NFL General Discussion
- Thread starter JFM92_GTRacer
- 3,589 comments
- 124,691 views
.... Yeah, someone needs to explain that controversial backwards sit down of that winning play and WHY they had a second chance to do another touchdown, which I thought was unsporting.
Loved the Hail Mary throw though, it really was like a heat seeking missile and just was slightly out of reach for the two receivers there.
Loved the Hail Mary throw though, it really was like a heat seeking missile and just was slightly out of reach for the two receivers there.
- 2,414
Oh boy this is gonna be hard. lol
Ok here's the deal. The reason why it was "controversial" is because Brady is such a great QB that you don't want to leave him ANY time at all on the clock to attempt to score so instead of getting the touchdown right away SOME people think he should have taken a knee right before the goal line. I think that's utter B.S. though. When you have a chance to score points, YOU SCORE THE FREAKING POINTS. A bird in the hand beats two in the bush. Situations like that you can out-mastermind yourself. Supposed they run the clock where they want it at , attempt to kick the field goal and miss? Now you come away looking like a complete ass when you could have had a guaranteed touchdown. Hope that helps on that part.
The reason they got a chance to have a "second touchdown" lol is because it wasn't a touchdown (6pts) they were going for. When you score a TD it's 6 points, not 7 as people take for granted or think. You then immediately kick the PAT (point after touchdown) which is one point which THEN makes the score 7. HOWEVER, instead of kicking the ball for one point you can attempt to get 2 POINTS by getting a "touchdown" or as more commonly known by "going for two". Both these scenarios are known as "converting"
Hope that helps answer what I think you were asking, if not, hope it helps someone.
- 1,142
- Clayton/ NC/ US
- Sanderson1981
To elaborate further, the Patriots wanted the Giants to score on that play, hence the gaping hole they left in the center of the field on a red zone play. (Red Zone is when the offense has the ball at or within 20 yards of scoring a touchdown.) That way they got the ball back with a minute left, instead of the circa 20 seconds they would have had if the Giants would have downed the ball and ran the clock down and kicked a field goal. However, with the Ravens kicker missing the gimme field goal two weeks ago still fresh in everyone's minds, going ahead and scoring was the right call. But then, putting the ball in Brady's hand with a minute to go in the biggest game of the year is not something any opposing team wants to see, so it was kind of a rock and a hard place scenario.
It's things like this that are the reason I love football.
- 2,414
Exactly. Now I would have agreed with the kneeldown IF we already had the lead and it was a two-possession score for Brady to come back from. Notice how big that "if" is.
lol
- 84,453
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Okay
He wasn't supposed to score. He was supposed to fall over on the 1. The reason was that if they scored a touchdown on that play, they gave possession back to one of the best QBs in the world with a minute to get a touchdown of their own and win - easily possible, as you saw. If he'd gone down on the 1, they could have let the clock run down 40s for the 3rd down and then taken a 1yd field goal, to put them 1pt up with 20s left for Brady to chuck a winner - very, very, very difficult.
The "second chance" was a 2pt conversion. When you score a touchdown, you can either kick the extra point or go for a 2pt conversion. The ball is placed on the 3 and hiked to either be kicked for 1pt (with a near 100% success rate) or another attempt at getting it to the endzone for 2pt (with a 40% success rate).
Ah, cheers for the explanation guys!
All I heard was the commentators going CRAZY and yelling about "He's NOT SUPPOSED to do that!!!" and about the difference in time of having a field goal and not and so on.
It was rather confusing trying to keep up with the commentators at 2:45am.
But yes, I am happy it went the way it did though, it meant that the game was still entertaining and very very tense to the last dying second.
And yes, I need to keep up with the rules of the game.
Mind you, I still don't like those aerial tackles though, highly dangerous. I can understand why Rugby banned them, basically.
Also... falling over on the 1 isn't really something that anyone who's playing to score is going to do.
All I heard was the commentators going CRAZY and yelling about "He's NOT SUPPOSED to do that!!!" and about the difference in time of having a field goal and not and so on.
It was rather confusing trying to keep up with the commentators at 2:45am.
But yes, I am happy it went the way it did though, it meant that the game was still entertaining and very very tense to the last dying second.
And yes, I need to keep up with the rules of the game.
Mind you, I still don't like those aerial tackles though, highly dangerous. I can understand why Rugby banned them, basically.
Also... falling over on the 1 isn't really something that anyone who's playing to score is going to do.
- 23,448
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Okay
He wasn't supposed to score. He was supposed to fall over on the 1. The reason was that if they scored a touchdown on that play, they gave possession back to one of the best QBs in the world with a minute to get a touchdown of their own and win - easily possible, as you saw. If he'd gone down on the 1, they could have let the clock run down 40s for the 3rd down and then taken a 1yd field goal, to put them 1pt up with 20s left for Brady to chuck a winner - very, very, very difficult.
The "second chance" was a 2pt conversion. When you score a touchdown, you can either kick the extra point or go for a 2pt conversion. The ball is placed on the 3 and hiked to either be kicked for 1pt (with a near 100% success rate) or another attempt at getting it to the endzone for 2pt (with a 40% success rate).
That clears things up a bit. I was finding it hard to comprehend at 3 o'clock this morning!
One of the Giants players in the game was injured with a knee problem, looked like a strained ligament or something?
Not that I laugh at people getting injured (far from it) but when the guy was off the pitch and trying to see if he was ok to join the game by running up and down the sidelines, his knee then flared up again and he collapsed, nearly flattening one of the sideline dudes!
It just was odd to see a 6ft 7inch tall beefcafe just completely collapse for no apparent reason (until you saw why) and nearly squash someone.
