Talk:List of Hail Mary passes

Sources

Would anyone object to removing any line that is not sourced with something specifically saying "Hail Mary". That would reduce the SYNTH factor that was part of the reasoning for requesting deletion (WP:NOT#OR is part of WP:NOT which is reasoning at WP:DEL).Cptnono (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

While I think that might be good for "this list" it might be better to move and/or create another list of long passes on the last play of the game... but I am in favor of having some sort of criteria for inclusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Long passes are generally referred to by commentators as a Hail Mary if there is only enough time on the game clock for one more play.

Generally, the following conditions apply: 1) A team has possession of the ball with time to run only one play on the game clock. 2) A touchdown is needed. This happens either if a field goal will not yield sufficient points to win or tie (deficit of 4 points or greater), or if the team is outside their kicker's field goal range.

However then this is in contradiction with the definition used on Hail Mary pass: A Hail Mary pass or Hail Mary route in American football refers to any very long forward pass made in desperation with only a small chance of success, especially at or near the end of a half. Both pages should maintain the same criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.185.100 (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The above situation is most commonly characterized by its desperation (hence the origins of the term). However, there are circumstances where the Hail Mary can be run as a trick play at the end of the first half. In such situations, the scores of the teams are irrelevant (the 2012 NFC divisional playoff game featured a Hail Mary executed by the New York Giants, who were ahead by 3 points). I would suggest moving these examples into a new category of "Hail Mary passes thrown as a trick play" or something similar. There is no desperation in these situations as there is another half of the game to be played. Toad of Steel (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Would that be "'Bomb' passes to the endzone"? PJEckenheim (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest adding the 2005 Capital One bowl in which Iowa defeated LSU on a Hail Mary pass as time ran out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.254.194 (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I find the 2015 - Kansas City Chiefs vs. Baltimore Ravens action at the end of the first half not only missing a source, but also lacking in terms of the definition. While the play was amazing, it didn't lead to a tie, not even a tie for the half time, but only to a reduction of the lead from 24-7 to 24-14, and the game ended up 34-14 for the team that *didn't* use the play. Sorry, but I'd suggest moving this paragraph to the section about "List of passes often mistakenly referred to as a 'Hail Mary'" (whereas even the "often" part would need verification). PJEckenheim (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"the Bengals up 14-10" - how can a *Bengals* play in that situation be a play used "in desperation"? Especially when it's the end of the first half only, and the other team the (by now 0-12) 2016 Browns? I find that play lacking in terms of fulfilment of the definition of Hail Mary, and would humbly suggest it be removed from the list. (Also: there's no source for the entry) 62.96.235.231 (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyone got a good text and sources for the two incomplete Hail Mary attempts by Matt Stafford at the end of Chiefs at Lions on Sunday? I mean, the effort should be acknowledged at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CE:7F22:5455:F524:B33E:B324:593C (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Brett Favre made a successful Hail Mary throw to Antonio Freeman against the Bears in week 6 of 1996, just before halftime. Somebody with editing privileges should add it to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E2D1:6640:61D4:344E:C28D:58F2 (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

ongoing vandalism problem

I would suggest to *permanently* protect the page against the ongoing and persistent vandalism by allowing "only autoconfirmed users" or something similar. 62.96.235.231 (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. I've requested the page for temporary protection. The level of vandalism here does not go back far enough, and is not extensive enough to warrant indefinite protection. Boomer Vial^Holla 12:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. PJEckenheim (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again... The disruptive POV editor this time even managed to damage the code in the section he keeps editing... and he still copy-and-pastes the same identical passage, and he still fails to provide a source... Ceterum censeo: I would really suggest this page be permanently protected, as we're somewhere around 30 of those disruptive edits by now, ongoing for more than six months, and only ever stopped briefly while the page is protected for the time being.62.96.235.231 (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Three months later. Protection expires. And, surprise!, in comes the anonymous editor with the unsourced edit... This is getting QUITE annoying. PJEckenheim (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

...and here we go again... the anonymous vandal inserts his 219 bytes POV... undone... reinserted... undone... and now he's even resorting to deleting the /Talk page... The page should really be protected to only allow edits by people who got an account. And given the recent vandalism to this talk page, so should this page... WP:POV / WP:NOR / WP:VER 62.96.234.17 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Dont see how the truth is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.1.113 (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

