Jump to content
Click here to get your free tickets for Colts Training Camp today!

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ColtsBlueFL

Tuck rule is rescinded

Recommended Posts

Al Davis is going to make an appearance for Easter, different kind of resurrection, lol :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Davis is going to make an appearance for Easter, different kind of resurrection, lol :)

 

They're showing the Pats - Raiders overtime win where the tuck rule changed the game. Walt ruled fumble, but got buzzed. Seeing  a front view, he overturned it because of the tuck rule calling it an incomplete pass.

 

Bruschi and Rice discussing that game on air now... LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're showing the Pats - Raiders overtime win where the tuck rule changed the game. Walt ruled fumble, but got buzzed. Seeing  a front view, he overturned it because of the tuck rule calling it an incomplete pass.

 

Bruschi and Rice discussing that game on air now... LOL.

 

It was/is critical for the Pats' dynasty claim. No tuck rule, no Pats dynasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the tuck rule, Pats best win % in the league. The Raiders, second worst just ahead of the Lions.  Not only changed a game, changed teams legacies!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the tuck rule, Pats best win % in the league. The Raiders, second worst

just ahead of the Lions.  Not only changed a game, changed teams legacies!!

 

 

Talk about a PIVOT POPINT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never again under the ruling of -

 

NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.

 

Rest In Peace.   ;)

 

I'm thinking once it is clear the ball has not come out before the hand is beginning a motion toward the ground, it can then be considered a fumble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the tuck was not rescinded as much as it was modified to the manner in which the ref have been calling the rule . . . the end point of the forward pass has been moved back from the point of the tuck to the point of the process of tucking the ball (Big Ben has had two fumbles called this way in the last two years) . . . I would have preferred the point to be pulled back to the point of the end of a pump fake, which is sequentially before the process of starting to bring the ball back the Qb's body . . .

the end of the pump fake might have cause some ruffles as, on the rare occasion, a QB loosing the ball on a pump fake (our having it knocked out) would oomplain that he was still in the act of throwing . . . however those few times a fumble would be called would be, IMO, acceptable as the QB needs to be able to control the ball . . . also this point would have covered the point of Bradys' pass in the Oakland game, the pass everyone has such a big complaint over . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an interesting article by a Boston writer I like, during part of which he speculated as to what may have happened if the Tuck Rule hadn't changed the outcome of the Snow Bowl...

 

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2013/03/farewell_to_the_tuck_rule.html

 

 

Of course, there's that other what-if aspect, the ready-made, let's-kill-an-easy-four-hours-here sports radio topic: Would the Patriots' dynasty have existed had Coleman not made the call, after which the Patriots tied and eventually won the game in overtime? Or would there have been some sort of football butterfly effect, with a change in that one moment altering everything that came after?

 

I believe, without a doubt, that the Patriots still would have emerged as the team of the decade and won a Super Bowl or two, though I suppose you can't say without absolute certainty that they would have won in 2003-04. But remember, the dynasty didn't really take off until after the hiccup of a 2002 season, when the safety trio of Lawyer Milloy, Tebucky Jones, and Victor Green didn't quite thrive as planned and there were essential new arrivals (Deion Branch, David Givens) and requisite busts (Donald Hayes, the forefather of a long run of receivers who couldn't master the playbook).

 

The peak occurred as Brady kept becoming greater and greater and reinforcements such as Rodney Harrison and Corey Dillon arrived to create a truly great team. That 2003-04 dominance had little direct relation to the Patriots' good fortune one snowy night in January 2002.

 

Bill Belichick's brilliance was proven during the '01 season no matter whether it had ended against the Raiders or, as it turned out, they went on to become the most improbable Super Bowl champion ever with stirring victories over the cocky Steelers and even cockier Rams.

 

And Tom Brady still would have become Tom Brady -- knowing what we now know about his competitiveness and work ethic, the loss would have fueled him even more. The Snow Bowl is actually more relevant to Adam Vinatieri's legacy -- he should be the second kicker inducted into the Hall of Fame, and his tying and winning field goals in the Snow Bowl will be as much a part of his case as his two Super Bowl game-winners.

