Yes, I have another question about a possible loophole in the rules

[dolphins4life]

Again, I will start off by requesting that if you don't have anything substantive to add, do not comment.  (I can't believe I have to say this, but I do).

Anyway, I was torturing myself the other day by rewatching Super Bowl 51.

The play in question is Alford's interception.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khmdb4CyDB8&t=15s

In theory, is he legally allowed to stand at the two yard line for as long as possible?

If he was, he could have stood there for awhile, until the Patriots reached him.  This would have taken time, because 1) they would have had to realize that he was just standing there 2) They would have to run all the way down the field

Then, as soon as the got close to him, THEN he scores.

If he had done this, if he was allowed to, he may have been able to prevent the Patriots from kicking the key field goal before the half ended.

Is this legally allowed?

[Spider-Dan]

First, let's debunk the premise: NE kicked a field goal on third down at the end of the first half with a timeout still in their pocket, and that was after losing a total of 8 yards on a pair of second down plays.  The amount of time Alford waited before scoring was 100% irrelevant.

As to your actual question of whether a player may waste time without getting hit with an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (or such), this clip should give you your answer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJPf4h9GZvg

[dolphins4life]

First, let's debunk the premise: NE kicked a field goal on third down at the end of the first half with a timeout still in their pocket, and that was after losing a total of 8 yards on a pair of second down plays.  The amount of time Alford waited before scoring was 100% irrelevant.

As to your actual question of whether a player may waste time without getting hit with an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (or such), this clip should give you your answer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJPf4h9GZvg

First, the amount of time Alford waited before scoring is NOT 100% irrelevant because there is no way of knowing how much time he could have waited.  As I said, the Patriots would have first had to recognize that he was just standing there, and then, they would have had to run towards him.  There is no way of knowing how much time that would have taken.  IF it is over a minute, that is significant.

Second, so it is a penalty.  However, would they put time back on the clock?  In the clip you show, the game was already over , so no time could have been put back on the clock.  

BTW, that video clip you show allowed the Packers to win the Super Bowl, but technically should not have counted.  The Eagles rushed onto the field to celebrate the touchdown while the play was live, which is illegal, but that's another story.     

Edit, his teammates could have rushed down the field and provided blocking to prevent the Patriots from reaching him.  They definitely could have burned well over a minute off the clock.

[Dolphster]

Again, I will start off by requesting that if you don't have anything substantive to add, do not comment. 

I'm going to need a little time to digest the delicious irony of that statement. 

[fyo]

Edit, his teammates could have rushed down the field and provided blocking to prevent the Patriots from reaching him.  They definitely could have burned well over a minute off the clock.

Do you realize how absurd that claim is? It's one of those (shockingly common) claims / questions from you that are so absurd and display such an astounding lack of knowledge of the game of football, that's it's quite frankly difficult to figure out where to even start responding. I actually started yesterday, but wound up basically throwing my hands up and just closing my browser.

Okay, so I'll attempt to just focus on this one aspect. OVER A MINUTE?! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!

*breathe deeply*

Uhmm... no, there's no way on Earth the play could have taken that long. For any number of reasons, but most fundamentally is that you seem to be VASTLY overestimating how long plays take in football. To help you out, I tried looking up the longest plays in history in terms of duration, but that doesn't seem to be something the NFL keeps track of, despite it's obsession with records. Fans around the league offer various opinions and if we stick to those in the televised era, where we have at least a chance of substantiating any claims, it looks like the record is around 23-24 seconds.

I found two plays that are right around that mark.

One is the River City Relay (Saints @ Jaguars, Week 16, 2003). Long pass followed by multiple laterals and the play ends up crisscrossing the field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvqhKxIa0S0

The other is final play of the half in the Bears @ Packers Week 13, 2002 game. Favre drops back, chucks a hail mary with 5 seconds left of the half, ball is intercepted and returned from the Bears' 5 to the 40, fumbled, recovered by the Packers, fumbled, recovered by the Bears, returned to Packers 15 or so, tackled. End of half.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QKmyVDv5Z4

Look at the number of things that has to happen in order for a play to take even that long! A simple interception return just isn't going to cut it.

A football field might seem big, but players are fast with even offensive linemen regularly clocking sub-5 second 40 times. Running 60+ seconds off the clock... ri-fucking-diculous.

Okay, you say, but what about the (utterly ridiculous) case where one entire team manages to hustle down (without the other team reacting) and forming a barrier around the ball-carrier. All right, you now have a bunch of players surrounding the ball-carrier maybe 50 yards away from 11 other players. Let's say it takes them a few seconds to realize what's going on, even after the other team has rushed down and made the barrier. What happens next? The whole team charges down the field and momentum is going to dictate what happens when a massive collision occurs 5-10 seconds later.

So even in the UTTERLY ridiculous case above, you'd have added MAYBE 20 seconds to the play, which would almost certainly make it the longest duration play in the modern NFL. You also run the *huge* risk of someone making a penalty (holding, illegal block, whatever), which would nullify the touchdown.