After several years you still haven't got a source for what you nevertheless persistently keep adding, anonymously. Also, you've never engaged in a discussion about that addition, or even so much as attempted to provide a proper (text) source for your claim. In fact: You're damaging content just because you *want* to damage it and because you *can* damage it (which is what vandalism is about), and in addition to that, you keep avoiding any accountability for your vandalism by your hit-and-run approach, followed by your hiding, like a coward. PJEckenheim (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

... here we go again... I have requested Temporary Semi-Protection for the page, because I'm fed up with those anonymous Point Of View-inserts. (Also, dear Anonymous Vandal - would you mind to NOT attempt to vandalize my talk-page? I see you have become aware that you leave an IP trace in its history with your attempts.) PJEckenheim (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this page should be protected. The truth shouldnt be allowed to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:7E04:9493:6CC8:2CC0:94A7:F63 (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Somebody (anonymously, and from varying IP adresses) essentially inserting the same statement of his belief over and over for more than four years, without ever providing a proper source, but even more importantly, without ever realizing that his insert is completely irrelevant to the action itself, insisting that something is the truth based on the reasoning: "it's what *I* say, therefore it must be the truth!"? isn't how an encyclopedia works. If somebody attempted to explain the rules of Wikipedia to you - given that you fail at properly editing articles (or for that matter, Talk pages), and also given that you've yet failed to create your own user account - that'd most probably be a useless effort. Anyway. Again. You insert is irrelevant, only reflects your personal point of view, and should therefore not be included in this article. Full stop. PJEckenheim (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. It's not the truth because of what I say, it is the truth because of what the video shows. It's a sad day when people won't believe their own eyes.

Incorrect. It's unsourced, it's only your personal opinion, it's NOT "what the video shows" - and would you PLEASE finally attempt to learn how to properly edit? [Or for that matter, at least learn when to use "its" and when to use "it's"...) 62.96.234.7 (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This coming from a guy who can't use capitalization correctly.

Well, fun fact, I'm not a native speaker of English, but at least I know how contractions work in English. And how signing your post on a talk page works. And how not being an anonymous vandal works. And how sourcing works. And what could constitute relevance - and what decidedly doesn't, even if somebody insists over and over on repeatedly forcing an irrelevant, personal point of view into an encyclopedic article. PJEckenheim (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

None of that changes the truth about this play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.26.77.245 (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

And the same day the protection tag goes away, within a day after the protection expires, the POV insert is anonymously forced back in...2A01:598:A810:5DE3:F552:A620:2D02:D78D (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the IP originally associated with that particular act of vandalism has a warning register that has grown since 2007 to proportions which in my humble opinion by now warrant a permanent block of the associated IP(s)... PJEckenheim (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have once again requested semi-protection for this article. This time, hopefully, permanently. Not only would this help block anonymous bad faith edits, it also might help increase the overall quality.PJEckenheim (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Let‘s attempt to be sensible and mature. As a compromise, I would suggest to reduce the context info on the 2015 Hail Mary play in the Green Bay vs Detroit game to just the play itself. That would make the unsourced POV insert about the preceding penalty and whether it should or shouldn‘t have been called expendable. 87.158.224.102 (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but disagree that we should make that change. It's helpful context to readers without being too long (and more info is provided if they want to follow the link). General practice in this article seems to be to include some info on what lead up to the hail mary. If anyone has a reliable source challenging the narrative currently presented, I imagine we would all be interested in knowing about it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there is a comprehensive article about that particular play which even has a paragraph about the officiating (and used to have a part with pretty much the same choice of words as the one used by our anonymous friend here - that particular part didn't survive long after his insert though). The article is even linked here, in the paragraph about the play in question. It's the article "Miracle in Motown". Therefore, I believe that the additional info on what led to the play could very well be expendable here. Just saying. PJEckenheim (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly enough about this to outweigh your and ...102's opinions, so feel free to make the changes if you're unconvinced. I do understand that more info is available at the linked article and I tried to indicate that parenthetically in my earlier comment. Since the link is there, we should summarize they key points involved, and to me, the whole 0 seconds on the clock thing is a big part of the miracle. As a compromise to the compromise, how about we just drop the names and facemask detail:

However, a defensive penalty was called against the Lions and the Packers were awarded 15 yards and an additional play.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that, because like I said, that part isn't strictly needed for the description of the actual play and referenced elsewhere, and the reference is even linked - but apparently the guy who never got an account (or at least never uses it), rarely manages to manually sign, never references and even fails at placing his comments on the correct level of a /talk thread, twice deleted the whole /talk page to the article, ...isn't, and probably never will be. So, there's that. PJEckenheim (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Already tried doing a consensus. 4 years ago the comment was going to stand but then someone who had a title of Site Founder came in and stated that Wikipedia isn't concerned about facts, only "official truths" and since the NFL states it was a facemask it doesn't matter if it actually wasn't. He then deleted the whole conversation about the consensus. I didn't even realize that could be done but evidently if you have enough power on here it can be. That was when I truly learned that Wikipedia isn't concerned about facts and should never be trusted.

