Kansas Crimson

The Chiefs lost because AR made zero adjustments in the first half, the defense couldn't get off of the field on 3rd down and Ford picked the worst time to try and push the limits and got caught.

I don't blame Brady or the refs. All in all I thought the refs had a pretty clean game, if not favoring the Chiefs. I see that Jones called mentioned but it was on second down. I couldn't guarantee that the Chiefs would have been able to stop Brady on 3rd down anyways.

You can't guarantee anything but as JFish mentioned earlier in the thread, that doesn't change the fact that it ( whichever one you pick ) was a bad call.

And i'd say the Chiefs lost because they didn't win a coin toss.

These two things are both true:

1. The Chiefs did not lose because of the offsides call.

2. The Chiefs would have won but for the offsides call.

Reid and others were giving off smoke yesterday about it being unusual for a call like that to be made without a warning having been issued. I don't think you'll see any outright complaints or things of that nature, but I'd imagine there's some chapped asses at One Arrowhead Way about this, in the circumstances.

It'd be like calling a three-second violation on the last possession of a game.

If Ford would have glanced at the line judge, he would have motioned back. He was focused on the snap instead.

Geezer wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:20 am If Ford would have glanced at the line judge, he would have motioned back. He was focused on the snap instead.

I don't think anyone would disagree or would tell you this isn't Ford's fault; he committed a penalty. What is frustrating is that it's a penalty that had no bearing on the play, and probably could have been called on a number of snaps earlier in the game.

If I'm the Chiefs, and the film shows that Ford was consistently offsides, I'm wondering how exactly it came to be that the call happened so late.

I find it kind of eyerolling that the KC Star decided to publish a column yesterday about the OT rules sucking. But, I guess that's just the nature of their business.

holidaysmore wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:58 amAll in all I thought the refs had a pretty clean game, if not favoring the Chiefs.

I also thought overall the officiating was fine.

The very real change of allowing defensive holding and DPI in the playoffs as compared to the regular season benefited the Chiefs.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:26 am

Geezer wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:20 am If Ford would have glanced at the line judge, he would have motioned back. He was focused on the snap instead.

I don't think anyone would disagree or would tell you this isn't Ford's fault; he committed a penalty. What is frustrating is that it's a penalty that had no bearing on the play, and probably could have been called on a number of snaps earlier in the game.

If I'm the Chiefs, and the film shows that Ford was consistently offsides, I'm wondering how exactly it came to be that the call happened so late.

I also think there'd be a better chance that particular type of offsides wouldn't be called if the Chiefs were driving against the Pats and turned the ball over.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:34 am I find it kind of eyerolling that the KC Star decided to publish a column yesterday about the OT rules sucking. But, I guess that's just the nature of their business.

The nature of all sports business then apparently.
ESPN, SI, Bleacher Report, NBC Sports etc etc etc all ran articles.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:53 am

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:34 am I find it kind of eyerolling that the KC Star decided to publish a column yesterday about the OT rules sucking. But, I guess that's just the nature of their business.

The nature of all sports business then apparently.
ESPN, SI, Bleacher Report, NBC Sports etc etc etc all ran articles.

I don't think it's wrong to criticize the OT rules, especially when the NFL is consistently tilting the rest of its rules to favor offenses. You don't call a baseball game over if the visiting team hits a 3-run homer in the top of the tenth.

The OT rules suck, but it has been sudden death for 45 years without it being a large issue.

The Ford call sucks because he was on the back side of the play and it had no baring on the play what so ever. Do I recall the call coming late as well? (I may be imaging that.) Either way, at the end of the day, like Ford has mentioned it is his fault.

The OT rule doesn't' suck. The Chiefs defense sucks. If I'm not mistaken both the Rams and the Saints got possessions in OT.

LAR intercepted Brees in OT. Although that play was also not w/o controversy as there was a judgment call on whether it was DPI or not.

Saints were dead in the water after the way regulation ended, though.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:29 pm The OT rules suck, but it has been sudden death for 45 years without it being a large issue.

In a lower-scoring era, where offense and defense is a bit more balanced, I don’t think the coin toss advantage is nearly so stark.

In any case I’m unmoved by arguments that the present system is incrementally better than the prior system. No reason not to improve upon the present system.

Just saw in twitter that Bob Sutton has been fired. Chiefs release confirms.

Fish made the point I wanted to make on OT. Back when this started, defenses could maul people and the playing conditions were awful. That is how the longest game ever was sudden death. Now though, offense is so prized that the coin toss decided the game. I like the NCAA rules. I fear them too, because you do generally need to be better than the other team. The Patriots have long benefited from being in a crap division and backing into the bye. It was a shame to see them once again in a championship game.

The college rules are absolute garbage. The only redeemable part of the college rule is that there is a winner. It's akin to penalty kicks in soccer.

NFL needs to change, but not drastically. Even if they just take away the first drive TD wins rule, you already have a better system.

Both teams get the ball once, sudden death after that. Pretty much takes care of it.

I would take that too CnB. But the days of Stenerud kicking off moveable sandy sod of a baseball stadium repurposed for football are thankfully over. I would like another full quarter myself.

Sparko wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:02 pm I would take that too CnB. But the days of Stenerud kicking off moveable sandy sod of a baseball stadium repurposed for football are thankfully over. I would like another full quarter myself.

But then it wouldn't be a quarter, it would be a fifth.