How is keeping control of the ball until time runs out specious? All they had to do is take a knee a few times and the game is over.
They’re paid to win games.
Yeah.
Think we’re done here.
Scoring accomplishes that too. That is the object of the game after all.
What is it with everybody’s concern for the self-esteem of millionaire athletes?
No, it doesn’t. Scoring gives them the ball back, which can lead to a score and an onside kick. Keeping the ball without scoring is the clearly better strategy. As long as you can execute taking a knee without losing the ball you have won the game.
Exactly. Of course this only occurs in very specific situations. I get Dio’s general level of frustration, though he is misapplying it in this particular part of this discussion.
I believe an NFL team’s job is to win games. All the games they play too, and not just the Superbowl. I think it is bad sportsmanship to lose any game on purpose, or to not give it 100% in the hopes of hedging your bets to win a future game (here’s looking at you Indy). In a one-loss-and-your-out playoff situation in a league as even as the NFL, and in a sport as unpredictable as pro football “saving up for the big game” is a colossal error, an insult to the fans, and an insult to the sport.
I don’t have a problem with a team choosing not to score if that decision puts them closer to winning. Football is about strategy, and clock management is as important as scoring. However, if the win is secure I don’t think the winning team has any obligation to turn down the heat on their opponent. If they choose to put in the second string at that time then that’s fine too. Winning gives them the right to control the game, if they want to build up padding for a future stat tie-breaker, or give a player a shot at a record, or just practice some moves for when they’ll play a better team it is their prerogative.
But all this is besides the point when talking about the Minnesota/Dallas situation. There is a good case to be made for all three options at that point for Minnesota. It wasn’t even about running up the score. The Vikings had three options, they had to take one, and they all seemed reasonable. It is unreasonable to expect them to try not to score in that situation because it is not to their advantage to do so. Just because the Cowboys wanted to quit doesn’t mean the Vikings have to.
Thanks for all the responses in this thread. I now understand the argument on both sides much better than I did before this.
The poll choices might have been restrictive, but I thought it covered most cases. I used “seconds” instead of “2 minutes” because, while the thread was about a specific incident, I wanted the poll responses to reflect each poster’s general philosophy while still taking into consideration this specific play.
It is interesting to note that a clear majority (>70%, as of this post) finds a touch-down acceptable or expected. From initial reactions after the game (on TV and online), I thought a greater majority was in the other camp.
For those who think the Vikes score was ok, do you also think the Randall Cunningham “kneel-down touchdown” was sportsmanlike?
Yes. But that was the whole point. It was meant to be unsporting as it was intended as revenge for perceived unsportsmanlike conduct in a previous match between those teams.
I think the kneel-down play is the most interesting in discussions about sportsmanship in pro football. There was a time when the play itself was considered unsporting. It is one of the factors that lead directly to “The Miracle at the Meadowlands.”
At this point in NFL history I believe a fake kneel down is unsporting. The reason being that as I understand it the offense communicates to the defense that they are going to kneel. Thus there is a sort of gentleman’s agreement that the game is over and it is time to stop playing. If one side or the other breaks that agreement then there is a serious risk of injury to the other. It is the equivalent of a punch after the bell in boxing. Now if the defense tries to crash the line on a kneel down then a fake on the next kneel would be acceptable. In that case it would be the defense that breaks the agreement first.
The MJD and Brian Westbrook plays were not even remotely similar to the Vikings play.
The Lions many times have been down by seven points late in the game, only to come back and lose by 4.
I don’t think this thread served its purpose very well. That 70% is not indicative of the general fan population at all. The vast majority of fans will agree without hesitation that the Vikes ran up the score in an unsporting manner. Many wouldn’t have a problem with it – especially because so many people hate the Cowboys in particular – but it’s clearly what happened and pretty much everyone would readily admit that.
The only people who would argue the premise are pedantic rules lawyers, the kind of weaselly social misfit that the football fans stuffed in lockers back in high school. The SDMB is positively crawling with that general type, and so you’re going to get really skewed results.
Trust your initial reaction: the greater majority is absolutely in the other camp. Dopers just like to be contrarian because it makes them feel superior.
I guess one of those “social misfits” would include Troy Aikman, then, since he basically called Brookings out as a little bitch for crying about it, and said the Cowboys had no justification for complaining there.
Two words: stop 'em.
Brookings crying about it and Minnesota running the score up are two separate issues. Even if Brookings had kept his mouth shut (as he should have), it would STILL be running up the score. Your inability to realize that is laughable. You keep talking about people worrying about players’ feelings being hurt - yet you’re the ONLY person in this thread making that claim.
How is it a “dick move” unless someone’s feelings are being hurt? If there aren’t any victims, then what’s the problem?
Because it’s a game, Dio. And we’re talking about grown-ups playing a game. You can be a total asshole, and no one gets their feelings hurt because they’re grown men capable of seeing an asshole as an asshole, and not as a bully.
In my case this is not so. In the regular season I might agree with your point of view, but in the playoffs I absolutely do not. You stomp your opponent hard, you put them away, and you never let up. Each week is tougher than the one before, it’s not like they’re playing Bob’s Auto Repair and MBAs next week, they’re playing for the NFC Championship. If their opponent is not up to the task of stopping them even in so-called garbage time, well, sorry about that, but the Vikings still have a game next week even if the Cowboys aren’t going to be playing in it.
Playoff football is qualitatively different from any other kind of football, and these erstwhile “sportsmanship” rules should not apply to it.
I still say it’s just playing football. If the defense doesn’t like it, they can do something about it.
The poll is compromised by the poor wording of the options. The problem isn’t with Minnesota “scoring a touchdown” at the end of the game. If they had hammered the line and the player had scored anyway, absolutely nobody would have a problem with it. The problem, for thos who perceive one, was with the play selection on which the touchdown was scored.
The play selection was dictated by the defense. It would be pretty stupid to run into the teeth of a 10 in the box defensive set on 4th down. Checking out of a run into a play action pass is the eminently sensible thing to do.
If they’d done it midfield, just to get a 1st down and keep the ball, I don’t think anyone would complain, but from the 11 yard line, it’s not that easy to pass for a 1st down without scoring, and really, the Vikings were under no obligation to try to walk that tightrope.