 

 

 

 

The one point he makes that I think is worth considering is that the 2002 team was a bit of a hiccup. They lost the division on a tie-breaker and missed the playoffs. It wasn't until they retooled in 2003 that they started to become dominant. In fact, I'm not sure there's been a better two-year stretch in my lifetime than the 2003-2004 Patriots. That was the team that won 21 straight from one season to the next and didn't lose a game for a year. Literally.

 

He's also dead-on in that if the Tuck Rule hadn't been called, it would have probably had a much greater impact on Adam Vinatieri's legacy than anyone else. The game-tying and game-winning kicks come off the board, as does his game-winner against the Rams.

 

Hard to say how things might've changed. Like Chad Finn asks, would it have been a football Butterfly Effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. Brady's pass would not have been called different.

 

I hate the fact that they have modified it as I have said previously. I think you always want to have a rule favor the offense keeping the ball. I can think of at least a dozen calls in recent games that will now be called fumbles.

 

It is silly that people are happy over it because of the Pats call 12 years ago. It means nothing in relation to that but will effect the game going forward for the worse I fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to say how things might've changed. Like Chad Finn asks, would it have been a football Butterfly Effect?

 

Butterfly effect, yep, one will never know!!! If the Raiders won the game and then the SB on the heels of that play, Chucky is still there, and Dungy is still there with the Bucs and the Colts are still stuck with "Playoffs? you kidding me, playoffs?" Mora Sr. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an interesting article by a Boston writer I like, during part of which he speculated as to what may have happened if the Tuck Rule hadn't changed the outcome of the Snow Bowl...

 

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2013/03/farewell_to_the_tuck_rule.html

 

 

Of course, there's that other what-if aspect, the ready-made, let's-kill-an-easy-four-hours-here sports radio topic: Would the Patriots' dynasty have existed had Coleman not made the call, after which the Patriots tied and eventually won the game in overtime? Or would there have been some sort of football butterfly effect, with a change in that one moment altering everything that came after?

 

I believe, without a doubt, that the Patriots still would have emerged as the team of the decade and won a Super Bowl or two, though I suppose you can't say without absolute certainty that they would have won in 2003-04. But remember, the dynasty didn't really take off until after the hiccup of a 2002 season, when the safety trio of Lawyer Milloy, Tebucky Jones, and Victor Green didn't quite thrive as planned and there were essential new arrivals (Deion Branch, David Givens) and requisite busts (Donald Hayes, the forefather of a long run of receivers who couldn't master the playbook).

 

The peak occurred as Brady kept becoming greater and greater and reinforcements such as Rodney Harrison and Corey Dillon arrived to create a truly great team. That 2003-04 dominance had little direct relation to the Patriots' good fortune one snowy night in January 2002.

 

Bill Belichick's brilliance was proven during the '01 season no matter whether it had ended against the Raiders or, as it turned out, they went on to become the most improbable Super Bowl champion ever with stirring victories over the cocky Steelers and even cockier Rams.

 

And Tom Brady still would have become Tom Brady -- knowing what we now know about his competitiveness and work ethic, the loss would have fueled him even more. The Snow Bowl is actually more relevant to Adam Vinatieri's legacy -- he should be the second kicker inducted into the Hall of Fame, and his tying and winning field goals in the Snow Bowl will be as much a part of his case as his two Super Bowl game-winners.

 

 

 

 

The one point he makes that I think is worth considering is that the 2002 team was a bit of a hiccup. They lost the division on a tie-breaker and missed the playoffs. It wasn't until they retooled in 2003 that they started to become dominant. In fact, I'm not sure there's been a better two-year stretch in my lifetime than the 2003-2004 Patriots. That was the team that won 21 straight from one season to the next and didn't lose a game for a year. Literally.

 

He's also dead-on in that if the Tuck Rule hadn't been called, it would have probably had a much greater impact on Adam Vinatieri's legacy than anyone else. The game-tying and game-winning kicks come off the board, as does his game-winner against the Rams.

 

Hard to say how things might've changed. Like Chad Finn asks, would it have been a football Butterfly Effect?

