A question for NFL rules experts ...

[Jeebo]

When the Chiefs scored their winning touchdown, there was :03 left in the overtime period. I don't understand why they were keeping time at all. It seems to me that time is meaningless in an overtime period. The referee explained at the beginning of the overtime period that each team got the ball once, one opportunity to score a touchdown or a field goal. The referee offered no explanation of what would happen if time ran out before both teams had their full opportunity to move the ball and score. What if the remaining :03 had expired before the Chiefs scored that winning touchdown? Would the expired clock have been reset to 15:00? Why were they keeping time at all if the game depended in the overtime period not on time but on each team getting its FULL and COMPLETE opportunity with the ball? I was wondering what was going to happen and was :03 away from finding out. I wish the Chiefs had scored one play later so I could have found out. I have an inquiring mind, I want to know. -- Ron

[yourout]

1. It would have been treated exactly like the change from the first quarter to the second quarter.

[gab13by13]

2. If the Chiefs didn't score before the 3 seconds expired

they would have gone to another 15 minute quarter. If KC only scored a field goal to tie the game, they would have gone to another quarter and the next team that scored would have won.

[Jarqui]

3. Hopefully, this explains it for you

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/nfl-playoff-super-bowl-overtime-rules-chiefs-49ers-headed-to-extra-time

[Wounded Bear]

4. Because the clock automatically stops when a score is tallied...

It doesn't matter, because the game was over when the TD was scored, which is why they didn't bother with the extra point. That's on the producer for leaving that on screen, but it is meaningless because the game was over.

[lapfog_1]

5. In my view, there should not be an overtime

players are physically exhausted after 4 quarters, the chance for serious career ending injury increases dramatically as playing time continues.

Both teams player well enough to the earn the win. The 49ers owned the Chiefs in the first half... and only missed winning outright because of a missed extra point. Something that is "automatic" in football these days at the pro level.

I give credit to the chiefs for stopping the 49ers in the second half... and to Christian McCaffery on the overtime drive which he did almost by himself.

The 49ers defense which owned the Chiefs in the first half were already banged up a bit by overtime and could not stop either the run or the pass by the chiefs.

It really should have ended with a tie and dual Superbowl Champions.

[dem4decades]

6. That would have made January 6th look like a picnic.

[lapfog_1]

8. it's a game, not life or death.

in my "sport" ( Chess ), ties happen all the time. We still have champions. To win a tournament they have to win or tie the most games.

Many other sports have a series of games to determine who wins... baseball, basketball come to mind. Winning one game does not make you the winner. You have to play and win 4 games out of 7 or something.

There is a large element of luck to win a single game, especially in overtime. I think the 49ers were the best team in Football this year, as evidenced by the number of other teams they played ( good teams ) and completely dominated. One of their best defensive players did something to his Achilles tendon running onto the field. Somehow injured his foot so badly that he could not continue to play. Bad luck. Wasn't even during a play.

That might well have cost them the game as his replacement allowed a couple of crucial passes. Dre Greenlaw was one of about 3 or 4 "defensive superstars" on the 49ers. Bad luck.

The 49ers lost a bad luck game... I don't think they are going to be riots and burn down San Francisco ( or Santa Clara ) tonight.

[dem4decades]

13. People bet $16,000,000,000 on the outcome, they demand a winner.

[lapfog_1]

14. if they bet the 49ers to win

I am pretty sure they would be happy with a push.

The people that would have bet a tie would be jumping for joy because the odds makers would have probably given much better odds ( like 10 to 1 ) against a tie.

Anyway... betting doesn't force the rules of the game. The gamblers and odds makers would adapt.

Speaking of rules... if the game was played under the 3 year old tie breaking overtime rules... the 49ers would have won. So the rules have changed.

[AZ8theist]

10. "A tie and dual SB champions"????

HAHAHAHA!!
That's hysterical.

Tell that to the millions of gamblers out there.....

[lapfog_1]

11. one of the biggest games in Vegas is Blackjack...

and a tie is a push. Nobody wins, nobody loses

[tazkcmo]

15. One correction.

The extra point was blocked, not missed.

[dgauss]

7. Here are a few reasons.

There may be an advantage in going in one direction, such as which way the wind is blowing, maybe crowd noise, etc. By continuing the game in regular quarters, teams will switch directions. Also, time outs can be limited to only so many per half. Probably other reasons too.

[RockRaven]

9. The time keeping in postseason overtime (when ties are not allowed) is

basically just for uniformity of record keeping (play-by-play box scores etc) with the regular periods, and also as others have pointed out to keep things "fair" from a field-condition standpoint to change direction every quarter/equivalent. But every transition between overtime periods -- no matter how many might happen -- are like the 1st-2nd or 3rd-4th where ball possession is uninterrupted.

[lapfog_1]

12. until the rule change from 2 or 3 years ago... this was a Niners win.

First team to score. Never liked that rule... but there it was.