WalterSobchak said:

---

Those spots and the key first down "completion" to Juice on their final drive.

---

Again, I think that catch by Juice was clearly the correct call. Took two steps with the ball and reached forward towards the first down marker, then ball came out after he hit the ground. That's possession and a football move.

sycasey said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Those spots and the key first down "completion" to Juice on their final drive.

---

Again, I think that catch by Juice was clearly the correct call. Took two steps with the ball and reached forward towards the first down marker, then ball came out after he hit the ground. That's possession and a football move.

---

Zero chance. You need to "become a runner" when you're "going to the ground" not just "make a football move." The latter is for possession when you're already running and the ball is dropped or dislodged.

WalterSobchak said:

---

sycasey said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Those spots and the key first down "completion" to Juice on their final drive.

---

Again, I think that catch by Juice was clearly the correct call. Took two steps with the ball and reached forward towards the first down marker, then ball came out after he hit the ground. That's possession and a football move.

---

Zero chance. You need to "become a runner" when you're "going to the ground" not just "make a football move." The latter is for possession when you're already running and the ball is dropped or dislodged.

---

Current catch rule:

Quote:

---

1. Control of the ball.
2. Two feet down or another body part.
3. A football move such as:
-A third step;
-Reaching/extending for the line-to-gain;
-Or the ability to perform such an act.

---

That bolded part is exactly what happened. It's a catch.

This Kyle Juszczyk snag was ruled a catch on the field.

Did the officials get this one right? 🤔
pic.twitter.com/pAKBOZZEl5

— ClutchPoints (@ClutchPoints) February 12, 2024

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SBGold said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SBGold said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SBGold said:

---

sycasey said:

---

6956bear said:

---

Andy Reid has a great QB, but is a great coach. Kyle Shanhan is not great HC. He is very overrated. They have likely had the best overall roster for 3 straight years and he has managed to have his coaching decisions get in the way all too often.

---

It's worth noting that people used to say the same things about Andy Reid until he finally won with Mahomes.

Shanahan has flaws, but let's dispense with the nonsense: a coach who reaches the Super Bowl twice and the NFC Championship four times is not bad enough to be fired. You can do a LOT worse with your replacement.

---

I don't know, Sirianni is definitely on a hot seat as well (though he seems to gotten himself 1 more year to right that ship)

---

Siriani's team completely collapsed down the stretch and got stomped in round 1. Shanahan's team reached the Super Bowl and lost in OT. These are not comparable results.

---

Shanahan's failures in the Super Bowl to hold double digit leads is more problematic than the Sirianni situation. It's time to to have the Shanahan conversation

---

I also think the "double digit lead" storyline for this game is dumb. They had a double digit lead for about three minutes in the first half. Otherwise the game was always close.

---

Ok, that's an arguable point. The other games though (including up 28-3), are not

---

That's the thing: I think Shanahan actually did learn from his prior mistakes in this game. After the poor 3rd quarter he got back to basics and had a McCaffrey-heavy game plan. It was working, but they made some mistakes and couldn't quite close the deal.

---

The "after the poor 3rd quarter" part of your post seems to suggest he did not actually learn from prior mistakes. That was some brutal play calling.

---

I'm saying that within the game he saw an issue and corrected it later.

---

And I'm saying that if he truly learned from his mistakes in prior games, he wouldn't have had made the exact same mistakes in the third quarter of this game. When he did adjust in this game, it was too late.

And I do agree that the game also had a few key plays irrespective of play calling. Certainly the missed extra point and punt. But those things happen and the poor play calling created a very narrow margin for error. The niners should have been up by 14+ points and weren't. The niners also caught some breaks (like the questionable defensive holding call on the final 4th quarter drive).

---

That defensive holding call was 100% correct. But the Niners did get the benefit of some questionable ball spots. One of those Reid bizarrely did not challenge even after calling a time out. No one is criticizing him for that because he won.

