- You've never been closer to a poker game than today, however, deciding where to play became a problem. Look at all
online poker sites,
enjoy the best selection of online poker
and get the best poker bonus.
COME VISIT
THE LATEST ADDITION
TO OUR FAMILY
|
We’re not going to do Audibles for tonight’s Patriots-Ravens game — I think everyone is a little emotionally spent, not to mention a lot of the East Coasters are asleep. I was going to share my thoughts in the DVOA commentary Tuesday, but I know people are going to want a place to talk about the game a little sooner than that, other than on the FO open game discussion board. So here goes…
- Hey, remember when we wrote in PFP 2006 that KUBIAK projected Kyle Boller to improve, but we would never know for sure because the Ravens had signed Steve McNair? He sure looked good tonight. He stood up in the face of the pass rush, and, after watching that last Hail Mary, it is clear he still has that magical “I can throw it through the uprights from my knees” arm strength.
- I’ll have to count, but I bet this game set the season high for quarterback hits from both teams. Boller and Tom Brady were both getting slammed into the ground over and over. I was shocked nobody from either defense was called for roughing the passer.
- Where the hell has this Willis McGahee been all year? Or for the last couple years? He was just awesome.
- That being said, I was offended by the whole suggestion that McGahee, Ray Lewis, and Ed Reed were playing harder because they were inspired by the memory of Sean Taylor. A lot of those McGahee runs came right up the gut past Vince Wilfork, another ‘Canes alum. Does this mean Vince Wilfork doesn’t care about the memory of Sean Taylor?
- Once again in this game, the Patriots seemed to show some serious hubris, sticking to their usual offense when it clearly wasn’t working. Hey, guys, you can’t throw the deep ball with these swirling winds. Knock it off and try something else. Actually, they did try something else in the second half: running the ball. It proved pretty effective.
- Logan Mankins totally sucked tonight. You couldn’t make MDS’s “Pro Bowl suggestions” article look good, Logan?
- We can talk about how much the Pats missed Rosevelt Colvin, the problems stopping the run, two straight games of receivers dropping easily catchable balls, or the poor game by the offensive line — but the Patriots aren’t going to go out to get new linebackers, or new receivers, or new offensive linemen. However, they have one clear problem that is easily fixable with a simple personnel move. You can’t count on punting two times per game in the playoffs. Chris Hanson sucks. Replace him.
- To quote Ben Riley on the staff e-mail list: “The league now has a definitive blueprint for stopping the Patriots offense: high swirling winds and at least four critical drops.”
- After the game, the ESPN guys were talking about how the Steelers fit the proper mold for taking it to the Patriots with a physical game, just like Baltimore did. I agree whole-heartedly when it comes to the great Pittsburgh defense and the Dick LeBeau zone blitz scheme, but since when is Willie Parker a punishing, physical inside runner? (Then again, since when is Willis McGahee a punishing, physical inside runner? Since tonight, apparently.)
- At the end of the game, the Patriots kicked off from the Baltimore 35-yard line. I went back and looked. In 12 years of PBP data, there has never been a kickoff any closer than the opposing 40-yard line. This came in the same week where the
Giants (Whoops, I meant Dolphins) at one point kicked off from their own EIGHT because of two penalties. So in one week, we have the most extreme kickoff position of the last dozen years in one direction, and the second-most extreme kickoff position of the last dozen years in the other direction. (Last year, you might remember Washington’s Nick Novak kicking off from his own five-yard line against Indianapolis because of penalties.)
Now, for the issue I know a lot of you want to talk about and argue about: officiating. Every Patriots fan thinks that the officiating was biased against New England in the first half. Every Ravens fan thinks that the officiating was biased against Baltimore in the fourth quarter. Once again, we get back to the same problem that comes up in Audibles all the time. Nobody knows what the rules are, and they seem to be applied willy-nilly.
A good example is the holding that let the Patriots convert fourth-and-6 at the end of the game. Clearly, Jermaine Winborne is holding Ben Watson on that play. The question is: Is this the kind of holding that actually gets called as holding, or is this the kind of holding where there’s an unwritten rule that we don’t really call it as holding because it isn’t that significant? The answer is that, because we’re talking about nebulous “unwritten” rules, everyone is going to see the play through the prism of their own rooting interests. That’s the problem with NFL officiating, not actual bias towards one team or the other.
Many people will argue that the Jabar Gaffney touchdown should have been overturned. Michael David Smith compared it to a Marcus Pollard catch that was overturned late in a game against Tampa Bay back in Week 4 of 2005. There’s a good argument there, but do remember that the Patriots would have had first-and-goal from the two-yard line on the next play, thanks to Bart Scott’s double hissy fit.
If the Ravens scored on that final Hail Mary, and the officials had let it stand without calling offensive pass interference on Derrick Mason, Bill Simmons would have exploded. Seriously. You would have found pieces of him as far as New Mexico.
posted
12-4-2007 at 1:51 AM by
Aaron Schatz
||
Extra Points
| |
Then there’s Scott’s post-game hissy fit where he claimed the refs made up the timeout call on the stop on Brady’s sneak.
So, what do people think about the possibility of kicking onsides on the Pats’ final kickoff? Naively, a TB puts the ball on the 20, a failed onsides puts it around the 25, and a successful onsides ends the game. Though you’d absolutely have to hit it down the middle to make sure there’s no chance of it going OOB. Then again, blasting it out of the EZ guarantees nothing weird happens.
:: PatsFan — 12/4/2007 @ 2:24 am
the hissy fit didnt figure prominently enough to appear in the title. im getting really sick of brady just throwing it deep into coverage and not paying for it. also didnt reed look like he was about to cry after he fumbled that interception?
:: inkakola — 12/4/2007 @ 2:25 am
Well thanks, Aaron. I was disappointed enough in the game without realizing that a Pats loss might have eliminated Simmons once and for all. Sleep will not come easy.
:: Francisco — 12/4/2007 @ 2:26 am
As someone who still yells “Hold on the ball and fall down!” every time Faulk has the ball, I had to appreciate the irony of him stripping Reed.
:: PatsFan — 12/4/2007 @ 2:27 am
I’ll try not to flood the thread with angry Colts fan rage, although you guys should try to understand that it’s really difficult. Here are my two comments on the game:
1. The sequence of events beginning with the final NE drive: Is there any greater proof that the Patriots have a pact with the devil?
2. The irony of the final play: Kyle Boller is a bad quarterback with only one useful skill - he can throw the ball really, really far. With time for a single play left, he has the chance to beat the greatest football team ever assembled, provided that he can throw a ball sixty yards into heavy winds. It’s like he had been waiting for this moment his whole mediocre career - and the pass falls two yards short.
:: Yaguar — 12/4/2007 @ 2:50 am
what if the patriots would have kicked the ball out of bounds on the last kickoff? “30 yards from the spot of the ball”, half the distance to the goal = 17.5 yards, would the ravens started the drive from the 17?
:: Ryan — 12/4/2007 @ 2:57 am
I know Patriot fans who can’t get over their little love-fest will vehemently disagree, but I think the NFL has a serious problem. I’ve been an NFL fan my entire life but I am finding myself this year not even caring anymore about the league. Tonight was a perfect example. It certainly seems perfectly obvious that the refs were not going to allow the Patriots to lose. Why should I invest my time and energy in a sport in which it certainly seems, if not necessarily the case, that the games are fixed? The impression that the officiating is tainted has killed basketball and baseball. I fear football has gone down this same path. This game was apparently fixed, and as a consumer, I feel defrauded. It’s really sad that the NFL has reached it’s zenith and is now apparently proceeding to self-destruct. I’m sure there are man more productive things I should be doing on Sundays and Monday nights anyhow.
Before all the Patriot fans flame me, think about what it means to the NFL as more and more people turn away from the sport.
:: perplexed — 12/4/2007 @ 3:10 am
Didn’t Ryan call that ill fated TO on 4th down? I thought only players and head coaches could call TO? So either the ref should have ignored him, or, what, called a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.
:: Carlos — 12/4/2007 @ 3:19 am
Yes, Yaguar, I’m sure Colts fans were enraged at all the breaks Indy caught in Week 9 and the breaks they caught yesterday against the Jags too.
