The superbowl sucks. There's no parking at my apartment complex. I had to park like 1000 ft further from my door than usual coming back from lunch.
No party for me this year, my usual connection was renovating his house this year. I'm watching with two kids who want to know every play if it was a touchdown. I made a bowl of guacamole.
Roethlisberger should run the ball more. That was funny.
This is the George W. Bush superbowl. Next year will be the Barack Obama superbowl.
1-D TV would not be people walking around the screen looking like cardboard cutouts.
Apparently the war in Iraq is no big deal, because Petraeus is flipping coins.
Wow, that was a boring first quarter. And I didn't even watch it!
Put the kids to bed, they got bored and were asking me to turn off the TV.
Michael Phelps (no relation to Fred Phelps) is the biggest weenie in Weenie World.
The game radiates boredom, even to people not watching it.
The ads suck too, I hope none of the bailout money is going to this shit (did Etrade get any?)
Bob Dylan Pepsi. Probably he came up short at the end of the month. What else could he do? He needed the cash.
If I were a gay woman, I wouldn't be willing to be named the head of state of the most bankrupt nation in the world.
44 years after Newport, someone is surprised Dylan's sold out?
What the hell was that flower ad? That was quite the sexism. Save us, Bruce.
I saw a couple of performances from a recent Newport festival on the television set a couple of days ago and the fesival looked tiny! Admittedly, they were playing the exact kind of musical wanking that I despise -- no beat, pointless lyrics, soft, bourgeoisie-friendly melodies -- but still, I thought it was supposed to be a bigger deal. Maybe it wasn't "the" festival. I dunno.
Trivia tonight, hope there won't be too many stupid football questions.
Say what you will, turning down a quarter share of $20 million is pretty impressive.
I'm sure that the Newport Festival has been franchised to Elks Clubs and county fairs everywhere.
Well, that was an interesting play, finally.
They're gonna challenge it, he was down before the end zone.
I'm amazed that his head didn't pop off, the way he landed.
I just ceded the remote to my sister, who actually has something she wants to watch.
What about cheese, how does that go with pigs in blankets?
Wow, it's like he's talking to me personally, I was just about to eat some guacamole.
I didn't need to see Bruce's crotch quite that close-up.
Are the Superbowl ads always this sexist? I usually avoid them by having the computer with me when I watch. Or just not watching because the game sucks.
Did Obama kill the Super Bowl for all time? If he did, I, for one, will thank him profusely and forgive him for all the other lame shit he does.
I'm sure that the zombies will find something in this Super Bowl to blame Obama for.
Is it common for professional athletes to need oxygen masks after running 100 yards?
So, I don't know much about football, but isn't this "longest play in Super Bowl history!" kind of a weird way to hype it, given as it's the longest possible play in football?
No, 109 yard return would be the longest possible.
There have been several 109-yard plays (at least ten). Interception/punt return/fumble recovery/field goal return/kickoff return from inside the end zone is measured from the spot you get the ball.
mrh is right. It's the longest play (in American football) in all of history. To think I witnessed that!
Why didn't they record that for this play? Or perhaps more to the point, why didn't Joe Buck?
After the stinging rebuke of 31 and 32, 33 is quite gratifying. In your faces, knowledgeable people!
The practice of adding extra yards 100 yard plays is incredibly stupid. They might as well give 10 yards to every player who runs through the back of the end zone after scoring.
They might as well give 10 yards to every player who runs through the back of the end zone after scoring.
Bo Jackson holds the record for the longest run ever!
36: But they don't actually do that, do they? For credit, it seems reasonable to measure from the beginning of the run to the boundary of the opposite end zone; I was actually under the impression that they did that until this very play was announced.
It just occurred to me, do they give extra yards to returns when someone doesn't score? Can you have a 108 yard return for a non-TD?
Hang on, if you intercept it five yards deep in your end zone you really do have to run 105 yards, and you can get tackled that whole way. It's not comparable to running after the ball is dead.
38: Of course they don't. It would be incredibly stupid.
38 was I. I'm trying to get dinner started; was Springsteen any good?
40: And when you take a handoff in the endzone and have to avoid tacklers in the endzone (which returners rarely do) do you get the yards before leaving the endzone? The playing field between the out of bounds lines and the endzones should be the playing field the whole game, and not expanded when announcers can make a big deal about 100+ yard plays because that looks good for marketing..
They're remaking Escape to Witch Mountain? Are you kidding me?
39: It just occurred to me, do they give extra yards to returns when someone doesn't score? Can you have a 108 yard return for a non-TD?
