Super? Bowl

All the criticism hinges on the idea that Lynch would have scored. This was in no ways a given. The Patriots made it to the Super Bowl, they had their goal line defense in. He might have scored. But he might not have. The pass was actually a good choice in the sense of time management. An incomplete pass would not have hurt them. You never run a play with the anticipation of an interception. A rookie read the play and stepped into the right place at the right time.

I've actually been understanding this discussion. I'm rather amazed but it's fun.

The reason Butler saw what was happening is because he had been burned on this exact play in a Patriots scrimmage game. The kid did good.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Not because it was a bad call. It wasn't. Poor execution on one end and a ready defense on the other.

I thought the game was great. My sister told me that the Patriots would lose because she is a firm believer in Karma and that since the Patriots "cheated" to get to the super bowl they would lose.So much for Karma. Not so fast! Does this mean that the Pats did NOT cheat?
Karma holds firm?

There has been no evidence of cheating presented. That is not to say there will not be, but considering the NFL is resorting to anonymous leaks of unsubstantiated information, I rather doubt there was cheating

Was it a bad call by the Seahawks coach or a good call that a Patriots rookie nevertheless read correctly and intercepted? The media pundits are all saying the former, but I like the interpretation given here that it was a good call that nevertheless lost the game because of good Patriots defense. I've never seen such a stunned look on a human face as on coach Carroll's after that play. The team owner's might rival it though.One reason I don't watch football is that I can never figure out where the ball is on the field (except of course when I can see it in the air on a long pass and then assume that the guy who caught it and is now running like a maniac has it), it's just a lot of guys running here and there and everywhere. I've watched the replay of the last play over and over and can never see how the ball gets from one place to another. Frustrating.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Whether it was a good call or bad call is entirely a matter of opinion. The Seahawks coach is standing by his decision on the call, and taking responsibility for it, justifying it largely on the same analysis I gave above. Plenty of people are calling the decision a mistake. None of them know as much about the team as the Seahawks coach.There's no doubt that a pass play is riskier than a run because of the chance of an interception. Some people are pointing out that Russell Wilson, the Seahawks QB, had four interceptions two weeks ago in the NFC championship game against Green Bay. But nobody has disputed the fact that Seattle needed to run a pass play on either second or third down to have a chance at four plays if needed. Does the advantage of possibly having an additional shot at the end zone justify the risk inherent in a passing play? Well, that's the question that will consume sports talk for a while.

Don't be discouraged, M'lady. Keep watching, reading and asking and soon you will be able to school us on the differences between a chop block, a slide block and a trap block. You'll become an ardent fan knowing all the stats, stunts and spreads and recognize a shotgun from a pistol from a wildcat. You'll have the caps and the tee-shirts and you will have your team logo on both the front and back fenders of your car. You'll be insufferable every Sunday just like the rest of us fools. Join the team.

Uh. You mean it's really not possible to tell where the ball is at any given moment?

Also, it was 2nd and goal to go on the one yard line with about a minute left. Pete Carroll wants the Seahawks to have three more shots at the endzone, should they be necessary, but they have only one timeout left. One minute left with one timeout is enough time for two runs and an incomplete pass (stops the clock, it's as good as a timeout). But Pete Carroll also knows that Bill Belichick knows that if the Seahawks score that the Patriots will need to score a field goal to tie it up, but to do that the Patriots need time. Given the inevitability of Seattle scoring from the one yard line, the Patriots best bet is to call a timeout, let the Seahawks score (sort of like defensive indifference in baseball), which would leave the Patriots maybe 50-55 seconds to score a field goal. So if Bill Belichick calls a timeout, then Pete Carroll's Seahawks can run the ball at the end zone three times, instead of two times and a pass play.So Pete Carroll waits for Bill Belichick to call a timeout, only he doesn't. Time passes. The clock runs down to 40 seconds and Pete Carroll realizes that two runs and a pass are all he's going to get. Bill Belichick has sent in his heavies for a goal line stand against the run, so Pete Carroll elects to go with the pass, and the ball is snapped with 26 seconds to go. The rest is history.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

Except the idea of letting them score in this context is ridiculous.If the lead had been less than three points, then letting them score could be defensible. With a four point lead, I would always, always, rely on my defense and make them score a touchdown. I was surprised that Belichick didn't call time outs to preserve clock in the event of a touchdown. But simply give up the lead when it would take a touchdown makes no sense to me.

Between the guys operating the cameras and the guys selecting which view to show, it seems to be very seldom that TV viewers miss the exchange of the ball in an NFL game. I assume that there is some transmission delay that causes this illusion of perfection.On the other hand, even though I assume that the answer is "look right in the center of the screen" I never see a hockey puck on a televised NHL game until after the play is over.

I probably just don't know enough about the game to know what's the most likely location in the bunch of guys to look. But it's also that the ball is so SMALL and it moves so FAST and there are always guys blocking the view. Hockey pucks are even smaller and faster.

and we can return to real sports like baseball and the only Biblical sport endorsed by Jesus; lacrosse.