Missed calls: A textbook block in the back to set up the punt return into Pats territory in the 4th Qtr. Possession ended with the Sanders INT so no harm done, I suppose.
The hold on Welker that set up Reed’s INT at the end of the half.
ESPN just showed another angle on that play, plus another play where Welker got chucked at the line and then had a second DB come up and hit him in the head with no call.
Baltimore’s strategy was to hold em and hit em in the mouth all game long. You get away with most and a handful get called. When Colts fans accused the Patriots of doing this it was the worst thing in the world. Tonight and last week against the Eagles? Not so much, apparently.
Aaron is bending over backwards to be nice but there’s no way the Watson 4th down call was questionable. NFW. If they let it go, that’s life, but don’t bitch because a legit penalty got called.
As for the complaint in post 7. Uhhh… because you didn’t get your desired result, the game was fixed?
That’s the gist of your argument. Really.
:: Fat Tony — 12/4/2007 @ 3:27 am
Do people really think the game is fixed? Like rational fans? Baseball is fixed since when? Did we not see the big questionable call in the Cardinals-Browns game….does the NFL want the Cardinals to win the game more.
:: lionsbob — 12/4/2007 @ 3:27 am
and no way does any of those sports fix games for a team to win. That would be caught in a heartbeat. More like point shaving to cover spreads. If you really think the games are “fixed”
:: lionsbob — 12/4/2007 @ 3:30 am
we’re talking about nebulous “unwrittenâ€? rules…That’s the problem with NFL officiating,
Oh, enough with falacious, facile red herrings like this. And enough with bitching about the officiating.
There are exactly three things contributing to this perception of an officiating crisis.
1. Fans who cannot seem to comprehend the difference between a rule (don’t go more than 55 MPH) and a standard (don’t drive recklessly). Life and sports are both chock o’ block full of standards, so just get over it. What is “Holding”? What is “Pass Interference”? They’re standards. Get over it.
2. But you can’t get over it, b/c now we have super slow motion, not just when the networks decide to show it, but those of us with DVRs (are there still people w/o a DVR?) can replay whatever we want frame by frame ad naseum. In slow motion, virtually all judgments on standards are subject to arguments of fallibility and eventually bias, and then
3. The internet and sports radio, both of which provide forums for endless rehashing and debating application/misapplication of certain standards.
Here’s a thought: before complaining again, spend a season officiating any relatively fast moving sport. I did intramural soccer in college to earn a couple of bucks. My experience was that I was “guessing” or rather making the best quick judgment call I could make more than half the time I blew (or didn’t) my whistle. Obviously I had no training, so maybe the NFL refs are 10 times better than I am, and they’re guesstimating on 5% of calls. That’s just the way it goes. It’s also pretty easy of the course of a game to make sure you’re calls are balancing out, roughly proportional to how you think they should (ie, it’s obvious which team is playing dirtier… are they getting whistled more? No? Then let me adjust).
If you don’t like that, there’s always video games.
:: Carlos — 12/4/2007 @ 3:30 am
7: Not a flame, but I just don’t see the evidence of people turning away in droves. For example, the Colts/Pats game a few weeks ago was the highest-rated regular season game since at least 1986. I’ll bet Steelers/Pats will get good ratings, too.
And I think the ref calls are in the eye of the beholder, depending on the color of the glasses everyone is wearing. On the last play of the game, for instance, Gay was thrown to the ground and Samuel completely mugged. I’m not complaining about it, but if the fix was in, I’d think that the refs would have made a (justifiable) OPI call.
I will say that the NFL needs to clarify the rulebook, as Aaron says; but, I think that’s a completely different point that was proven by a lot of the weekend games (Dal, Cle, even Indy - and I doubt the refs were conspiring to keep the Browns out of the playoffs). In short, I’d say never to assume malice when stupidity [or incompetence] will suffice.
:: patriotsgirl — 12/4/2007 @ 3:32 am
I will admit, I saw the refs on each of the Ravens possession in the 4th quarter when they had the lead tackle Willis McGahee and knock down Kyle Boller passes.
:: lionsbob — 12/4/2007 @ 3:33 am
I didn’t record the last two Patriots games, but unless I keep missing something, it seems the referees are rather reluctant to call intentional grounding on Tom Brady. In both the Eagles game and tonight’s game, there were two plays where it seemed he chucked a pass to the feet of his offensive linemen without any eligible receivers in sight. I might be missing them, but it’s becoming hard for me to ignore.
:: Bionicman — 12/4/2007 @ 3:38 am
I’m a Patriots fan, but I’d gladly trade a loss for the elimination of Bill Simmons. The AFC Championship Game loss became more acceptable because it meant Bill could not longer play that obnoxious “clutch Brady/choker Manning” card. And yes, I AM a Pats fan, honest. Just tired of that BS act.
:: mush — 12/4/2007 @ 3:40 am
That Bart Scott hissy fit was awesome. I only saw probably the last 8 minutes of the game… let’s just say the Baltimore offense was underwhelming, and their pass rush was missing in that span as well.
About the calls:
1) The “holding” call to me looked more like a legal chuck that went beyond the 5 yard limit of illegal contact… I would agree that normally the players are allowed to get away with it. I really didn’t see the blatent hold but FOIRC had my attention.
2) The TD that ended the drive is something that I’ve tried to highlight numerous times. “Possession” is so subjective. I thought he bobbled it enough that he didn’t have control until the 1st foot was up. But it seems the officials give the benefit of the doubt to the WRs a lot on this type of play. I specifically remember Reggie Wayne catching a pass last year in JAX-IND that Del Rio challenged… it’s almost like as soon as the ball hits their hands its thought of as “possession”, which is why the Pollard overturn was such a big deal last year. Another member has commented that they probably will never reverse this call on the field again, unless it is very clear. In fact last night I was arguing that Henry might’ve had possession when he caught that pass in the end zone corner.
Anyway, Brady Just wins… and maybe the Patriots will be in trouble without Colvin and when the Steelers spread the field… I predict this week Jaws will be complaining that “I watched some film… and Randy Moss is a quitter!” again on some ESPN show.
:: Fergasun — 12/4/2007 @ 3:43 am
Re: Bionicman
Don’t start me on grounding calls. I saw Jason Campbell get called twice this year for grounding on similar plays that happened during SNF and MNF. One play he was being sacked and just chucked the ball up towards a WR… it went in the right direction but he got a flag. He also was hit while throwing and they called it grounding and another time on a screen play he threw it at the OL feet and got called for grounding as well. Saw those 3 plays happen to Carson Palmer last night and Brady tonight… no grounding flags.
I think the rule now is if a QB looks awkward while throwing and getting hit it’s not grounding, but if he throws it “too smoothly” while taking the sack it’s grounding.
I saw the play you were talking about tonight and it’s very close… although the thing about grounding is you can chuck the ball as far as you want over the guy’s head as well and it’s not a penalty… I find that more odd about the rule. Except the odd time where they will call it due to WR and QB miscommunication.
Anyway, the officials only screw up maybe one or two plays egregiously per game if we’re lucky, but players are screwing up at a much higher percentage… I’ve been complaining about them for the past 2 years but have learned you need to accept them as part of the game.
:: Fergasun — 12/4/2007 @ 3:49 am
“The question is: Is this the kind of holding that actually gets called as holding, or is this the kind of holding where there’s an unwritten rule that we don’t really call it as holding because it isn’t that significant? The answer is that, because we’re talking about nebulous “unwrittenâ€? rules, everyone is going to see the play through the prism of their own rooting interests. That’s the problem with NFL officiating, not actual bias towards one team or the other.”
What really perplexes me about NFL officiating is that these calls are made still seems to essentially be random. There does not appear to be any sort of bias towards calling dubious PIs too often or ignoring most PI calls and “letting the players decide”. No one knows, and everyone just hopes to get lucky.
In the NBA at least, officials have made it clear what rules they intend to ignore (moving screens, palming) and what rules they will zealously over-enforce (charging). Smart players are able to adjust accordingly and use it to their advantage. If rules are going to be enforced arbitrarily, I think I like that more.
