16 comments This Article's Entire Premise Is Ridiculous

I don't read Bleacher Report. I haven't ever read Bleacher Report except to read articles someone else has linked. Personally I haven't ever read anything of substance on the site that has been linked for me to read. I think the site has potential but suffers from a lack of good writing, at least from what I have read. Most of the time I read what is being written and think, "I don't even understand what this article is saying" or I disagree so much it isn't even worth my time to write about it here or comment on it." For example, an article on the front page today is "Call me crazy but...the Lakers are better without Kobe Bryant." I read it and it's not crazy, it is idiocy. I respect people's opinions but that reads like an article that wants to be on the front page of Bleacher Report. So I don't pay much attention to the site overall.

Until today. I don't know if Steve Montana is a real sports journalist or not. He probably isn't so I won't rail on him for being a stupid "professional" journalist, but he thinks the onside kick by Sean Payton was dirty. Basically, he thinks the onside kick at the beginning of a half should be outlawed, which I think is a moronic rule change.

Ah, what could take away the joy of watching two great quarterbacks duel it out in a Super Bowl, having a snack at half-time anticipating seeing Peyton Manning and the Colts drive down field with the first second-half possession after making their usual adept adjustments during the break?

An inability for the Colts to play well in one of the 3 phases of a football game, special teams, that's what could prevent us from seeing the Colts and Peyton Manning drive down the field.

Clearly this guy is a Indianapolis Colts fan and he is not happy the Saints head coach is alive and was actively coaching his team during the Super Bowl. It's not like the game was over after the Saints recovered this onside kick, the score was 13-10 even after the Saints scored the touchdown after the onside kick. There was still 30 minutes left in the game where we could watch the two quarterbacks duel. Actually we did get to see the 2 quarterbacks duel and Drew Brees won. That's the bottom line.

Dirty pool by Sean Payton, in the form of an onside kick to start the second half, could take away that joy.

It was dirty in that it is currently completely within the rules to try an onside kick to start the second half. It's fine if you want the rule changed, but no one can call Payton's move "dirty" when it is currently legal. Steve Montana's yearning to make the onside kick at the beginning of a half illegal doesn't actually make it illegal. So calling it dirty is factually incorrect until the rule is changed.

When the Saints won the coin toss and elected to receive the ball to start the game, they made their choice.

As did the Colts choose when they chose their side of the field. The Colts were able to make a choice based on the coin toss as well. Nowhere in the coin toss at the beginning of the game did the Saints promise to not try an onside kick at the beginning of the 2nd half.

The other team gets to receive the ball to start the second half, but the Colts never received the ball. It was stolen from them on a cheap and dirty onside kick.

Dirty and cheap based on the fact Steve Montana didn't like the Colts not getting the chance to get the ball. It was a legal and smart onside kick based on current NFL rules. I am on the side of the current NFL rules on this issue.

Although it was a legal play by existing NFL rules, there has always been an unwritten rule, a gentleman's rule that you do not attempt an onside kick to start a half.

Ironically when I did an internet search "gentlemen's rule to not try onside kick after halftime" all I found was people reacting to this every article. So if it is a gentleman's rule, it is a gentleman's rule that only Steve Montana is aware of or it is so little known no one talks about it.

At any other time on a kickoff, fine, but when you win the coin toss, you only get to receive the ball to start a half once. You don't get to break the rack in nine-ball 2 times in a row.

This is completely ignoring the fact if the Colts special teams had stayed awake during the onside kick they could have had Peyton Manning in great field position with a 10-6 lead and a chance to extend the lead further. Of course it makes more sense to further the idea an onside kick after halftime is unfair if Steve Montana ignores the entire possibility the Colts have a great statistical chance to get the ball on an onside kick if they are paying attention on special teams. It is very sneaky to assume that the kicking team will always recover the onside kick in this situation, but it won't work with me.

That would be greedy.

Of course, greedy. Since it's not against the rules it is obviously a greedy move. Do you know what else is probably greedy in the eyes of Steve Montana? When a defensive player tries to recover a fumble or catch a pass that could be intercepted. Pure greed. Just let the ball drop or stay away from the fumbled ball, it is not fair to try and take the ball away from the other team.

While many see Sean Payton's gamble as a tribute to his genius and will hail him for his aggressiveness, I see it as blemish on an otherwise respectable game between two evenly-matched teams.