Let's say for one moment that your proposition "Wikipedia isn't concerned about facts and should never be trusted" was correct (it isn't - but just for the sake of a logical argument) - then why, oh why do you still keep on inserting your in the context of this particular article and its scope irrelevant POV here, especially given that the officiating is mentioned in another, decidedly more detailed article, that doesn't focus on Hail Mary plays per se, but only deals specifically with this particular one? With all due respect: Your behavior is logically inconsistent, and doesn't improve the encyclopedic, neutral point of view character of Wikipedia. PJEckenheim (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Why? Because I may not be able to fix the brokenness of Wikipedia as a whole but I can fix this specific issue. When you have founding members of an entity stating the policy of that entity, what are you suppose to think? There are also many, many, many articles on Google and else where, of admins and other people with God powers on Wikipedia banning people, blocking IPs, and locking threads just because they don't like the just because that admin doesn't like the facts posted. In fact, there is the article about one of the creators of Wikipedia having over 150 puppet accounts and messing with people just because he could.

As for penalty in question in this article, if you look at the video of the play and know anything about American Football rules, you can clearly show that it wasn't a facemask and that the ref was incorrect in his call. The NFL 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the time(yes I know that isn't the exact amount, I am being slightly facetious there) will back the ref even when they make a bad call. If your own eye can show you that the facemask wasn't actually a facemask then how can you beleive anything that you read on here or see anywhere?

I'm taking from this that you distrust Wikipedia and the system how Wikipedia works. You are absolutely entitled to that point of view, even though I don't share it, but you can't really force anyone else to subscribe to it - especially not on the very medium you think is "broken". Also, you don't trust the NFL. The topic of the article isn't really "opinion piece about NFL referee decisions". So, quite frankly, given that this article is a list, and lists are supposed to have brief, concise, to the point, bullet point items, you are off topic, and also not in accordance with the general format. Because this is a list, I had suggested to make it even shorter, bring it to the point, especially because the completely different and not quite closely related point you are still going on about, the play before the play with the Haily Mary pass, is picked up in a separate article anyway. So, back to the core question: How do you propose we resolve this issue? 62.96.234.17 (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

What do I propose to resolve it? Leave the comment in of course. Its the truth and a fact. It isnt a POV. Its a plain simple fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:7E04:9493:45DB:6277:962F:2D35 (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

2015 — Green Bay Packers vs. Detroit Lions:[42] On what later turned out to be only the second to last play of the game, with no time left in regulation, a penalty was called against the Lions, awarding the Packers 15 yards and an additional play. During the play Aaron Rodgers evaded three Lions pass rushers for 8 seconds before throwing a 66-yard pass to the four Packers receivers and tight end Richard Rodgers waiting in the end zone. Richard Rodgers caught the pass, resulting in a 27–23 Packers victory. This was Rodgers's first successful Hail Mary pass.[44][45] It also became the longest game-winning Hail Mary play in NFL history.[46] Aaron Rodgers and Richard Rodgers received the Best Play ESPY Award for this on July 13, 2016.[47] For further information about the game and the final play, see the Article "Miracle in Motown".