There are no "extra yards" given to anybody, it's how far you ran and no more. But yes, you can have anything up to a 109 yard return not for a touchdown. It even happened a few weeks back, where the punt returner was downed on the 1.
Technically speaking, it's not how far you ran, it's the total lateral playing distance covered in the run. You don't get extra yards for zig-zagging across the field.
But yes, you can have anything up to a 109 yard return not for a touchdown.
At least that's consistent. So are yards deducted for plays for a loss in the endzone measured to where the quarterback is downed, or just the yards between the line of scrimmage and the endline?
What if a returned catches it deep in the endzone, runs 5 yards, decides returning is a bad idea and kneels down? Is that a 5 yard return for a touchback?
If you receive the ball at the -9 and return it to the -1, do you get credit for +8 yards?
I think not. Paradox!
No, because you carried the ball back. The measurement is from where your possession during the play started. If you carried the ball back into the end zone first, you've still only got a 99-yard play. But if you get the ball inside the end zone that's where your possession started. You wouldn't get more for carrying it right back to the line either.
53: Maybe, but wispa's doing a pretty good job at answering my initial objections.
What's so difficult? For an offensive play from scrimmage, it's from start of the play to where it ends- every play starts with at least a 1 yard snap back but that's always ignored. For a change of possession, it's from where possession began to where the play ends.
I think safeties-by-downing are measured to the point the player is downed, but I'm not certain (the yards may not count at all; they don't if you run the ball out or ground it, you just get a safety against you).
Touchbacks are always just touchbacks.
What's so difficult?
That yardage counts in the endzone, despite not falling within the range of positive numbered yard lines. It shouldn't be a puzzle why it's a puzzle, even if those of us objecting turn out to be wrong. It remains to be determined if a positive yardage play can begin and end in the endzone. I suppose there are rules written up somewhere.
they don't if you run the ball out or ground it, you just get a safety against you
Touchbacks are always just touchbacks.
In that case, I'm sticking with the objection. I think we've covered all the possibilities.
These commercials are sapping away whatever remained of my faith in the American film industry.
(Although, in the case of grounding, I can see not deducting the yards because that's a half-the-distance rather than absolute yardage situation anyway when the ball is that close to the endline, isn't it?)
It remains to be determined if a positive yardage play can begin and end in the endzone
See 57b- would only apply to a change of possession, as obviously an offensive play can not start with the line of scrimmage inside the endzone.
in the case of grounding
You're talking about intentional grounding? Intentional grounding that occurs when the QB is in the endzone is not a half-the-distance penalty, it's a safety. See Giants vs. Eagles, 2008-9 playoffs round 2.
I call rubbish on your objection. A touchback is not the same thing as advancing the ball - it's a choice not to make a return. Any movement you made never happened.
From the looks of things a sack in the end zone does count as any other would as far as yardage goes. Stepping out the back seems not to, nor does snapping the ball out of bounds (though actually I have no idea how you'd measure that).
SP has covered the intentional grounding point. I mentioned it as an example of a way you could take an intentional safety and where distance would be hard to ascertain. Any other defensive foul in the end zone has the same result.
as obviously an offensive play can not start with the line of scrimmage inside the endzone.
Except we were talking about returns, not scrimmage plays, beginning and ending in the endzone for positive yardage.. See above.
Intentional grounding that occurs when the QB is in the endzone is not a half-the-distance penalty, it's a safety
I know it's a safety. I was making an extrapolation as to how the yardage would be counted in that situation, if yards counted in the endzone when they aren't padding a return run that began in the endzone (return runs not leaving the endzone excepted).
If three people are on one fork of the track, and a really fat football has just been downed 10 yards from the endzone, does it count as a fumble if the lever is rusted stuck?
it's a choice not to make a return. Any movement you made never happened.
There's isn't anywhere else to go in this discussion. You're saying that running forward should count if it results in leaving the endzone but shouldn't if it doesn't. I'm saying that doesn't make sense and that yards should be counted consistently.
What if you run backward, but in the right direction?
And I'm saying that if you're trolly doesn't even leave the endzone then you have some serious mechanical problems to be sorted out.
And, because I guess I've committed myself to this argument and the game still hasn't gotten more interesting, it's not always the case that a returner runs forward in the endzone and decides not to run out of the endzone. Sometimes people run a few yards after being intercepted in the endzone and are tackled before they can run further. That should be positive yards.
"If your trolley isn't leaving the endzone, ask your doctor about a little blue pill called..."
63:We don't need no trolleycars.
In America they become SUV problems.
That should be "after making an interception" and "are tackled before they leave the endzone" in 70. I was distracted by the game becoming more interesting.
