All Forums | NFL Betting Forum

THEY DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO GET HURT ON THE KICKOFF.

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 3214
Posts: 37
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2004
Posts: 7302
Posted: #26
Not zero.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 3634
Posted: #27
Even if you take injuries out of consideration. Of course it's the kneeldown and not taking the safety. Out of every game in the NFL and college, have you ever seen a failed kneeldown? I have seen the fumble, but the offense always recovers. That's why there are 2-3 guys with the QB. Even if you fail, Seattle still has to go the full field to tie. Then you can still win in OT.

Onside kick is going to be 10-15% chance. Get 30 yards and kick FG. Probably 20-40%. Recover another onside, another 10-15%. Hail Mary 5% per attempt. And if this happens you lose.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2007
Posts: 13343
Posted: #28
Quote Originally Posted by DickTracy:



You must play the lottery pretty often with this mindset. There was ZERO chance of this happening.




 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2009
Posts: 2927
Posted: #29
I think if you ( the kicking team) use a tee, the kicker is the only player (kicking team) that is allowed on the field. That is why you never see it. But fuck, who turns down a safety in that situation?
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2007
Posts: 27386
Posted: #30




 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2012
Posts: 193
Posted: #31
Quote Originally Posted by hambone87:

It's actually really smart. No possibility of losing.


Philip Rivers.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 3634
Posted: #32
Quote Originally Posted by RgrThat:



Philip Rivers.


Wasn't a kneeldown, so it's not applicable. In the history of NFL and college football, there has never been a lost fumbled kneeldown.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2010
Posts: 2822
Posted: #33
Look, I understand by declining the penalty you end the game quicker and avoid any crazy injury. But to make the argument that San Fran could've somehow lost by accepting it....that's pure insanity.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 3634
Posted: #34
Quote Originally Posted by DickTracy:

Look, I understand by declining the penalty you end the game quicker and avoid any crazy injury. But to make the argument that San Fran could've somehow lost by accepting it....that's pure insanity.


The chances of San Fran losing would probably be about 1 in 5000. Onside kick is going to be 10-15% chance. Get 30 yards and kick FG. Probably 20-40%. Recover another onside, another 10-15%. Hail Mary 5% per attempt. And if this happens you lose. Yes, insanity, but the odds of this happening are far higher than kneeldown option.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2006
Posts: 4719
Posted: #35
It was the smart call. Even if only to avoid risking injury. But beyond that, there is LESS chance of losing by declining the safety and doing the kneel down. Sure it would be long shot for Seattle to win if you take the safety, but it would be an even longer shot if you decline it. Anyone who refuses to see that logic is just blinded by their lo$$.

If it was Pete Carrol's choice, he would have taken the safety. Guaranteed.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 5761
Posted: #36
Risk injury 

I'm sure you don't even believe what you are saying. 
 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2006
Posts: 4719
Posted: #37

Many experts agree that the injury angle was something to consider.

"Even if the Niners would have recovered the onside free kick, Harbaugh would have been exposing his “hands” team, which typically consists of skill-position players, to potential injury.  Then, if the Seahawks had recovered, defensive players would have had to take extra live reps.  And so on, until the game was resolved.

So it was the right decision.  And if the NFL doesn’t like the fact that folks are talking about the issue primarily because of the gambling angle, the league should take that up with the officials who never should have called a chop block against the Seahawks, since neither of the two men who engaged linebacker Aldon Smith hit him below the waist.  If the flag that shouldn’t have been thrown wasn’t thrown, none of this ever would have been an issue."

All Forums | NFL Betting Forum
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.