Some people in this thread were talking about a fixing conspiracy?
Not that I laugh at people getting injured (far from it) but when the guy was off the pitch and trying to see if he was ok to join the game by running up and down the sidelines, his knee then flared up again and he collapsed, nearly flattening one of the sideline dudes!
It just was odd to see a 6ft 7inch tall beefcafe just completely collapse for no apparent reason (until you saw why) and nearly squash someone.
Some people in this thread were talking about a fixing conspiracy?
- 19,966
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
Wait what? Why can't people just appreciate what they saw for what it is? Why are people assuming there's a "fix" and that the Giants were to win on purpose? Are New England fans (and NFL fans) that foolish to believe there was somehow a fix here? There were 3 fumbles, 1 interception and 1 challenged call. On the first fumble, the Patriots couldn't count to 11 and lost the end result. On the Nicks fumble and the Bradshaw fumble, both times the Giants recovered (first Hynoski, then Snee). On the interception, it was clear it was a heave and a great play by Blackburn (which set up the 3rd fumble). On the Manningham catch there has to be conclusive evidence to overturn a call on field. Unless I was watching some other game last night I saw that it was complete and the challenge confirmed it.
I'm not even a Giants fan and there was clearly no fix for them to win. Heck, the Patriots took a gamble and missed by letting Bradshaw score.
Off-topic: 3,000 posts.
I wasn't saying that the game was a fix. I was just saying that a few pages back during the game, some members were mentioning that they were wondering if the game was going to be fixed by the officials.
Which I thought was totally rubbish as both teams would want to actually win to the best of their abilities.
Which I thought was totally rubbish as both teams would want to actually win to the best of their abilities.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Oh, no. Not fixed as in one team was purposely not winning, but the officials missed some very blatant penalty calls on potentially big plays. Had the penalties been called it could be argued that the Giants would have had an extra touchdown and the end of the game wouldn't have been as close and nerve-wracking.
In cases like that it is not uncommon for fans to accuse the officials of playing for the other team, or wanting them to win. It most often is a case of the play is happening so fast between 22 guys that four officials can't be expected to catch everything. But when at a game in person I have been known to yell something about the opposing team having an extra player, having striped alternate uniforms, etc. In American sports fans being antagonistic is common and always taken in good fun, until you say something to an angry drunk fan of the other team.
- 7,855
- Mother's House
- MattyMc1996
- Egg's box? £3.60.
In Ireland anyway in soccer, in grassroots football there usually is only one ref between 22 players and no assistants.
They often get a lot of abuse for missing offside's and more often then not those offsides lead to game winning goals.
And in GAA (very corrupt sport) there is 5 officials at grassroots level, 1 (actually paid and appointed) referee, and 4 umpires (usually 2 fans of each team, 1 of each at each goal). And often the umpires miss a lot of important calls, leading to goals, penaltys etc which if there was proper officials there wouldn't of happened.
I just think when you have sufficient official referee's mistakes shouldn't be made and they should be punished for making BIG mistakes.
They often get a lot of abuse for missing offside's and more often then not those offsides lead to game winning goals.
And in GAA (very corrupt sport) there is 5 officials at grassroots level, 1 (actually paid and appointed) referee, and 4 umpires (usually 2 fans of each team, 1 of each at each goal). And often the umpires miss a lot of important calls, leading to goals, penaltys etc which if there was proper officials there wouldn't of happened.
I just think when you have sufficient official referee's mistakes shouldn't be made and they should be punished for making BIG mistakes.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
To help fix this many American sports are allowing video review. This can either be called for from upper level officials in the TV booth or team coaches. You saw this when Mannignham made the catch on the sidelines and New England challenged the call that he was in-bounds when he made the catch.
This eliminates a lot of errors, but there are limits to when and how it can be used so that the game doesn't take an hour longer to second-guess every play.
- 7,855
- Mother's House
- MattyMc1996
- Egg's box? £3.60.
FoolKiller
I know, but in that instance the referee was right, and I really wonder why it took so long for them to make the call since it was very obvious from the slow-mo that he was in.
But I think video refs are a good thing, they just need to be a lot quicker.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
- 19,431
- HSV
mattymc96
Generally, they have 60 seconds to make a decision. Back in the mid-to-late 1980s, when instant replay was allowed, they could literally take all day (or night). Replay disappeared with much excitement for about a decade. And then, too many last-second plays were called wrong...
Basically, the rule is a tiny bit vague, but that means that something conclusive must override the ref's decision. Not a maybe nor a perhaps nor a "kind-of" will overturn a referee's decision. So it's less vague than letting a ref re-decide the outcome of a play, based on a whim.
Word has it that Payton Manning will discuss his future this week...
- 1,662
- Tennessee,USA
- StarFirebird
- starfirebird
Another rumor flying around about Peyton Manning.
It seems that he is interested in the Texans.
It seems that he is interested in the Texans.
- 16,985
- Corneria City
- Orbital_Goat
- 1,662
- Tennessee,USA
- StarFirebird
- starfirebird
- 16,985
- Corneria City
- Orbital_Goat
- 26,263
- Houston, Texas, USA
- JMarine25
Arian Foster signed a 5-year deal with the Texans. Ever since we took him in, my boys all of a sudden finally developed a decent running game.
The hot button issue these days is on the New Orleans Saints' bounty deal. If you've heard this whole thing all this time since word leaked of this bounty, what are your thoughts about all of this?
The hot button issue these days is on the New Orleans Saints' bounty deal. If you've heard this whole thing all this time since word leaked of this bounty, what are your thoughts about all of this?
