Patriots vs Colts (11/15/09)

[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.

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.

Your right Faf if you turn your head and form tackle the receiver that will be pass interference.  That was not what happened.  So in accordance with the rules and how they have been calling it, it should not have been pass interference. 

[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.

Your right Faf if you turn your head and form tackle the receiver that will be pass interference.  That was not what happened.  So in accordance with the rules and how they have been calling it, it should not have been pass interference. 

Uh Rondo2287 I was talking about a tactic that DBs have used in general to avoid PI call.

Similar to the old trick of cutting off a receiver's route and then turning your head to avoid the foul.

I wasn't talking about a specific play in the game last night. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I was. But I'm glad that you came around eventually.

[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.

Ya this doesnt look like your talking about a specific play..

[Fafnir]

Whatever makes you think you won, keep moving those goalposts....

[Rondo2287]

Whatever makes you think you won, keep moving those goalposts....

At least I can admit when Im wrong.....

[Aeacus]

The way I think of it is turning your head to find the ball is a prereq to making a play on the ball. But just turning your head doesn't mean you can make contact with a reciever.  You can't turn your head to play the ball and run into a man and knock him out of position.  This is where when a reciever stops or slows on a route to play an under thrown ball and the defender collides with him, its pass interfence.  Even if after the collision the defender finds the ball and trys to make a play. 

I also think the ball has to be pretty close to the players for the officials to let strong contact go as making a play on the ball.   Pass interference is a judgement call by the officials and one of the most difficult at full speed. 

I thought that the call on Butler was a good call as my immediate reaction was he knocked the reciever off balance before going after the ball.  But I can see why Pats fans would feel annoyed, it wasn't the most blantant foul. 

The thing I hate most is how the refs let some players (Charles Woodson!) mug guys down the field based on their reputation as veterans.  Its almost NBA like at times. 

[Redz]

You've got to blame BB for the loss because the play didn't work, but absolutely see the logic behind the decision.

[Cman]

You've got to blame BB for the loss because the play didn't work, but absolutely see the logic behind the decision.

Shutdown corner has an interesting take on the decision, and cites some statistics showing that, statistically speaking, BB's decision was the right one.

Shutdown corner: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Counterpoint-Pros-outweighed-the-cons-on-Belich;_ylt=AscUZAAQPaZA6kB1WQfCz5xDubYF?urn=nfl,202797

As I've stated before, I blame the loss on BB, but not because of the decision to go for it.

[Roy Hobbs]

You've got to blame BB for the loss because the play didn't work, but absolutely see the logic behind the decision.

Shutdown corner has an interesting take on the decision, and cites some statistics showing that, statistically speaking, BB's decision was the right one.

Shutdown corner: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Counterpoint-Pros-outweighed-the-cons-on-Belich;_ylt=AscUZAAQPaZA6kB1WQfCz5xDubYF?urn=nfl,202797

As I've stated before, I blame the loss on BB, but not because of the decision to go for it.

I don't buy it.  What's the sample size on teams getting the ball with two minutes or less at the 28 yard line?  The 53% conversion rate seems low to me, and it's pretty much irrelevant to an outstanding offense like Manning's getting the ball and needing to go 28 yards.  I'd put the TD conversion rate at closer to 75%, and probably higher in those circumstances.

[Boris Badenov]

You've got to blame BB for the loss because the play didn't work, but absolutely see the logic behind the decision.

Shutdown corner has an interesting take on the decision, and cites some statistics showing that, statistically speaking, BB's decision was the right one.

Shutdown corner: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Counterpoint-Pros-outweighed-the-cons-on-Belich;_ylt=AscUZAAQPaZA6kB1WQfCz5xDubYF?urn=nfl,202797

As I've stated before, I blame the loss on BB, but not because of the decision to go for it.

I don't buy it.  What's the sample size on teams getting the ball with two minutes or less at the 28 yard line?  The 53% conversion rate seems low to me, and it's pretty much irrelevant to an outstanding offense like Manning's getting the ball and needing to go 28 yards.  I'd put the TD conversion rate at closer to 75%, and probably higher in those circumstances.

As long as Manning's TD rate is higher by a proportional amount on both the short and long drive, then the higher conversion rate makes Belichick's decision look even better.

Here is the math from the other site:

*****

With 2:00 left and the Colts with only one timeout, a successful conversion wins the game for all practical purposes. A 4th and 2 conversion would be successful 60% of the time. Historically, in a situation with 2:00 left and needing a TD to either win or tie, teams get the TD 53% of the time from that field position. The total WP for the 4th down conversion attempt would therefore be:

(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 WP

A punt from the 28 typically nets 38 yards, starting the Colts at their own 34. Teams historically get the TD 30% of the time in that situation. So the punt gives the Pats about a 0.70 WP.

Statistically, the better decision would be to go for it, and by a good amount.

********

Now, suppose that Manning is 1.5 times more likely to score a touchdown from anywhere on the field. That gives you 80% with a short field (even higher than your 75%), and 45% with the long field.

The probabilities then become:

Go for it win 68% of the time (0.60+0.40*[1-0.20])
Punt win 55% of the time

If you believe that Brady makes the 4th and 2 play more than 60% of the time, the case is even stronger.

And, suppose you believe that Manning is so good that he would win from anywhere. Then you have to go for it.

[BASS_THUMPER]

Gooooo!...Detroit Lions!!!

[Redz]

Belichek has definitely been leaning more and more towards the "try to win it now" approach since Brady went out last year.  He's much more of a gunslinger than he used to be.  I guess he thinks he's earned it.

I really didn't mind the decision last night. 

[yall hate]

more stats showing it was a good decision (% wise)

http://espn.go.com/boston/columns/patriots/blog/_/post/4660828

[Roy Hobbs]

more stats showing it was a good decision (% wise)

http://espn.go.com/boston/columns/patriots/blog/_/post/4660828

I especially don't buy this math:

If the Pats failed to convert the fourth down (which happened), they would give the Colts the ball (with a first-and-10) on roughly the New England 29-yard line with 2 minutes to go. The Patriots' win probability in this situation would be 66 percent.

Really?  66% of the time they're going to win, with Peyton Manning 30 yards away from the winning TD?  I don't see it that way.  That's even worse when you take account of the following argument:

3) If they punted the ball, using Patriots punter Chris Hanson's average of 44 net yards per punt in the game, the Colts would have gotten the ball (with a first-and-10) at the Indianapolis 28. The Patriots' win probability in this situation would be 79 percent.

So, getting the ball 29 yards away from the end zone, rather than 62 yards away, only increases your chances by 13%?  Doesn't that seem like an unbelievably small difference to people?

[angryguy77]

So do you think that it would be a wise choice if it were the other way around? If it were the Colts that gave Brady and crew the ball on the 28, I would think there would be a lot of pats fans saying how dumb  the are colts today.

That was about as dumb a call I've seen a coach make in a long time. But this is not hate on BB, he's done enough to get a pass on this. But I don't see how anyone can defend this. I would be mad as hell right now if I were a Patriots fan. But it could be worse, you could have these guys running your team...