Talk:2012–13 NFL playoffs

NFL teams not reseeded

Teams in the NFL playoffs keep their same seed number. Even after the Super bowl last year, the Giants were referred to as a #4 seed. The year before, the Packers were the #6 seed. You only have to look at old playoff brackets. The same seed # for a team is used the whole bracket. This should be corrected. Spparky (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This "re-seeded" wording reflects the general terminology and definition used on both the Single-elimination tournament and Seed (sports) articles, not whatever the NFL officially and specifically uses. As an aid, I have added a link to that particular article, but I'm not in favor of changing the template or this playoff article until there is some consensus to change those other two articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, I have changed the wording to avoid "re-seed", based on what is used on the NHL brackets. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

NFC: Seattle Seahawks 24, Washington Redskins 14 Description

In the description of the "NFC: Seattle Seahawks 24, Washington Redskins 14" game, one of the paragraphs lists the QB for the Seahawks as "Ryan Wilson". The correct name is "Russel Wilson". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.246.219 (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

AFC: Broncos, Ravens Description

Requesting notes about questionable officiating and practice kick before game winner. We all know there will be many rule changes because of this fiasco. --JLAmidei (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Any criticism about the officiating will need to be verifiable, and cited by reliable sources. Any such content will also need to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and may also fall into the biographies of living persons policy (as it covers any Wikipedia article that discusses information about living persons, including NFL officials). No original research or personal opinions that just say "it's a fiasco". This basically means we just merely re-state what other reliable sources assert about the game, not the opinions or interpretations from the average fan or Wikipedia editor "on the street". Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

How about USA Today? The last sentence, "There were more egregious officiating gaffes on Saturday, but none may have had a bigger impact."ESPN? They seem to be a very reliable source for sports news. How about Fox Sports?. 3 different sources. --JLAmidei (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you are an established user, feel free to be bold in updating the page, since all I was merely doing was reminding everyone of the policies and guidelines. Be forewarned however: other editors can also add content regarding criticism of coach John Fox's decision to go conservative and take a knee in the waning moments of regulation, criticism of Champ Bailey and Denver's defense giving up those big touchdown plays including the 70-yard game-tying touchdown with seconds left in regulation, criticism of Manning's interception in overtime to set up the Ravens' winning field goal, and the Broncos' other mistakes. As I have observed in various message boards, while a number of Broncos fans complained about the officiating, an equal number of Ravens/anti-Broncos/anti-Manning fans have made those points about the Broncos' miscues. So let's not get into an edit war over this or turn this article literally into a shouting match like those message boards. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And if you think they won't add notes about the questionable coaching and play of the Broncos, please look at 2011–12 NFL playoffs#Missed kick at end of game, with the criticism and reactions to Billy Cundiff's missed field goal at the end of last year's AFC Championship Game. So really what I am saying is that if we only include criticism of the officiating of this game, it might be seen as giving undue weight on explaining a reason why Denver lost, when there might be an equal number of sources regarding the Broncos' glaring miscues that I have mentioned above (I mean giving up that 70-yard touchdown bomb with that little time left in regulation, and going conservative like that during those final minutes with a QB like Peyton Manning, were definitely shocking to many NFL observers). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason I cited USA Today about officiating is because they don't do in-depth articles. The articles in the paper version are mostly summaries of what's happening in the world. For the officiating in their opinion to so "egregious", it had to be awful. --JLAmidei (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Justin Tucker's practice kick should have been penalized. Justin Tucker was assisted by special teams coach Randy Brown attempting a practice kick. Champ Bailey attempted to set in front of them and get the officials attention was seen during the game's broadcast.

NFL: Rule 4 Section 1 Article 2, Intermissions: There will be intervals of at least two minutes between the first and second periods (first half) and between the third and fourth periods (second half). During these intermissions all playing rules continue in force, and no representative of either team shall enter the field unless he is an incoming substitute, or a team attendant or trainer, entering to see the welfare of another player.

Penalty: For illegally entering the field: Loss of 15 yards from the succeeding spot (13-1-6 Pen.)