Evenly matched other than the Saints outscored the Colts 18-7 AFTER the touchdown following the onside kick. So the game was evenly-matched except for the fact it really wasn't. It's not like the game ended 31-30 or anything. The onside kick was the start of the Saints gaining momentum, but Peyton Manning and the Colts had plenty of chances to win the game in the 2nd half and they blew them. That's the bottom line, quit crying about it and think about how the Colts loss had much more to do with just an onside kick...that would be my advice.

To be a true champion, you play the game between the lines. There is no need to resort to cheap tricks.

I am pretty sure the onside kick took place between the lines. I don't know if this was a cheap trick since it was a legal play and if the Colts had recovered they would have less yardage to travel and score a touchdown or field goal to take increase their lead.

Let there be no mistake: the Saints outplayed the Colts and deserved to win for the most part.

Just a couple of paragraphs ago Steve was bemoaning the fact two evenly-matched teams didn't get to play...but now he states the Saints outplayed the Colts.

I say for "the most part" because the game was in the balance until late in the fourth quarter. During Sean Payton's Monday morning news conference on NFL network, he appeared humble.

So the onside kick that happened in the early 3rd quarter was dirty and a cheap trick, but the game wasn't decided until later in the fourth quarter? So basically, the cheap and dirty onside kick had nothing to do with the Colts loss and the Colts lost the game on their own accord. In essence, the onside kick at the beginning of a half rule needs to be changed even though it has never adversely affected the outcome of an NFL game...because dammit, the Colts were supposed to win this game and Colts fans are bitter about this.

Perhaps he felt somewhere inside that his decision did not need to be made to win, but since it had been made, a lot of people will forever associate this game and him as a coach with that play.

Or he may have been hung over or too tired to start bragging about winning the Super Bowl. I am sure he felt bad about the LEGAL onside kick that caused an entire city and state joy, but pissed off several bitter Colts fans. It was probably his guilt that caused him to be subdued, and not the massive amounts of alcohol he consumed and lack of sleep the night before.

As I see it, the play did not determine the ultimate outcome. It could be argued by some that it greatly affected the outcome.

Those who argued it greatly affected the outcome would be the bitter Colts fans I was just speaking of.

If the Colts had received a regular kickoff, and they had scored a TD, it would have been 17-6 Colts rather than the 13-10 Saints that it did indeed become when the Saints drove the field.

If the Colts had recovered the onside kick it would have been 17-6 Colts as well. It is not like the Colts didn't have an opportunity to recover the kick.

The Saints could have mounted a comeback. After all, they showed that they had the greater will to win, the greater hunger to lift the Lombardi trophy.

Actually yes, based on the 18-7 scoring margin in the favor of the Saints, if the Colts had scored on the opening kickoff of the 2nd half, the game would have gone to overtime...which is decided by a coin toss. So I thank God that didn't happen or else Peter King and half the mainstream media would have flipped their shit talking about how much NFL overtime sucks.

With the Colts adeptness at making half-time adjustments, it was looming pretty large that they were going to drive for a touchdown on their first second-half possession.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight...especially considering the fact the Colts hadn't scored since there was 36 seconds left in the 1st quarter. Just fucking assuming the Colts would have scored on the opening drive is a big assumption considering the Colts hadn't scored in a full quarter and scored 7 points in the entire 2nd half. This is a huge assumption I just refuse to blindly accept.

If the Colts were likely to score anyway, gambling on an onside kick that could have given the Colts the ball at the Saints own 40-yard line didn't really have that much downside anyway.

The Colts WEREN'T likely to score anyway. When watching anything but the 1st quarter of this Super Bowl told anyone the Colts were likely to score on the Saints? They scored 7 points after the 1st quarter.

I have always heard stories about how delusional and bitter Colts fans are and now I am starting to believe those stories. It is like they are all little Bill Polians walking around wanting the rules changed to their benefit because they don't like that their team lost.

Finally, there is the question of who actually recovered the ball. The ball bounced around a few times and led to one of the ugliest and worst regulated scrums in NFL history.

You can see the statistics that show the ugliest and worst regulated scrums in NFL history at www.iamjustmakingthisupandusinghyperbolesincethereisnowaytomeasurethis.com

The officials did very little to pull players off the pile.

Because well trained athletes are so easy to just yank off each other when they are fighting for a football.

