Patriots vs Colts (11/15/09)

[Rondo2287]

Here is the rule Roy, which is what im talking about with whether or not Butler is in position to, "play the ball."

Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball and such contact restricts the receiver’s opportunity to make the catch.
(b) Playing through the back of a receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

(c) Grabbing a receiver’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.

(d) Extending an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, regardless of whether the defender is playing the ball.

(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball.

(f) Hooking a receiver in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the receiver’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving.

It's kind of pointless to argue without you having access to the video, but he clears the receiver out of the way with his arm before the ball gets there.  You're not allowed to do that.  Subsection "d" and "f" essentially says you're not allowed to do that, even if making a play of the ball (which Butler wasn't yet.)

Alright thats legit, as I said, I cant see it, what I remember was them both waiting for the ball to come down and both falling down. 

[Cman]

So I wasn't able to watch the 2nd half of the game (perhaps better that way), but I don't have a problem with BB doing what he did. 

This is trademark BB.  When these calls on his part work, he is a genius, when they don't (as someone else said) he is the goat.  He can deal with that, and we as fans should learn to deal with it. 

When the Pats lost the SB to the Giants, the one play that people attached blame to was a decision to go for it on 4th down instead of punt.  You heard then, and will hear for the next several days, a bunch of armchair coaches tell you why it was stupid.  It was risky, yes, but only stupid in retrospect; ie: only stupid because they didn't make it.  If they had made it, it would have looked brilliant in retrospect. 

I also don't buy the idea that Rodney Harrison and others say that this kills the confidence of the defense.  Please -- they are professionals.  I could be wrong, we'll see how the Pats play in the next game.  My guess is that they'll play as if the game against the Colts hadn't happened.

[Roy Hobbs]

Apparently, BB did something similar in Atlanta earlier this year, going for it on 4th down in the third quarter from within his own 30.  That time, they made it, and you didn't see much in the papers about the decision.

I just don't think that's *ever* a good football call.  Sure, if it works out, the gamble paid off, but I think the risk is just too great.  Even if you have the perfect play designed, humans are fallible and can screw it up (i.e., Faulk not getting quite deep enough and then bobbling the ball as he came down.)

[Fafnir]

Apparently, BB did something similar in Atlanta earlier this year, going for it on 4th down in the third quarter from within his own 30.  That time, they made it, and you didn't see much in the papers about the decision.

I just don't think that's *ever* a good football call.  Sure, if it works out, the gamble paid off, but I think the risk is just too great.  Even if you have the perfect play designed, humans are fallible and can screw it up (i.e., Faulk not getting quite deep enough and then bobbling the ball as he came down.)

If you're down multiple scores in the second half I think its a good call. But its not when you have the lead, not with so little time left.

If he was in Colt's territory I'd say it was the right call. But to go for it on your own 29 is foolish.

[Brickowski]

I think Belichick made the right call.  The Patriot's defense was exhaused, and the Colts had all their time outs remaining, plus the 2-minute warning.  It was a gamble, but a reasonable one.

But, once again, as soon as the official made that horrible pass interference call-- which should have been offensive pass interference-- the Patriots were going to lose the game.

[Fafnir]

Turned around though and was trying to make a play on the ball.  As much as i know the rule when you turn your back and are looking at the ball you have the as much of a right to the ball as the receiver. 

He knocked the guy back a half-yard before going for the ball, though.  Basically, he used Collie as leverage to make a lunge at the ball (which he missed).

I thought Collie jumped into him and iniated the contact.  But my work blocks videos so i cant watch, so Im going off what I saw at midnight

I don't see it that way, and when Al Michaels (I think) was at first suggesting he "jumped" into him, it made no sense, since Collie's feet are on the ground when contact is made.

As I see it, Collie slowed up a little, and Butler basically elbowed him out of the way.  It was far from a phantom call; he knocked the guy back about a half-yard before attempting to make a play on the ball.

But wasnt he facing the ball?  In otherwords if he was the receiver would it have been called offensive?  And how many seconds in the video before the flag comes in?

If it was in reverse, I think that yes, that's the type of play that should be offensive pass interference.

