The NFL Superbowl Thread! Back Again With Big Prizes*

I think it means he scrambles to his (Ben's) right.

Thanks. . .

23 - 23

OT overtime

oooof...

This one will be secondguessed.

Tebow, Tebow, Tebow!

Actually, you could yell, Thomas, Thomas, Thomas. He was the hero!

I'd have bet the house (if I had one) on the Steelers.

Wait..they're facing Pats next week! Arggh...

Would someone attempt to justify the Steelers not being allowed a turn at a possession?

I might be suffering from a bad case of fair play but why a great game can be ruined by the rules when the solution is so simple and obvious, indeed applies in the case of a field goal, I'm at a loss to understand.

Also--on a 3rd down and long from own 30 isn't a hold foul encouraged because the defence will decline the penalty to force the punt and there's a chance it will not be seen.

dunno, but big ben blew it big time in regulation.
they kept saying how calm he was.
maybe too calm -- no sense of urgency...

It was a sight to see the CBS crew all holding their heads in their hands, after Tebow threw the winning touchdown. Of course, it was staged and funny as hell, but the game made them all eat crow, I think.

The rule was established to eliminate the situation where the team who wins the coin toss only tries to get within field goal range and then gets a quick win on a fg. A td was deemed sufficient to demonstrate a clear attempt to win it outright.

FYI, prior to this year there was no such situation as overtime in the playoffs. A potential tie would be settled with a FG - a very unsatisfying end. This end result is due to the new rule. JPB explained the rest.

yeah...it was high drama for sure.

The rule was in place last year but there were no ot games in the post season last year.

that's right. this year was the first situation that presented itself.

This is a review of the rules in concise words with an in-depth explanation:

"The new rules state that both teams get opportunities for possessions in overtime if the first possession doesn't end in a touchdown, either offensive or defensive.

In other words, if the first team to possess the ball gets just a field goal, the other team has a chance to tie the score with a field goal of their own, or win with a touchdown. If the second team cannot match the points put up by the first team, however, the game is over.

If both teams fail to score, or both teams make field goals, it is sudden death once again. First team to score wins."

The obvious solution is like our penalty shoot out. The two kicking teams come out. One kick each from the 30. Proceeding to the 35, the 40 and so on until a decision is reached.

I would be concerned about demonstrations if the home team lost like the Steelers did.

And for ed to say it was staged and funny as hell really ought to get him banned from this thread. Translated into English it means we all all mugs. And ed is a genius. And then he objects strenuously to Christian theology which is definitely staged and quite funny at times.



That's no answer.

Imagine the Superbowl being decided like that game was. No wonder the world rejects NFL. Imagine losing your house on it. It's as if the administrators don't give a damn about fans, teams or betting punters. How out of date can they get?

We don't much like the penalty shoot out but the fans accept it with fairly good grace. It is an equal contest. We used to have 15 minutes each way extra time and if still a tie a replay. But the logistics of the modern game made it increasingly difficult.

The recent points decision against Amir Khan suggests your sports administrators think of themselves as gods.

A lock-in is called for. If I had played for the Broncos I would have thought it a hollow win.

The rules of sport need to be framed to take account of the most unlikely event taking place in a high intensity game. Do we really want a Superbowl settled like that. It's bringing the game into disrepute imo.

With no demonstrations by the home team fans after losing like the Steelers lost suggests that their enthusiasm is faked. That they are a studio audience and can be relied upon to behave like sheep in a queue to be dipped.

As is typical you misunderstood that reason why Ed was saying something was staged. On the telecast that was on CBS (network TV) the announcers put their head in their hands as a mock gesture.

What color is the sky in your world? The world is far from rejecting the NFL. Guess again, as they're making more money and profits than ever before. In your UK they've imported imported the games. Hell Brits even wear NFL jerseys. Nice try!

They are having a long debate here about whether to stage a second NFL game at Wembley. The experts, as I understood them when I watched some of the debate, expressed concern that the one game sold out on the novelty value and a second game would not sell out.

An annual NFL game at Wembley attracts the fashionable set who just want to be present for the cachet and to draw attention to themselves. Once. Most of them don't know what it is they are watching.

Real fans are not like that.

There has been talk of basing a franchise in London.

A few people here do go about with NFL shirts and other Yank logos but it's just a pose. An affectation. I daresay some Yanks wear various European insignia for similar reasons.

Banks were "making more money and profits than ever before" in 2008.

In a one minute interview after the Manchester United/Manchester City game yesterday Wayne Rooney scratched his face, his ears, his neck and his hair a total of 19 times. Like a tic almost.

Anybody who has played strenuously for 90 odd minutes in a game like that, as Rooney had done, knows very well that the skin of the head continually pricks for a period of time. It must be a biological effect. A reflex.

I saw a pretty lady interview a QB after an NFL game last week, they are shoving their noses in everywhere now, just the pretty ones, and he never scratched his head once. In fact he looked like he had just come out of session in a beauty parlour.