:: teh — 12/4/2007 @ 4:31 am
This thread seems to me like a Pats fan bitchfest. Was Bart Scott throwing the flag stupid? Sure. Can we forgive the Ravens for complaining about the calls FIVE MINUTES AFTER THE GAME ENDED? I hope we can. With no shot at the playoffs, that game was Baltimore’s season.
BTW, who cares what’s said on ESPN?
:: kevinNYC — 12/4/2007 @ 4:46 am
Does anyone else find it interesting that two teams with losing records took the Patriots down to the wire, despite starting mediocre QBs?
1. The sequence of events beginning with the final NE drive: Is there any greater proof that the Patriots have a pact with the devil?
I think that’s about as close as we’ll get to undeniable proof until the opposing QB spontaneously combusts while trying to lead a go-ahead TD drive against the Patriots. Even then, it’ll probably be dismissed as “Facing the Patriots just made him real nervous, and nervous people catch fire without warning all the time.”
I’m a Patriots fan, but I’d gladly trade a loss for the elimination of Bill Simmons. The AFC Championship Game loss became more acceptable because it meant Bill could not longer play that obnoxious “clutch Brady/choker Manning� card. And yes, I AM a Pats fan, honest. Just tired of that BS act.
Best. Pats fan. Ever.
:: Alex — 12/4/2007 @ 4:52 am
I thought the holding call was a bit iffy, because although they were almost side-by-side, the contact was all being made front-to-front and from our angle, there was no evidence that the defender was gripping jersey or holding onto anything. Contact may have been made beyond 5 yards, however.
:: QB — 12/4/2007 @ 4:58 am
Didn’t Ryan call that ill fated TO on 4th down? I thought only players and head coaches could call TO?
Yes. According to Rule 4, Section 3, Article 3 of the official NFL rules:
The Referee shall suspend play while the ball is dead and declare a charged team time out upon the request for a time out by the head coach or any player to any official.
Note that an assistant coach is not allowed to call a timeout. Make of this what you will.
:: Jeremiah — 12/4/2007 @ 4:58 am
#7
“Tonight was a perfect example. It certainly seems perfectly obvious that the refs were not going to allow the Patriots to lose. Why should I invest my time and energy in a sport in which it certainly seems, if not necessarily the case, that the games are fixed?”
I’m a Pat’s fan and work with someone who feels the exact same way. The only difference is she thinks the NFL has it in for the Pats. She’s convinced that calls that went against NE when they played the Colts earlier this year and last year in the AFC Champioship is proof that the NFL is against the Pats. She thought the same think when the Pats lost to the Broncos in 2005. I guess it just depends who you root for.
I refuse to believe that the NFL or an league tries to affect the outcome of games. It would destroy any professional sports league if the games weren’t on the level.
It’s the inconsistency of officiating that I hate. It’s not even game to game. It’s the same crew that will call a game different quarter to quarter.
:: JFP — 12/4/2007 @ 5:42 am
“Facing the Patriots just made him real nervous, and nervous people catch fire without warning all the time.�
:: Alex — 12/4/2007 @ 4:52 am
That is pretty funny Alex.
Too bad for the Ravens that they self-combusted at the end there. Maybe coaches will not be so quick to call a time-out right before the snap anymore. I can only hope.
Also, I would like the NFL to get rid of the force out rule. I would like to see the rule that receivers must come down two feet inbounds with control of the ball. It would eliminate all second guessing of the referees on a play like the one that ended Cleveland v. Arizona.
:: oldnumberseven — 12/4/2007 @ 6:30 am
“Hey, remember when we wrote in PFP 2006 that KUBIAK projected Kyle Boller to improve, but we would never know for sure because the Ravens had signed Steve McNair?”
Well, regardless of one good game, considering that he is posting his worst DVOA since his rookie year, I think we can say for sure that no, he hasn’t improved.
:: BDC — 12/4/2007 @ 6:41 am
The Ravens gave the rest of the NFL a blueprint on how to allow another game-winning 4th quarter drive by Tom Brady.
:: apocalypse66 — 12/4/2007 @ 8:50 am
#21 Alex:
That is indeed the point that Phil Simms made on the Westwood One halftime show last night, when someone commented on Ed Reed fumbling an interception: why do people make mistakes against the Pats?
He said good teams bring out mistakes; you get nervous, or try too hard, or get desperate and get penalties.
:: argus — 12/4/2007 @ 8:54 am
. In both the Eagles game and tonight’s game, there were two plays where it seemed he chucked a pass to the feet of his offensive linemen without any eligible receivers in sight.
Was he outside the tackle box? Because he can throw anywhere he wants in that case. Was there an RB mixed in with the lineman on a failed screen?
#12 is absolutely right. To pretend that one can officiate a fast moving sport without error is absolutely ridiculous, and has nothing to do with a conspiracy and everything to do with human error.
:: zip — 12/4/2007 @ 9:10 am
man - i wish i saw the game live … i was following it on the NFL gamecenter!
BTW, is there a place where you buy the entire season of any team (for eg: Pats 2004-all regular season - complete 60 mins)
:: Ch V Kalyan — 12/4/2007 @ 9:14 am
I’m surprised Pat’s fans thought the officiating in the first half was clearly biased in the Ravens favor. The one call that sticks in my mind was the key third down defensive holding on Ivy well away from the play that promted Jaws to comment ‘defensive players can’t do anything anymore in this league’.
Speaking of officiating, how much extra do they pay Brady to also officiate the games he’s playing in?
:: mawbrew — 12/4/2007 @ 9:31 am
@29 On the one clear intentional grounding, Brady was out of the pocket, but threw 5 yards short of the LOS (Also 5 yards short of his extremely covered receiver on a 10-15 yard throw). On the other one that is being debated, Brady was in the pocket, was hit a little, and there was a receiver trying to come back for the ball. At first blush it looked like grounding to me, but the replay made it look like his arm really was hit.
Another 2 flags that were not thrown against NE are also interesting. On one, Moss was running a post in the endzone and literally pushed the Ravens DB to the ground… right in front of the official. Moss didn’t catch the ball, but the interference was ridiculously blatant. The 2nd blatant noncall was on Maroney’s 43 yard catch and run on 1st and 20 in the 4th. After about 18 yards, Bart Scott was going to make the tackle when he was leveled from behind…right in front of the official. I’m not sure how the officials missed those two calls.
:: TGT — 12/4/2007 @ 9:33 am
I also want to know since when you’re allowed to grab the QBs head. On Boller’s ridiculous escape on one play, his helmet was turned around by Adalius Thomas.
I’d also like to know why the Pats weren’t called for delay of game on the last drive when the NE defensive player grabbed Musa Smith’s leg and tried to pull him down AFTER he’d already been tackled and got up.
On a completely unrelated topic, was McGahee’s run where he confused Junior Seau into turning his back on him a thing of beauty or what? How many times have you seen a ball carrier get to push an unblocked LB in the back?
:: TGT — 12/4/2007 @ 9:39 am
DVOA or not, I think it’s becoming clear the Pats D is a slow, substandard bunch that’s been able to coast behind big leads.
:: PatsFan — 12/4/2007 @ 9:39 am
Re: #31
The blatant interference on Welker on Reed’s INT that went uncalled, for one.
:: PatsFan — 12/4/2007 @ 9:40 am
“Clearly, Jermaine Winborne is holding Ben Watson on that play.”
“but do remember that the Patriots would have had first-and-goal from the two-yard line on the next play, thanks to Bart Scott’s double hissy fit.”
Wow. That was quick. Hurry, hurry…have to defend the Pats at any cost.
I expect nothing more from this site.
:: DJH — 12/4/2007 @ 9:41 am
As a biased observer, I thought the referees did a good job. There were probably a couple missed calls on each side, but I agreed with all the penalties that were called.
:: B — 12/4/2007 @ 9:45 am
Yes, he was outside the tackle box and within range of 5-8 yards of the sideline, in fact. And, yes, they were running a double screen, fake left and then throw right, but a DL was draped all over the RB.
And, I’m sorry, but when your team screams and gestures at your coaching staff for calling the time out, showing them up, and then your DB’s hissy fit ensures that your very talented special teams don’t get a kickoff return to set up your final drive, then you’re not a disciplined team.