---

The holding call was correct by strict application of the rules, but it is often let go. For most of the game, the refs weren't calling that.

Reid is not criticized for failing to challenge largely because the decision to challenge - even when you THINK you'll win - is risky, particularly on a judgement call (like a spot). You risk wasting a timeout and only have 2 challenges per gaming generally speaking. But beyond that, Reid's stellar play calling and confidence in short yardage situations allowed him to get the first downs - in stark comparison to Shanahan's poor play calling.

And back to my prior point, his poor play calling created a very narrow margin for error.

BearGoggles said:

---

Reid is not criticized for failing to challenge largely because the decision to challenge - even when you THINK you'll win - is risky, particularly on a judgement call (like a spot). You risk wasting a timeout and only have 2 challenges per gaming generally speaking.

---

Except Reid also CALLED A TIME OUT after one of those questionable spots. May as well just challenge it if you're going to use a time out anyway. I guarantee that if the Chiefs had lost by 3 points the pundits would have been bringing this up a lot.

sycasey said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

sycasey said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Those spots and the key first down "completion" to Juice on their final drive.

---

Again, I think that catch by Juice was clearly the correct call. Took two steps with the ball and reached forward towards the first down marker, then ball came out after he hit the ground. That's possession and a football move.

---

Zero chance. You need to "become a runner" when you're "going to the ground" not just "make a football move." The latter is for possession when you're already running and the ball is dropped or dislodged.

---

Current catch rule:

Quote:

---

1. Control of the ball.
2. Two feet down or another body part.
3. A football move such as:
-A third step;
-Reaching/extending for the line-to-gain;
-Or the ability to perform such an act.

---

That bolded part is exactly what happened. It's a catch.

This Kyle Juszczyk snag was ruled a catch on the field.

Did the officials get this one right? 🤔
pic.twitter.com/pAKBOZZEl5

— ClutchPoints (@ClutchPoints) February 12, 2024

---

Thanks. Didn't know they explicitly eliminated "going to the ground." Agree now.

"Or the ability to perform such an act" is pretty broad. I've seen a lot of plays ruled incomplete that contained this element, although I don't really know what it means which I assume is the point.

Team led by Coach Numb Nutz not much of a team at all, the finger pointing at coaches and now players continues:

https://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/49ers-jon-feliciano-hungover-tweet-spencer-burford-18665301.php

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Reid is not criticized for failing to challenge largely because the decision to challenge - even when you THINK you'll win - is risky, particularly on a judgement call (like a spot). You risk wasting a timeout and only have 2 challenges per gaming generally speaking.

---

Except Reid also CALLED A TIME OUT after one of those questionable spots. May as well just challenge it if you're going to use a time out anyway. I guarantee that if the Chiefs had lost by 3 points the pundits would have been bringing this up a lot.

---

Apparently you are not aware that: (i) the timeout appeared to be called for other reasons; (ii) they could have challenged even after the time out, during the timeout the Chiefs 100% reviewed the play (and available camera angles), and after doing so decided not to challenge; and (iii) the cost of using a challenge unsuccessfully is not just the lost timeout - but also the permanent loss of one of your two available challenges.

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Reid is not criticized for failing to challenge largely because the decision to challenge - even when you THINK you'll win - is risky, particularly on a judgement call (like a spot). You risk wasting a timeout and only have 2 challenges per gaming generally speaking.

---

Except Reid also CALLED A TIME OUT after one of those questionable spots. May as well just challenge it if you're going to use a time out anyway. I guarantee that if the Chiefs had lost by 3 points the pundits would have been bringing this up a lot.

---

I agree that KC should have challenged the bad spot in the 3rd quarter on a 3rd down play, after which the Chiefs punted. But they decided not to, even though they still had both challenges available.

