NFL - excuses, excuses

[Homer]

This post is coming a bit after all the controversy, but...

Is it just me, or do teams/players/coaches find anything to blame a loss on except their own team's lack of quality performance? Take the following examples:

1) In the Steelers loss to the Titans last weekend Bill Cowher blamed the referees for the loss. I have a few problems with this. One is that the running into the kicker call on Nedney's missed fieldgoal was completely legitimate. The guy on Pittsburgh attempting to block the kick took a bad angle and ran into the kicker. It's as simple as that. I don't care if it is a week 17 Bengals/Texans game or the Super Bowl; you see the penalty, you make the call. I give the referees credit for making that call in crunch time. The second problem I have is that Pittsburgh should have won the game in regulation. They had the ball at the Titans 40 with under two minutes to go, then threw three straight incomplete passes to stop themselves from getting into field goal range. Cowher should blame the loss on his own team's shortcomings rather than a "botched" call.

2) In the Giants loss to the 49ers, the Giants were attempting a field goal on the last play of the game for the win. The snap was botched and their holder (punter) attempted to throw a pass to the endzone to score a touchdown. A Giants player was interfered with, but no penalty was called because the player was assumed to be ineligible (which was incorrect since he had reported as eligible prior to the game). An ineligible man downfield penalty was called (on a different player), so what should have happened is that the penalties offset and the Giants gotten another crack at the field goal with no time on the clock. I can sympathize with the Giants more than with the Steelers because their contention that a call was botched was correct. However.....the Giants had a 38-14 lead with 5-6 minutes left in the 3rd quarter. They allowed the 49ers to score 25 unanswered points in the last 20 minutes of the game, which is downright pathetic. If their defense had stopped the 49ers on just one occasion, they would have won the game, and would not have had to worry about making a last-second field goal. Despite their defensive incompetence, Jim Fassel (God I hope that prick gets fired) decided to blame his team's loss on the referees. He should be blaming himself, his team, and his coaches for the loss....anyone but the referees.

What does everyone else think? Has anyone ever heard a player/coach/team take responsibility for his/its own loss? Have you ever heard someone flat out state: "I screwed up, we lost."? I sure haven't...

-- Homer

[Boris]

I can sympathize with the Giants. roolz is roolz. Just because you blow a huge lead doesn't mean the refs should be excused for botching a call at the key moment in the game.

I have no sympathy for Steelers. The penalty was obvious. Cowher should remember that the Steelers reached the super bowl a few years back because they were the beneficiary of a blown call. If I remember correctly they were playing the Colts. Kordell Stewart was a receiver. He ran out the back of the endzone and then came back in to catch the winning TD pass. no call from the refs. You sure didn't hear Cowher apologize for that. I was also disgusted with Jim Nantz. he went on and on and on about how screwed up the OT system is and how the Steelers got such a bad break becuase they lost the coin toss. He was still opining about the Steeler woe's on Sunday during the Raider/Jets game! He's an announcer and should show more respect to the Titans and keep his partisan ranting off the air.

[David Steele]

In the case of the 49ers win I would add that there is no particular reason to think the Giants would make the field goal if it were properly retried.

I believe there was less then 50% chance they would make the field goal in their present state. So in some probablistic sense the call did not cheat them out of the game, though certainly out of some last chance for the win.

D.

[B-Man]

Good post.

Cowher/Pittsburgh--this is just sour grapes. The call was completely legit, they have nobody to blame but themselves. What arer they trying to say--that nobody ran into the kicker?

The Giants legitimately got hosed by a bad call, but they never should have let themselves get into that position. As you pointed out, they had a 24-point lead in the 3rd quarter. For them to blame the loss on the referees, the holder, or the long snapper is absurd. The whole team made a series of errors/bad plays to blow the lead, it just so happens that the botched snap/incomplete pass/botched call was last. It was far from the only reason they lost.