On the video, it takes between 2 and 3 seconds for the flag to hit the field after the play.  I don't think that's an unreasonable time.  (The play occurs at 4:30-31, the flag is on the field at 4:33.)

It has been called offensive much more often this year as well.

He definitely bumps him out of the way and then reaches up for the ball. Similar to the old trick of cutting off a receiver's route and then turning your head to avoid the foul.

[Chris]

I think Belichick made the right call.  The Patriot's defense was exhaused, and the Colts had all their time outs remaining, plus the 2-minute warning.  It was a gamble, but a reasonable one.

But, once again, as soon as the official made that horrible pass interference call-- which should have been offensive pass interference-- the Patriots were going to lose the game.

I think he made the right call if they were on the 50.  If you are on the 28, you HAVE to punt, and force the other team to make plays.  

But honestly, I just don't care that much.  It was a terrible Boston sports weekend all around, and that just put the cap on it.  Bring on the next game.

[Rondo2287]

Turned around though and was trying to make a play on the ball.  As much as i know the rule when you turn your back and are looking at the ball you have the as much of a right to the ball as the receiver. 

He knocked the guy back a half-yard before going for the ball, though.  Basically, he used Collie as leverage to make a lunge at the ball (which he missed).

I thought Collie jumped into him and iniated the contact.  But my work blocks videos so i cant watch, so Im going off what I saw at midnight

I don't see it that way, and when Al Michaels (I think) was at first suggesting he "jumped" into him, it made no sense, since Collie's feet are on the ground when contact is made.

As I see it, Collie slowed up a little, and Butler basically elbowed him out of the way.  It was far from a phantom call; he knocked the guy back about a half-yard before attempting to make a play on the ball.

But wasnt he facing the ball?  In otherwords if he was the receiver would it have been called offensive?  And how many seconds in the video before the flag comes in?

If it was in reverse, I think that yes, that's the type of play that should be offensive pass interference.

On the video, it takes between 2 and 3 seconds for the flag to hit the field after the play.  I don't think that's an unreasonable time.  (The play occurs at 4:30-31, the flag is on the field at 4:33.)

It has been called offensive much more often this year as well.

He definitely bumps him out of the way and then reaches up for the ball. Similar to the old trick of cutting off a receiver's route and then turning your head to avoid the foul.

Its not a trick, if you turn your head your allowed to..

[Fafnir]

Turned around though and was trying to make a play on the ball.  As much as i know the rule when you turn your back and are looking at the ball you have the as much of a right to the ball as the receiver. 

He knocked the guy back a half-yard before going for the ball, though.  Basically, he used Collie as leverage to make a lunge at the ball (which he missed).

I thought Collie jumped into him and iniated the contact.  But my work blocks videos so i cant watch, so Im going off what I saw at midnight

I don't see it that way, and when Al Michaels (I think) was at first suggesting he "jumped" into him, it made no sense, since Collie's feet are on the ground when contact is made.

As I see it, Collie slowed up a little, and Butler basically elbowed him out of the way.  It was far from a phantom call; he knocked the guy back about a half-yard before attempting to make a play on the ball.

But wasnt he facing the ball?  In otherwords if he was the receiver would it have been called offensive?  And how many seconds in the video before the flag comes in?

If it was in reverse, I think that yes, that's the type of play that should be offensive pass interference.

On the video, it takes between 2 and 3 seconds for the flag to hit the field after the play.  I don't think that's an unreasonable time.  (The play occurs at 4:30-31, the flag is on the field at 4:33.)

It has been called offensive much more often this year as well.

He definitely bumps him out of the way and then reaches up for the ball. Similar to the old trick of cutting off a receiver's route and then turning your head to avoid the foul.

Its not a trick, if you turn your head your allowed too..

No you're not:

(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball.

You have to make a play on the ball. The Pats used to do this and the league instructed the Refs that just turning your head isn't considered a play on the ball. They've called it that way for 5+ years now....

[twistedrico]

I love the people who refuse to blame Belicheat for this.  Horrible to decision with 2 minutes left in the game and the lead.