Just the facts. I can post more sources about the egregious officiating, but the whopper was the practice kick. The rule is in black and white already in the rulebook. The NFL is already trying to distance itself from this rule. On ESPN they are saying it was legal, when their own rules state otherwise.--JLAmidei (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently other users (not me) have reverted your previous edits, feeling that, per WP:SYNTHESIS, that this was an "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". I believe your mistake is that you merely quoted the NFL rulebook, and then used your own interpretation and analysis to apply that rule to this specific case. In other words, your conclusion that "it should have been a penalty " is still not backed up by ESPN, the NFL, or other reliable sources -- and in fact contradicts it. That is a clear case of original research. Again, any such claim or conclusion should be explicitly backed up by a reliable source, and not sound like it came from the sole analysis or synthesis or conclusion of a single pissed-off fan of the losing team who is using Wikipedia as a forum/soapbox to express his own individual thoughts on the matter (and we get plenty of those people on Music City Miracle, Tuck Rule Game, Immaculate Reception -- even all the NFL playoff articles when there is at least one controversial call -- so you should understand why a lot of the regular editors on these NFL articles like to enforce these Wikipedia policies). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If there is a rule change next year because of this play, can we add the description of the play in the game? Common sense says that the Denver Broncos and Seattle Seahawks will be lobbying for this to happen at the annual meeting. --JLAmidei (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If a rule change is passed (especially if it is a rules named after an NFL figure), it will be definitely added. However, if it is tabled or dies in the competition committee, it might be removed 10 years from now. I mean, nobody really remembers the few controversial calls that went IN FAVOR the Broncos in the 2005 playoff game against the Patriots (the only thing that is remembered is that Denver denied New England from three-peating).

Interesting article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kirkpatrick/ravens-broncos_b_2492147.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLAmidei (talk • contribs) 05:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If you intend to cite material from this opinion piece, be sure to say that this was the opinion of the author, Rob Kirkpatrick of the Huffington Post (e.g. "According to Rob Kirkpatrick of the Huffington Post ..."). If you don't and instead state most of these opinions as fact or in your own words, it could be consider both as plagiarism and a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Regarding the former, plagiarism is very a serious charge in the eyes of most writers, especially on such established sites like the Huffington Post, and they frown upon the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit, no matter what the subject is. I believe, looking at your user talk page, you have been previously warned about plagiarism and copyright violations in the past, so be careful. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I did have trouble citing my sources when I first started here. I'm sure every new user does. But, since I'm collecting many articles to show you that something rotten happened in the Ravens-Broncos game. Everybody knows it. I'm just collecting and posting the sources so everybody can see. You then can decide to use them. --JLAmidei (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Former NFL official and officiating supervisor Jim Daopoulos: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/22825103/vp/21428022#50463518 Lordcheeto (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

References

NFC: Atlanta Falcons 30, Seattle Seahawks 28

I was wondering why the referee blew the whistle when Atlanta missed the game-winning field goal (giving the Falcons, in the words of the Fox sportscaster, a “mulligan”)? 71.178.188.166 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Somebody on the Seahawks called a timeout prior to the snap (the TV broadcasters occasionally miss things that the radio broadcasters, or those in the stadium, see). The official play-by-play also confirms a timeout was called by Seattle, giving the Falcons kicker "a second chance" (which fuels the debate on whether opposing teams should call these last-second timeouts prior to game-tying field goals, because it essentially gives these kickers practice swings, which Atlanta's kicker took full advantage of). Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

NFC Title Game summary error

Matt Ryan's Interception (by Chris Culliver) in the 3rd quarter is incorrectly summarized. It incorrectly says on the interception return that Chris Culliver returned the ball to the Atlanta 25 where Akers missed a field goal. Actually, Culliver intercepted Ryan at his own 38 yard line with no return yards occurring on the interception itself. The 49ers then drove to the 25 where Akers missed the field goal. The play by play can be found here. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201301200atl.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.188.95 (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Conference Championship rotation

The annual rotation of starting times of the NFC and AFC Championship games started in 1996 and was made official in 2002. That is mentioned in the 2010 and 2011 NFL Playoffs articles. Can that please be put on this article? 66.30.184.19 (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Protection

Why is protection still in effect? The Super Bowl was two weeks ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.177 (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)