Great onside kick, but...

AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH... the damn dirty Saints won! They won by picking off Peyton Manning! PEYTON MANNING! The first time I've picked a loser for the Super Bowl in 5 years... the dirty Saints... DAMN!!!

AND WHAT'S WITH LEN DAWSON THERE?!

I mean, he's a good, HOF QB, but there are so many better ones... Montana... Bradshaw... Aikman and Roger Dodger and even Namath was better...

Tom Benson saying how much he loves NO- HA! He almost moved them to LA after Katrina... fair-weather owner...

Be fair, after Katrina he could well have *had* to move to keep such an expensive sport going!

I don't follow your padded rugby, but it looked like a good match? Am I right in thinking that that's a clear victory, particularly give the score going into the final quarter?

The only "clear" thing about it was a great pick off (damn dirty Saints!) and some incredible field goals by their kicker (set a record, damn dirty Saint!). That onside kick to start the half is dirty pool in my book and in one of the replays, it looks like the Colt never actually touched it but it took a funny bounce instead.

WoW!!! You've not taken defeat at all well have you. It's only a game, life goes on.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!

What's a pick off?

And a onside kick? (although I think I kinda get what this one means)

@Draugnar, putting aside for the moment whether there was a missed call on the onside kick and the Colts as you claim didn't touch the ball (I didn't see it the way you did), what exactly makes the onside kick dirty pool? A key to successful football, as with most sports, is surprise and misdirection... two keys to successful football are surprise, misdirection and an almost fanatical devotion to ah... oh never mind :-) ...anyway, as I was saying, what makes an onside kick (a completely legal play) any different than a faked hand-off, for example? (which the Colts did time and time again - to their credit) ...and I'm not sure offhand if it was you, but I heard someone complain about the Saints playing "dirty" (i.e. rough)... I'm not sure exactly what the complaint here is... it is football, after all... it is a violent sport that has a long tradition of physical intimidation and physical abuse as strategies to wear down your opponent. ...really, in some ways, not unlike boxing or other martial arts (for example, until recently, the head slap was legal), or hockey or rugby, for that matter. ...I recall the George Carlin routine where he compares football and baseball - where football uses terminology similar to warfare and baseball... well... doesn't... So... please explain your difficulty with yesterday's game.

@Xapi, a pick off is an intercepted pass (the defense catching a passed ball rather than the offense... resulting in a change in possession). An on-side kick is a short kickoff designed to try and recover the ball (all that is required is the ball go 10 yards and touch someone on the other team... then anyone can recover it [like a fumble]).

Why don't they just call it interception then? I would have gotten that...

And my guess was right about on-side kick.

oh boo-hoo you haters. new orleans as a city deserved that win, and the saints as a team gained it fair and square. they got off to a tough start, but then turned it around. big ups to hartley for the field goals, breez for the passing, porter for the interception, and peyton for the totally unpredictable and risky plays with the on-side kick and the two point conversion. that was some smart and gutsy playing, and the saints deserved to win.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Colts don't need to touch an onside kick if it travels 10 yards. It's a live ball on a kickoff after 10 yards.

Question: On the on-side kick, did the kicker aim to hit an opponent directly, or did he kinda put the ball around there to cause a general confusion?

Can someone explain that play more detailed to me? It seems very interesting, I've seen this done in Rugby, but your players can take the ball themselves as long as it moves over 10 yards.

I had no dog in the fight, but it was actually a good game, the final score doesn't reflect just how close it was, and the Saints played one hell of a second half. That receiver for the colts was dangerous as hell, and it looked for a long time like it was going to go to the colts.

they didnt deserve this. they sat on their asses and waited for the welfare to roll in and fix their city for them. if they actually stood up and fixed their own problem, i would respect them. unfortunately they dont. they waste their relief on corruption and football. im happy they won, but really? they deserve this??? bahahaha what a joke

Cross posted with Mr Alcorn, if what he says ir right, then it's just the same as in Rugby.

Wow, @lod, that's one hell of a lot of invective. Do you have evidence that what little relief that went to NO (and believe me, if it had been Houston, the Bush Administration would have had the Army Corp of Engineers in there BEFORE the hurricane hit) was used to prop up the football team? Is there corruption in Louisiana? Sure. But it wasn't the people currently partying on Bourbon Street who screwed up.

