To be fair to the losing Super Bowl team’s players, it is quite possible that the brain damage they have suffered by their repeated concussions while collecting millions to entertain US gladiatorial combat fans and enrich NFL owners, sponsors and conspirators was responsible for the fact that they didn’t know the rules of the game they were playing (!). Nonetheless, the term “professional” in “professional football player,” in addition to meaning that the Super Bowl participants are compensated monetarily, is generally taken to also mean that they know what the hell they they are doing.
Apparently, they did not. That’s unforgivable.
Last weekend’s finale to the NFL season was the first played according to the new overtime rules that affect only playoffs and the Super Bowl. In the regular season, a game that is tied after four quarters goes into sudden death overtime: if the team winning the coin toss scores, it wins. The new rules for the Super Bowl give the team that is behind after its opponent scored on its first possession in overtime one offensive sequence to tie or win the game. That’s more fair, and it’s also what happened: in the second overtime game in Super Bowl history, the 49ers scored a field goal (3 points) after they won the coin toss in overtime, and before 2022, that would have meant that they won championship. But under the new rules, the Chiefs got the ball and had a chance to score. They did, scoring a touchdown (6 points—no extra point since it is superfluous) and won, 25-22.
Incredibly, Niners defensive lineman Arik Armstead told ESPN, “I didn’t even know about the new playoff overtime rule, so it was a surprise to me. “ San Francisco fullback Kyle Juszczyk confirmed that the overtime rules, which dictated the team’s strategy if the game ended in a tie, were not discussed with 49ers players before the game.
“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.”
No? Niners coach Kyle Shanahan said he and his staff reviewed overtime strategies before the game, and presumably that would mean the players were let in on the plan. Over in the winning locker room, Kansas City Defensive lineman Chris Jones told reporters that Kansas City “talked for two weeks about new overtime rules.” “We’ve talked about it all year,” safety Justin Reid said “We talked about it in training camp about how the rules were different in regular season versus the playoffs. Every week of the playoffs we talked about the overtime rule.”
What’s going on here? Incompetence and irresponsible management. The 49ers players should not have had to be informed of the rules of their own game, but a responsible coaching staff was also obligated to discuss them anyway, because it was relevant to their game preparation.
Coach Shanahan has some explaining to do. If I were a fan of the 49ers, I would be ticked off.
Fortunately, I don’t give a rip….
__________
Pointer: Curmie
Ethics Alarms 
Minor correction: under the old rules, the game would be over if the first team to get the ball in overtime scored a touchdown. The other team would still get a possession after a field goal. So in that sense, the game was unaffected.
Where not knowing the rules comes into play is that San Francisco won the coin toss and elected to get the ball first. Under the new rules, it’s better to be on defense first so you’ll know what you have to do. In other words, if KC gets the ball first and scores a touchdown, SF knows they need one, too, so they try for a first down instead of kicking a field goal on 4th down.
Agreed on your second point. As for not knowing the rules, though, Jack is correct. It is management’s job to keep player’s informed of rules and changes to the rules. That should have been discussed, at minimum in post-season playoff strategy where the new rule comes into play.
jvb
Curmie, I just posted the rules, and I don’t see that distinction.
Others have answered this, but let me try, too. We’re talking about three sets of rules: the old rules, and two variations on new rules–those for the regular season and those for the post-season. According to the old rules–no longer relevant at all–SF’s field goal would have won the game.
It wouldn’t have under either set of new rules, which give both teams possession unless the receiving team scores a touchdown. As others have said, that means in the regular season, any touchdown in overtime wins the game. That’s not true in the post-season: both teams will possess the ball irrespective of what the receiving team does. (The sole exception is if the defense scores a safety on the opening possession–they’d win the game while technically never having possession of the ball.)
Why there’s a brouhaha about this is that in the regular season, you want the ball first: score a touchdown, and you win, and the other team never even gets the ball. In the post-season, you want to be on defense first. You know you’ll get the ball, and you know what the other team did. That affects your play-calling, especially in 3rd and 4th down situations. But the 49ers won the toss and elected to go on offense first. That’s why reporters were even asking questions.
The Chiefs’ coaches have said that if they’d won the coin toss, they’d have wanted to be on defense first. That’s the right call. They also said they’d have gone for a two-point conversion if, in that scenario, both teams scored touchdowns. This is also a good call, though less obviously so. If the game is tied after both teams have had the ball, then as I understand it, it becomes true sudden death. So the Chiefs figured that their chances of converting a 2-point attempt were better than of preventing any kind of score, including a field goal, from the 49ers on the ensuing possession.
The main point is that that 49ers’ ignorance of the rule made it less likely that they’d win. Chances are, it didn’t matter, but it could have; we’ll never know. What we do know is that the players and coaches alike are rightly criticized.
Jack: “Fortunately, I don’t give a rip….”
But, is that an excuse for getting it wrong?
There were new rules, but they were not what you said.
Jack: “In the regular season, a game that is tied after four quarters goes into sudden death overtime: if the team winning the coin toss scores, it wins.”
