"If there were a decent amount of time left then I could see trying something like this.

But there were FIVE SECONDS left. If the Bucs managed to cause a fumble and recover it, the time would have expired."


The clock stops on a turnover. 5 seconds is enough time to fall on the football. But you're missing another possibility. Suppose they fumble the exchange and it's rolling free, and the Bucs pick it up and run for a touchdown. You still honestly believe they should just quit? You guys are arguing against probability, but maybe you should talk to the 2002 Kentucky Wildcats who lost to LSU on a 74 yard touchdown pass with 2 seconds on the clock. You never know what might happen, and if the Bucs somehow come up with the ball, they at least get the chance at a miracle.

If the Bucs WERE able to cause a fumble with the 5 seconds left, by the time the ball was recovered, AND the officials got it sorted out which team had recovered it, the time would have expired.

The clock doesn't keep running while they sort it out. Not on a fumble. On a normal running play the clock would keep running, but when the ball comes out and there is a pile, the clock stops. Now, if the ball is rolling around for a while before they jump on it, then I agree the clock would run out. I'm talking about a guy shooting the gap and the ball is laying right in front of the QB, and the defender immediately falls on it. Is that likely? No. Is it possible? Technically yes.

But you ignored the most important point I was trying to get across. You're assuming there would be a pile up, but what if the ball rolls free and a Bucs player picks it up and runs with it for a touchdown? Again, not likely, but neither is any other desperation play, and we've all seen plenty of instances where football's version of a miracle has happened.

And it's especially hypocritical for any of us to talk about a hard play as being dirty when we've been defending the Saints for months on making big LEGAL hits. I still stand by the Saints and I still have no problem with the Bucs play.

We are talking about 5 seconds, not 45 or even 25. What I meant about sorting and the clock running is that by the time the refs even REALIZE that there IS a fumble, there will be a pause while they let the play run itself out and that takes time.

If a team gets a 1st down @ the 2:00 warning and is trying to run out the clock and the other team is out of timeouts, then I could see a team attempting to force a turnover.

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.

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.

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.