|
|
| Should teams be allowed to kneel? |
| Yes, it's fair |
|
72% |
[ 16 ] |
| No, it's not fair to a team that could be down by 1 but have no timeouts left |
|
27% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:23 pm
BlizzPack By blowout lead I mean something like 30 points or more, something pretty much impossible to get in 2 minutes. Then I would find kneeling more acceptable, but I still don't like it. 2 TDs in under a minute is more possible, hence the reason that team should be given a shot at getting them. Yeah, I suppose... but still, a 4 or 5-possession lead isn't commonplace...
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:27 am
Well, everyone would like to see games go out in a fury of glory. But kneeling only occurs if a team FAILED to prevent first downs, turn over the football like chumps, or fail to recover an onside kick. They have their "chances" and fail.
No kneeling should not be eliminated. Excuses and whining should. If the opponent is kneeling the ball at the end of the game, you lose. You fell too far behind, and did not capitalize on chances you got... to say the defense has no chance is silliness.
Kneeling is a result of a game. Get the football back before those scenarios, and not complain when you fail to avoid it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 3:27 pm
yeah its fair cuz you shouldnt embarass the other team and try to show off thats unsportsman like
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:48 pm
On one side you could say that it's a p***y way to end the game, on another side it's a good way to lock up the victory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:52 pm
It's fair but freaking cheap
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:36 pm
it never fails to astonish me as to how many threads that should be laid to the trash come popping up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:55 pm
That was what I was just thinking. But I think it's out of my hands to lock a thread just because it's old. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:35 pm
IndianapolisColtsFan That was what I was just thinking. But I think it's out of my hands to lock a thread just because it's old. sweatdrop Actually the captains of the guild are able to delete the threads. I think that if something has not been responded to for over a year, it should be dead and deleted. Not left to be able to be brought back to life for nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:50 pm
vegito61283 IndianapolisColtsFan That was what I was just thinking. But I think it's out of my hands to lock a thread just because it's old. sweatdrop Actually the captains of the guild are able to delete the threads. I think that if something has not been responded to for over a year, it should be dead and deleted. Not left to be able to be brought back to life for nothing. ditto
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:02 pm
Archived. You know...? Anyway... Yeah. Locked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