This modification should boil down the bullet point to what this list is about: Hail Mary pass plays. [Not all links included yet; just the reference to the comprehensive article about the play, to give everyone a general idea how this would work.] PJEckenheim (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Given that the proposal was once again shot down by the anonymous edit-warrior, that is a little bit difficult, because he not only ignored it, but kept up his NPOV-violation... but I'll try to make this work, hopefully without too much of a violation of the codes of Wikipedia... PJEckenheim (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thankfully, we have at least a couple weeks of page protection, and I did report the IP (actually many of them) at WP:EWN. Feel free to tweak what I put into the article. I did add the word "controversial" along with a source borrowed from the Miracle page that I think reliably notes the controversy of the call. Guess that wasn't enough! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

As I was submitting this it looks like you removed the "controversial" part. I have no objection to that. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to bring up WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Also, IP editor, sign your posts. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

And WP:CABAL! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, the IP edit-warrior's language is still in right now. Hasn't been removed since I self-reverted and the page was protected. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

...you might want to re-check: It was removed some seven hours ago, as to my memory of doing it when logged in from home. (This is my work computer, and I haven't got my password memorized... too many passwords for too many things are a bit of a dilemma...) Anway... FWIW, I don't think that source for the "controversy" fully works out in terms of quality, as it primarily reflects a... "discussion"... on Twitter, as far as I recall - and I still don't see how that is relevant to the actual play in the context of this list. I would still prefer to just-not-go-there, because it only reinforces the perception of the anonymous editor that he was oh-so-wronged by The-Powers-That-Be... (Sorry. After more than five years of this, I can't avoid a certain extra helping of sarcasm...) On another note: how do I signal agreement to a proposal for a consensus? Could somebody please direct me to wherever I can find a "how to?" for this? Assistance would be much appreciated! 62.96.234.7 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I was wrong! Must have been lost in diff-land. For consensus signaling, you could follow Sungodtemple's lead below and !vote Support or Opposed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone admitting "I was wrong" might be a first in this segment... *evil_grin*... sorry... I promise to do better, eventually... Anyway, I will do as you suggested - once I'm properly logged in at home on my computer... give it a couple of hours... 62.96.234.7 (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Protection now extended for the upcoming five years. That should do the trick. PJEckenheim (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Established consensus?

If you agree that this article should exclude an unsourced/poorly-sourced statement that the Miracle in Motown penalty call was erroneous, could you please say so here? If edit-warring resumes in the future, reverts to a "clearly established consensus" are an exemption to the three-revert rule. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Support: Wikipedia follows verifiability. If a Wikipedia article claims the sky is blue, not like that would ever be true, and there is no source to back it up – we will proceed to delete it. After all, the sky can be white, grey, or black. Only when a New York Times or other reliable source article boldly proclaims, 'The sky is blue!' shall we proceed to add the information. We must also be careful to avoid undue weight in this scenario; IP-hopper's edits are written from a point of view and may represent a minority viewpoint; give appropriate attention to the opinion as is represented in reliable sources. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Support: Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, and this requires the adherence to certain structural standards. This article is a list of Hail Mary passes - it literally says so in the article's title! - and that is it, that is the standard for the article. This list should not be turned into an opinion piece on refereeing - or for that matter, on anything else. PJEckenheim (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2021

In the section titled List of passes often mistakenly referred to as a "Hail Mary", please clean up the following entry: 2017 — NFC Divisional Playoffs — New Orleans Saints vs. Minnesota Vikings: The "Minneapolis Miracle": After a furious last four minutes with three lead changes, Minnesota was down by 1 with the ball on their own 39 and just 10 seconds left. On the next play, Case Keenum completed a 30-yard throw to Stefon Diggs, who was near the sideline and within field goal range. The Saints defender, Marcus Williams, aggressively moved to block Diggs from getting out of bounds, as the Vikings had no time-outs. Diggs easily avoided Williams, who inadvertently ended up taking out his teammate Ken Crawley instead, and sprinted down the sideline for a walk-off touchdown. 98.160.169.160 (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and found some sources to support the names added. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 20:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomenclature of playoff dating

I was wondering: Is it "2017 playoffs" for the playoffs of the 2016-2017 season, or rather the "2016 playoffs"? I mean, the playoffs by themselves take place in the following year, but with the regular season taking place in 2016, that might be a little confusing...? Any opinions? Or is there an established standard nomenclature? PJEckenheim (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021

Add Richard Rodgers hail mary TD vs the Seahawks in the 2020 season.

https://dknation.draftkings.com/2020/11/30/21754739/richard-rodgers-hail-mary-touchdown-video-eagles-backdoor-cover-bad-beat-vs-seahawks-week-12 Guaranagelado (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Guaranagelado: if you don't mind waiting a while, I could write up some content about that particular play. That said, I encourage you to write something up yourself! If you come up with a specific proposal, feel free to use the edit request tool again. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

List of unsuccessful Hail Marys

I have a hard time believing that a list of unsuccessful Hail Marys is encyclopedic. Kingturtle = (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)