[Rondo2287]

Turned around though and was trying to make a play on the ball.  As much as i know the rule when you turn your back and are looking at the ball you have the as much of a right to the ball as the receiver. 

He knocked the guy back a half-yard before going for the ball, though.  Basically, he used Collie as leverage to make a lunge at the ball (which he missed).

I thought Collie jumped into him and iniated the contact.  But my work blocks videos so i cant watch, so Im going off what I saw at midnight

I don't see it that way, and when Al Michaels (I think) was at first suggesting he "jumped" into him, it made no sense, since Collie's feet are on the ground when contact is made.

As I see it, Collie slowed up a little, and Butler basically elbowed him out of the way.  It was far from a phantom call; he knocked the guy back about a half-yard before attempting to make a play on the ball.

But wasnt he facing the ball?  In otherwords if he was the receiver would it have been called offensive?  And how many seconds in the video before the flag comes in?

If it was in reverse, I think that yes, that's the type of play that should be offensive pass interference.

On the video, it takes between 2 and 3 seconds for the flag to hit the field after the play.  I don't think that's an unreasonable time.  (The play occurs at 4:30-31, the flag is on the field at 4:33.)

It has been called offensive much more often this year as well.

He definitely bumps him out of the way and then reaches up for the ball. Similar to the old trick of cutting off a receiver's route and then turning your head to avoid the foul.

Its not a trick, if you turn your head your allowed too..

No you're not:

(e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball.

You have to make a play on the ball. The Pats used to do this and the league instructed the Refs that just turning your head isn't considered a play on the ball. They've called it that way for 5+ years now....

No they havent been they called a pass interference call earlier where the Indy player never turned his head and they said, he made no attempt to play the ball. So turning your head or body around is making a play on the ball......

[Fafnir]

made no attempt to play the ball. So turning your head or body around is making a play on the ball......

You'll have to provide a lot more concrete examples, some video of your "example" would be good.

I can tell you for the past five years they've consistently said just turning your head as you cut off a receiver's route is pass interference. The rule is clear, and they've interpreted it the same way for a long time now.

You have to actually make an attempt to catch the ball.

[Cman]

I love the people who refuse to blame Belicheat for this.  Horrible to decision with 2 minutes left in the game and the lead.

I know, we are all such homers, completely enamored with BB.  I wish we could fire him and bring in a real coach.  Like Rex Ryan, or someone like that    

As a Patriots fan, who deserves blame for the loss?  I'd say BB, not because of that 4th and 2 call, but because, as head coach and coach of the defense, he let the Colts get back into the game in the 4th quarter.  Basically, Manning outsmarted him in the 4th quarter.  I believe this is *precisely* why BB went for it -- trying to keep the ball in the hands of the Pats offense (who, by the way, had eaten up the Colts all night long).

[Rondo2287]

made no attempt to play the ball. So turning your head or body around is making a play on the ball......

You'll have to provide a lot more concrete examples, some video of your "example" would be good.

I can tell you for the past five years they've consistently said just turning your head as you cut off a receiver's route is pass interference. The rule is clear, and they've interpreted it the same way for a long time now.

You have to actually make an attempt to catch the ball.

No, the rule is if you are making a play on the ball.  If your body or head is turned around so you are not looking at the receiver there is no possible way that you are playing anything other than the ball. They have been calling it like this for a long time.

[Fafnir]

made no attempt to play the ball. So turning your head or body around is making a play on the ball......

You'll have to provide a lot more concrete examples, some video of your "example" would be good.

I can tell you for the past five years they've consistently said just turning your head as you cut off a receiver's route is pass interference. The rule is clear, and they've interpreted it the same way for a long time now.

You have to actually make an attempt to catch the ball.

No, the rule is if you are making a play on the ball.  If your body or head is turned around so you are not looking at the receiver there is no possible way that you are playing anything other than the ball. They have been calling it like this for a long time.

If your head is turned you could still just be running the receiver out of bounds. And they call it PI all the time.

To think that an NFL player can't look one way while doing something else is just bizarre. Just looking isn't enough to constitute a play on the ball.