But the worst bad spot was the one on the Chiefs' last 4th quarter drive. The bad spot was more than a yard short of where the ball should have been spotted. That one could not have been challenged because it happened in the last 2 minutes of the 4th quarter. It also ended up not mattering because it happened on 1st down, and the Chiefs gained enough yards to move the chains on the next play.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Reid is not criticized for failing to challenge largely because the decision to challenge - even when you THINK you'll win - is risky, particularly on a judgement call (like a spot). You risk wasting a timeout and only have 2 challenges per gaming generally speaking.

---

Except Reid also CALLED A TIME OUT after one of those questionable spots. May as well just challenge it if you're going to use a time out anyway. I guarantee that if the Chiefs had lost by 3 points the pundits would have been bringing this up a lot.

---

Apparently you are not aware that: (i) the timeout appeared to be called for other reasons; (ii) they could have challenged even after the time out, during the timeout the Chiefs 100% reviewed the play (and available camera angles), and after doing so decided not to challenge; and (iii) the cost of using a challenge unsuccessfully is not just the lost timeout - but also the permanent loss of one of your two available challenges.

---

I'm quite aware of all that, thanks. This was a call in the first half and the replay looked like such a challenge would have been successful. It was a pretty big call too, since KC then got stuffed on the next play and had to give up the ball.

How often does any team challenge more than twice in a game? This is not a valid reason to avoid challenging, especially if you have already given up a time out following the play.

BearSD said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Reid is not criticized for failing to challenge largely because the decision to challenge - even when you THINK you'll win - is risky, particularly on a judgement call (like a spot). You risk wasting a timeout and only have 2 challenges per gaming generally speaking.

---

Except Reid also CALLED A TIME OUT after one of those questionable spots. May as well just challenge it if you're going to use a time out anyway. I guarantee that if the Chiefs had lost by 3 points the pundits would have been bringing this up a lot.

---

I agree that KC should have challenged the bad spot in the 3rd quarter on a 3rd down play, after which the Chiefs punted. But they decided not to, even though they still had both challenges available.

But the worst bad spot was the one on the Chiefs' last 4th quarter drive. The bad spot was more than a yard short of where the ball should have been spotted. That one could not have been challenged because it happened in the last 2 minutes of the 4th quarter. It also ended up not mattering because it happened on 1st down, and the Chiefs gained enough yards to move the chains on the next play.

---

Yeah that spot was crazy. Not reviewing was even worse because they had the "marker cam" right down the line clearly showing he easily made the line to gain. I mean they showed it to the whole world but apparently just didn't care.

Andy Reid is the poor man's Mike Holmgren and Tony Dungy is the poor man's Herm Edwards.

bearsandgiants said:

---

Andy Reid is the poor man's Mike Holmgren and Tony Dungy is the poor man's Herm Edwards.

---

That may well be, but how many 13 year old boys can look at their dad and say:
"Hey, next time I need any sh@it outa you I'll squeeze your head."

philly1121 said:

---

From reports, it seemed like some 49er players did not know the OT rule change. However, those same reports read that the Chiefs absolutely knew the rule, practiced it in preseason training and had practiced OT play with the goal of ending the game in the second possession (Chief's 1st possession) if they didn't win the coin toss. I guess they had practiced as if the 3rd possession was the possession that ended the game. So if they lost the coin toss and the Niners scored a TD - if the Chiefs scored a TD on their 1st possession, they were going for 2 all the way. From reading post match reports - the players were exhausted because the SB is a long game. Exhaustion likely figures heavily into the equation.

I am simply glad, relieved that the Niners lost the game. As a lifelong Cowboys fan, misery loves company.

---

They did not practice the rule. It was explained to them during the playoff weeks and in pre-season rules explanation. What would the practice look like - everyone on the sidelines looking at Fred Warner calling tails? The rules were also explained to the 49ers in the pre season. But who cares? The rules are not really relevant. Did the players play worse because three or four of them did not know the rules? By the way- everyone in my house knew the rule because the referee explained it to the entire crowd prior to the coin flip. Shanahan knew the rule and made their decision. Fred Warner knew the rule - it was not like he was befuddled and changed what Shanahan wanted at the coin toss - he had his instructions . The fake ire at the knowledge of the rule is stupid. Shanahan had his reasons. Debate them or not but this knowledge or rule a means Shanahan is a crap coach is silly.