No, that is how it used to be. It was sudden death so that, if you won the coin toss and got the ball, all you had to do was score a field goal to win.
Jack: “The new rules for the Super Bowl give the team that is behind after its opponent scored on its first possession in overtime one offensive sequence to tie or win the game. That’s more fair,”
Yes, it’s more fair, but still not quite right. Because the old overtime rules turned so heavily on the coin toss: they were modified a few years back. In overtime, the game would end on the opening drive if: 1) the offense scored a touchdown; or 2) if there was a defensive score (safety or turnover for a touchdown). If the opening drive resulted in a field goal, the next sequence would be to win (touchdown) or tie (field goal). If it was a field goal, the game would proceed to sudden death.
If the first drive ended in a punt (or turnover), the next score would win.
My understanding of the rule change this year was that each team would have a chance to score; a touchdown on the opening drive of overtime is not enough to win the game; a defensive score on the opening drive would still win the game as both teams had an opportunity to score.
So, if the opening drive results in a touchdown, the other side still gets a chance to score.
So, there were some rule changes here, but they are not quite the way you describe them.
I am still not sure I understand the full scope of the change. But, I am not sure how that change is relevant here. Had this been a regular season game, it would have played out just the same. The new rules never got implicated (from what I understand). So, I am not sure I am understanding fully what the issue is here.
However, given the debacle we saw in the early part of last season in the MLB with the introduction of the pitch clock, I am not prepared to call the 49ers dunces.
Yet….
-Jut
I’ve just read the rules three times, and I don’t see your point.
The OVERTIME RULES FOR NFL REGULAR SEASON are…
“At the end of regulation, the referee will toss a coin to determine which team will possess the ball first in overtime. The visiting team captain will call the toss.
No more than one 10-minute period will follow a three-minute intermission. Each team must possess, or have the opportunity to possess, the ball. The exception: if the team that gets the ball first scores a touchdown on the opening possession.
Sudden death play — where the game ends on any score (safety, field goal or touchdown) — continues until a winner is determined.
Each team gets two timeouts.
The point after try is not attempted if the game ends on a touchdown.
If the score is still tied at the end of the overtime period, the result of the game will be recorded as a tie.
There are no instant replay coach’s challenges; all reviews will be initiated by the replay official.”
I’m pretty sure that’s a sudden death rule, as I described it in the post.
The OVERTIME RULES FOR NFL POSTSEASON GAMES, according to the NFL’s website,
“Unlike regular season games, postseason games cannot end in a tie, so the overtime rules change slightly for the playoffs.
If the score is still tied at the end of an overtime period — or if the second team’s initial possession has not ended — the teams will play another overtime period. Play will continue regardless of how many overtime periods are needed for a winner to be determined.
There will be a two-minute intermission between each overtime period. There will not be a halftime intermission after the second period.
The captain who lost the first overtime coin toss will either choose to possess the ball or select which goal his team will defend, unless the team that won the coin toss deferred that choice.
Each team will have an opportunity to possess the ball in overtime.
Each team gets three timeouts during a half.
The same timing rules that apply at the end of the second and fourth regulation periods also apply at the end of a second or fourth overtime period.
If there is still no winner at the end of a fourth overtime period, there will be another coin toss, and play will continue until a winner is declared.”
Again, I don’t see how that is different from what I described. (It is confusingly written though.) Of course, I don’t have to understand what the rules are, since I’m not playing, not watching and not caring. The players, however, do, no matter how badly the rules are written. And that’s the issue here.
Absolutely, it is confusing. But, this is not quite right:
“In the regular season, a game that is tied after four quarters goes into sudden death overtime: if the team winning the coin toss scores, it wins.”
Instead, as the rule says: “Each team must possess, or have the opportunity to possess, the ball. The exception: if the team that gets the ball first scores a touchdown on the opening possession.”
That was a change from prior years when ANY score ended the game.
The overtime rules were further tweaked: Each team will have an opportunity to possess the ball in overtime.
It used to be purely sudden death; then it was a modified sudden death; now, it is not even sudden death, but more of a prolonged ordeal. (I should come up with a better phrase here, but I am drawing a blank.)
-Jut
Ugh. So a field goal is excluded from winning the game in overtime on the first possession, but the term “field goal” is never mentioned. Great drafting.
Here is the difference:
The exception: if the team that gets the ball first scores a touchdown on the opening possession.
That is deleted from the postseason overtime rules. If the first team scores a touchdown in the regular season it wins. In the Super Bowl if the first team scores a touchdown, the other team gets the ball.
A relatively small difference, but it could matter. And yes I think it gives a bonus to possessing the ball second in overtime. I think. And, if so, the 49ers screwed that up.
To be honest, I don’t see why that wouldn’t be the rule in the regular season as well. But it’s not. Yet.
Having different game rules in the regular season and the post-season is an integrity breach. Baseball’s using the horrible “zombie runner” in extra innings but not in the post season is another example. Morons.
