Just to throw in the discussion on how fair the OT rule is.
For the team that receives first, they have to score a TD to win. If they are 3 and out, they have to punt or kick a field goal.
A field goal doesn't automatically win you the game, so it gives the receiving team a chance to then play. At this point, they know what they have to do.
Lets say the patriots score a field goal on their possession. They give the ball back to the Falcons. If they end up on third down and need 9 yards, they have the luxury of knowing they cannot punt the ball and just have to make the yards. They have that extra down to get where they need to be, unlike the pats who if it was their first possession, would need to punt it to be safe.
Also, if the Patriots had to punt, then the Falcons only need a FG to win. This means they have to earn less yards for a potential victory
I think thats the rule anyway. There is pros and cons to both sides of the argument really.
EDIT: I had work today and as we were getting beat quite bad I decided to go to sleep when the Falcons scored in the 3rd