Very cool read. I pretty much agree with it. But it is so hard to predict. What always amuses me is the fact that raider fans believe if they won that game they would have won the SB that year and the next two like the Pats did. I mean if there is anything the Raiders have been good at it is ineptness.

 

One other thing to consider to. Does Gruden leave Oakland sending Dungy to the Colts? Probably not.  Perhaps Manning does not have his SB if the Tuck is not called.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thing to consider to. Does Gruden leave Oakland sending Dungy to the Colts? Probably not.  Perhaps Manning does not have his SB if the Tuck is not called.

 

Yep, that was the first thing that came to my mind as well. :)

 

I also think Dungy's arrival co-incided with Peyton's numbers getting better in the regular season, his INTs did go down from the previous years. I doubt it was all Peyton, Dungy did have a calming influence and let Peyton know it is OK to punt. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cool read. I pretty much agree with it. But it is so hard to predict. What always amuses me is the fact that raider fans believe if they won that game they would have won the SB that year and the next two like the Pats did. I mean if there is anything the Raiders have been good at it is ineptness.

 

They definitely have a gripe but the Raiders aren't the only team in sports history to be victimized by an infamous call. And as much as the rule itself is questionable, the application of it was not. Coleman called it correctly, so any Oakland fans should focus their frustration on the rule itself and be happy that it's gone!

 

It's also always worth pointing out... the Patriots didn't maintain possession and then win the game on that drive. The Raiders were stunned but their own failure to overcome the call and finish out the game is 100% on them. They didn't stop Brady and had chances to after that play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They definitely have a gripe but the Raiders aren't the only team in sports history to be victimized by an infamous call. And as much as the rule itself is questionable, the application of it was not. Coleman called it correctly, so any Oakland fans should focus their frustration on the rule itself and be happy that it's gone!

 

It's also always worth pointing out... the Patriots didn't maintain possession and then win the game on that drive. The Raiders were stunned but their own failure to overcome the call and finish out the game is 100% on them. They didn't stop Brady and had chances to after that play.

yes, lost in the Tuck Rule is the single best half of football put up by any QB in a blizzard. Brady passed for more than 300 yards in the second half  - scored a TD himself enroute to 13 unasnwered points in the 4th quarter and OT. That was a legacy game for him too but lost in the call. A shame really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an interesting article by a Boston writer I like, during part of which he speculated as to what may have happened if the Tuck Rule hadn't changed the outcome of the Snow Bowl...

 

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2013/03/farewell_to_the_tuck_rule.html

Nice article and thanks for posting . . . I do think that it had more to do with AV legacy and anyone else . . . had that not happened AV would be left with the FG at then end of SB 38 (after having missed two earlier in the game) and the 5 FGs against Baltimore . . . which would still be great, but it really helps having the two from the 2001 playoffs . . .

I do think willing a championship can carry over to the team down the road . . . but with the hiccup in 2002 and how strong the team was in 2003-2004, I do not think the 2001 lost would have effected them . . .

And i am glad that they have the particular photo for the article . . . what is lost in the whole tuck rule thing and especially amongst the "what should have happened" crowd is the fact that the ball was dislodged in part by Woodsen's blow to the head of Brady, one can clearly see the after effects on the photo with Brady's helmit ajar . . . true Woodsen was going for the ball and missed, but was none the less a illegal blow to the head . . . and the poetic justice in all of this, there was more contact to Brady's head than Sugar Bear Hamilton's "rougher the passer" blow to Stabler's head . . . so for all of the "what is right is right crowd" not only was there a missed call on the blow to the head, it was worst infraction than what we did with getting the roughing call . . . but one will not find any of this subject on ESPN or the NFLN . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was/is critical for the Pats' dynasty claim. No tuck rule, no Pats dynasty.

