second teams possession because 15 min elapsed.

Personally, I always felt just playing out one 15 min OT was the best solution, but I don’t have a problem with this format.

They each get one possession in the OT. Nobody ever mentioned that it could bleed over into a 2nd OT when the game isnt even tied.

That would be like a basketball game where we had a 2nd OT because there was still time on the shotclock for the team down 1... it's nonsense.

[ShawkFactory]

The idea now is that overtime in the playoffs essentially starts an entirely new game. The first 15 minutes isn't the first OT, it's just the first quarter of the new game.

[AlternativeAcc.]

They each get one possession in the OT. Nobody ever mentioned that it could bleed over into a 2nd OT when the game isnt even tied.

That would be like a basketball game where we had a 2nd OT because there was still time on the shotclock for the team down 1... it's nonsense.

Comparing basketball and football is nonsense. That's just an awful analogy and makes sense to nobody.

[aj1987]

If your comprehension was better youd know your statement stands in 0 correlation to mine, but its still same ol aj.

You should just stop embarrassing yourself. People ITT have been trying to educate you, but you with your knowledge of watching 10 football games in your entire life keep insulting them. Just stop it, kid.

[tpols]

The idea now is that overtime in the playoffs essentially starts an entirely new game. The first 15 minutes isn't the first OT, it's just the first quarter of the new game.

That's not even true though because if a team scored... say... 10 points in OT in the 1st 5 minutes of the period... it would be game over. They wouldn't let the other team try to come back and finish "the first quarter of the new game".

It's just absolutely never happened that you could go into OT vs a team with the score not tied.


Extra innings in baseball only happen with a score tied.

OT or shoot out in Hockey only happens with a score tied.

OT in basketball only happens with a score tied.

OT in football every year throughout its existence in both playoffs an regular season has only occurred with the score tied.


Mahomes made it happen in time anyway. The Chiefs would've won anyway. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the rule making absolutely no ****ing sense since the definition of Over Time is when you have a tie game in American sports.

[AlternativeAcc.]

That's not even true though because if a team scored... say... 10 points in OT in the 1st 5 minutes of the period... it would be game over. They wouldn't let the other team try to come back and finish "the first quarter of the new game".

It's just absolutely never happened that you could go into OT vs a team with the score not tied.


Extra innings in baseball only happen with a score tied.

OT or shoot out in Hockey only happens with a score tied.

OT in basketball only happens with a score tied.

OT in football every year throughout its existence in both playoffs an regular season has only occurred with the score tied.


Mahomes made it happen in time anyway. The Chiefs would've won anyway. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the rule making absolutely no ****ing sense since the definition of Over Time is when you have a tie game in American sports.

So if they changed OT to an hour clock instead of 15 minutes you'd be cool with it. You don't like that it is quarter by quarter and gives teams equal opportunity for time of possession, taking the coin flip luck out of importance. You're a bright cat

And guess what dumbass, in baseball if a team scores 10 runs in the top of an inning, the other team still gets 3 outs. It is literally the same concept in football but you're stuck on an arbitrary idea of what OT should mean and time limits. You're a goof

[tpols]

A team could have an 11 minute drive and leave the other team with 4 minutes.

The Chiefs got the ball back with 7:19 on the clock.

That's literally a 50/50 split of OT where they weren't pressed for time at all dummy.

[AlternativeAcc.]

The Chiefs got the ball back with 7:19 on the clock.

That's literally a 50/50 split of OT where they weren't pressed for time at all dummy.

Thats not the point. The point is that "2nd OT" doesn't really exist. It's one continuous OT broken into separate quarters if needed. Because football is broken up into quarters.

You're arguing that after the 1st quarter the game should be over since time ran out on a clock. You're literally really a dumb guy.

[tpols]

No I'm arguing that the 1st quarter and OT aren't remotely similar. And even in the case of the new rules "treating OT as the 1st quarter of a new game" isn't true because if a team scores twice early its automatic game over so there's absolutely no congruence between the two time periods since in a real 1st quarter that wouldnt be the case and the game would go on allowing for a comeback. Catch up little buddy.

[tpols]

That's not the point.

Oh man...

[ShawkFactory]

That's not even true though because if a team scored... say... 10 points in OT in the 1st 5 minutes of the period... it would be game over. They wouldn't let the other team try to come back and finish "the first quarter of the new game".

It's just absolutely never happened that you could go into OT vs a team with the score not tied.


Extra innings in baseball only happen with a score tied.

OT or shoot out in Hockey only happens with a score tied.

OT in basketball only happens with a score tied.

OT in football every year throughout its existence in both playoffs an regular season has only occurred with the score tied.


Mahomes made it happen in time anyway. The Chiefs would've won anyway. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the rule making absolutely no ****ing sense since the definition of Over Time is when you have a tie game in American sports.

Yes and the score was tied after regulation, hence OT..

Both teams getting one chance to possess the ball and score takes precedence over the clock once we're in OT. It's broken up into quarters to allow a change in sides to even out luck factors like wind should the score remain tied after teams have failed to score after multiple possessions. Again..it's not a "First OT".

[AlternativeAcc.]

No I'm arguing that the 1st quarter and OT aren't remotely similar. And even in the case of the new rules "treating OT as the 1st quarter of a new game" isn't true because if a team scores twice early its automatic game over so there's absolutely no congruence between the two time periods since in a real 1st quarter that wouldnt be the case and the game would go on. Catch up little buddy.

The rule emphasizes a team gets equal opportunity of a full possession regardless of time constraints. Anything after that is basically sudden death. I know the rule. It's insanely basic.

You brought up baseball (a sport u probably know nothing about) which is funny because using your logic stopping a team mid possession because an OT quarter ran out of time would be the equivalent of stopping a baseball game when the team has only 2 outs.

You have a very low IQ. I worry about you

[bladefd]

Purdys composure and pocket presence was outlandish for a 2nd year guy. People blaming Purdy are pretty stupid. He played well, and almost mistake free with guys flying in his face in the 2nd half. I think in contrast to Mahomes you see some limitations, but that's just unfair. Dudes a baller.

McDuffie may not be the best corner on KC which is crazy. I think veach will find a way to keep both Sneed/Jones by restructuring Mahomes contract and making some cuts. KCs D may be even better next year which is scary for the league.

They need to upgrade their receivers a bit.

[tpols]

Yes and the score was tied after regulation, hence OT..

Both teams getting one chance to possess the ball and score takes precedence over the clock once we're in OT. It's broken up into quarters to allow a change in sides to even out luck factors like wind should the score remain tied after teams have failed to score after multiple possessions. Again..it's not a "First OT".

Downs have never taken precedence over time in any facet of Football ever. Or any other time based American sport.

Both teams did get the chance to possess the ball. Both teams had it for 7+ minutes in OT. The Chiefs were ready to take it to 2nd OT while being down 3 though if they didn't convert.

Which means an Over Time would've started with the score not tied. There's really no logical way to justify it.

You said that "OT was being treated as a new 1st quarter and game" when that's blatantly not true. A team could go up two field goals and that would be game over even if there was 10 minutes left on "the new first quarter".

[ArbitraryWater]

You should just stop embarrassing yourself. People ITT have been trying to educate you, but you with your knowledge of watching 10 football games in your entire life keep insulting them. Just stop it, kid.

More deflecting, 2x "just stop it" and 1x "kid". Yup, aj is broken.