I gotta tell you, I've seen some stupid rants in my day, and if you want to hat ethe Saints because of what happened on the field, that's fine. But that was one of the most racist, nasty diatribes I've seen in a long time.

who dat who dat who dat say dey gon' beat dem saints

uhhhhhh wassuppppp

@dexter - I don't actually have a problem with the game. The Saints won it fair and square. And it was a gutsy move trying a dangerous onside kick that paid off. Coaching made all the difference in this game.

@DJBent - no city deserves a win just because they got pounded by a storm. Sorry, but NO wasn't the only city devastated by Katrina.

The Saints earned the win with an awesome kicker, some great coaching, and one amazingly fast cornerback with great reflexes (Tracy Porter) who sealed the deal for them. But none of that means the city deserved squat.

Does Haiti have a pro football (not American football) team? If so, then they must deserve the World Cup next time out. Sorry, doesn't work for me.

@Xapi - it's just another term, although it is usually one that refers to a well executed and read interception as opposed to the more common tip that manages to fall into a defenders hands or both the defense and the offense being right where the ball is and fighting for it to have the defense come up with it. In this case, I have to give Tracy Porter credit for perfectly reading Manning and knowing exactly what was coming. That play not only sealed the game, but sealed his ability to demand whatever he wants when he becomes a free agent.

I'm just a Colts fan if the Bengals and the Bears aren't gonna be in it. But honestly, the two best teams got there and it was a good fight with a chance at being an OT game until that interception...

Technically, in an onside kick, if it oges at least 10 yeards (touched or not) it is fair game. Or, if an opponent touches it, even after just a couple of yards, it is fair game as it is considered a fumble at that point.

@jbalcorn - you need to read a dictionary. Nothing Lodi said was racist in the least. He never mentioned race, so why do you bring it up and prove yourself to be the ass?

So, did the ball go over 10 yards in this case?

@draugnar - sure, haiti deserves to win the world cup. i'm all for that! and not long ago, people would have said the saints had the same chance of getting to the super bowl (much less win it) as most would think haiti has of making it to the world cup and win it. new orleans was not the only city devastated by the hurricane, but everyone in the gulf coast roots for the saints - they are more than just new orleans. and new orleans certainly was the biggest city. i love new orleans, it is my second home, so of course i'm biased.

the saints DID earn that win, and i'm just expressing the immense happiness that i feel about that, in light of the particular circumstances of new orleans and the saints history. when something has a good story to it, it's always better. but don't hate on the saints or new orleans. crescent city is an international treasure in my opinion, perhaps the finest city in the world, and the saints were the underdogs in this fight (damn i wish i had bet money on the game) and you gotta love when they come out on top - it's one big underdog story, in so many ways. so it's great! don't hate, appreciate! ;D

WHO DAT! GEAUX SAINTS!!

Reading your post, Ms Bent, I think there'll be a movie made of this game in no longer than 10 years.

and draugnar don't be a nasty fool. don't call jba an ass, he's a nice guy and you know it.

lodi's comment was implicitly racist, but whatever i'm not about to argue with you about those things.

@Xapi - yes it did so he didn't have to touch it.

@djbent - I disagree that a city or regions devastation means they deserve to win a sports title. Cincinnati could be devastated by tornados (yes, we do get them quite frequently) and the Bengals or the Reds shouldn't be given a title just because their home city was effectively wiped out. The Sain'ts earned (and therefore deserved) the title, but not the city of NO.

@djbent - I press the bullshit buzzer on that. Lode's comment was not at all, even implicitely, racist. Now you are being an ass too. Saying a community sat around on its collective asses and waited for someone else to do it for them is probably a fallacy, but it is not racist.

@Draugnar, re: jbalcorn and Katrina...
No one in my memory has ever complained about disaster recovery spending or "lazy" disaster victims in any other natural disaster in the U.S. ...I'm talking about 35+ years of my memory and the fact that I pay attention to the news pretty closely. There has been such a steady and ugly din about NO and the residents therein and how "lazy" and "criminal" etc. that they supposedly are how they somehow don't deserve our help that it has become a dog whistle for racism. No other disaster victims have been responded to that way. In every other disaster the affected communities and their residents have gotten nothing but sympathy and help, until now - with New Orleans. For jbalcorn to assume Lodi was making a racist comment was not much of a leap considering this history.

Point in fact, when someone says another persons statement was racist but the other person said nothing about race, that means the first person had race on their mind, making THEM the racist.

@dexter - Maybe @Lode was being racist in his mind, but that doesn't mean JBA or DJB or even you have a right to say he was being racist. In doing so, yu take on the role of the racist. That is like someone saying something with potential innuendo and someone else taking offense. It says more about the offended's mindset than the offender's.