Chad, in the annals of "letting them play" and of the "rules should be in favor of the offense", one can not forget SB42 and the non call for in the grasp and the then recent rule change of a ball can hit the ground and still be live if it does not move . . . both of these had direct effect on Eli's pass to Tyree, I like the call the way it happen, but lets not talk about criticals calls/rule in favor of the offense which went in the way of the Pats without looking at ones that did not . . . indeed had the calls been called the same way in the opposite direction we would still have a Pats dynasty but just wins in 03, 04, and 07, and btw a 19-0 to boot . . .

so some calls go for you and some do not . . . all one can do is to get ones team in position and let the chips fall as they may . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, that was the first thing that came to my mind as well. :)

 

I also think Dungy's arrival co-incided with Peyton's numbers getting better in the regular season, his INTs did go down from the previous years. I doubt it was all Peyton, Dungy did have a calming influence and let Peyton know it is OK to punt. :)

Yes Dungy did a lot for the colts and manning, as BB has done for the pats and brady. . . Dungy also helped the D and brought in some key players and draftees in 02-04 to help bolster the team . . . every great QB needs a great coach and vice versa . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tuck will always live on.

No doubt.........in the form of a Lombardi trophy in NE ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt.........in the form of a Lombardi trophy in NE ;).

yah but I would give back the tuck rule call for an in the grasp rule call (and a later date on the change in the ball hitting the ground rule) and have that single Lombardi still in NE but it would have had a 19-0 banner in Foxboro and one less Lombardi in the Meadowlands . . . see it works both ways . . . ;) . . .

I won't even bother to mention 1976 . . . and the rule on the QB in that game between the same combatants as 2001 . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yah but I would give back the tuck rule call for an in the grasp rule call (and a later date on the change in the ball hitting the ground rule) and have that single Lombardi still in NE but it would have had a 19-0 banner in Foxboro and one less Lombardi in the Meadowlands . . . see it works both ways . . . ;) . . .

I won't even both to mention 1976 . . . and the rule on the QB in that game between the same combatants as 2001 . . .

I have no idea what your talking about lol.

I assume Amfootball knows I was just kidding around with him, but you went off on a tangent that I don't follow.

haha maybe I'm just dense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yah but I would give back the tuck rule call for an in the grasp rule call (and a later date on the change in the ball hitting the ground rule) and have that single Lombardi still in NE but it would have had a 19-0 banner in Foxboro and one less Lombardi in the Meadowlands . . . see it works both ways . . . ;) . . .

I won't even bother to mention 1976 . . . and the rule on the QB in that game between the same combatants as 2001 . . .

 

But it wasn't a game ending turnover that was taken away. With the tuck rule call, the game would have ended if it was a fumble. Raiders just had to kneel and burn clock out after that to win 13-10. No question about it.

 

The others, yeah Eli would have been sacked with the in-grasp call but what is the guarantee he would still not have converted a 4th down for a first down, and then still scored a TD and not left even 35 seconds for Brady? Maybe he would have scored with 5 seconds remaining???? Then maybe Pats fans can say, we were 5 seconds away from a perfect season instead of 35 seconds away??? ;)

 

I get your point though that you are trying to make. :) Just messin' with ya. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt.........in the form of a Lombardi trophy in NE ;).

 

LOL! Yes. And a Radiers dynasty. Would that have been better? ouch.

 

BTW, were you really voting for the raiders that game? Just curious. Colts did not make playoffs that year and the pats were not the dynastic pats yet. I mean I find it insufferable to vote for the raiders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yah but I would give back the tuck rule call for an in the grasp rule call (and a later date on the change in the ball hitting the ground rule) and have that single Lombardi still in NE but it would have had a 19-0 banner in Foxboro and one less Lombardi in the Meadowlands . . . see it works both ways . . . ;) . . .

I won't even bother to mention 1976 . . . and the rule on the QB in that game between the same combatants as 2001 . . .

I would trade in the '01 SB, the second Red Sox championship, the Celts 08 champ and the Bruins champ for the 19-0 season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what your talking about lol.

