[Thelomen Toblerone]

I love how Brooking's complaining the last Vikes TD was disrespectful. No, you're just shit, Dallas. If I;m playing proper football, and I know the 'keeper is shit, I will shoot from 30 yards without hesitation. If I'm playing a decent 'keeper, I won't try it much, as I know he'll probably save it. It's an accurate assessment of the situation, the sort of thing that helps you win. The fact they converted that 4th and 3 sort of proves that, doesn't it?

Damn I hate the Cowboys.

[HoosierDaddy]

I'm not a big fan of that stuff. Could've have just knelt on the ball 3 times.

Also, re: Vikings v. Dallas: the Vikings pass is predicated on the run, imo. From what I saw, the Pats dominated the line of scrimmage upsetting both the ground game and being all over Romo. Not well played by the Cowboys, but extremely dominant defense makes a good team look bad.

I'd take them over the Saints right now, but that is going to be one interesting match-up. I'd rather play the Saints in the Super Bowl than the Vikings.

[Salt-Man Z]

H.D., on 19 January 2010 - 01:15 AM, said:

I'm not a big fan of that stuff. Could've have just knelt on the ball 3 times.

Not on fourth down, you can't.

The way I see it, the Vikes wanted to score points, so they took every last point the Cowboys would let them have. This is the NFL, and there's no such thing as a true "comfortable" lead, even with less than 5 minutes left; I've seen the Vikings give up 2 touchdowns in something like 15 seconds. If you have an opportunity to score, you take it and you don't apologize for it.

[HoosierDaddy]

Like I said, it's a matter of opinion. As a Colts fan, I've seen some miraculous shit happen by them. However:

Under two minutes, with the clock running, on fourth and sixth, with the score 27-3? 24 point touchdowns are rare. 25 point touchdowns even rarer.

The Cowboys would have had to go 89 yards downfield to cut it to... a still 3 score game. 27 - 10. Assuming that takes 30 seconds, the Cowboys would have had to score 17 points in less than a minute and a half. That's 3 scores. That's 3 kicks in a row.

Could it have happened? I think it is outside the realm of professional football probability.

Edit: Frankly, that is putting you in Belichick range, and that's not a place you want to be.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 19 January 2010 - 03:38 AM

[Tiste Simeon]

Please explain to a semi-ignorant British fan how a touchdown at any stage of the game is "disrespectful"??

[HoosierDaddy]

It's just different than soccer. A 3-0 deficit really CAN be leveled in 3 minutes of play. A 21-0 (representative here of goals to touchdowns) lead is about 0% likely to be taken over. I can see how looking from a soccer viewpoint it seems weird. However, there is a large group who find it arrogant to continue to score when the game is effectively over. Another large group couldn't give a lesser shit and say it's the other team's job to stop them, so keep going for it. It is simply a matter of opinion.

Imagine your team is ahead 3-0 on goals, with three minutes of stoppage time. You've kept all your starters in, and the great player already has his hat trick. What point in scoring another for the hat trick player when you can just kill the clock by passing it around?

(The one area where I agree with those who say it was a legit play, is that Dallas was blitzing on the play. That makes it much more defensible to throw the TD pass, imo. But, I'm still not a big fan of it.)

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Late in the game, if you're already winning by an insurmountable amount, it is considered bad form to actively try to score again, especially by throwing the ball. THe polite thing to do is just run the clock out.

Of course, the definitions of "insurmountable" and "late" are subjective though. I don't think they were running up the score in this case, but I could see why it might lead to hurt feelings.

[Tiste Simeon]

That's... ridiculous. And I know that scores can turn around quite quickly in this game, and even when the clock says there is only a minute left, that still means that you have at least half an hour of viewing to go, but still, the point of the game is to score as many as you can and stop the opposite team from scoring. If that means you get another goal late in the game, sod the hurt feelings of the opposition and go for it! It's sport for crying out loud! If people are that sensitive about it, they should have gone to drama club in high school instead of trying out for the team... And yes, in football if you're 3-0 up with only a few minutes to go, generally they will tend to waste time a bit, but if they get on the attack, do you think they will stop trying to be "courteous" to the other team? Doubt it... Especially when goal difference often means the difference of position in the table...

[HoosierDaddy]

Like I said, it's very different from soccer. There are many here who side with you. There are many who don't.

Have you ever heard of a mercy rule?

