First, the Chiefs with the ball around midfield I think in the 3rd quarter, 2nd and 6 or so. Mahomes goes back to pass, big rush on him, he throws right before he's hit and the ball flutters into an empty area of the field. The refs discuss for a minute or so and then throw a flag for intentional grounding. They talk to Andy Reid and, it appears, they consult the replay which CLEARLY show the pass was tipped by a defensive player. It was very obvious that the ball left Mahomes' hand and got tipped by a DL and wobbled from thereafter until it hit the ground.
After a bit more discussion, they don't pick up the flag! I have never officiated a football game but, if the pass is tipped, how in the hell can it be grounding?
Second, and this one is at least arguable. Bills have a 28-21 lead late in the 4th. All they're trying to do is run the clock out. The Chiefs burn all their timeouts as the Bills pick up at least one, maybe two first downs. So, it comes down to 4th and 8 or so with about 40 seconds remaining. The Bills are on the KC 35-yard line or close to there. I'm thinking the clear choice here is to punt the ball. Worse case, it comes out to the 20 and you've picked up 15 yards. At best case, the Chiefs are pinned back inside the 10 and have 90 or more yards to go to tie the game with no timeouts. I didn't even think it was that difficult a decision. The Buffalo coach sends the FG kicker out. The ball was spotted about the 42 or 43 yard line, hardly a chip shot FG. I understand that a successful kick puts the game completely on ice. However, a flubbed snap, a blocked kick or a miss (which is what happened) gives the Chiefs a much better chance of scoring than punting. With the miss, the ball goes to the Chiefs at the 42 or 43 yard line. While they didn't score, they did complete a couple of passes to the Bills 35 and threw two passes into the end zone, neither of which was completed although the first was darn near as the WR looked to have gotten one hand on the pass but couldn't pull it in. Having at least 22 more yards as a cushion (42 - worst case 20) would have made the last couple of plays impossible to attempt.
Am I completely missing the logic behind going for a field goal in that situation? If the LOS was the 25 and the FG attempt was 42 yards, then, yeah, I'd probably kick the FG as pro kickers are just about automatic inside 45 yards. But, this was a 52- or 53-yard field goal that you didn't need to win or tie the game - so, maybe a 50/50 proposition. I thought it was a very questionable decision that gave the Chiefs a better chance, however slim, by giving them the ball near midfield.
Third, the Chiefs trailed 28-13 in the 4th. They scored a TD with a few minutes (maybe 4 or 5) to go to make the score 28-19. Reid goes for TWO at this point and I'm really scratching my head. They do get the 2-point conversion. However, there is almost no benefit to going for 2 at that point and, if you don't make it, you're toast as now you have to score twice. Andy Reid is a HOF coach but that's the wrong decision, isn't it? You kick the PAT to make it an 8-point game. Then, you have to score a TD and 2 pt conversion to tie. If you miss the 2 pt conversion after the first TD, you're down 9 and have to score twice. Is there any other way to look at that situation? You don't really increase your chance of winning/tying the game if you go for 2 after the first TD as you have to score 15 points to tie so you have to make a 2-pt conversion sometime. BUT, if you don't make the first one, you've made your odds of winning MUCH longer as now you have to score twice more.
Again, I am missing the logic of going for 2 in that situation.
After a bit more discussion, they don't pick up the flag! I have never officiated a football game but, if the pass is tipped, how in the hell can it be grounding?
Second, and this one is at least arguable. Bills have a 28-21 lead late in the 4th. All they're trying to do is run the clock out. The Chiefs burn all their timeouts as the Bills pick up at least one, maybe two first downs. So, it comes down to 4th and 8 or so with about 40 seconds remaining. The Bills are on the KC 35-yard line or close to there. I'm thinking the clear choice here is to punt the ball. Worse case, it comes out to the 20 and you've picked up 15 yards. At best case, the Chiefs are pinned back inside the 10 and have 90 or more yards to go to tie the game with no timeouts. I didn't even think it was that difficult a decision. The Buffalo coach sends the FG kicker out. The ball was spotted about the 42 or 43 yard line, hardly a chip shot FG. I understand that a successful kick puts the game completely on ice. However, a flubbed snap, a blocked kick or a miss (which is what happened) gives the Chiefs a much better chance of scoring than punting. With the miss, the ball goes to the Chiefs at the 42 or 43 yard line. While they didn't score, they did complete a couple of passes to the Bills 35 and threw two passes into the end zone, neither of which was completed although the first was darn near as the WR looked to have gotten one hand on the pass but couldn't pull it in. Having at least 22 more yards as a cushion (42 - worst case 20) would have made the last couple of plays impossible to attempt.
Am I completely missing the logic behind going for a field goal in that situation? If the LOS was the 25 and the FG attempt was 42 yards, then, yeah, I'd probably kick the FG as pro kickers are just about automatic inside 45 yards. But, this was a 52- or 53-yard field goal that you didn't need to win or tie the game - so, maybe a 50/50 proposition. I thought it was a very questionable decision that gave the Chiefs a better chance, however slim, by giving them the ball near midfield.
Third, the Chiefs trailed 28-13 in the 4th. They scored a TD with a few minutes (maybe 4 or 5) to go to make the score 28-19. Reid goes for TWO at this point and I'm really scratching my head. They do get the 2-point conversion. However, there is almost no benefit to going for 2 at that point and, if you don't make it, you're toast as now you have to score twice. Andy Reid is a HOF coach but that's the wrong decision, isn't it? You kick the PAT to make it an 8-point game. Then, you have to score a TD and 2 pt conversion to tie. If you miss the 2 pt conversion after the first TD, you're down 9 and have to score twice. Is there any other way to look at that situation? You don't really increase your chance of winning/tying the game if you go for 2 after the first TD as you have to score 15 points to tie so you have to make a 2-pt conversion sometime. BUT, if you don't make the first one, you've made your odds of winning MUCH longer as now you have to score twice more.
Again, I am missing the logic of going for 2 in that situation.
Comment