When you do those things, I give the officials the benefit of the doubt, not the highly unprofessional players.
:: david — 12/4/2007 @ 9:45 am
“I’m surprised Pat’s fans thought the officiating in the first half was clearly biased in the Ravens favor.”
That’s comedy gold Jerry. Comedy gold.
:: DJH — 12/4/2007 @ 9:47 am
32: “Moss was running a post in the endzone and literally pushed the Ravens DB to the ground… right in front of the official”
Giggle. The DB sold out to the outside, threw himself on the ground when Moss cut the other way, and immediately started asking for the OPI call.
It was part of the Eagles “blueprint” against Moss that the Ravens were trying to copy . The problem is, if the official has a clear view, then you won’t get the call.
Also, the fruit basket for the ref’s wife is critical if you plan to use this defensive tactic.
:: nat — 12/4/2007 @ 9:52 am
A couple of notes:
-The conspiracy theories are stupid. I thought the call at the end was bush league, but it’s not like the defender didn’t touch him at all. It was bang-bang and the ref made the call.
-For all the talk of the time out, it didn’t exactly fail. The Ravens did stuff Evans (I believe) on 4th down.
32: I thought the clip on Scott was the worst non-call of the game.
34: I agree.
:: DoubleB — 12/4/2007 @ 9:52 am
For the intentional grounding thing, the refs are reluctant to call it on anybody. It’s because the refs have to determine where the QB intended to throw the ball, not where it ended up. So if a QB is hit in motion, it’s difficult to know where he’s intending the ball to end up.
:: B — 12/4/2007 @ 9:54 am
See, just like I said last year, this is all part of the storyline. The league is making the Pats into the “evil winners” and showing how powerful the villains are. That way, when the good guys “Colts” beat them in another come from behind victory, the country will cheer. It’s all part of the pre-planned story. Beating these “bad” teams by 3 points is just showing how mean the Pats are and how they have all the breaks going their way all the time. Patience, the league has it planned for the pats to lose an important game to a big underdog. And just watch the horrible refereeing in that game. Pats fans will be really ticked after it.
:: puzzled — 12/4/2007 @ 10:00 am
@40 Watch the replay. Reed played outside, closed in quickly and had a chance to go around Moss. If you’ve seen many Raven’s games the last 5 years, you’ve probably seen Reed get a few interceptions doing that. Well, unless the receiver pushes him from about 8 inches away to full extension of his arm. Brutal.
@41
-What I was really surprised with on the clip was that the announcers failed to mention it through multiple replays. Tirico’s okay and Tony doesn’t seem to understand football, but I thought Jaws was supposedly good at analyzing this stuff.
-Yea, but the Pats false started, so it didn’t count. Also, the goal line camera clearly showed that the reason Evans was hit in the backfield was due to the false start. The DE came right through the whole Hockstein voided. If he had left a half second later, he would have still been clogging that hole and Evans would have had a good shot at picking up the first.
On the other side of the ball, I’m still not sure how NE was called for offensive pass interference on a tipped ball. The announcers understood there could be no defensive pass interference on a tip, but no mention of the offensive pass interference also being negated? Did the contact occur in the 1/4 second between the ball leaving Brady’s hand and getting tipped?
:: TGT — 12/4/2007 @ 10:06 am
re: 32
“On the one clear intentional grounding, Brady was out of the pocket, but threw 5 yards short of the LOS”
Part of why people keep getting upset and non-calls is they don’t know the freakin’ rules.
When the QB is “out of the pocket”, there is no intentional grounding. This is something Brady does often: he scrambles and then grounds the ball. The reason he doesn’t get flagged for it is: because it’s not against the rules.
:: RickD — 12/4/2007 @ 10:15 am
44:
Tony Kornheiser knows less football than Bill Simmons and Bill Simmons knows less football than every commenter in the history of this site.
:: DoubleB — 12/4/2007 @ 10:17 am
@42 - So how does your theory explain an untouched Brady throwing a 15 yard pass to a blanketed receiver nearly straight into the ground? I haven’t seen a more blatant intentional grounding.
:: TGT — 12/4/2007 @ 10:17 am
44: Cool. Got a link?
I could be wrong, but I remember little or no contact shown in the televised replay.
A big, strong manly man like Reed with momentum/leverage in his favor suddenly thrown backwards to the ground by a receiver who is running away from him.
Hot damn! Moss is awesome!
:: nat — 12/4/2007 @ 10:18 am
Re: 12
Carlos, thank you for trying to articulate a point that is not understood by many people:
OFFICIATING IS DIFFICULT.
If you don’t believe it, try officiating any sport.
:: Black Squirrel — 12/4/2007 @ 10:20 am
44: As for OPI on the tipped ball…
The restrictions on contact for the offensive player don’t start when the ball is thrown. This is different than the defensive player, who has to worry about “illegal contact” and “defensive holding” calls instead.
So if the push off or other OPI happened before the ball was thrown, it could still be called.
See the link for the rules digest.
:: nat — 12/4/2007 @ 10:25 am
Let’s just call last night “Tuck Rule Game #2″ and be done with it.
The Patriots didn’t do anything wrong. The Ravens made multiple dumb mistakes which cost them a chance to win. Brady’s the luckiest QB alive.
And, as a completely biased anti-Pats fan, I saw so many bad calls each way during the game that I was saddened by the calls being so important at the end of the game, but not surprised. But no, on the whole, I didn’t think either team benefited more.
:: Purds — 12/4/2007 @ 10:27 am
On the one clear intentional grounding, Brady was out of the pocket, but threw 5 yards short of the LOS (Also 5 yards short of his extremely covered receiver on a 10-15 yard throw).
I remember that play, I thought it was a blown screen and there was a RB in the mix of OLs he threw the ball in front of. In any case I don’t think coming up 5 yards short is generally called as grounding, although he obviously didn’t want to complete the pass.
:: zip — 12/4/2007 @ 10:28 am
Not sure if that last post came out right. I don’t mean NE didn’t deserve to win, but I left the game feeling the same as after the “Tuck Rule” game. NE did not get any special favors, but they did get some amazing luck on quirky things (Ravens call TO when they would have stopped Brady, NE’s false start negates failed 4th down try, stupid non-call on Hail Mary play doesn’t hurt NE because Boller’s pass is 3 yards short).
:: Purds — 12/4/2007 @ 10:30 am
I think the problem with the officiating was that it was inconsistent. For the most part of the game, the Ravens were manhandling the Pats receivers, and got very few calls (note: the Pats had some non-calls too, but either because of strategy - the Baltimore O was supposed to suck -, playing style - Samuel going for the ints - or fear of being blown away - everyone else - they tend to play off the receivers more). Then, all of a sudden, in the last 5 minutes everything gets called. I can see why Scott would blow a gasket, nothing had changed in their game and flags were flying all over the place.
I honestly don’t have a problem with either letting players play or opening up the game by calling it tightly, and I can understand some game-to-game inconsistency (although this year that too is often excessive). But inconsistency within games? For Pete’s sake.
As I mentioned on the live game board, I think the refs got cold feet when the game was on the line. Too bad, no one could have objected if the Ravens had come out with the win, and the Pats are having trouble on both sides of the ball. Last week could have been Philly just playing the game of their season, but 2 in a row? It’s clearly the Pats.
One play note: you could see how explosive Maroney can be when he gets to open space, and what people saw in him when they drafted him. Alas, at the beginning of the season he just danced waiting for the hole, and now just plows ahead regardless of where the whole is, or even whether there is one. I miss Morris, with a real power back the Pats could have kept the Ravens closer to the line, giving the receivers some space. This is certainly going to bite the Pats in the ass next week, and most importantly come playoff time.
:: slo-mo-joe — 12/4/2007 @ 10:31 am
i looked for reasons to argue this game was fixed, but i couldn’t find any. not on that last drive anyway. i have to go with kraft (or belichick) making a deal with the devil, prompting that oft-repeated “tragic inevitability” line. it reminds me of the white sox’ march to the world series a few years ago. everything went their way, including some seemingly impossible escapes. as much as i hate this crushing tide of inevitability (and the patriots), i’m starting to feel as though nothing can stand in the way of the perfect season. i don’t believe in fate or destiny, but this, like the white sox world series victory, makes me wonder.