Hell, I still hear people complain about the "tuck rule" and Tom Brady's incomplete pass (which these clowns think should have been a fumble) in last year's NE/Oakland playoff game. I got into a discussion about this a few weeks ago with some know-it-all who said, "I don't care what the rule says, that was a fumble." That's like saying, "I don't care what the rule is, three Aces beats a straight."

[Michael Davis]

I agree with you on the Steelers. Cowher has no gripe. I was unsettled by the ending, but I don't understand why many people seem to think that because it is a critical moment in a game, a clear penalty should not be called. (Of course, we see this in referees, too, as when they do not call obvious last second fouls in basketball and such.)

As for the Giants game, the Giants got screwed and do have a legitimate beef. I don't see why it matters that the Giants "shouldn't have been in that position" or "probably wouldn't have made the field goal." These are irrelevant points. If the Giants had come back from 24 points down and needed the field goal to win, how does the situation differ? Would we then say that the Giants got really screwed because now they can't blame themselves for blowing a huge lead? I don't get the "they shouldn't have been in that position" line of reasoning. Any time a game is decided by one point, nearly every team can cite a few plays or a comeback and say they shouldn't have been in that position. It has no bearing on a blown last second call.

Mike

[Homer]

You are absolutely correct that the Giants had a legitimate complaint. My point was that they chose to focus 100% of their postgame discussion on that single play, rather than discussing their pathetic collapse. I realize that blowing a 24 point lead doesn't take away their right to receive a fair call at the end of the game. My contention (at least what I intended) was that they should have discussed all the factors that led to their loss, instead of simply laying all the blame on the referees. The referees did not blow a seemingly insurmountable lead, the Giants did.

-- Homer

[B-Man]

As for the Giants game, the Giants got screwed and do have a legitimate beef. I don't see why it matters that the Giants "shouldn't have been in that position" or "probably wouldn't have made the field goal." These are irrelevant points. If the Giants had come back from 24 points down and needed the field goal to win, how does the situation differ? Would we then say that the Giants got really screwed because now they can't blame themselves for blowing a huge lead? I don't get the "they shouldn't have been in that position" line of reasoning. Any time a game is decided by one point, nearly every team can cite a few plays or a comeback and say they shouldn't have been in that position. It has no bearing on a blown last second call.

I agree that the Giants got hosed. But I also think it is absurd for them or their fans to blame the loss on the referees (or on the long snapper (who had been on the team less than a week )). They lost because they played horrendous football for the last 20 minutes of the game. The blown call was just one of a series of plays that went against them. It was not the reason that they lost, it was one of many reasons they lost.

[Glenn]

While I agree that the Giants deserved whatever they got and the Steelers call was correct, the fact that so many NFL outcomes are based on calls instead of plays shows a flaw in the game. Scores are constantly called back, and refs are often blamed for loses (whether correct or not). This is why football is my least favorite of the 4 major pro sports. The game should be about running into the endzone and kicking through the uprights, not whether some guy ran into some other guy after the kick in a game where most guys are supposed to run into other guys. Hockey suffered a great deal of controversy after a no call ruined the validity of the stanley cup championships a few years ago. Then they correctly changed the rule. Football needs to change their rules. The refs have too much power.

[IrishHand]

Has anyone ever heard a player/coach/team take responsibility for his/its own loss? Have you ever heard someone flat out state: "I screwed up, we lost."?
Yes - all the time. If you watch post-game interviews on the ESPNEWS channel with coaches and players, they almost ALWAYS blame themselves individually or their team performance as a whole for a loss. Sadly, this never makes Sportscenter or the big papers, since it's neither sensational nor particularly newsworthy. The only times the casual fan hears a coach's or player's explanation for a loss is when it's controversial - eg. the ref caused the loss.


Also, in reference to the pile of people who seem to feel that the Giants are solely to blame for their loss to the Giants by virtue of their caving in their lead - that's completely ignoring reality. If a game is decided in the final seconds, it's decided in the final seconds. The only thing that matters is winning, and as is often the case in last-second heroics (or lack thereof) It's simple cause and effect. If he hits the field goal, they win, if not, they lose. The Giants flubbed the snap, thereby "missing" the FG - but wait, per the rules of the game, there was a penalty and they're entitled to another try. If the refs make the right call, the Giants might win. If the refs botch the call, the Giants lose. The latter happened. Therefore, the refs call cost the Giants a good chance to win.