Jack: “Having different game rules in the regular season and the post-season is an integrity breach.”
Well…except that football games can end in a tie. That rule has to change, even though no overtime Super Bowl has pushed that rule (though this one ended with 3 seconds left).
And, just imagine soccer! You could go years without a champion if ties were allowed in the playoffs.
Hockey too.
But, for baseball, there has not been a tie baseball game since…well…you know. But, that was not in the Playoffs.
-Jut
I meant the difference between what I wrote and what Jut wrote. And I do not see any mention in the rules that a field goal in a team’s first possession in the regular season wouldn’t win the game.[ Ah-HA! Jutt answered my question.]
Some thoughts on Jack’s football postings:
3. I’m not going to defend Travis Kelce’s actions on the sidelines but I do want to give them some context. If you haven’t been on an NFL sideline during a game, you likely have no appreciation for the emotional intensity of the average football player. It’s beyond virtually anything most of us experience, ever, and it’s occurring in a hyper-controlled and observed space. The desire to win, and to play at your absolute best in a championship game raises the stakes even more. Kelce was expressing his frustration with the fact that he was not making a contribution to his team. The way he did it was inappropriate and wrong, but it was certainly understandable, and that’s why Andy Reid could shrug it off. I’ve seen similar outbursts in person, on NFL sidelines involving other star players. It’s never condoned, because it distracts from the game’s focus, but it is understandable and a consistent byproduct of the level of focus and effort taking place on the field.
1. Paying people to harm themselves is unethical. Pure Kant: someone with resources is using them to make someone benefit them at the compensated victim’s expense. It’s wrong. Consent isn’t valid unless it’s informed consent. Only recently were high school and college students aware of the brain damage risks, and high level college players are basically paid. Your arguments here are rationalizations.
2. Professionals are obligated to know the rules and laws their profession operate under.”It didn’t make any difference” is another rationalization: “No harm, no foul.”
3. Ugh. “Wrong but understandable” is a hoary trick to minimize and shrug off accountability. I can understand why John Wilkes Booth wanted to kill Lincoln. It doesn’t make his conduct better.
Thanks for coming back to baseball, a civilized, ethical sport, But…
Players are very seldom participating in a risk-reward calculation when they accept money to become NFL players, and I strongly suspect you know it. Tbe immediate gratification vs long-term consequences bias is well-known , and is especially so with those in their early 20s and those who aren’t very bright, which characterizes the majority of NFL players. They also don’t know or accept what will make them turn away from a long-sought goal. Then there is the fact that the NFL, like the elite college programs, don’t make a point of informing their players. The extreme sports standard is yours, not mine, and a straw man. Pro-boxing is unethical. Paying desperate people to give up their kidneys is unethical. Using money to make anyone do anything that benefits the payer to the long term detriment of the payee is unethical unless it is societally useful and advances the species, like, say, in the case of test pilots. Pro Football could make its game less deadly, but it won’t until its sued into oblivion or young players stop playing.
These are bad people with bad motives, just like the cigarette execs who denied that their products killed people.
Triple to deep left center.
2. I was a Massachusetts lawyer, and I was required to know The Rule in Shelley’s Case, which was on every Bar exam until the states went to a uniform Multistate law exam. But never mind:an obscure decedents law relegated to s single state isn’t the equivalent of a rule regarding how your team wins the most important game they play all season. It’s like a baseball player not knowing how many innings there are. As for the obscure rules, George Brett and the Royals should have lost that home run and the game when Billy Martin, who did know the rules, caught Brett with pine tar too far up the handle.
Double off the wall.
3. That conduct, as several players have said, would have not been acceptable for the vast number of non-stars. Saying he’s sorry is cheap and easy, and meaningless. It’s the King’s Pass.
“Goodbye, Mr. Spalding!”
2) Now that you mention it, I do recall hearing the commentators speculating about the OT choice was partly based on the defense being worn out. I didn’t grasp it fully at the time, but they did make a point about it. I’d assume that would be one factor that went into the 49er’s coaches decision for the coin toss. What I am sure of is that the head coach told the captains “If we win the toss, do this”.
Therefore, if it is the wrong decision the coach is the one to blame. If it’s the right decision but it doesn’t work out, the coach is also the one to blame. If it’s the wrong decision but it works out well for the team — most likely the players get the credit.
One other thing regarding Kelce’s outburst that is actually a positive thing. You hear that professional athletes are only in it for the money, that they don’t care about anything else.
This sort of outburst puts the lie to those statements. I believe that these athletes are hyper competitive, that that is how they got to be where they are. The actual difference between a star professional player and an average one is relatively small — but the difference between a poor major leaguer or NFL player and an amateur is relatively huge.
A popular sport is to wonder is a really exceptional college football team could beat the worst of NFL teams — and the answer is no. A college team might have a handful of professional quality players — but the pro team has an entire teamful. It wouldn’t be close.
These athletes are hyper competitive, that that is how they got to be manipulated into sacrificing their health and the welfare of their loved ones for an NFL career.