Random Football Questions

[RSN Diaspora]

I had two unrelated questions from yesterday's game, don't know if anyone knew the answers:
 

1. On the LaFell second Gronk touchdown catch, it looked like the ball was moving when he hit the ground, potentially negating the TD. Though the review didn't overturn the call, and it was automatic because it was a scoring play, why is there a question there? Is it not a touchdown the moment he has possession in the endzone with both feet in, thereby rendering anything subsequent irrelevant? If not, when is the play dead?
    
2. Down 45-7, Chicago scored a touchdown and successfully completed a two-point conversion. What is particularly advantageous about being down 30 versus being down 31 with a PAT kick? Is it just score whatever points you can, or there any reason to this decision?

 

[FL4WL3SS]

Minor nitpick, you're thinking of Gronk's touchdown, not LaFell's. And yeah, I wondered the same.

 

[RSN Diaspora]

Minor nitpick, you're thinking of Gronk's touchdown, not LaFell's. And yeah, I wondered the same.

 
Right you are. Oops. Corrected.

 

[Super Nomario]

I had two unrelated questions from yesterday's game, don't know if anyone knew the answers:

• On the LaFell second Gronk touchdown catch, it looked like the ball was moving when he hit the ground, potentially negating the TD. Though the review didn't overturn the call, and it was automatic because it was a scoring play, why is there a question there? Is it not a touchdown the moment he has possession in the endzone with both feet in, thereby rendering anything subsequent irrelevant? If not, when is the play dead?

In order to have "possession" he needs to complete the process of the catch, which includes control of the ball when he hits the ground.
 

• Down 45-7, Chicago scored a touchdown and successfully completed a two-point conversion. What is particularly advantageous about being down 30 versus being down 31 with a PAT kick? Is it just score whatever points you can, or there any reason to this decision?

Yeah, this didn't make a lot of sense to me, either.

 

[C4CRVT]

My guess on #2: It's a relatively small downside chance to practice running a 2 point conversion play. Just in case their season comes down to one in the future. That's all I got.

 

[Silverdude2167]

Down by 35, have to get as many points as possible? It is a very optimistic outlook, but the Pats did score 21 points in a minute earlier in the game I guess.

 

[Bosoxen]

In order to have "possession" he needs to complete the process of the catch, which includes control of the ball when he hits the ground.

 
Correct. If he loses the ball for even an instant when he hits the ground, he must re-establish possession. If he's flopping around in the end zone, he can still do that and be credited with a touchdown (as long as the ball never touches the ground, obviously), but if he's out of bounds, he's SOL.

 

[williams_482]

Down 45-7, Chicago scored a touchdown and successfully completed a two-point conversion. What is particularly advantageous about being down 30 versus being down 31 with a PAT kick? Is it just score whatever points you can, or there any reason to this decision?

I thought this was actually a pretty smart (if almost certainly meaningless) call. They are down by five scores anyway, so they should be taking as many reasonable risks as possible and hoping for a miracle. Getting a little lucky on two point conversions could possibly save them a drive or allow them to play for a win instead of a tie if they do somehow come crawling back, and converting on three or four two pointers is a much better bet for an obvious underdog than forcing an additional turnover or recovering another obvious onsides kick. 

 

[Bosoxen]

I thought this was actually a pretty smart (if almost certainly meaningless) call. They are down by five scores anyway, so they should be taking as many reasonable risks as possible and hoping for a miracle. Getting a little lucky on two point conversions could possibly save them a drive or allow them to play for a win instead of a tie if they do somehow come crawling back, and converting on three or four two pointers is a much better bet for an obvious underdog than forcing an additional turnover or recovering another obvious onsides kick. 

 
You may be over thinking this. I think it can be more easily explained as it being the cousin of the TMQ-approved practice of never punting late in a game where you're down big.

 

[Al Zarilla]

 
I had two unrelated questions from yesterday's game, don't know if anyone knew the answers:
 

1. On the LaFell second Gronk touchdown catch, it looked like the ball was moving when he hit the ground, potentially negating the TD. Though the review didn't overturn the call, and it was automatic because it was a scoring play, why is there a question there? Is it not a touchdown the moment he has possession in the endzone with both feet in, thereby rendering anything subsequent irrelevant? If not, when is the play dead?
    
2. Down 45-7, Chicago scored a touchdown and successfully completed a two-point conversion. What is particularly advantageous about being down 30 versus being down 31 with a PAT kick? Is it just score whatever points you can, or there any reason to this decision?

 

Because 38, the differential, can be overcome by 5 touchdowns and 5 two point conversions. If they kicked the extra points, it would take 6 touchdowns. Extremely long odds that it could be done, but you're supposed to try until it's nigh unto impossible.