GTX0 NewestRepliesHottestMy Active
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds

The Sports Center

"One thing you learned as a Cubs fan: when you bought you ticket, you could bank on seeing the bottom of the ninth."

Moderated by - :
That saints game was rigged and so was the pats yet the pats still won, both games coincidentally went into overtime!
Posted: Posted January 20th
Edited January 20th by Weid man

Thoughts jahoy hoy, New York jer presto, and everyone else?

There are 24 Replies
1 2 3 Load all posts

Thought both were great games, but there was some pretty god awful officiating that really leaves a bad taste, especially in that Saints/Rams game. I don't think teams win or lose exclusively on one call or non-call, but that really, really hurt. The thing that's hard about that non-call is that it was so obvious and was literally text book pass interference. That clip can be shown to highlight what officials should look for. Only...neither of the refs that were watching that play saw it, somehow.

I don't think the NFL is rigged at all. (Hard to imagine the league, and Roger Goodell especially) are too keen on yet another Patriots Super Bowl. The Patriots sort of ruin what the NFL is trying to be. And I'm not entirely sure, if we had to get another one, people were stoked at the notion of a Brady/Goff matchup. (Frankly, the best matchup would be Brees/Brady, but even Brees/Mahomes would be better than Brady/Goff.)

As for the Patriots/Chiefs, there were a whoooole lot of bad calls. The refs kind of did what they could to keep the Chiefs in the game. It wasn't that the Pats didn't get the benefit of any bad calls. There was definitely one awful roughing the passer call late in the game. But, there had also been PI on the Chiefs in the same play that didn't get called, so I don't really care too much about it.

Patriots make for good Super Bowls, so, people are gonna complain, but it sounds like we might be in for another good one.

Posted January 21st by Jet Presto

I thought that the NFL could review controversial penaltyno penalty calls.

Posted January 21st by Weid man

They can't. I don't know if the CFL can. I know Bill Belichick has been one of the more vocal coaches supporting that idea. I imagine there might be a rule change next year.

Posted January 22nd by Jet Presto

If I were Sean Payton I would still throw my red flag out and stay on the field until they kicked me out of the game. I would feel better about that then letting the refs walk away with that one. It's not even questionable. It's like if a kicker made a game-winning FG and the refs declared that he missed anyway.

Posted January 23rd by Vandy

Well, I mean, it's not quite *that* egregious. It's still not as bad as the Fail Mary call from the replacement refs (on a technical level - although certainly given the context of their respective games, this was a much, much bigger deal).

That said, to be a *little* fair. The Saints still could have skirted the issue by playing defense and stopping the Rams from sending it into OT. And, ya know, Drew Brees didn't have to make an ill-advised deep bomb knowing he was going to get creamed as he released, which wound up being intercepted.

I totally understand the argument: it never should have come to that. For sure. But it wasn't exactly like they didn't have plenty of opportunities to still win. The Rams still had to get in field goal range with 1:40 left, and then the Saints won the coin toss in OT. (Which, in the *other* game, everyone is whining about coin tosses deciding the game...)

Posted January 23rd by Jet Presto

Wait. Sorry. Just backtracking to the title of the post.

Were you implying that you thought the AFC title game was rigged against the Patriots? (Hence, "yet they still won"?)

Posted January 23rd by Jet Presto

Yes otherwise both the saints and patriots would have lost because of shitty officiating scablands. Like the Kong’s vs lakers game 6 2002 WCF.

Posted January 24th by Weid man

Neither game was rigged. As for the penalty challenge rule, I'm in full support of anything being challengable. Give the head coach 2/3 flags for the full game and they can use it on any 3 plays they want.

Posted January 24th by Jahoy Hoy

That was with under two minutes to play though so it would have to be decided by and reviewed by the booth, not the coach/refs on the field.

Posted January 24th by Weid man

Wow. I never thought I'd see the day someone thought the game was rigged *against* the Patriots!

Posted January 24th by Jet Presto

Also the nfl overtime rules suck. Why do you think that if a team who wins the coin toss scores a touchdown on that opening drive should win the game via sudden death? Imo there should be no game clock, play clock only, and if a team who wins the coin toss scores a touchdown on that opening drive then their opponents should have a chance to score back and if they score back it keeps on going and if their opponent scores again on the ensuing drive and if their opponent scored back on the ensuing drive to tie it again then it keeps on going until one team scores and wins under a fair amount of possessions to give teams an equal chance to win it. Hard way to put it, but the chiefs got screwed in OT because of the coin toss TD sudden death rule.

Posted January 24th by Weid man

Hard way to put it, but the chiefs got screwed in OT because of the coin toss TD sudden death rule.

I'm seeing this argument a lot, and it's so funny to hear given that literally hours earlier, the Saints won the coin toss and lost. Because the Rams played defense.