The real issue was as others have said - giving Mahones back the ball with 2 minutes. Throwing twice with 5 yards to basically win the game took about no time off the clock and gave Mahomes back the ball with more than enough time to get it into the end zone. They should have lined up at least to fake a play and draw KC offsides or something on 4th down. But certainly should have run on both second and third down.

SBGold said:

---

Team led by Coach Numb Nutz not much of a team at all, the finger pointing at coaches and now players continues:

https://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/49ers-jon-feliciano-hungover-tweet-spencer-burford-18665301.php

---

*****right off. They're all emotional after just missing out on the big one. Pretty sure the guy even apologized shortly after too.

Hey man - it goes to preparedness. Killer instinct. I didn't hear anyone on the chiefs admit that they didn't know the rule. I mean, yeah maybe it didn't but there's no denying the chiefs were more prepared for OT than the Niners were.

Colton McKivitz has one of the best players in the game lined up in front of him and he decides to give him a free rush to Brock Purdy… Sickening pic.twitter.com/9skdBYXzaM

— Coach Yac 🗣 (@Coach_Yac) February 12, 2024

Ayuik was wide open from the left side if only the o-line blocked.

"Since 2001, 56 QBs have led 125 drives in the NFL playoffs where it was the fourth quarter or overtime, there was under a minute to play, and the offensive team was either tied or trailed by 7 points or fewer at the start.

Of those 125 drives, only 40% saw the offensive team either tie the game or take the lead. Great QBs tend to have better success rates than average; Tom Brady, for instance, went 5-for-11 (46%), while Drew Brees went 3-for-6 (50%) and Aaron Rodgers was 3-for-4 (75%).

Then there's Patrick Mahomes, who is 7-for-7 (100%) in those situations including both the game-tying drive at the end of regulation and the game-winning drive in overtime on Sunday night."
-YahooSportsAM (Neil Paine's Substack)

bear2034 said:

---

Colton McKivitz has one of the best players in the game lined up in front of him and he decides to give him a free rush to Brock Purdy… Sickening pic.twitter.com/9skdBYXzaM

— Coach Yac 🗣 (@Coach_Yac) February 12, 2024

Ayuik was wide open from the left side if only the o-line blocked.

---

I think they later confirmed that it was actually Burford (who had to sub in for an injured Feliciano) who missed his assignment on this play, not McKivitz.

And also, Jennings was going to be open in the right corner if there was half a tick more to throw the ball.

Coach Numb Nutz, who did not have his oline ready to play and played the OT rules to get the ball 3rd, fires DC Wilks. D got 2 turnovers in the Super Bowl and held Mahomes and that O to 19 points for 4 quarters.

Scumbag

SBGold said:

---

Coach Numb Nutz, who did not have his oline ready to play and played the OT rules to get the ball 3rd, fires DC Wilks. D got 2 turnovers in the Super Bowl and held Mahomes and that O to 19 points for 4 quarters.

Scumbag

---

He and McVay are great offensive minds but are narcissist jerks.

The 49ers' defense underperformed relative to talent most of the season (though yes, they were still pretty good). I'm not surprised Wilks is gone.

sycasey said:

---

The 49ers' defense underperformed relative to talent most of the season (though yes, they were still pretty good). I'm not surprised Wilks is gone.

---

some good stuff about Coach Numb Nutz's decision on Inside the NFL and The Kelce podcast:

https://nypost.com/2024/02/14/sports/travis-kelce-was-stunned-by-49ers-costly-super-bowl-decision/

SBGold said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The 49ers' defense underperformed relative to talent most of the season (though yes, they were still pretty good). I'm not surprised Wilks is gone.

