Spoiler Alert: If you haven’t seen the game yet, avoid this thread. This sentence intentionally added for mouse-overs.
Spoiler Alert: If you haven’t seen the game yet, avoid this thread. This sentence intentionally added for mouse-overs.
Spoiler Alert: If you haven’t seen the game yet, avoid this thread. This sentence intentionally added for mouse-overs.
In the Dallas Cowboys vs. Minnesota Vikings game, the Vikings scored a touchdown in the last play when leading 27-3, to end 34-3 and win the game.
What is your view of this play?
One of the Dallas players seemed to be protesting the play, one of the commentators protested the play, and many viewers/posters seem to have disliked the play as well.
I did not see anything wrong with it. I didn’t even think to consider it “unsportsmanlike” or “running up the score” (I’d never heard this term before this incident), but I come from a land where football is played with feet. In soccer, a similar play would not be unsportsmanlike in any way. In fact, not scoring and instead just passing the ball around would be considered unsportsmanlike and would have the crowd booing.
I’d like to understand the other side of this argument better. There was limited discussion in the Division Playoffs (NFL) thread, but I would like more insight into why this play was seen as unsportsmanlike by some.
I’m adding a poll to see what percentage of viewers found this play unsportsmanlike.
I found this post particularly interesting and have included it as a response in the poll choices:
24 points is, at minimum, 3 touchdowns (and 3 2-point conversions, which is extremely unlikely). At a reasonable rate of scoring, it’s 4 possessions (3 TDs and a field goal). There is absolutely no way that Dallas would be able to score the ball 3-4 times in that amount of time. Zero. Scoring again serves Minnesota absolutely no purpose whatsoever. They know it, Dallas knows it, the fans know it, the TV audience knows it. In that situation, you run the ball or punt it, and continue doing that until the game is over (which it already was, because no one is going to score 4 times in under a minute). Going full-speed during that situation is douchey because the defense is not going full-speed - and scoring against a defense that isn’t defending isn’t impressive.
Soccer is different. No one knows *exactly *when the game is going to end. Scoring 3-4 times in under a minute is nearly impossible - but not completely out of the question, because possession changes very quickly.
For me, one point in favor of not caring/minding as much was it’s Brett Farve, I’ll give the old man his glory this time. If it’s a habit or such, it’s kinda dickish. But Farve just looks so happy waving his arms and being all mavericky. I’ll humor him (though the decision was probably a coaches one than a Farve one, and that’s kinda dickish).
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with professional athletes doing their job. What’s unsportsmanlike is the other side crying like babies about getting routed instead of doing what they’re paid to do and stopping the other side from scoring.
The NFL is not Pee Wee. These were not children. There’s no slaughter rule. Was Dallas supposed to stop trying as well? When the Vikings were running the ball, the Cowboys were run blitzing eleven guuys to stuff it. Should the Vikings have been content to keep running up the middle and risking injury to keep from hurting the Cowboys widdle feewings?
It’s not like the defense wasn’t allowed to play defense, why should the offense not be allowed to play offense?
This sentence just doesn’t make any sense. Running up the middle doesn’t risk an injury more than any other play. Rushing 11 to stop the run is standard procedure at the end of the game when there is no reasonable way to win. The game was over - Favre was a dick for going long.
In fact, running a full speed play against a defense that everyone knows wasn’t going to be going full speed does far more to increase the risk of injury than any other possible call in that situation.
Running up the middle into a full on run blitz sure does risk injury, and if Dallas wasn’t going full speed (which I’m not sure they weren’t), then they weren’t doing their jobs. That’s not the Vikings’ fault.
Please note the complete lack of 11 players rushing. Also note the 4 linebackers standing there doing nothing. This is what happens in professional football, Dio. When the game is over, and there’s still time on the clock, both teams work at burning the clock and getting off the field - which is the safest thing to do. The reason throwing the ball is a dick move is because plays don’t take as long, thus increasing the total number of plays until the end of the game - and increasing the risk of injury to everyone on the field.
Don’t care. If you don’t want them to score, stop them.
I especially don’t care that it happened to the Cowboys, who I despise with every ounce of feeling I can muster. If there is one team in the NFL that has no right to complain of other teams showing them up or being arrogant, it is the Cowboys.
I don’t think it has anything to do with scoring - I think it has to do with needlessly extending the game, and adding a few more plays to the game in which someone can get hurt.
So would you be fine if they just stood around holding the ball and no one (offense or defense) made any effort at all until time ran out? And, if not, how would that be different from not attempting to score points?
Aah. I didn’t realize that the defense was not defending at full potential. This adds some more credibility to the protests, but I still disagree with the underlying principle.
If what the Vikings did was unsportsmanlike, then refusing to play (taking a knee) is too. I see that all the time. If it’s okay not to play, then it should be okay to keep playing.
Yeah, it’s twisted logic, but it makes sense to me.
One more, it’s not the Vikings’ fault if the Cowboys players are not doing their jobs. That doesn’t mean that the Vikings should stop doing their own jobs.,
Are you suggesting that the Cowboys’ defensive coordinator told them to run a different defensive scheme? No, of course you’re not - you just think that they call the plays themselves. How cute.
No. The ref would probably call the play dead for no forward progress. Even if not, it still only takes one jackass to take a potshot at the ball carrier in that situation.
It does if the objection is childish. These are paid professionals, not little babies who need to be pampered. I don’t feel sorry for somebody because they decide to loaf around on their job.