I mean, for the love of god, the Chiefs had the Patriots on 3rd and long THREE TIMES on that OT drive and the Pats converted each time. If you're an NFL defense, you don't have a much better opportunity to hold them to a field goal (or punt as it were earlier) than that. I will never understand while defense and special teams never count. In a sport where everyone says stuff like, "Defense wins championships," apparently defenses can't win games, I guess?

That said, the new OT rules ARE objectively garbage. I never had a problem with the original OT rules. The "problem" people have with it was hardly as big a deal as people made it seem like. (There were literally two years in the early 2000s where teams that won the coin toss won the game only about 25% to 35% of the time those seasons! And you don't often see years where the team that won the coin toss winning the game exceed much higher than 50-60%. So this idea that all you have to do is get lucky and win the coin toss is sort of just conjured out of thin air because when a team gets the ball first and wins, it *feels* unfair [since football fans only acknowledge one aspect of the game: offense.]) Your defense is still on the field and, especially with new kickoff rules, your opponent is starting more often than not on their own 20. Your defense should be able to stop them and get the ball back. To my mind, there was no real reason to change the OT rules.

And THAT said, I still think post season games should just go until there's a winner. Start with one 15-minute overtime period. Play the full 15. If there is still no winner after that, then play another 15-minute period that is sudden death. As for regular season, there was never a real problem with the original rules.

Posted January 24th by Jet Presto

I don't really have any problem with college OT rules either, for the record. Frankly, that's probably the more entertaining way to play it. We already had a full 4 quarters of football, so it's hard to argue that it's "unfair" if you don't get an offensive possession in OT to win the game.

The problem with the new rules, which is so obviously more problematic than even the original rules (which weren't a real problem), is that it makes it *more likely* for games to end in ties. It's a big part of why we've seen so many more ties in the past few years than we had in decades prior to the rule change. The entire point of overtime is to determine a winner. You can't create rules that *decrease* the chances of that happening and call it a good rule. It fundamentally runs counterproductive.

Posted January 24th by Jet Presto

Final point:

Hard way to put it, but the chiefs got screwed in OT because of the coin toss TD sudden death rule.

The Chiefs had a game-ending interception that was called back because their defensive end lined up in the neutral zone. Chiefs play smart football, that game doesn't even go to overtime. Games include luck, but they are rarely determined by it.

Posted January 24th by Jet Presto

Do you realize that there have been multiple games where the team that won the coin toss scored a fire goal on their first drive but then their opponent scored right back on their next drive and the game eventually ended up TIED (or as in the colts-panthers game LOST)?

Posted January 24th by Weid man

I am aware of that, yes. That doesn't do anything to disprove my point, though. Those teams that won by scoring second STOPPED the team that won the coin toss from scoring a touchdown. They're defense prevented the opposing offense from driving 80 yards for a touchdown.

I've gone through the past three years of overtime games and found teams that won the coin toss are 20-21-4. Teams winning the toss are below .500 upon doing so.

I don't like the current OT rules for various reasons (most notably that that "4" in that record - these rules increase the changes of ties, which defeats the purpose of overtime). But this argument that it's soooo unfair that a team doesn't get the ball offensively makes it sound like there is a huge problem. Most OT games aren't won on the opening possession, even with this rule. And that is because defense and special teams play a role. (Found a few games that had a couple of missed field goals in OT).

The point is: your team has a defense. Stop them. Football is a multi-faceted sport. You want the ball back? Get it. You aren't entitled to get an equal number of possessions during regulation. Why are you entitled to equal possessions in overtime?

Posted January 24th by Jet Presto

So you basically believe in “survival of the fittest” for overtime rules.

Posted January 24th by Weid man

I think for playoffs, they should just keep playing 15 minute periods until there is a winner. I have no problem with sudden death rules in general, but I think it would be more entertaining in the postseason to just play until there's a winner. Kinda like basketball.

Posted January 25th by Jet Presto

Do you realize that the super bowl exactly a decade ago the refs neglected to review that final play which was definitely an incomplete pass and not a fumble?

Posted February 3rd by Weid man

Which Super Bowl was that?

Posted February 3rd by Jet Presto

Steelers vs Cardinals.

Posted February 3rd by Weid man

A violently boring end to a pretty fun season.


Posted February 4th by Jahoy Hoy

Not much of a football fan but man this was some under whelming shit. The half time show was just as bad.

Posted February 4th by S.o.h.

I dunno that the game was entirely boring. It was great if you appreciate defense and special teams! But yeah, definitely the worst Patriots Super Bowl since ‘96. I wouldn’t say it was worse than Ravens/Giants or Bucs/Raiders.

Posted February 4th by Jet Presto
Load next page Load rest of pages
Reply to: That saints game was rigged and so was the pats yet the pats still won, both games coincidentally went into overtime!
Enter your message here

Site Rules | Complaints Process | Give Feedback Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2019 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on