:: starzero — 12/4/2007 @ 10:31 am
I didn’t get a chance to see Bart Scott’s post game hissy-fit, and the Bmore Sun says he didn’t speak to reporters after the game. But S. Rolle said he was upset that the official repeatedly was calling him “boy”.
I thought last night’s game was great fun, and regarding penalties, the Ravens lead the league in them. How the game was officiated wasn’t much different than how most Ravens games are done.
The bothersome thing for me is that if the refs are going to call the contact penalty on Winbourne, than they have to call the OPI on Moss. Contact is contact, call it loose or tight, but call it the same for both teams.
I thought the reason the Ravens lost was because of Billicks conservative playcalling after Boller’s INT in the 4th quarter. He should have realized the Pats were jamming the line and continued to throw the ball down the field. You can’t dance with the champ, etc…
Also, as a Ravens fan, its nice to see them play well for once. It reminds me of 2005, when they stunk it up for the first half of the year, and then occasionally played some lights out football during the second half. I still think Heap is their best offensive player, and it was amazing to see them moving the ball so well without him in the lineup.
:: jonnyblazin — 12/4/2007 @ 10:34 am
1. The sequence of events beginning with the final NE drive: Is there any greater proof that the Patriots have a pact with the devil?
I don’t know, I still rank the 2001 Buffalo game where, on the game winning drive, Patten caught the ball, was knocked unconscious, the ball came out, and was scooped up by a defender, but since the ball had come to rest on his legs while his head hit out of bounds, thus turning the play into a fumble out of bounds and the Patriots maintaining possession, as #1.
:: Scott de B. — 12/4/2007 @ 10:36 am
“Every Patriots fan thinks that the officiating was biased against New England in the first half.”
umm, we do?
:: Rich Conley — 12/4/2007 @ 10:38 am
#45: Wrong. The rule for intentional grounding is, basically, inside the tackle box the ball has to be thrown in the vicinity (official’s judgement) of an eligible receiver; outside the tackle box, the ball has to be thrown in the vicinity (official’s judgement) of an eligible receiver OR reach the line of scrimmage.
If the QB is outside the tackle box and throws the ball away, and it only gets to five yards behind the LOS, it’s still grounding.
If you’re going to complain that people don’t know the freakin’ rules, perhaps you should know the freakin’ rules.
:: DGL — 12/4/2007 @ 10:38 am
53: Don’t let it get to you. Some breaks went the Pats’ way late, but some went the other way earlier. Brady’s hardly “lucky” that all those balls were dropped, for instance.
But, Man! That last Patriots drive was freakish. I think the calls were all correct - the time out certainly is indisputable - but how many lives do the Patriots have left?
:: nat — 12/4/2007 @ 10:40 am
#58:
That is correct. Brady got called for one just like that in the Buffalo game. He also admitted the call was right then, so it’s weird that he’d do it again. Just throw it high out of bounds, man.
:: slo-mo-joe — 12/4/2007 @ 10:41 am
“Speaking of officiating, how much extra do they pay Brady to also officiate the games he’s playing in?”
The only play I remember him bitching in (and several plays later) was the Reed INT, where Welker was clearly held.
:: Rich Conley — 12/4/2007 @ 10:48 am
56: yeah, that was pretty hilarious. From Mike Sando: Rolle complained: “No. 110 called me a boy. I will be calling my agent in the morning and sending my complaint. I have a wife and three kids. Don’t call me a boy. Don’t call me a boy on the field during a game because I said, ‘You’ve never played football before.’ ”
Official No. 110 is Byron “Phil” McKinnely, who played for three NFL teams (Atlanta, the Los Angeles Rams and Chicago) during the 1970s and 1980s. He also apparently played in the USFL”
I guess if you want complain the ref don’t know football, and he’s a big former OT, you better expect he says “calm down boy”, whether you succeeded in producing 3 kids or not. Lol
:: Malene, cph, dk — 12/4/2007 @ 10:51 am
Re: the clip on Scott
This was so blatant, and so ignored, that I started wondering whether a block in the back is a penalty on a play from scrimmage. It was a huge play too, the Ravens had all the momentum at that stage.
Re Aaron being annoyed about the Miami alim thing and Wilfork.
I can see how Taylor’s death could be more motivating for three guys who’s team no longer has anything to play for than for Wilfork, who is going to be understandably more focused on football. It’s not a criticism of Wilfork.
:: Karl Cuba — 12/4/2007 @ 10:53 am
re: the ‘critical’ dropped passes
Patriots fans might find it useful to know that other teams drop passes too (try watching the niners this year) it’s not just a Patriot thing.
:: Karl Cuba — 12/4/2007 @ 10:55 am
#45
Maybe you need to learn the freakin’ rules Rick. Even if the QB is outside the pocket, the pass has to reach the line of scrimmage. The pass in question wasn’t close.
:: jaretaskin — 12/4/2007 @ 11:00 am
If Boller had thrown the ball from a kneeling position, the Ravens would have won on the last play of the game.
:: chip — 12/4/2007 @ 11:01 am
It’s kinda sad that everybody equates success with a pact with evil. What a warped, infantile worldview. If evidence of success is the sign of the devil, I guess that makes losers into noble winners. I wonder why that worldview would appeal to so many? Do the math. You can win in this world if you can simply keep your head while others panic. That’s what you witnessed last night.
I’ll remind everybody that unsportsmanlike conduct penalties are entirely voluntary. The hail mary might have made the endzone if the Ravens had players that could control themselves during adversity. And adversity is all it was. The grassy knoll second-guessing of the officials is goofy.
And as far as “pacts with the devil,” there was only one team that had a player complicit in a murder on the field last night.
:: sippican — 12/4/2007 @ 11:07 am
zip #29:
“Was he outside the tackle box? Because he can throw anywhere he wants in that case.”
Irrelevant. It didn’t look like the throw made it beyond the line of scrimmage. You can only throw the ball away if you throw it beyond the line of scrimmage from outside the tackle box.
:: Andrew — 12/4/2007 @ 11:07 am
I felt so cheated last night, I can’t describe it. What a great game - and then the whole thing is decided on a ticky-tack call? Horrible. Just horrible. I mean, I get it. He had him past 5 yards - but was he open? No. Would he have been open? No. Did he do anything to beat his man? No. Let them play the game. It’s just a perfect example of what I always say - I love the game of football and I hate the NFL.
:: Aaron N — 12/4/2007 @ 11:18 am
“. Even if the QB is outside the pocket, the pass has to reach the line of scrimmage.”
Unless its in the vicinity of a receiver.
Watson was about 3 feet from the ball. If you’re going to bitch about the rules….
:: Rich Conley — 12/4/2007 @ 11:20 am
The officiating didn’t strike me as remarkable one way or another, perhaps because I didn’t see any of the negigible 50 yard pi calls I hate so much. The conspiracy theorists need to remember that the Ravens get flagged a lot, and then explain away the tackling by the Ravens receivers on the hail mary, unless one posits that the referees knew that the receiver would be tackled two yards short. If there was zebra calling Rolle “boy” throughout the game, however, he’s gotta go, for being a dunce, if nothing else.
Regarding the performance by the players, the Pats clearly don’t have a great defense, but, man, does their offense make up for it. The Ravens have talent on defense, were playing at an emotional peak, it was kinda’ cold, the wind was blowing like hell, and the Pats score 27 with two drops in the end zone.
:: Will Allen — 12/4/2007 @ 11:22 am
re 69: Will Allen, “he’s gotta go” really?
my post in no. 61 has the context -
you think this warrants a firing?
Just judging from pictures, big McKinnely looks like they kind of guy who says boy when he means “son” - or, stupid young man, which fitted Rolle perfectly in that situation.
There are only 2 former players active in stripes - it’s not that hard to know who they are and give them the respect of not saying “you refs don’t know football because you never played it”.
I’m just curious. Being european, I can never guess what gets americans up in arms for pc reasons.
:: Malene, cph, dk — 12/4/2007 @ 11:29 am
Re: #69
Yes, the Pats so much pressure on a defense that is tough to keep up with that pace for a whole 4 quarters. What any D really needs is an offense that can drive on the Pats into the 4th quarter to keep their D off the field.