If you want to put it that way. It's not really a matter of consistency, it's that a touchback always has the same result - ball goes to the 20, and there was no play. Whether you step forward or not doesn't change that.
There is a possibility that I'm wrong about how it's measured - I can see your argument vis-a-vis interception returns, and there is a rule relating to attempting a return, so the "no play" rule may only apply to an intentional touchback. I can't find the actual rulebook now.
And how come a sacrifice bunt doesn't count as an at-bat for your average, but if you make a really good bunt it counts as a signal, but if it's a bad bunt and the pitcher throws the ball away for an error it counts as an 0 for 1 for your average?
Wow, is there a chance that a game this boring could end with a 4th quarter drive to make it 21-20?
Probably the end of civilization as we know it.
I want a non-intentional safety so I can look up the stats.
It's like they're trying to demonstrate our argument here.
Man, did you call that. Almost, anyway.
Did Al Michaels just say, "Dan Rooney- jacking off."
I guess all the fucking refs are either pittsbur natives or on steeler patyrolll.
and then they call a fcking safety just to prive me wrong ?/ bullshit
I was about to suggest that AZ would score a TD too fast, making it a 3 point game, and PIT would come back with a FG to send it to overtime.
Amazing. Now we need Pittsburgh to get a field goal and there can finally be an overtime Super Bowl.
When it was fourth and goal at the one foot line, and Pittsburgh decided to go for the field goal, Madden said that it a percentage play. It was not.
what the fuck is theis thraead even about??? i treid to read it but it istoo fucking confusing.
I'LL SHOW YOU ENHANCED.
WHAT A GAME. 23-20. TWISTS, TURNS, JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING IMAGINABLE.
This is not providing a counterargument to the claims that you should just bother watching the last 10 minutes of any given football game.
Surprising amount of unsigned commenting in this thread. Also, allcaps commenting.
They might be leaving Arizona too much time.
I'M SORRY THEY ARE ALL MY. i SIGNED. FUCK YOU TOO.
Now they're going to try for the field goal but fuck up the clock management and end up losing by 3.
I've turned caps lock off about 100 times but it won't go away.
This is the worst superbowl in the history of football.
His feet are clearly down, he has possession, he maintains it on the ground. It counts. I didn't think it did live either, but it's a hell of a catch.
Fuck you, ref. I bet that ref is ont hte Steelers payroll.
Honestlly if the Cardinals finish within 10 they ought to be declared the winners. They should have had at least a 10 point handicap.
How could the Vikings have played worse?
You know what would be funny? If Pittsburgh just walked off the field and let AZ score. That would be funny. People would remember that game.
Schadenfreude alert!
Pajamas Media disbands (or rather, plans to "focus on web tv"), kicks its bloggers to the curb. No more wingnut welfare for so many favorites: A/ce of S/pades, P/rotein W/isdom, The An/choress.
Ha ha, motherfuckers! Time to get a real job!
114: Is there any sense in which it wasn't the worst superbowl in history, SP? I don't understand your comment.
Arizona lost to Pittsburgh. That's bullshit.
128: Yes, like half the other fucking Super Bowls.
The wrong team won AND failed to cover the goddamn spread. How could things be worse?
I guess I haven't been paying much attention to the Pajamas bloggers - they were really making a living off of their blogs? I thought it was mostly supplementary income.
130: Yes. Sorry, you're right. I'v ebeen drinkguin. Sprry.
I hate roger goodelll worse even than joe namath.
Drinking's ok, it's legal, just don't go smoke any pot.
Thanking President Obama is the new thanking Jesus!
Indeed, I daresay several Steelers will be doing a lot of fucking tonight.
Drinkguin is the best kind of drinking.
I think 139 may be right. Praise the Obamessiah.
133: No, I don't think any of them was actually making a living off blogging. (I only know who they are thanks to the Alicublog and Sadly No.) I think some of them were hoping to do so eventually, but Simon says the network never paid for itself. I wonder if he actually read some of the blogs and their comment sections and got embarrassed.
I'd feel better about the outcome of this game if Big Ben had been crippled in the process. That's horrible, I know, but it's the truth.
Pittsburgh has won more superbowls thans Green Bay? I thought the Packers won about 30 in a row in the 60s.
145 wasn't really the truth. or atl east I think won't be in the morning when I sober up.
The Packers won the first 2 in the '60s. They had won 3 other NFL championships in the 60s before there was a SUper Bowl. Those don't count it turns out.
Wikipedia doesn't lie, JP:
The Packers have 12 league championships, the most in the NFL, including three Super Bowls. The Packers are also the only team to win three straight NFL titles, which they did twice (1929-1931 and 1965-67). The run of 1965-1967 did not include the Super Bowls played after the 1966 and 1967 seasons when the AFL and NFL were still two separate leagues. For those four years, the Super Bowl winner generally used the title "World Champions."
