19-0?

[Rita]

Yes, the woofing gods do exist .

Congrats to the Giants!!!! Yeah!! ::banana::

Terry Bradshaw sounds like I did after a weekend in Greenbay. ::uhoh::

[Jordan 04]

WOO WOO WOOOOT!

[Josh '99]

In the immortal words of Lee Corso:  Not so fast, my friend.

[BCrespi]

Though I grew up a baseball fan first (football and hockey 2 and 2A) there is nothing that gets me jazzed like a huge Giants or Cornell hockey win.  I'm glad I could post about this here, b/c it's by far the two teams I get most emotionally invested in from game-to-game.  I guess it probably has to do mostly with 162 Yankee games and 82 Ranger games, but no matter.

What a freakin' game!  Yeah Big Blue!

[Beeeej]

[quote BCrespi]Though I grew up a baseball fan first (football and hockey 2 and 2A) there is nothing that gets me jazzed like a huge Giants or Cornell hockey win.  I'm glad I could post about this here, b/c it's by far the two teams I get most emotionally invested in from game-to-game.  I guess it probably has to do mostly with 162 Yankee games and 82 Ranger games, but no matter.

What a freakin' game!  Yeah Big Blue![/quote]

It was a great game!  And I was already headed to bed, jazzed about the Giants' victory, when a friend called me from where I'd watched the first half (I came home for the second because I had to be up early today), and told me I'd won a not inconsiderable amount of money with my box matching the final score.

Not a bad way to start the week.  :-D

[RichH]

A fun "morning after" excersize for those of us who aren't stinging today is to Froogle "Patriots XLII Champions"

http://www.google.com/products?q=Patriots+XLII+Champions&btnG=Search+Products&show=dd

All the links to Dick's Sporting Goods give you an unfriendly ref whistling you for interference.  Shop.com still has product pages up.

[Jordan 04]

[quote RichH]A fun "morning after" excersize for those of us who aren't stinging today is to Froogle "Patriots XLII Champions"

http://www.google.com/products?q=Patriots+XLII+Champions&btnG=Search+Products&show=dd

All the links to Dick's Sporting Goods give you an unfriendly ref whistling you for interference.  Shop.com still has product pages up.[/quote]

Some village in Africa is going to be boasting about the greatest undefeated team in the history of football.

[Beeeej]

Always a fun read, my buddy Reid's "Super Bowl Timeline":

http://www.reidaboutit.com/2008/02/elis-comin-super-bowl-xlii-timeline.html

[Beeeej]

An outstanding (albeit imaginary) dialogue between Buck & Aikman on the "too many men" call in football vs. hockey:

http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/04/on-certainty-and-illegal-substitutions/

[ftyuv]

I argue with my friends all the time about passing interference, too.  What's with this nonsense that the defense has to actually be looking at the ball when they go to block it?  They know where it is, they can see the receiver jumping to catch it, and at that point it should be fair game.  I like hockey's looser interpretation of "playing the puck" for interference.  But then, football's style of ruling is I guess what you have to deal with when you have a sport in which offense and defense are artificially separated.

Anyway, as hard as the Pats' loss was for me, I have to agree that Belichick's challenge on that too-many-men call was kinda dick.

[ugarte]

[quote ftyuv]I argue with my friends all the time about passing interference, too.  What's with this nonsense that the defense has to actually be looking at the ball when they go to block it?  They know where it is, they can see the receiver jumping to catch it, and at that point it should be fair game.[/quote]
Faceguarding has been legal in the NFL for at least the last year or two. Incidental contact when the CB and WR are jumping for the ball is legal. Incidental contact when the defender can only imply the location of the ball is pass interference. I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.

[ftyuv]

[quote ugarte][quote ftyuv]I argue with my friends all the time about passing interference, too.  What's with this nonsense that the defense has to actually be looking at the ball when they go to block it?  They know where it is, they can see the receiver jumping to catch it, and at that point it should be fair game.[/quote]
Faceguarding has been legal in the NFL for at least the last year or two. Incidental contact when the CB and WR are jumping for the ball is legal. Incidental contact when the defender can only imply the location of the ball is pass interference. I think it is a good presumption that if the defender isn't looking, the contact isn't a play at the ball, but an attempt to disrupt the WR from catching the ball.[/quote]

Well, I'd call it an attempt to draw a stalemate -- you can't catch it, but you're not letting him catch it either.  To me, that's akin to "fighting for the puck" in a way that you're not really trying to get possession, but rather trying to keep possession from the opponent and force the puck up against the boards (which is legal in hockey).  But as I said, I recognize that in a game like football, where you have artificial offense-time and defense-time, a stalemate amounts to a victory for the defense, which wouldn't be good for the game.

[Rosey]

But as I said, I recognize that in a game like football, where you have artificial offense-time and defense-time, a stalemate amounts to a victory for the defense, which wouldn't be good for the game.

By which you mean that it makes the game less exciting by making the forward pass less effective, right?  I agree with that assessment, but it is still a contrived rule.  It makes me think less of football as a well-structured game, similar to the way "injuries" ruin soccer and intentional personal fouls ruin the final minutes of a basketball game.

The fact that these strategies can exist in the first place demonstrates to me that the game itself has a fundamental problem, and papering over it with judgment calls by referees seems like the wrong solution.

(It's likely that most sports have these problems.  In baseball, we have the infield fly rule.  In that case, though, I ask: what's the problem?  Why shouldn't infield fly balls result in double plays and/or pickle plays?)

Kyle

[Jim Hyla]

[quote krose]

But as I said, I recognize that in a game like football, where you have artificial offense-time and defense-time, a stalemate amounts to a victory for the defense, which wouldn't be good for the game.

By which you mean that it makes the game less exciting by making the forward pass less effective, right?  I agree with that assessment, but it is still a contrived rule.
Kyle[/quote]

Most, or at least many, of the rules we deal with in sports, and life, are contrived. There are contrived reasons for icing and offsides in our sport. Without them the game would not be to my, and  I'd guess to say most fans, liking. Rules for games always change to keep the game interesting. For shame, there is a new discussion about eliminating lacrosse face-offs, and putting in a time clock. I personally like the idea, you may not, but putting it or someone down because it's contrived, well let's just say, again we agree to disagree.

[Rosey]

[quote Jim Hyla]Most, or at least many, of the rules we deal with in sports, and life, are contrived. There are contrived reasons for icing and offsides in our sport.[/quote]
I actually disagree with this assessment. They are very well-defined rules (the "could have gotten it" excuse for calling off icing notwithstanding) that don't involve ref judgment.  It's the judgment call that I really take issue with, not the additional restriction.

Kyle