New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com - NFL sides with Buccaneers on kneel-down controversy

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)

- NFL (https://blackandgold.com/nfl/)

- - NFL sides with Buccaneers on kneel-down controversy (https://blackandgold.com/nfl/50313-nfl-sides-buccaneers-kneel-down-controversy.html)

Re: NFL sides with Buccaneers on kneel-down controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 440818)

I understand that part of it, but again, you're assuming there would even be a pile up. And why would they take that long to realize there was a fumble? If the Center has a bad snap, which is precisely the scenario I'm talking about, the play would be right there for the refs to see. I know we're talking about 5 seconds. You've mentioned that several times, and I am fully aware. In the scenario I'm speaking of, 5 seconds is enough time.

I will say this one last time, and after this I don't know what more can be said... If the Bucs were to pick up the ball and run it back for a touchdown, it wouldn't matter if there were only 1 second left. As long as they pick it up without being tackled they would be free to take it in for a TD, and I am sure you realize that. So with that said, how is it wrong to at least try to make something happen? Most teams do just give up and take it for granted, but there is a reason that there's no rule against what the Bucs did. It's a football play.

I think the crux of the matter is that while Tampa technically did not break any rules and 'fought to win all the way to the last down', they did commit a football 'faux pas'.

On an official level, you cannot fault Tampa for trying to 'win' the game on the last play & surely endeared themselves to the fans who would have undoubtedly criticized them for not playing 100% on the last play of a game where they were down by only one score.

On a professional sport, 'gentlemanly' level ... that's another story and hence the 'faux pas'. In a sport where extreme physical contact is the nature of every play, the correct/gentlemanly thing to do when the winning team has indicated it will 'kneel' to end the game is to not take advantage of the play by running in to them at full-speed. Everyone is supposed to be professional out there.

I can see why Schiano did it and I can see why Coughlin was upset. If I was Schiano, I damn sure don't want my fanbase saying I layed down on the last play of a game that was not out of reach and if I'm Coughlin (who I think may have committed his own faux pas by imposing the 'kneel-down' when only being up by one score), I'm damn sure upset at an opponent that could have possibly injured one of my starters on a kneel-down that is widely accepted throughout the league as a way to end a game.

If nothing else, it will make teams pay attention more to that last play of the game and how they handle it. Winning teams may have to run one last play as losing teams will now view the 'kneel' as one last chance to get a shot on the opposing players, eh? This is something that could potentially get very ugly.

Re: NFL sides with Buccaneers on kneel-down controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by SloMotion (Post 440822)

I hear what you're saying man, and I agree that this is how the kneel down is generally viewed.

My problem is that I don't know what made these players decide the kneel down was a gentleman thing. I've always thought of it as a way to run out the clock without risking a turnover. But if you're the defense, you have to try to disrupt that center. Sure, someone could have gotten hurt, but we can say that about every play. The object of the game is to win, and the last play -when you're only down one score- should be no different than any other play.

Now, I know that many have argued that injury was more likely because the Giants were somehow caught off guard, but when I see the replay it was very obvious that the Bucs were ready to send the house. They weren't just standing around. So it's the Giants fault, in my humble opinion, for taking it for granted and allowing themselves to get pushed back like that... And I'll add that if players still think the kneel is a universal "everybody stop playing" signal, then I agree with Jerry Jones that they should just outlaw it.

Re: NFL sides with Buccaneers on kneel-down controversy

The way to make sure Tampa never does this crap again is to be 2 scores ahead!

Re: NFL sides with Buccaneers on kneel-down controversy

Josh freeman is a wuss

Just thought I'd say it lol

Re: NFL sides with Buccaneers on kneel-down controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 441022)

I hear what you're saying man, and I agree that this is how the kneel down is generally viewed.