This end game (aside from the controversial calls) reminded me of the Colts game. 1 good drive at the end by Indy or Baltimore and the Pats would have been toast.
Rather than criticize the refs, I think you have to blame the Baltimore O (and subsequently credit the Pats D) for their 4th quarter disappearing act. Despite his great game, Boller’s inability (or perhaps impermissibility) to audible into plays against stacked lines and run blitzes might have been the difference.
:: Papa Narb — 12/4/2007 @ 11:30 am
Re #59:
I don’t mean Brady was lucky all that much last night (he played well in bad throwing weather), I mean it in these terms: in his career, he has many, many times been the beneficiary of things outside of his control that went his way, and then he’s lauded as being a “winner.” Certainly, he’s showing with the weapons this year that he’s a great QB. But, really, when has a critical event outside his control (two SB game-winning FG’s? a quirky but correct tuck rule call that send most fans scurrying to the rules book, a FG in the snow, and last night opposing coaches calling a TO on a play they would have snuffed out) gone against him? I can’t remember many. Certainly none of the Vander-shank variety (both against Pitt and Miami) in the playoffs.
Brady leads a charmed life. He creates his own good fortune, and he’s been the recipient of almost all of the decisions he cannot influence.
:: Purds — 12/4/2007 @ 11:39 am
Exciting game with wild finish. FO is a great site with great, high-level contributors. But if you can’t enjoy Simmons anymore, you’ve lost your childhood innocence and that’s a sad thing. He’s still the best fan writing on sports and his podcasts with Cousin Sal are a joy.
:: Mike — 12/4/2007 @ 11:44 am
#72:
But, really, when has a critical event outside his control … gone against him?Does losing half his defense to injury and sickness half-way through a championship game he was comfortably winning count?
Without aiming to start another Peytom Branning slugfest, that seems far more outside Brady’s control than putting his kicker in reasonable position to score clutch FGs with key late 4th quarter drives in critical games.
:: slo-mo-joe — 12/4/2007 @ 11:49 am
Does anyone have a link to a video of Bart Scott throwing the ref’s flag?
:: Dave — 12/4/2007 @ 11:49 am
As a Steeler fan I had a great time watching the game last night, debating between rooting for the Ravens to end the “Perfect Season” hype and rooting for the Pats so we can get that honor next weekend. Anyway, I do not put any blame on the refs, the Ravens had a chance to put the Pats down for good, but that stupid, stupid interception gave the momentum away. Oh, and why, in the name of Buddy, did the Ravens call that conservative (fearful?) defensive gameplan on the last series????…
Games fixed?…c’mon…
:: JCRODRIGUEZ — 12/4/2007 @ 11:59 am
72: I hear you. But we only remember the lucky breaks in close games and playoffs. And we discount the ones that go against the Pats if they still win. And since they are good enough to win most of the time (48-12 in four regular seasons), that gives an unbalanced sample.
Consider last week’s blown FG call. If the Eagles managed to win, would you be saying that everything out of Brady’s control goes his way? No. And yet the bad call did go against the Patriots. It fades from our memories even now because it resulted in a closer game instead of an upset.
:: nat — 12/4/2007 @ 12:00 pm
69:
Will, you may have discussed this before, but being a Vikings fan I figure you would have some insight: Does Moss “struggle” in colder weather? Maybe it’s a combination of physical play and the cold, I don’t know, but he hasn’t played like the same guy I saw a month ago.
73:
I can appreciate Simmons. I really liked the article he wrote about taking his child to a Clippers game. It’s obvious basketball is his first love and he’s a diehard NBA fan and those columns generally interest me (maybe some hoops fans can tell me he doesn’t know what he’s doing there either). But his football columns come from the point of view of a fan/sports radio talk show caller that doesn’t know anything about the game. If I don’t listen to Joe “first time caller, long time listener” for football insight, why would I read Simmons’ articles on the subject. Frankly raiderjoe has a better schtick right now.
:: DoubleB — 12/4/2007 @ 12:06 pm
As a Jets fan, I was rather angry and frustrated with the final of the game
However:
The Ravens got beat because of stupid mental mistakes, a certain amount of bad luck, and some good plays by Brady. Not questionable refereeing.
I think there was only one truly questionable call of the bunch and that was the catch by Gaffney. But, I don’t see how you overturn it either way. If it was a catch, it remains a catch, if it was incomplete it remains incomplete.
I also didn’t understand why the Pats didn’t go for the Onsides Kick at the end of the game. Seems that the 3-8% (I don’t know the actual numbers of onsides kicks) certainly outweighs the 5 yards the Ravens would have gotten.
As for kicking it out of bounds, I thought it could be a spot foul if the other team chose. Coffin cornering a kickoff from the 35 still sets up a chance of a return which would be the best chance for the Ravens to come back at that point.
:: Biebs — 12/4/2007 @ 12:10 pm
The only call that really bothered me last night was allowing an assistant to call a time out. I actually don’t think enough is being made of it.
I accept judgement calls and the endless, exasperating complaining about them as part of the game. But just blowing a rule that requires no judgement is inexcusable.
:: Mikey — 12/4/2007 @ 12:13 pm
I think the problem with the officiating was that it was inconsistent.
This has been said a number of times in this thread.
I think you must have a crazy standard for consistency.
Try this as a thought experiment. You’re officiating a game in which two groups of 11 men literally throw themselves into one another as fast and hard as possible in bursts of about 4 to 9 seconds. You’re responsible for watching the conduct of a subset of maybe 8-10 of them or a subset of the field. Bodies are literally flying, with the greatest combination of strength and speed in the sporting world (if the NBA had 22 men on the court, maybe that’d be more awesome).
You have a long rule book to enforce. This rule book has evolved over many years and revisions in an attempt to get the balance of power between offense and defense “just right” for what is, remember, entertainment and/or a game.
It is undoubtedly and demonstrably true that on literally every single play there is at least one (arguable) violation of a rule. In fact, it’s quite likely that there is an arguable violation of the holding rule alone on every single play.
Clearly your top priority is to keep the game moving, fair and entertaining. Clearly throwing the flag every play is entertaining only to your fellow officials watching at home, and probably not even to them. So you do your best to “let them play” but call holding often enough to keep it relatively in check, and also to flag the most egregious cases.
Alas, being human, you cannot see everything at once. So in addition to purposefully not flagging some arguably illegal conduct, you also miss some infractions and you also call some phantom infractions, where you thought you saw something that turns out didn’t actually happen. In other fields of human endeavor, it has been proven conclusively that eye witnesses to events — even outlandish “unforgettable” outlier events — cannot reliably describe the events after the fact — even immediately after the fact — collectively that is. Of course some people do get it right and others don’t, but those that do have further been demonstrated not to have a repeatable skill.
Anyway, you do this activity on a large field that is covered by some 8 to 15 cameras, most of them now high definition. And the nature of the sport is that there’s ample time between these short bursts of frenzied activity for people to replay the past plays. And further, the league leadership, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to make your fallibility (which no one disputes) a central part of the game and its strategy and tactics by allowing the coaches to “challenge” your decisions on a selective basis.
And because the internet and talk radio, like nature, abhor a vacuum, an entire universe of criticism of your performance develops.
So, tell me, how is that you could ever call a game and satisfy the fans that your infraction calling was “consistent.” Perhaps the fans would be well served to stop fixating on three or four plays where the call didn’t go the way they liked, and instead focus on the literally 60+ plays where the calls went fine.
Perhaps the outcome of the game didn’t hinge on that blown call after all, but instead hinged on bad player execution or bad coaching on any of the 50 offensive plays your team had or the 50 defensive plays your team had or the dozen special teams plays your team had.
But it’s a lot easier to sit around with your DVR and your completely absurd (and undefined) sense of “consistency” and blast the refs. Yes it’s easier but is it really fun?
:: Carlos — 12/4/2007 @ 12:15 pm
80: Is the official supposed to be able to recognize head coach’s voices or something? The guy is watching the play, and someone beside and behind him screams “timeout” in his ear. How is he supposed to determine whether that was the head coach or someone else?