I assume Amfootball knows I was just kidding around with him, but you went off on a tangent that I don't follow.

haha maybe I'm just dense.

no you are not dense . . . :-), i might be tho . . lol . . . I was just making a reference to something that I have already written in this thread . . . without rewriting I would kindly ask you to read my post #21 above . . . my only point was that calls can go against one and for one, that is all . . . and we benefitted from a rule that had the pass still be a pass past the pump fake and then we did not get the benefit of a call later in the decade . . . just as we had one go against us in the rougher the passer call on Stabler against the same Raiders team in 1976 (which I talk about in post #20 above) . . . things tend to even out over the years . . .

it did not bother me that the Brady pass was not called a fumble nor did it bother me that they did not call Eli for being in the grasp and Tyree's ball hitting the ground would have been incomplete just a few years earlier . . .

i did not realize that you were justing with amfootball . . . I thought you were making a point about the a call going for us . . . and i just responded by saying we have a few for and against us . . . :-)

btw, sorry but i cant use the symbols things on this site . . . not sure why . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it wasn't a game ending turnover that was taken away. With the tuck rule call, the game would have ended if it was a fumble. Raiders just had to kneel and burn clock out after that to win 13-10. No question about it.

 

I thought the 76 call did cost the game. Can't remember though even though I watched it.

 

The thing about the tuck call is it was not a blown call. It was called correctly. People say well Brady wasn't really trying to tuck it. That may be but refs do not rule on intent. Either way justice was done on Woodson non roughing the passer...or 1976 which awas a really good NE team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! Yes. And a Radiers dynasty. Would that have been better? ouch.

BTW, were you really voting for the raiders that game? Just curious. Colts did not make playoffs that year and the pats were not the dynastic pats yet. I mean I find it insufferable to vote for the raiders.

Naw no dog in that fight. Unless the Pats play the Colts I don't really have much against your team. And I think your coach is awesome lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no you are not dense . . . :-), i might be tho . . lol . . . I was just making a reference to something that I have already written in this thread . . . without rewriting I would kindly ask you to read my post #21 above . . . my only point was that calls can go against one and for one, that is all . . . and we benefitted from a rule that had the pass still be a pass past the pump fake and then we did not get the benefit of a call later in the decade . . . just as we had one go against us in the rougher the passer call on Stabler against the same Raiders team in 1976 (which I talk about in post #20 above) . . . things tend to even out over the years . . .

it did not bother me that the Brady pass was not called a fumble nor did it bother me that they did not call Eli for being in the grasp and Tyree's ball hitting the ground would have been incomplete just a few years earlier . . .

i did not realize that you were justing with amfootball . . . I thought you were making a point about the a call going for us . . . and i just responded by saying we have a few for and against us . . . :-)

btw, sorry but i cant use the symbols things on this site . . . not sure why . . .

haha naw no worries I understand your post now. I don't have many passionate opinions about the tuck rule.

It's just one of those things when mentioned people get up in arms about so I can't resist poking a few bears lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an interesting article by a Boston writer I like, during part of which he speculated as to what may have happened if the Tuck Rule hadn't changed the outcome of the Snow Bowl...

 

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2013/03/farewell_to_the_tuck_rule.html

 

 

Of course, there's that other what-if aspect, the ready-made, let's-kill-an-easy-four-hours-here sports radio topic: Would the Patriots' dynasty have existed had Coleman not made the call, after which the Patriots tied and eventually won the game in overtime? Or would there have been some sort of football butterfly effect, with a change in that one moment altering everything that came after?

 

I believe, without a doubt, that the Patriots still would have emerged as the team of the decade and won a Super Bowl or two, though I suppose you can't say without absolute certainty that they would have won in 2003-04. But remember, the dynasty didn't really take off until after the hiccup of a 2002 season, when the safety trio of Lawyer Milloy, Tebucky Jones, and Victor Green didn't quite thrive as planned and there were essential new arrivals (Deion Branch, David Givens) and requisite busts (Donald Hayes, the forefather of a long run of receivers who couldn't master the playbook).

 

The peak occurred as Brady kept becoming greater and greater and reinforcements such as Rodney Harrison and Corey Dillon arrived to create a truly great team. That 2003-04 dominance had little direct relation to the Patriots' good fortune one snowy night in January 2002.

 

Bill Belichick's brilliance was proven during the '01 season no matter whether it had ended against the Raiders or, as it turned out, they went on to become the most improbable Super Bowl champion ever with stirring victories over the cocky Steelers and even cockier Rams.

 

And Tom Brady still would have become Tom Brady -- knowing what we now know about his competitiveness and work ethic, the loss would have fueled him even more. The Snow Bowl is actually more relevant to Adam Vinatieri's legacy -- he should be the second kicker inducted into the Hall of Fame, and his tying and winning field goals in the Snow Bowl will be as much a part of his case as his two Super Bowl game-winners.

