Not true, the first game decided by a 2 point conversion in the NFL was a 2016 game between the Broncos and Saints.
Cite:
Going for 2 on a first possession TD in OT seems very dubious, unless you’re really confident in converting. The downside is you definitely lose on an opposing TD, since they’ll just go for 1. The upside is you might win on an opposing TD, because they’ll try to match your 2.
It’s sort of the reverse of the logic of why you’re supposed to go for two when you score a TD down 14 late.
Sorry; I meant to say, the first overtime game won by a 2-point conversion.
Ah, then I reported that hours ago.
Yeah, I thought that must be what was meant. Also, is this the first time a team has scored an overtime TD and still lost?
A bit ironically, another end-of-game go-for-two-to-win game was Broncos over Chargers in 2008 - that game was a major reason for the rule change allowing the “immediate action” fumble recovery overturn on review.
It’s the first time a team has scored with a TD and had a lead, and lost.
Other times, a team scored a TD, tried for a 2 point conversion to win, and lost. (Which is what would have happened to the Seahawks had they failed to convert on the attempt last night.)
I found this exchange on Reddit regarding the game:
They lost to a guy who threw a backwards pass into the other team’s helmet for a 2 point conversion…
To be fair I doubt the Rams DC had planned for that
Is it? Seems to me it’s essentially the same decision the Seahawks coaches had to make after their touchdown; a sure thing tie, or take a risk to have a better chance of the win.
Much seems to be made that a tie wouldn’t have done much for the 'Hawks, so it was worth it to go for 2. Suppose, though, that the Seahawks had the ball first in OT, and scored a touchdown. They should try a 2-point conversion for the same reasons they did last night. There’s no appreciable difference between leading by 6 or leading by 7, but leading by 8 matters.
Exactly right. It’s the same reason they went for 2 earlier in the game when the score was 30-28; if you fail to convert, you’re down by two, and if you kick the extra point, you’re down by 1; either way you are behind. You go for the 2 point conversion and succeed (which they did) then you tie, which is a good thing because that’s the reason why they were able to go into overtime and eventually win.
The math can get funny in the NFL. Sometimes the difference between 0 and 1 is meaningless, but the difference between 1 and 2 means the game.
There’s a huge difference between leading by 6 or by 7. If you’re up 6 and you give up a touchdown you lose. If you’re up 7 and give up a touchdown you’re still in the game - either they take 1 and you get the ball back, or they go for two and you get the chance to stop them.
Usually, yes, but not last night. If the Seahawks and Rams had tied, then the Rams would still be ahead in the standings by virtue of the head-to-head tiebreaker. For the Seahawks, tying the game was no better than losing it. They had to try to win it. It was essentially a foregone conclusion that they would try a 2-point conversion to win in overtime.
I’m suggesting that the same reasoning would have come into play had the Seahawks gotten the ball first in overtime. They score a touchdown and get 6 points. There’s not much reason to kick an extra point.
If their defense stops the Rams from getting a touchdown on the next possession, then they win anyway.
If the Rams get a touchdown, then their extra point is practically a given, the score is then tied, which is as good as a loss.
Had the Seahawks gotten a 2-point conversion, then the Rams would be forced to try to get one as well, and that makes it harder for them to tie the game.
I suppose tying at 37 would then give the Seahawks another possession the try to break the tie, but time would be short.
Right, but the difference of getting that third OT possession is a big factor. Seattle scored their TD with 3:13 left last night, so there’s plenty of time for a third possession, and any score immediately wins the game.
I think the current OT rules are pretty balanced in this way. The second possession has the value of knowing what happened on the first possession, and the first possession has the value of possibly getting the third sudden-death possession.
Agreed. I really like how the new rules work.
Me too.
The other difference is there is no chance of time pressure for the team with first possession.
Drives of 7 or 8 minutes are not uncommon, I remember the Seahawks getting one of over 9 minutes against the Vikings this year. If the team with second possession get the ball with only a couple of minutes left there play options are limited (they could even need to burn time outs so they have a reasonable time to score)
There have been possessions of over 12 minutes so in extreme cases the first possesion team could use all 10 minutes and the 3 time outs of the opposition and kick a chip shot as time runs out. It is unlikely to happen but if it does expect another rule change.
Having said that the fact that teams that win the toss sometimes elect to kick and sometimes receive shows the current rules are pretty balanced. Fun fact, according to the commentary the Seahawks tried to defer when they won the toss before overtime on Thursday and had to be told that wasn’t an option.
I prefer the postseason OT rules. Each team gets one possession. Play until there’s a winner. No ties.
I think that was just a JSN brain fart.
And a very understandable one. At the start of the game, if they want to kick off in the 1st half and receive in the 2nd, they must say they defer. If they say they want to kick off, they’ve made a choice and now they kick off both times, so it is drilled into them to say defer when they mean kick off.
It’s not at all surprising you’d automatically say the same thing here.
Ridiculous fight late in the Eagles-Commanders game. 6 flags and a hat are thrown by the officials, and they disqualify 2 players on the Commanders and 1 on the Eagles.
Biggest fight I’ve seen in the NFL in years, it was crazy.
I found a video on Instagram, I’m sure there will be more on YouTube or elsewhere later.
Bears DE illegal hit on Love knocks him out of the game.
#14,632 to hate the Bears.
4 personal foul penalties for the Bears, including 2 on Austin Booker. It’s been awhile since I’ve really, really disliked the Bears, but they’ve done it again. Congrats!