:: rk — 12/4/2007 @ 12:17 pm
#80:
But isn’t the inappropriate calling of a TO (such as it would be if it were called by unauthorized personnel) unsportsmanlike conduct?
Otherwise, I could easily see teams using assistants to call TOs in critical situations, in the hope of disrupting the play scot-free.
If that is the case, ironically it was the Pats who got jobbed.
:: slo-mo-joe — 12/4/2007 @ 12:21 pm
Double B, I wouldn’t say cold weather is what hinders Moss; he seemed to have some good games at Lambeau when it was on the colder side. Against the Eagles, coordinator Jim Johnson devoted two dbs to nothing but covering Moss. Very few defenses will take that extreme approach, even when they are rolling safeties in that direction. The story in that game was that the Pats didn’t get a lot of production from Stallworth or Watson, although they certainly were still productive on offense.
Last night was very bad weather for a receiver like Moss, who has his game predicated on the ability to scare the hell out of defenses with deep patterns. Any team facing the Pats in extreme wind conditions has caught a huge break.
The teams who had consistent success with regard to Moss when he was with the Vikings, which mostly means Tampa in Tampa and sometimes Chicago in Chicago, did so by getting good pressure on the qb, jamming Moss at the line effectively, while giving substantial help over the top with a safety. Even this takes above-average cb and safety play, however. I can’t tell you how many times Moss defeated two defensive backs who were trying to keep the ball from him.
:: Will Allen — 12/4/2007 @ 12:22 pm
Looking ahead to Steelers-Patriots:
I have to agree with Aaron that the idea of the “physical” Steelers taking it to the Pats only applies when the Pats have the ball.
I actually think Pittsburgh’s offense matches up very well with the Pats defense, but for reasons that have nothing to do with power running. Ben works the middle of the field very well and has a high-quality TE, and these seem to be problems for the Pats D. Also, NE doesn’t seem to be the best team to exploit Pittsburgh’s biggest offensive weakness - pass blocking.
In my totally biased view, Pittsburgh has a pretty fair shot to win this game, but if the offensive game plan is to rely on Willie Parker between the tackles New England will win by 20.
:: Mikey — 12/4/2007 @ 12:22 pm
Re: 32
“I also want to know since when you’re allowed to grab the QBs head. On Boller’s ridiculous escape on one play, his helmet was turned around by Adalius Thomas.”
I saw a replay of this play in one of ESPN’s post game shows from a different angle. The replay showed that Adalius grab Boller’s left shoulder pad and not the helmet.
I am a Pat’s fan, but I can’t really get myself all work up about officiating. To me, it’s all part of the game. Players make mistakes on the field, coaches make mistakes on the field. Why should officials be any different?
In fact, I welcome any officiating bias against the Pats. Greater the challenge, greater the triumph.
I am just happy it was a competitive game that actually got my heart racing for the first time watching Pats this season. After all, 50-17 games are kinda boring to watch, even as a Pats fan.
:: ychigo — 12/4/2007 @ 12:25 pm
Regarding the Pats final kickoff:
Coming at this from a different angle, I thought booting it through the end zone was the correct decision. I can’t imagine that New England has ever practiced a kickoff from the opponents 35 yardline. An onside kick that bounces right into the hands of the outside most Raven could be returned the other way for a TD. Maybe some type of pooch kick to the 10 might work, but again angles are different on such a short field.
:: DoubleB — 12/4/2007 @ 12:25 pm
72: How about the blown touchback call on the Watson tackle of Champ Bailey in Denver a couple years back? Or the phantom pass interference penalties in the end zone against Samuel and Hobbs in the last two Pats playoff losses?
:: Jeremy — 12/4/2007 @ 12:25 pm
82 -
Let’s try to find some video of the call. I believe the official had made eye contact with Ryan.
Even if he hadn’t, it’s the official’s job to confirm that the time out is being called by someone who can legally call it.
:: Mikey — 12/4/2007 @ 12:30 pm
#81:
First of all, I’m a Pats fan. Second, I find it absurd to claim consistentcy is not required. I am not talking about blowing a call once in a while, that obviously happens. But making calls in the last couple of minutes for fouls that you have been obviously ignoring, in multiple occasions (and I should add, for more blatant infractions) for the rest of the game is unfair to the players. How can you expect a defensive back that has been holding, pulling, pushing pretty much freely all game to stop doing it all of a sudden, with the game on the line and the opposing team in the red zone? Of course they are going to lose it.
To reiterate: the calls were correct to the letter of the rule, but it is my impression that the standards were clearly changed at the end of the game, and that can explain the Ravens DB’s sense that they got screwed.
:: slo-mo-joe — 12/4/2007 @ 12:30 pm
#62 -
I agree. No one even mentioned it - is there something we don’t know about that rule?
:: Mike B in VA — 12/4/2007 @ 12:31 pm
83 -
The rule book only specifies an unsportsmanlike conduct for consecutive time outs or for calling a time out when you have none left.
:: Mikey — 12/4/2007 @ 12:36 pm
Malene, #70, I’m far from p.c., but perhaps a European wouldn’t be as cognizant of the hundreds of years of history of white people using the term “boy” to denigrate adult black men. I’m not saying the zebra here is a racist, but he may be too damned stupid to have this job. Perhaps a warning would suffice, but gosh, it’s hard to imagine such idiocy in someone who has as one of his responsibilities the effective interaction with people who are in a highly emotional state.
More generally, one of the things I’ve always like about NFL refs, compared to their brethren in baseball and basketball, is that they tend to have much thicker skin, are much less prone to rabbit ears, and are much less likely to provoke or extend a confrontation with a player. They, better than the guys in baseball or basketball, grasp that nobody paid a dime or turned on the t.v. to see them work. Perhaps that is the one advantage to not having full time refs who are getting paid a few hundred thousand. I’d hate to see the NFL guys become more like the MLB or NBA guys in the area of interaction with players.
:: Will Allen — 12/4/2007 @ 12:37 pm
#89:
Even if he hadn’t, it’s the official’s job to confirm that the time out is being called by someone who can legally call it.
That’s physically impossible when TOs are called just before the snap, and the officials are watching the field.
:: slo-mo-joe — 12/4/2007 @ 12:38 pm
But, really, when has a critical event outside his control (two SB game-winning FG’s? a quirky but correct tuck rule call that send most fans scurrying to the rules book, a FG in the snow, and last night opposing coaches calling a TO on a play they would have snuffed out) gone against him? I can’t remember many.
How soon we forget the 2006 playoff game in Denver.
:: Scott de B. — 12/4/2007 @ 12:38 pm
As a Raider fan, I have zero love for New England (or any other team for that matter.) Given that my team is slowly rising out of its own excrement, the fortunes of the Patsies have little bearing on my lot. So with no real axe to grind, here’s some quick thoughts:
I appreciate what BB has accomplished - He has slowly and deliberately built a team consistent with his vision for how the game should be played.
He challenges conventional gameplans and gameplanning.
He apparently employs and adheres to strategies and tactics based on analytics (like those on this site).
He is unafraid to challenge norms of the “old guard” or “that’s the way it’s always been done.”
He drafts and trades to fit his system with an eye to production vs. cost.
His efforts, demeanor, and comportment have made him “disliked” by mediots and others as he doesn’t suffer fools. Don’t ask him the cliched question - don’t bother him with your tabloid storyline. Ask a focused football question - get a focused, detailed answer. I will wager he becomes, in later years, absolutely and near universally revered.
His, and the Pats, incredible success are beginning to impact the way football is played. Good coaches are changing their staid strategies. Good front offices are changing their fiscal strategies. Fans, though not those that post on Fox, will begin to change the way they view the game.
Sure, it’s a bit of hyperbole on my part, but rather than bitch about a particular call (like a farcical application of a tuck rule) in a particular game, realize that this particular team/coach could be starting the next style change in football. It’s a good thing. Like Walsh and the WCO was an affront to the convention of massive lineman and smashmouth football.
In recent weeks, the Pats have brought out the best in the mediocre. Coaches have stepped outside their norms and players have “geeked up” making seeming mismatches (Philly/Balt) into fantastic, compelling, must-throw-things-at-the-TV events.