---

some good stuff about Coach Numb Nutz's decision on Inside the NFL and The Kelce podcast:

https://nypost.com/2024/02/14/sports/travis-kelce-was-stunned-by-49ers-costly-super-bowl-decision/

---

My stance on this is that it's a 50/50 call and I'm not mad about it.

sycasey said:

---

SBGold said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The 49ers' defense underperformed relative to talent most of the season (though yes, they were still pretty good). I'm not surprised Wilks is gone.

---

some good stuff about Coach Numb Nutz's decision on Inside the NFL and The Kelce podcast:

https://nypost.com/2024/02/14/sports/travis-kelce-was-stunned-by-49ers-costly-super-bowl-decision/

---

My stance on this is that it's a 50/50 call and I'm not mad about it.

---

Agree. On one side, KC had not driven the length of the field for a TD even once in four quarters, scoring a touchdown only on a short field after the muffed punt.
On the other side, no Greenlaw, defense tired, Mahomes is a magician. Hindsight, the other side wins. But a play or two going differently and who knows.

JimSox said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SBGold said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The 49ers' defense underperformed relative to talent most of the season (though yes, they were still pretty good). I'm not surprised Wilks is gone.

---

some good stuff about Coach Numb Nutz's decision on Inside the NFL and The Kelce podcast:

https://nypost.com/2024/02/14/sports/travis-kelce-was-stunned-by-49ers-costly-super-bowl-decision/

---

My stance on this is that it's a 50/50 call and I'm not mad about it.

---

Agree. On one side, KC had not driven the length of the field for a TD even once in four quarters, scoring a touchdown only on a short field after the muffed punt.
On the other side, no Greenlaw, defense tired, Mahomes is a magician. Hindsight, the other side wins. But a play or two going differently and who knows.

---

I am much less upset about them taking the ball first than I am about them playing very soft zone coverage against Mahomes on the ensuing drive, basically allowing him to get across midfield for free with easy completions in the short middle . . . on a drive when they only needed a field goal to tie! Makes no sense. You want to stop them on their side of the field so the lead stands up.

sycasey said:

---

JimSox said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SBGold said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The 49ers' defense underperformed relative to talent most of the season (though yes, they were still pretty good). I'm not surprised Wilks is gone.

---

some good stuff about Coach Numb Nutz's decision on Inside the NFL and The Kelce podcast:

https://nypost.com/2024/02/14/sports/travis-kelce-was-stunned-by-49ers-costly-super-bowl-decision/

---

My stance on this is that it's a 50/50 call and I'm not mad about it.

---

Agree. On one side, KC had not driven the length of the field for a TD even once in four quarters, scoring a touchdown only on a short field after the muffed punt.
On the other side, no Greenlaw, defense tired, Mahomes is a magician. Hindsight, the other side wins. But a play or two going differently and who knows.

---

I am much less upset about them taking the ball first than I am about them playing very soft zone coverage against Mahomes on the ensuing drive, basically allowing him to get across midfield for free with easy completions in the short middle . . . on a drive when they only needed a field goal to tie! Makes no sense. You want to stop them on their side of the field so the lead stands up.

---

Yep. Remember when the chiefs guy ran backwards and it was something like 2nd and 14? And wilks basically said on the next play "here take 8 yards for free" to make it 3rd and 6? That's when they needed a sack. Putting Mahomes in 3rd and 20 was possibly the only way of stopping him. And even that may not have been enough.

It's like wilks didn't understand at all that the chiefs had 4 downs and not just three. That was absolutely infuriating.

ducky23 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

JimSox said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SBGold said:

---

sycasey said:

---

The 49ers' defense underperformed relative to talent most of the season (though yes, they were still pretty good). I'm not surprised Wilks is gone.

---

some good stuff about Coach Numb Nutz's decision on Inside the NFL and The Kelce podcast:

https://nypost.com/2024/02/14/sports/travis-kelce-was-stunned-by-49ers-costly-super-bowl-decision/

---

My stance on this is that it's a 50/50 call and I'm not mad about it.

