Thats not the point champ. Did the Bears offense deserve to beat the Cardinals the week before? Of course not. The Bears won though. Saying the team didnt deserve to win is a given. Teams win games every week after being out played. This team responded with great defense in the second half...a great special teams play..and like every other team in the NFL, they deserved to have a chance to throw one in the end zone, make an incredible one handed catch..and let the refs get the call right. Only the refs blew that one..not the Jets.
Not only is your post a bunch of senseless rambling, your opinion is terrible. Thats like saying its okay a guy who normally j-walks got hit by a truck when he actually crossed at the right time. The fact is that play was a touchdown. The FACT is it should have been 20-19 Cleveland at that time. Its true you can't prognosticate what would've happened, but thats no excuse for them to get it flat out wrong. And for fucks sake, would everyone stop talking about OT. Thats a classic example of where you go for the two.
It was Vinny's "phantom" TD against Seattle which gave us replay. Now it should be Baker's "force out" that expands replay. We lost and probably deserverd to lose but it's lame for the NFL to hide behind the Officials Judgment not to allow this type of play to be overturned.
I agree that the fact that the Jets were outplayed doesn't in any way negate that it was a bad call by the official. IMO there is NO way that the Jets go for two in that situation.
I think they would. Granted, I didn't get to watch the fourth quarter, but the textbook says down 1 on the road, you go for two. Its all a guess now though, and its pointless to really think about it
Uh, what textbook is this, "How to get fired as an NFL coach"? There is a 0% chance the Jets go for 2 in that situation.
Why is there a 0% chance of it. They would've just scored a back-breaking TD against the Browns. Why try to go to OT? The Jets had been basically outplayed all game long, why woudl that necessarily change in OT? IMO, you go for the two there. Go for the win on the road.
I've never heard the "go for the win on the road" idea in football - only in baseball. With the NFL overtime system, the team who wins the toss has a clear advantage, and that has nothing to do with being at home or away. I would be very interested if you could find a game where a road team had the opportunity to tie a game with an extra point with less than a minute to go and went for two instead. I'd be surprised if you found more than one (or even one) in the last ten years.
I think Craig T Nelson did this on "Coach", but of course that was in college and under the old system where there was no OT and the game would've ended in a tie. But a tie would've perserved the undefeated season. He had the guts to go for the win and the Screaming Eagles go to celebrate their undefeated season.
I remember being at one--Vikings at Jets a number of years ago. They tied it late, and went for the two. They failed on it though. This is probably about 1996 or 97 or something aroun dthere.
It was 97 and they were down by 2 points at the time, not 1. The Jets were up 23-7 going into the 4th and they allowed the TD as time expired, but they stuffed them on the 2 point conversion.
You have to go for the extra point. At the time..the Browns offense was in shutdown mode..they stopped trying to move the ball..the adjustments that the coaching staff made (way too late) were done..and Charlie Frye was not going to move the ball anymore yesterday. You take it to overtime.
The reason he said no force out is because the argument was that since he would've landed out of bounds anyway, he wasn't forced out. Can't be "forced out" if you're going out anyway, right?
I can only remember two situations in the last ten years where a coach down 1 at the end of a game went for a 2 point conversion. One was Mike Tice with Minnesota. It's very rare. I would not have gone for two, because the odds would've been against us. Kick the XP, get a stop on defense, and then see what happens with the stupid coin flip. We had the momentum. Cleveland wasn't able to move the ball on us anymore.
That's great - if it happened in Coach then it must be real, right? :lol: I'm sure things like it did happen before there was OT, since in that case there are several reasons why a team wouldn't want a tie. With OT, I think it would take very unusual circumstances to do something like that - like maybe your QB and star RB just broke their legs on the last play, so you know that you could never score on offense in OT.
Hmmm...ok...I see your point. Do you think he would have landed in bounds? I do...I know he would have landed in bounds. My point is that every call is a judgement call..and reviews are not 100% accurate all the time..even with replay..and calls are still reversed. I will never understand what a judgement call is..never. Now some will respond saying that upon review of a play the running back fumbled the ball before his knee was down..its right there on TV to see. I understand that. A judgement call to me is when a ref believes he sees that there was no way a player would have come down in bounds after being hit. He could still be wrong though. Why does judgement even come in to the equation. What the hell is it. Every call is a judgement call..until proven wrong..so lets see if his judgement is correct and go to the video.
I think he would've landed in bounds, but one of the refs had money on the Browns. What can ya do? Sometimes judgment does have to come into play. Seeing whether a player would have landed in bounds sometimes can be tough, and it doesn't help when a ref is blind, either. Like statjeff said, a ref is using his judgment when he is trying to decide what would have happened, as opposed to what DID happen. What did happen was Baker landed out of bounds. If the argument was that he actually landed in bounds, that can be reviewed, because that is easily established.
