Originally posted by WINiner:Are you really arguing that there is an equivalent amount of risk involved in 2 victory formation kneel down snaps and covering a kick of any kind?
Absolutely not. I'm arguing that there's likely more risk of something bizarre happening on kneeldowns (again, I cited Rutgers as an example and Carroll is a proponent of what Schiano did/does) than TWO onside recoveries and TWO scores, NOT merely one recovery and that's it. And I totally get people disagreeing with me but to say it's not even debatable is foolish. If it's so obviously the right call, why was it a HUGE story the next day? Botched snaps on kneeldowns have happened, yet none of you can cite an example of two onside recoveries and 2 scores in well under a minute and doing so with zero timeouts.
Now, the risk of injury on an onside attempt is a very valid counterpoint and I totally acknowledge the legitimacy of it and that's why I say it's debatable...but again, let's not forget the potential for an injury on a kneeldown if Carroll went Schiano on us, so that does cancel that aspect out to a degree. But if we disregard injury potential for a second, yes, I'd rather take my chances of not allowing 2 onside recoveries and 2 scores in under a minute to a team with no timeouts than I would a botched snap, especially against a team whose coach supports Schiano's philosophy.
[ Edited by lordfangio on Oct 22, 2012 at 8:56 AM ]