.... 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.
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.
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. lolTo 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.
.... 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.
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).
What can I say... my Giants pulled it off in the end and we saw a repeat of 2008. BIG BLUUUUUUUE!!!!!
Today though, not the best idea to come in to work after all those beers and shots I took with friends. lol
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?
Thus the reason I'm at home typing this now
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.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.
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.I just think when you have sufficient official referee's mistakes shouldn't be made and they should be punished for making BIG mistakes.
FoolKillerTo 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.
But the ones that were possible game changers weren't reviewable. If the Giants had lost they would be shown all over the sports news today. But they didn't prevent a Giants win and so everyone moved on.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.
mattymc96But I think video refs are a good thing, they just need to be a lot quicker.
StarfirebirdAnother rumor flying around about Peyton Manning.
It seems that he is interested in the Texans.
The Texans would be idiots if they get him. They arleady have a top ten quarterback in Matt Schaub, and frankly, I think that they are better without Peyton.
Between 22 and 27 defensive players on the New Orleans Saints, as well as defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, maintained a "bounty" program funded primarily by players in violation of NFL rules during the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons, the NFL announced Friday.
The investigation by the league's security department determined that an improper "pay for performance" program included "bounty" payments to players for inflicting injuries on opposing players that would result in them being removed from a game.