[dolphins4life]

I'm going to need a little time to digest the delicious irony of that statement. 

What that means is that if you don't have any comment to make on the topic, and are just going spout rhetoric garbage about my intelligence or me being a Patriots fan, do not comment. 

[dolphins4life]

This should be obvious, but to some people it isn't.  Don't comment on threads unless you want to discuss what the thread is about.

[dolphins4life]

Now, on to the topic at hand.

Alford intercepted the ball.  He could have stopped at the two yard line and tried to burn some time before scoring, the strategy being to try to reduce the amount of time the Patriots would have had to answer before the half ran out.  There are two angles to discuss on this.

1) Whether this tactic is legal.  Spider's link does not answer this question, actually.  Jackson was flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct.  The clock had run out.  There was no tactic involved with Jackson.  In Alford's case, the tactic would be to run the clock.  I saw Brandon Stokely do this before scoring, but not to extreme as what would happened with Alford

2) If this tactic would have been effective in the situation.  Spider and fyo have both said no, and presented compelling arguments as to why it would not have been.  My view is that it is uncertain, because the key to play is something we can never be sure of, which is HOW LONG IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN FOR THE PATRIOTS TO REALIZE HE WASN'T SCORING AND TRYING TO BURN CLOCK.  

[dolphins4life]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0uFJxSzd28&t=484s

While the simulation does prove that kneeling every play would NOT have won the game for Atlanta, it does show how pathetic Atlanta's offense was.

On the Falcons first drive after the 28-3 lead, they lost one yard on four plays, then punted.  (Net advance 28 yards)

On their second drive, they lost 10 yards on three plays, and fumbled the ball to New England (Net advance -10 yards)

On their third drive, they gained 55 yards on seven plays, then punted (Net advance 81 yards)

That's a total net advance of 99 yards

(Net advance, obviously, refers to where the Patriots took possession in relation to where Atlanta's possession started.

Now if they kneel every play and then punt

Same net advance on the first drive, since they'd be punting similarly, to pin the ball inside the twenty

Second drive, if you reasonably assume a net of forty yards on the punt, that's a net advance of 37 yards

Third drive, if again, you reasonably assume a net of forty yards on the punt, (different punting situation, as they'd be punting deep, not trying to pin the Patriots inside the twenty) that's a net advance of 37 yards

That's a total net advance of 102 yards.

THEY LITERALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF JUST KNEELING ON THE BALL. That's how horrible their offense was.

[Dolphster]

What that means is that if you don't have any comment to make on the topic, and are just going spout rhetoric garbage about my intelligence or me being a Patriots fan, do not comment.  

LOL, I'm not really sure that is how an online public forum works, slugger.  I don't think we can dictate what others are allowed to talk about other than the courtesy rule of no personal attacks.  And I don't think people here really say anything about your intelligence.  I think they question the intelligence of most of your comments.  There is a big difference.  People might make assumptions about your intelligence based on your comments.  But it has been pretty rare that people have said things specifically about your intelligence and I think the mods here do a good job of eliminating those kinds of personal attacks.  PS, Go Pats!!!

[dolphins4life]

LOL, I'm not really sure that is how an online public forum works, slugger.  I don't think we can dictate what others are allowed to talk about other than the courtesy rule of no personal attacks.  And I don't think people here really say anything about your intelligence.  I think they question the intelligence of most of your comments.  There is a big difference.  People might make assumptions about your intelligence based on your comments.  But it has been pretty rare that people have said things specifically about your intelligence and I think the mods here do a good job of eliminating those kinds of personal attacks.  PS, Go Pats!!!

Well, I had a legitimate rule and strategy question I wanted to discuss.  I didn't want the thread to be bogged down with irrelevant drivel .   

[Dolphster]

Well, I had a legitimate rule and strategy question I wanted to discuss.  I didn't want the thread to be bogged down with irrelevant drivel .   

I can understand that.  But I think we'd both be hard pressed to find any threads on here that don't eventually evolve into irrelevant drivel.  It is just kind of the way that pretty much all internet forums work.  We throw something out there and hope to get a few legit responses before things either turn into a complete pissing contest or the subject gets completely changed. 

[stinkfish]

or the subject gets completely changed. 

It's cold out today. Winter is on it's way to New England. I need a haircut. Anybody here going to the Harvard Yale game in Connecticut? Let me know.

[Dave Gray]

I think you'd be allowed to stand there, but you're going to burn at max like 5-10 seconds. 

Also, you risk the ref blowing the play dead for giving yourself up or as stopped forward progress or some other weird rule interpretation.  You just take the TD.

[Dolphster]

It's cold out today. Winter is on it's way to New England. I need a haircut. Anybody here going to the Harvard Yale game in Connecticut? Let me know.

Bundle up, dude.  Those New England winters can be a bish.  Maybe you shouldn't get your haircut if it is cold.  But what do I know, I shave my head.