 

 

 

 

The one point he makes that I think is worth considering is that the 2002 team was a bit of a hiccup. They lost the division on a tie-breaker and missed the playoffs. It wasn't until they retooled in 2003 that they started to become dominant. In fact, I'm not sure there's been a better two-year stretch in my lifetime than the 2003-2004 Patriots. That was the team that won 21 straight from one season to the next and didn't lose a game for a year. Literally.

 

He's also dead-on in that if the Tuck Rule hadn't been called, it would have probably had a much greater impact on Adam Vinatieri's legacy than anyone else. The game-tying and game-winning kicks come off the board, as does his game-winner against the Rams.

 

Hard to say how things might've changed. Like Chad Finn asks, would it have been a football Butterfly Effect?

revising history based on the rule change is a net wash. On the play Brady is hit in the head which would now be a 15 yard penalty giving the Pats even better field position

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thing to consider to. Does Gruden leave Oakland sending Dungy to the Colts? Probably not.  Perhaps Manning does not have his SB if the Tuck is not called.

 

Dungy got fired. He didn't get fired so they can bring in Gruden. They just fired him. Gruden was brought in after.

 

So the Tuck Game has no effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha naw no worries I understand your post now. I don't have many passionate opinions about the tuck rule.

It's just one of those things when mentioned people get up in arms about so I can't resist poking a few bears lol.

Hey no worries, nothing wrong with rattling the cages or rustling up the natives . . . I have done it a few times myself . . . yes it is very passionate subject . . . it is a blend of a play on a rule that is overly broad being invoked at time in a game was over, under 2 mins to go and no TOs for the pats . . . it makes for a touchy subject . . . and i think too that the timing of the call can blur many poeple vision on the actual call . . . but such is life . . . :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have a problem with people who claim that without the "Tuck Rule" there is no Patriots SB Dynasty. Even if NE had not played the Rams in 2001, There is nothing to suggest that Belichick & the Patriots still wouldn't have played the Panthers in 2003 & the Eagles in 2004. High football I.Q. cannot be denied & Bill has it in spades. All you have to do is examine his DC days with the NY Giants & his HC days in Cleveland. Failure teaches more about tenacity & the approach to your football program than anything else. No one is an overnight success & sensation ever. It takes years of crappy jobs slowly & steadily moving up the coordinator ladder until you finally get a shot to validate & prove your head coaching credentials.

 

A HOF Coach is not defined by 1 referee decision. Brilliance is brilliance & eventually everyone else in the NFL sees it too. I don't care what a person's profession is. Superior intelligence is easy to spot & once a person finds their talent & niche the world usually bows to their will in a given field. I have seen it directly more than once in my own lifetime.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it wasn't a game ending turnover that was taken away. With the tuck rule call, the game would have ended if it was a fumble. Raiders just had to kneel and burn clock out after that to win 13-10. No question about it.

 

The others, yeah Eli would have been sacked with the in-grasp call but what is the guarantee he would still not have converted a 4th down for a first down, and then still scored a TD and not left even 35 seconds for Brady? Maybe he would have scored with 5 seconds remaining???? Then maybe Pats fans can say, we were 5 seconds away from a perfect season instead of 35 seconds away??? ;)

 

I get your point though that you are trying to make. :) Just messin' with ya. :)

yes you are 100% correct it was game over, no TOs . . . and yes it was not game over in SB 42 . . . but it would of been like 4 and 15 with just under a minute around their 35 yard line- ish . . . so still possible, but having to make a first down, the next play would have been semi conservative which brings one to midfield-ish with 40 seconds or so-ish . . . which is getting close to hail mary time . . . the 30 or so yards with the pass (and 40 without sack) really change the dynamic . . .so agreed no the game was not over, but the giants would of been in Flacco land and playing against a team that likely would of had the safeties in position . . .

the changes to win would of gone from like say 50% at the 25 yard line to like under 2% with the sack . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it was a fumble

no you didn't . . .

btw, your post reminds of the Beatles White Album . . . lol . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...