Did the Giants have other chances to win before that? Of course they did - an NFL game is 60+ minutes long. Both teams have a number of chances to win - that's the nature of the beast. However, when you look back at a game and one clear moment determines whether a team wins or loses, that's just the way it is.

It's along the lines of those who look at a basketball box score and say that the team that lost by 5 wouldn't have lost if they'd hit 16/20 free throws instead of 10/20 free throws. That's simply wrong. Sporting events are dynamic. Everything that takes place effects the events which proceed it. If the Giants play better defense during the collapse, then maybe they win - but maybe they don't. However, when you have a clear, final event which determines the game, then it makes sense to attribute a direct link between that event and the outcome of the game. The previous stuff is pure conjecture...

[B-Man]

I'm not sure if your reply was meant in response to my post or the one above, since I was not the one who wrote,

Has anyone ever heard a player/coach/team take responsibility for his/its own loss? Have you ever heard someone flat out state: "I screwed up, we lost."?

Actually, I agree with most, but not all, of what you wrote. I don't think the Giants are solely responsible for their loss, the bad call was relevant, as I said. If I had to assign responsibility on a percentage basis, I might say the Giants were roughly 90 - 95% responsible for their loss (on the basis of being outplayed and making stupid errors) and the bad call was 5 - 10% responsible (a huge percentage for one play to make, but it was the last play of the game and could have won it for the Giants if they made the kick on the re-try). The Giants have a legit gripe... they just ought to look in the mirror if they are trying to truly assess why they lost, rather than just look for a scapegoat.

[B-Man]

The refs have a lot of power in all sports. Do you realize how important the calling of balls and strikes is in baseball?

The NFL did change their rules--they brought in instant replay and allowed coaches to challenge controversial plays (though not all rulings can be challenged).

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions on which sports to like/dislike, but I thnk the NFL is the best and most exciting of the 4 major sports, and it is not even close. This is coming from a former die-hard baseball fan, but baseball just doesn't "get it." I still like baseball, but it doesn't compare to the NFL.

[Boris]

"...but baseball just doesn't "get it." I still like baseball, but it doesn't compare to the NFL. "

I think baseball's problem is that people nowadays watch TV instead of listening to the radio. Baseball is the one sport that is enjoyable to listen to on the radio. The baseball radio announcers are leagues better than any you'll find on TV and it's much easier to envision the action as it's being called. But people don't listen to the radio anymore. They watch TV.

Football is the perfect sport for TV and I think TV is the primary reason Football has become America's past time.

I think you would also like baseball more if you were not a diehard Red Sox fan. I mean, if you're gonna root for a team you want to know they at least have a small chance of winning the World Series. Red Sox fans have no hope.

[B-Man]

I agree about the impact of T.V. Football is probably even better on T.V. than in person (unless maybe you have great seats), while baseball is still very enjoyable in person... but pretty boring on T.V.

But I think it is more than that. Baseball's economic structure is set up in a way that the few teams which have a lot of money should always be contenders, while the small market teams will usually struggle. The fact that the Yankees can basically spend whatever they want is not good for the sport. Football and basketball have leveled the playing field, and the sport is better for it. Baseball has not yet learned this lesson.

As for being a Red Sox fan, well, I can not deny it. But I still have hope during most seasons, even if it is irrational. /forums/images/icons/cool.gif The difference is that in the 80s and early 90s, I used to watch the playoffs and World Series regardless of who was playing. Now, if the Red Sox aren't involved, I have almost no interest (other than rooting for whoever is playing the Yankees, since they are involved every year). Football is just the opposite--I look forward to watching as many games as possible, even though the Patriots are usually not prominently involved (last year's incredible championship season and the Parcells era being brief, wonderful exceptions to the norm).