---

Agree. On one side, KC had not driven the length of the field for a TD even once in four quarters, scoring a touchdown only on a short field after the muffed punt.
On the other side, no Greenlaw, defense tired, Mahomes is a magician. Hindsight, the other side wins. But a play or two going differently and who knows.

---

I am much less upset about them taking the ball first than I am about them playing very soft zone coverage against Mahomes on the ensuing drive, basically allowing him to get across midfield for free with easy completions in the short middle . . . on a drive when they only needed a field goal to tie! Makes no sense. You want to stop them on their side of the field so the lead stands up.

---

Yep. Remember when the chiefs guy ran backwards and it was something like 2nd and 14? And wilks basically said on the next play "here take 8 yards for free" to make it 3rd and 6? That's when they needed a sack. Putting Mahomes in 3rd and 20 was possibly the only way of stopping him. And even that may not have been enough.

It's like wilks didn't understand at all that the chiefs had 4 downs and not just three. That was absolutely infuriating.

---

Later in that drive Shanahan called a time out to get his DC to stop doing that crap. At that point I kind of knew Wilks was done.

sycasey said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Colton McKivitz has one of the best players in the game lined up in front of him and he decides to give him a free rush to Brock Purdy… Sickening pic.twitter.com/9skdBYXzaM

— Coach Yac 🗣 (@Coach_Yac) February 12, 2024

Ayuik was wide open from the left side if only the o-line blocked.

---

I think they later confirmed that it was actually Burford (who had to sub in for an injured Feliciano) who missed his assignment on this play, not McKivitz.

And also, Jennings was going to be open in the right corner if there was half a tick more to throw the ball.

---

Yup. Purdy had options if that block assignment wasn't missed and the final narratives would have been different.

The #NFL is absolutely not rigged in favor of the Kansas City #Chiefs. Come on guys there is no script. pic.twitter.com/MT8jVRpDhn

— 49ers & NFL News 24/7 (@49ersSportsTalk) February 12, 2024

Refs just dont officiate the game.
They also provide in-depth color commentary.
Who knew?

'Don't want to give Mahomes the ball': Mic'd-up Super Bowl feed reveals ref talking about QB (yahoo.com)

Ehh, I think that if you look at all the recent Super Bowls you'll find that refs generally tend to swallow their whistles on holding calls. Not sure this is just a KC thing.

DiabloWags said:

---

The #NFL is absolutely not rigged in favor of the Kansas City #Chiefs. Come on guys there is no script. pic.twitter.com/MT8jVRpDhn

— 49ers & NFL News 24/7 (@49ersSportsTalk) February 12, 2024

Refs just dont officiate the game.
They also provide in-depth color commentary.
Who knew?

'Don't want to give Mahomes the ball': Mic'd-up Super Bowl feed reveals ref talking about QB (yahoo.com)

---

Breaking News, Refs are people (and the 49ers blew it)!

DiabloWags said:

---

---

This illustrates why fans of other NFL teams refer to the SF team as the Whiners.

BearSD said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

---

This illustrates why fans of other NFL teams refer to the SF team as the Whiners.

---

I'm a Niners fan and I agree, I wish our fans wouldn't go on about this stuff. Though yes, I get the point about Williams being called for holding to negate a big play for something that isn't clearly worse than other unflagged stuff.

Refs just don't call much holding in the SB.

Ppl seem to have a weird obsession over the amount of OL holding calls in a Super Bowl. Quick search found it's not called often in the SB. No surprise...

2023: Chiefs 0, 49ers 1
2022: KC/Phi 0
2021: Rams 1, Bengals 0
2020: Tampa 0, Chiefs 3
2019: KC/SF 0
2018: NE 0, LA 2

— Geoff Schwartz (@geoffschwartz) February 15, 2024