"It's not like they are heavy or strong football players, you wimpy officials! Just pick them all up and take them off each other? What? You can't pick up football players? Pussy!"

Small fights were breaking out at the sides without flags being thrown.

If flags were thrown, there would be offsetting penalties most likely, which would result in a sum total of nothing happening.

The last we saw of the ball on replays it was between the legs of one prone Saints player and Hank Baskett was diving on top of it.

Is this what we want in a Super Bowl?

Absolutely. I want coaches making smart, tough, risky decisions to change the momentum of a game. Steve Montana may not want this in a Super Bowl but he is most likely a Colts fan and wanted the Colts to win, so obviously he doesn't want this.

To throw scraps of food into the air of a courtyard and watch wild dogs go at it.

Because this type of scrum never happens on fumbles.

Outlaw fumbles! On second though, outlaw the defense being able to sack Peyton Manning!

The onside was not only a blemish on the game for being a cheap and dirty parlor trick. It was also a blemish because it was not a clean play. It was not a clean recovery of a live ball.

Apparently Steve Montana has the coveted seat under the turf of the stadium in Miami, so he knows exactly who ended up with the ball at the bottom of one of the "ugliest and worst regulated" scrum of players.

Is that what we wish to see in the NFL on its greatest stage?

Yes, I do want the officials to determine position on fumbles and onside kicks in a manner like this because there is no way to determine who actually has the ball unless we see a player had possession before the ball exchanged hands under the pile. Hank Baskett clearly did not have possession and a Saints player appeared to jump on the ball. The announcers immediately announced the Saints appeared to have the ball.

My proposal then is that the NFL needs to make a rule change to prevent what happened in Sunday's Super Bowl between the Colts and the Saints from ever occurring again.

So the proposal will outlaw ALL onside kicks and fumbles? That's the only way scrums for the football won't happen. Also, there is no rule to prevent Peyton Manning from losing a football game that can be implemented, other than asking him politely to not throw the ball to the other team in the 4th quarter.

Starting next season, an onside kick may be attempted on any kickoff except for those starting a half.

So it is not really the scrums or lack of ability by the officials to determine which team has possession that is the problem for Steve Montana, it is the fact the onside kick happened at the beginning of a half and this is what bitter Colts fans blame the Super Bowl loss on?

I hope he realizes there will still be scrums in the NFL on its greatest stage during fumbles and there will be mass confusion in a scrum, which he was discussing angrily a few paragraphs ago. Of course I get the feeling he doesn't care about that, because it may not involve the Colts losing a Super Bowl next time.

There's no point in having a coin toss if the team that wins it can decide, "Screw it! We are going to take the ball to start the second half too."

They didn't take the ball. They kicked off and recovered the ball. These are two COMPLETELY different things. The Colts had the chance to get the ball and blew it. There is no difference in a team trying an onside kick to start off a half and trying an onside kick after that team has scored a touchdown. In both situations the other team tries to get the ball to their offense.

What if a team wins the coin toss and defers to the 2nd half? Then the team that lost the coin toss decides to receive to start the game. Why can't the team that lost the original coin toss try an onside kick in the 2nd half? The team that won the coin toss had the chance to get the ball and they didn't take that chance. NFL teams do defer to the 2nd half.

There is no reason to change this rule simply because the Colts lost the Super Bowl. The onside kick at the beginning of a half is not illegal and never should be. Steve Montana is just assuming teams that win the coin toss always choose to take the ball at the beginning of the game, which isn't true. So he wants to have a rule that outlaws onside kicks at the beginning of a half, but this is stupid because possession isn't guaranteed for the team which tries the onside kick, but Steve Montana just assumes possession is guaranteed. Preventing onside kicks from being successful is a part of special teams and special teams are 1/3 a part of the game of football. Therefore I see no reason for a rule change. The move isn't dirty or illegal and shouldn't ever be seen as either of these descriptions.

The Colts lost, it is best to just get over this fact and not try to change the rules to make it seem like they didn't outright get beaten.

Here Steve Montana tries to defend himself in the comments. I just get more confused as to what he is exactly trying to say. It is great to try and clarify your position, but there is no reason for the rule change since neither team is put at a disadvantage by an onside kick to begin a half. I respect the guy for having an opinion but I think he is way off on this.

If Bleacher Report articles are this bad, I probably will never respect or pay attention to anything that is written on that site.