150: Nor do I. GB won "NFL" in 61, 62, 65, 66, 67. After the last 2 they also won the Super Bowl. Who knows what the assmunch league historians count them as.
18: I saw a couple of performances from a recent Newport festival on the television set a couple of days ago and the fesival looked tiny! Admittedly, they were playing the exact kind of musical wanking that I despise -- no beat, pointless lyrics, soft, bourgeoisie-friendly melodies -- but still, I thought it was supposed to be a bigger deal. Maybe it wasn't "the" festival. I dunno.
I choose to believe that it wasn't the real Newport Jazz Festival. I saw an airing of that a couple of years ago and was blown away.
Our (Pittsburgh's) local news is showing the crowds out in the streets celebrating. All I could think was, please don't smash my office or any of the good lunch places.
You know, 140 was plainly ToS, and should be deleted ASAP.
Woo!!!!
I've been hearing helicopters in the air since the game ended. At least the fireworks stopped.
Robert Smith, the Viking's best runniung back ever, is an "out" atheist.
154: My little sister is apparently somewhere in Oakland. My mom is hoping she's not the one setting the bonfires...
AWB obviously started watching in the last ten minutes.
Better to be outside the bonfire pissing in, than being inside the bonfire pissing out. Something like that.
It was the Newport *Folk* Festival, different animal from the Newport Jazz Festival (though at the same venue, I believe). If I'm not mistaken, the NFF was actually earlier, folded with the decline of the "folk" movement, and/or the NJF morphed out of it.
It was certainly small by the standards of Woodstock, or later rock festivals, but within the context of music the time it was big stuff. (This was long before stadium venues and the like; biggest performance arenas, like the Hollywood Bowl, would seat a couple of thousand. Most music was played in smaller halls, or even clubs.)
Newport was as big as it got for those interested in such things in 1963, when Dylan debuted (less so in 1965, when he supposedly "sold out" by going electric.) This being an era between Early Elvis and the Beatles, when the pop charts were dominated by Chubby Checker doing the Twist, nourishing neither the body nor the soul, it seemed vital to those who believed music might mean something more, a coming together of those who tried to make it more than mindless "entertainment." (Some with more success than others, of course.)
And I was there. ;}
162: The NJF was first; the NFF came a few years later.
160: Are you kidding? The whole thing was great.
Madden said that it a percentage play. It was not.
Is this based on actually looking at the Steelers' goalline stats? Because they have pretty much the worst goalline O in the league this year. Against the Ravens, for instance, they failed twice in one game on 4th and goal from 6" out.
The only positive reason for the Steelers to go for it in that situation is that it puts the D in a good position. But all it takes is one decent completed pass for that benefit to wash away.
162: It was the Newport *Folk* Festival, different animal from the Newport Jazz Festival
Ah; I wasn't aware of the two.
Minneapolitan should watch the Newport *Jazz* Festival.
JMcQ: I stand corrected. NJF began in 1954, NFF not until 1959. But for a few short years it/they were the center of the world for those who hoped popular (in the sense of "not 'classical'") music might be good, and even relevant . . .
Of course there was no Super Bowl then. ;{
Funnily enough, Newport's classical music festival wasn't established until well after both the jazz and folk festivals, and it calls itself the Newport Music Festival, which seems a bit arrogant.
I've recommended it at least once before, but you all must must see the documentary made at the 1958 NJF, Jazz on a Summer's Day, which is ten kinds of fascinating and the epitome of cool.
On the subject of the commercials, I was surprised that Bud Light had arguably most consistently funny commercials, while Budweiser's were laughably bad (a talking horse of Scottish descent who maintains the accent three generations later? Really?!). Obviously different marketing departments, but still.
Also: Bud Light sucks, so it was for naught.
Finally: I laughed at the one where someone punches a Koala, because I'm a bad person.
Even hearing, secondhand, about a commercial in which someone punches a koala makes me laugh. That's how bad a person I am.
170: You can see it for yourself here.
This was one of you lot,wasn't it. C'mon. Own up.
158: I hope she wasn't the one who pulled down the bus shelter in front of the library either. But, Oakland doesn't look too bad.
Contrary to some un-American football haters at the beginning of the thread, this was the second best Super Bowl of all time. After last year's.
Contrary to some un-American football haters at the beginning of the thread,
The statements "Football sucks" and " this was the second best Super Bowl of all time" aren't contradictory.
If you require a comment before morning coffee/stimulant of choice ... seek help.