Yes, but if you go for 2 and don’t make it, it only matters if Chicago scores a TD. Right? But if Chicago scores a TD after you’ve kicked a PAT, you still need a 2 point conversion. There’s no downside to trying the 2 pointer now instead of later (in fact, it’s *better *to fail at it now than later; that way you know you need an extra score, that way you can plan accordingly).
And that’s to say nothing of the fact that usually it will not be the case that Chicago just scores a TD. *Most *of the time, scoring 1 additional point there will help you not at all, but scoring 2 points to tie the game up is *always *relevant. It was not a close decision. It was simply a mistake.
Say you kick the XP, and Chicago scores. Now you’re down 8, and you need to go for 2. If you miss it, you need a stop and a FG. This is exactly the same requirements as the other scenario. Except if you go for 2 now A) if nothing else happens, it’s a tie and you go to OT and B if you miss, you know ahead of time that you need 2 more possessions and can game plan with 11 minutes on the clock instead, say, 5.
but it all comes down to the number of possessions left in the game. If you miss the 2 points then you leave open the possibility that you will need two possessions, which means two more Bears possessions, so you may never get that second possession or if you do it may not be with much time. Oh yeah, you have to stop the Bears from scoring on that second possession. Not to mention that Forte had been gashing the Packers defense and the Packers had exactly one timeout left.
It was fun for me to just hear the flippity-flopping by Aikman, I think it was, on the broadcast. When the Packers kicked the extra point to remain behind, both Buck and Aikman commented on the choice … Aikman even said “I’m fine with it (kicking the PAT).”
But, on the Packers’ next possession, as they were having to convert 4th downs while trying to at least get into FG position, both Buck and Aikman were adamant that McCarthy screwed up, and absolutely should have gone for two earlier. Even though, at this point in the game, there was NO difference between kicking the PAT and falling on a two-point try - since the Bears hadn’t been able to score, a FG wins either way.
I personally wouldn’t have gone for the two with 11 minutes left, but I understand the mindset that some others would have tried it. The way the Green Bay D had been playing, if you miss the two it wasn’t a crazy thought to find yourself down 9 points with a lot less time to try to score twice, instead of maybe still having a shot to get a TD and two point conversion to tie it at the end.
Right, there was no difference betweeen kicking the PAT and missing the 2 point try, but there was a HUGE difference between kicking the PAT and *scoring *on the two point conversion.
(Also, I may have misheard, but I thought that even after the fact, while the booth continued to talk about the extra point and how some people would disagree with it, Aikman maintained that he agreed with the decision.)
Sure, but it’s an even less crazy thought to lose the whole frickin’ game by 1 point because you kicked a PAT that, in most eventualities, would be totally worthless.
(Sorry, I don’t want to be the guy who’s on a crusade about something so trivial, but it really is one of those things that isn’t a matter of interpretation. Kicking the PAT is wrong.)
Apparently, the NFL might issue a stat correction which would retroactively remove Manning’s passing yards record. I thought this was a possibility. He should have played a series in the 2nd half to protect against this sort of thing.
That said, I’m guessing it’s close enough that they’ll just ignore the lateral, even if they usually wouldn’t. And that would seem right to me.
It would really be chickenshit to take away the record, especially when he sat out the second half. Why are they so concerned about correcting stats that are irrelevant to the outcome of the game, and yet they say “Tough luck” about blown calls (like the KC field goal attempt) that probably put the wrong team into the playoffs?
Eh, I’d be in favor of special treatment in this case. We’re not electing the Pope here: strict adherence to the letter of the law is less important than overall fairness in an historically significant moment.
Perhaps “fairness” is the wrong word. Basic justice, then.
The scoring error affected the outcome. Manning’s level of accomplishment was more than enough to break the record. If the play had been scored as a lateral in the first place, presumably he would have come in for a series in the 2nd half and broken the record by an even larger margin.
If the Jets beat the Bills by 1 point, but after the game the League determines that a Jets FG in the 2nd Quarter sailed wide and should have been deemed no good, it would hardly be acceptable to come in and say, “Oh, as it turns out you actually only scored 21 points, not 24, so in fact you lost yesterday’s game. Sorry.” The error would affect how the rest of the game is played out, and the injustice of the ruling would be obvious to all.
This situation wouldn’t be quite as obviously wrong, but it’s the same principle.