[Tiste Simeon]

Can't say I have...

[HoosierDaddy]

All of us, in the States, grew up with a form of mercy rules in every sport I can think of, and it logically flows from there.

[Sixty]

AFAIK all the sports I've played in stopped implementing any sort of mercy rule around the time I started middle school, HD.

The only pragmatic reason I really see of running out the clock is to avoid injury (which is the same logic applied to sitting starters, see: Wes Welker). Otherwise, though, at the end of the day you're getting paid on offense to score points, and if the opportunity presents itself, there's no reason to not take it.

[HoosierDaddy]

Do you participate in high school sports such as football or baseball? Both institute mercy rules.

In really bad situations, basketball is subject to a running clock as well.

Edit: Mercy rule stuff. Applicable even to NCAA baseball.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 21 January 2010 - 04:09 AM

[bubba]

There were no mercy rules when I was growing up HD......and no, they were not still wearing leather helmets.

[Sixty]

I only run track, which doesn't exactly allow for a mercy rule. =/

IMO a mercy rule makes sense in baseball since it makes sure the game actually ends. But in football, when you know the game's going to time out in a couple minutes anyway...why rip on another team for doing their job? Really, it baffles me. But then again, I'm also a pats fan so what do I know. D:

[HoosierDaddy]

As is clear from what I stated above, they do exist. In professional sports, they DO NOT exist. For deserved reasons.

(Everybody gets a participation trophy now Bubba, and I grew up in a generation that didn't do that, you had to win damnit! )

My only point in bringing these things up is to give a reason why there IS a group that isn't necessarily all gung-ho about ringing up another score. As I stated previously, the last touchdown in that game is very much so a defensible score because Dallas was blitzing. Why the hell were they blitzing? The game was flipping over! It is an extreme outlier on the principal, and that's why I say I don't necessarily like it, but understand it.

[Obdigore]

Did you see the first 3 downs of that series, on second down they slammed AP to the ground after the play was blown dead. I think the Vikings response was 'if they are going to play hard, fuck it, we can do what we want.' Also, on a 4th and 7 with over 2 minutes left, what do you do, try a run when they have 9 guys in the box, and give them the ball back? You turn to a short pass, which was all covered, the Cowboys brought little pressure, which allowed the Vikings TE to get onto the end-zone line. And he wasn't covered for shit. Does your 40 year old QB take a sack, or possibly throw an interception, or do you throw to your only open receiver?

I was quite happy with the play calling all game, especially after all the running-of-the-mouth and celebrating the cowboys were doing in the first and second anytime they would pick up 2 or more yards, even if it wasn't a first down.

Also, although I don't think they will, I am pulling for the Jets, as i don't want the vikings to have to play the Colts in the superbowl. I think of the 4 teams left, the 'easiest' game for the Vikings would be against the Jets, then the Saints, then the Colts.

As for the mercy rule, I played in Baseball with it, never played football or basketball with it. (I never played in High School). You did have to win to get trophys and whatnot, which was nice.

[Tiste Simeon]

Yeah imagine if Favre had been injured from trying to waste time when he could have offloaded the ball and scored... Looking forward to this game on sunday, though I need to find someone with Sky Sports 2 who will let me come round at half eleven to watch it...

[Gothos]

what's this about? handegg?
the whole mercy rules idea is kind of astounding. I thought you americons are all for winners only, and whoever's not a winner can go fuck themselves...

[Salt-Man Z]

I know that even in Major League Baseball, there's a kind of "unwritten" rule where if you've got a huge lead in the top of the ninth inning, you don't try to bunt and steal bases and small-ball it. Trying to scratch out one more insurance run with an already-huge lead is somehow insulting to the other team. The difference is, in baseball (as opposed to football) there's no clock, so there's always the possibility that the losing team can come up in the bottom of the ninth and score dozen runs to win it. Again I say: take whatever you can get and offer no apologies.

I realized earlier this week that my attempts to rationalize the Vikes' final TD sounded an awful lot like excuses (and, playing devil's advocate, I could easily punch holes in a lot of them), and I came to the conclusion that I don't need to rationalize it. I thought it was kosher, and that's that. If it had been the Cowboys taking an extra 7 points on my team, I wouldn't be pissed at Dallas; I'd be pissed at the Vikings for allowing it.

All that said, I cannot wait for Sunday night. Looking forward to another great game.