Bad enough to have a shooting during the celebration, but this tweet - for f*cks sake.
OT: Super Bowl LVIII / Game Thread
- Thread starter Tango Two
- Start date
Bad enough to have a shooting during the celebration, but this tweet - for f*cks sake.
I was busy and distracted when I grabbed the tweet which showed up under trending with shooting--did not check the account, and should have. Surprised the shooting was not posted elsewhere. Sad for the fans and especially those and their families and friends impacted by senseless violence.
Last edited:
My friend played an interesting clip from the newest Kelce podcast regarding the "3rd possession" angle and taking possession first in OT.
Jason said there wouldn't be a 3rd possession.
Basically if Team 1 scores a TD then Team 2 would go for a 2pt conversion to end the game.
Instead of giving it back to Team 1 and they only need a FG to win the whole game.
Interesting insight. Hadn't thought of that.
Jason said there wouldn't be a 3rd possession.
Basically if Team 1 scores a TD then Team 2 would go for a 2pt conversion to end the game.
Instead of giving it back to Team 1 and they only need a FG to win the whole game.
Interesting insight. Hadn't thought of that.
True, but there would be a third possession if the teams match field goals or punts.
But isn't that wrong? Let's suppose both teams score a touchdown on their first possession, and then a team scores a field goal on its second possession. Wouldn't the game keep going to give the other team a chance to tie or win as in college?
Even if he's right in how the rules read, he thinks that a coach would have the Super Bowl come down to one play for a two-point conversion. That does happen sometimes in college overtimes, right? But it's another thing to have it happen in the Super Bowl.
One lesson from the Super Bowl, I think, is that you can't have a different set of playoff rules than in the regular season -- it's too confusing to fans and (more importantly) to players and coaches.
Nope. Each team is guaranteed one possession. After that, it's next score wins. That is why electing to receive is the correct decision IMO.
You have to have different rules. You can't have the game end in a tie after ten minutes.
If you take the ball second you know if you need a td versus a field goal to win and almost everything becomes 4 down territory. That’s a big advantage.
The fact that this is a point of debate, suggests that there is no clear advantage to kicking or receiving. Opinions differ.
Which means that the importance of the coin toss is minimized.
Which means it's a good rule.
Maybe the rules for regular season games should be the same as the Super Bowl rules. That solves the problem of a tie (which, yes, you can't have) without having a different set of rules.
I don’t mind the rule at all, just pointing out more people are inclined to defer than in the old rules.
Yes., as you've explained the rules. If you kick, then you will know when you get the ball what you need to do to win. But if you receive, and both teams score equally their first time, then you can win the game with a second score because the other team will have no chance to respond.
That would extend the length of the overtime periods in the regular season. Players would not want. Nor would owners, and most importantly TV networks. Games would run over their assigned broadcast window and invade the next window.
You may notice that in regular season OT, there are rarely commercial breaks. They want to get the game over with. That's why they reduced the duration of the OT period some years ago, from 15 minutes to 10.
Agree. Under the Super Bowl rules, there are pros and cons either way as to whether to kick or receive. Which minimizes the importance of the coin toss, which we can all agree is a good thing.
All good points. Maybe next time there's an overtime the players will understand the rules. But confusion about them can spoil the biggest game of the year.
Similar threads
