It is my understanding that any time a touchdown is scored the scoring team is required to take their try, the only exception being in overtime. There have been cases in NFL history where a try is meaningless, but teams were still required to at least line up and snap the ball. I didn’t watch the full game, so maybe the Giants did do something after they scored, but the NFL website doesn’t list anything.
Did they lineup for the try? If not, why no?
Never mind. I see they did.
They tried for a two point conversion and failed.
Well, they didn’t really try for the conversion. They took the snap and knelt on it.
Still counts as running the play, however.
Yes but kicking the extra point with no time on the clock for no reason would be bad form.
Haven’t NFL teams done exactly that for decades, though?
I distinctly recall the Buccaneers, already leading by the lopsided score of 47-21, kicking the extra point in the waning moments of Super Bowl XXXVII after a touchdown to increase their lead over the Raiders to 48-21. Granted, in that situation there were still two seconds remaining in regulation, so not the same as *no *time remaining, but for all practical intents and purposes the same - and the Bucs were leading the Raiders by 26 points already, as opposed to the Giants leading the Redskins by just 9, so surely it was even more “bad form”?
Technically, they have, though I suspect that it happens very, very rarely.
If a team has the ball with a big lead, and time’s running out, they will almost invariably be having the quarterback take a knee.
If a team with a big lead is scoring as time expires, it’s either the result of a turnover (i.e., returning a fumble or interception for a touchdown), or the offense running up the score (which is bad form anyway).
In the case of the Giants / Redskins game, the Giants returned a Washington fumble for a TD as time expired.
People are forgetting the recent rule change in the NFL where the defense can now score 2 on a try, putting it in line with the college rule.
I thought about that, as a reason why the Giants would have opted to take a knee, rather than risk turning the ball over on the conversion attempt…but, they were up by 9, and 2 points for the Redskins would have been meaningless to the result of the game.
I would presume that the Giants did not attempt a one-point try because of the off chance that the kicker, or someone in the line blocking, got injured. Taking a knee when a snap is required would preclude anyone getting a freak injury.
In the Redskins/Giants game Sunday, the Redskins were behind 13-10 and had possession with seconds to go in the fourth quarter. They started a play on their own 6-yard line when the Giants intercepted a lateral as the clock ran down, then scored a touchdown. Now the Giants were up 19-10. They set up for the extra point…and allowed the play to end without kicking.
Now, on the one hand, the Giants did not need the extra point to guarantee a win. There was no time left on the clock so there would be no kickoff. But in all practical terms, they did not need the touchdown either; after they intercepted the pass, the clock had run out and they could have just ended the play.
So why would they go to the trouble of scoring an unnecessary touchdown but not kicking for the extra point? (If a baseball player hit a walk-off homer with one man on to end the game you can be sure he would touch home plate, even if the first run won the game.)
See this thread with a nearly identical question:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=815262
Wade picked up the lateral at the 10 yard line on the run and had no one in front of him, so running it in was just a natural act with almost no time to think it over anyway - had he been 70 yards out with a lot of opponents in front of him and no time on the clock, he very may have just run out of bounds or slid down instead of running and risking fumble or injury. So it wasn’t really any “trouble”, and what defensive player doesn’t want to get a touchdown in his stats, even if it was meaningless?
But the decision of what to do for the PAT is made by the coach, not the player(s). Kicking an extra point meant opening up your playoff bound team to an injury risk, no matter how miniscule. While taking a knee is a no-contact no risk play.
Can’t remember what team charged across the line when the other was taking a knee (want to say NE because…well, Bellichek) but injury is possible, just highly improbably.
This is what I thought too. In the same vein of miniscule but existent, why have Eli take that snap? Run Nassib out there to take a knee on the off chance the 'Skins pull the crappy submarine dive at the ball and or QBs knees.
Yeah no. It was the Rams this season, and [Tampa Bay](http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000064398/article/greg-schiano-ill-send-bucs-on-kneeld own-blitz-again) (against Eli!) a few years ago. In both those instances, the game wasn’t out of reach if the defense could have forced a fumble, which wasn’t the case here.
Because, now that Greg Schiano isn’t a head coach in the NFL anymore, there is no coach in the NFL who is a big enough dick to have his team do that. Plus, it’s the offensive linemen who would get hurt, not Eli.
Rams did it this year but Fisher is gone now too.
The announcers said that they had to try the extra point because it’s the rule so they had to run a play.
I imagine the rule is there because points scored is a tie breaker. It’s down a bit but it’s there. I’m not sure why the Giants didn’t get an option to waive the try though.
Right, I meant that the decision whether to kick for one point, run a real play for two, or just kneel down is up to the coach. They have to do something though - it’s in the rules, with no ability to waive it even though it’s the last play of their respective seasons.