My problem is that I don't know what made these players decide the kneel down was a gentleman thing. I've always thought of it as a way to run out the clock without risking a turnover. But if you're the defense, you have to try to disrupt that center. Sure, someone could have gotten hurt, but we can say that about every play. The object of the game is to win, and the last play -when you're only down one score- should be no different than any other play.

Now, I know that many have argued that injury was more likely because the Giants were somehow caught off guard, but when I see the replay it was very obvious that the Bucs were ready to send the house. They weren't just standing around. So it's the Giants fault, in my humble opinion, for taking it for granted and allowing themselves to get pushed back like that... And I'll add that if players still think the kneel is a universal "everybody stop playing" signal, then I agree with Jerry Jones that they should just outlaw it.

Quote:

The Miracle at the Meadowlands: Later that season, on November 19, 1978 the New York Giants were closing out an apparent 17-12 victory over the visiting Philadelphia Eagles. With 31 seconds left to play, they had the ball on third down. The Eagles had no timeouts left. All the Giants had to do was snap the ball one more time, and since they had knelt with the ball on the play before, it was expected they would do it and the game would be over. However, the kneel-down play wasn't universally accepted as an honorable way to win a game at the time, and Giants' offensive coordinator Bob Gibson ordered quarterback Joe Pisarcik (with whom he had been having a running feud over play-calling authority) to hand the ball off to fullback Larry Csonka for one more run up the middle to end the game. Csonka was reluctant to take the ball, and instead Pisarcik fumbled the handoff, allowing Eagles' cornerback Herman Edwards to return it for the winning touchdown. The Fumble, as outraged Giants' fans still call it, spurred the Eagles to the playoffs that season and precipitated a complete overhaul of the Giants' coaching and management staff, eventually reversing years of decline. Gibson was fired the next day. The following week, kneeling with the ball when possible to run out the clock and preserve a victory became standard operating procedure in the NFL.

This is an example of why the Buccaneers did what they did, they were within a score and could have hypothetically won the game had they caused a fumble ... is it any different a principle from an onside kick? ... and that's where I'm at in regards to the Giants ... if the offensive lineman couldn't see that Tampa Bay was coming, then that's their problem. I guess I'll look at Herm Edwards in a different light from now on also, when he's doing his goofy game analysis for ESPN, :lol:.

Just outlaw the practice of kneeling-down-to-win-a-game, IMO.

Re: NFL sides with Buccaneers on kneel-down controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by SloMotion (Post 441126)

When did all this kneel-down-to-end-a-game crap start, anyway? I vaguely remember, as a kid, it kinda' showing up sometime in the '70's and much to the disdain of the fans ... I even vaguely remember arguing during sandlot games when kids on the other team would try to pull that stunt. I even want to say I remember fans boo-ing the play when it started showing up in games, but don't quote me on that.

So I did some digging and came up with this (and yes, apparently I do have too much time on my hands, :lol:). I find it ironic that the NYG were involved in the original controversy that basically started the whole 'kneel-down' procedure and that they're embroiled in controversy over the 'kneel-down' once again ... maybe they were having flashbacks to 1978, eh? :

This is an example of why the Buccaneers did what they did, they were within a score and could have hypothetically won the game had they caused a fumble ... is it any different a principle from an onside kick? ... and that's where I'm at in regards to the Giants ... if the offensive lineman couldn't see that Tampa Bay was coming, then that's their problem. I guess I'll look at Herm Edwards in a different light from now on also, when he's doing his goofy game analysis for ESPN, :lol:.

Just outlaw the practice of kneeling-down-to-win-a-game, IMO.

Thank you. That is precisely the point I've been getting at for days, lol. I didn't know that the Giants were involved in starting all this kneel down stuff, but that's interesting.

But yeah, it's kind of lame to not run a play. I never had a huge beef with it though, until the Giants got their panties bunched up about a team trying make a play with the game still in reach.

Re: NFL sides with Buccaneers on kneel-down controversy

5 seconds= 1 play. A fumble return = win. I agree with the Bucs trying to pull the game out by any means