I view this as the beginning of a new era and the portrayal of villainy is simply based on envy of success, disappointment in relative success in one’s team, and the sheer “newness” of it all.
Then again, there’s always that pact with the devil thing.
:: Fisher — 12/4/2007 @ 12:40 pm
94 -
The HC can enter the field to get in a ref’s line of sight and call a time out.
If the official can’t visually confirm who called the time out, then you don’t grant the time out.
:: Mikey — 12/4/2007 @ 12:41 pm
@91 - Well, I think a couple of us have been guilty of calling the “block in the back” as “clipping,” but both are illegal. If a blocker hits a defender in the back, it’s a block in the back (10 yard penalty). If the blocker goes low on the defender in the back, it’s clipping (15 yard penalty). I think Stallworth was high enough that it should have been a block in the back, not clipping. In any case, it’s clearly illegal.
:: TGT — 12/4/2007 @ 12:41 pm
I find it absurd to claim consistentcy is not required.
strawman.
I didn’t say it wasn’t required. I said you don’t know what it means and/or haven’t defined it properly in the context of NFL officiating. Absent a well articulated definition, complaints about lack of “consistency” are completely hollow.
:: Carlos — 12/4/2007 @ 12:41 pm
Re: #82/83
A few years ago, in the famed “Bush Push” USC vs. Notre Dame game, as time was expiring, a USC assistant (Brendan Carroll, I think) frantically was running down the sideline, signaling timeout. College rules don’t allow assistants to call timeout, and furthermore, USC had none remaining. The referees correctly ignored him, but for days, you had columnists, TV commentators, sports talk people, etc. saying “HE’S NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A PENALTY.” None knew the rule, which is that an illegal timeout is not a penalty, it is simply to be ignored by the referee.
I am not sure if the NFL matches the college rule. In college, however, a timeout called by an ineligible person (i.e. an assistant coach), or a timeout called when there are none remaining, is not a penalty (as it is in basketball, as Chris Webber can famously relate). It is the referee’s job to note that there the person in question isn’t allowed to call one, or that there are none left, and simply ignore the call.
In this case, if the rule is similar in the NFL, the referee should have ignored the call, but if he didn’t ignore the call and did blow his whistle, then the play is nullified even if he shouldn’t have done so (sort of like the “inadvertent whistle” moments).
:: Tarrant — 12/4/2007 @ 12:41 pm
Thoughts:
* The Patriots had no business winning that game. The Ravens outplayed them in nearly every phase of the game. The Ravens were playing their hearts out, much like the Eagles were last week, and the Patriots looked flat. However, the Patriots won because the Ravens were playing hard but undisciplined, and the Pats were playing flat but focused. A team that stays focused will stay in games, and even if they are outplayed, all they need to to catch a break (or two, or ten in a late fourth quarter drive) to win.
* I’m not going to get into an argument about officiating, the way most of the posters here seem to be, except that I’ll make one comment, and it was the same comment that was made about the Seahawks/Steelers SB. We don’t know what was said between the players and the refs. It may be that the refs had warned the players several times that they were too close to the line on contact with the WR’s, and that if they kept it up they would start to get flagged. That could account for a change in the way flags were flying near the end.
Oh, and on the grounding calls, the key is “in the vicinity of the reciever”. Different refs have different interpretations of “vicinity”; the ones last night seemed to define it as “within 5 yards”. There were WR’s about 5 yards away in each case (well covered, with no chance of making a catch, but within 5 yards, to be sure).
* I’m not sure the Pats D is as bad as it seemed to be last night. It did OK in the 1st half, giving up only one real drive (NOT the one that scored the TD–that was a mostly a broken play and a bunch of missed tackles). It was phenomenal in the 4th quarter. In the third quarter, it turned into the 2006 Jets. Seriously, what happend to the Pats 3rd quarter run D? It didn’t look like a scheme thing, although the fact that it vanashed so abruptly and then reappeared equally quickly implies that it might have been. It just looked like the D-linemen were getting double teamed out of the cutback lanes, the OLB’s and Harrison were getting suckered into deep run blitzes and trapped, and the MLB’s were just getting plastered to the ground. Then all of a sudden, Wilfork and Seymour started getting off their double teams, and the run D reappeared.
I don’t think that the Pats D is bad–I just think it’s inconsistent. The offense has been good enough to hide this inconsistency. But the D is definitely the weak link–it’s really good at times, really bad at times, and probably averages out to about average.
* In that vein, NE NEEDS, and I mean needs, some new LB’s. AD is awesome, but Bruschi and Seau are old and now a liability in both the run game and the pass game. And with Colvin down, they’re going to tire faster and get worse quicker. Pierre Woods or Brandon Merriweather had better step up pretty quickly…
* Brian Daboll (the Pats WR coach) had best whip his WR’s into shape and teach them how not to drop the ball. Both last week’s game and this week’s started to get out of hand after several key, huge, crucial drops. Yes it was windy. But Watson and Moss and Faulk especially can’t be dropping all those balls and expect to keep winning…
:: MJK — 12/4/2007 @ 12:42 pm
Rex Ryan is a mole, tasked with helping the Pats go 19-0! The Manchurian defensive coordinator!
:: Will Allen — 12/4/2007 @ 12:45 pm
I mostly agree with Aaron that McGahee was awesome. The difference in the play on the field (ignoring referees)in the fourth quarter was McGahee’s ineffectiveness running the ball leading to too many short drives giving NE too many chances to win. In the 4th qtr Bal had 4 drives (excluding one that started in the 3rd) for 13 plays. On those drives McGahee ran 6 times for 0 ,1, 2,-1, 1, 1 yards. That was awFUL.
One other point, grounding requires pressure from the defense. from rules digest “Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.”
:: Fire Millen — 12/4/2007 @ 12:47 pm
I’m with Carlos. Not a Pats fan. I don’t buy the conspiracy stuff.
I think most NFL games are very well officiated, given the challenge of the job. I even think Super Bowl XL was well-officiated.
Whenever you compete in an officiated sport, you have to assume there are going to be close calls. The best way to get the outcome you want is to outplay the refs, and not give them a chance to make a close call that goes against you.
Look at the game-winning TD catch. It takes super slo-mo to convince me that there may have been some movement on the ball. I see very little, and think it’s much more of a catch than not. But my point is, it’s not like the Ravens were helpless victims of the refs on that play. Why didn’t they cover better? Why didn’t they get to the quarterback?
As for the holding call on 4th down, I thought it was textbook defensive holding. The defender could have just run with his man, and if there would have been contact because the receiver was turning in where the defender was, I don’t think the refs would have called anything. But the guy is grabbing the TE for five yards, and well past the five yard bump zone. The refs shouldn’t call that BECAUSE it’s a critical play? I think the reverse — they have to call that in that situation.
:: Geronimo — 12/4/2007 @ 12:48 pm
OK, according to the NFL Rules Digest, there is indeed a penalty for “excessive time outs”…it is a 5-yard dead-ball foul.
However, it doesn’t list when that would be enforced. I believe generally that penalty refers to cases where a team would be charged a timeout, but doesn’t have one (for example, the team on defense is charged a timeout if the referee judges crowd noise to be excessive, but if they have none, it is a 5-yard penalty). I’m not sure it’s for the case where a timeout is called that a team does not have. The Rules Digest also doesn’t state who specifically is allowed to call a timeout.
:: Tarrant — 12/4/2007 @ 12:50 pm
For all the complaining about the officiating, people sure have a warped perspective of things that are as clear as day.
Watson was clearly held from the line, to at least the goalline, which was well beyond the 5 yard limit. So, either you call defensive holding, or it’s illegal contact. Either way, a call needed to be made.
Second, if they didn’t call it on Winborne, they could have called it on Bart Scott on the same play where he practically had Jabar Gaffney in a full nelson. Pick your poison… facts are facts, and the Ravens committed a penalty. Just a matter of deciding which one to call.
Also, on that same play, after the play was over, the Ravens should have received another unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, as Ed Reed (I’m pretty sure it was him), ripped off his helmet in disgust (and ESPN showed this up close… couldn’t miss it). Last I checked, that’s a 15 yard penalty when done on the field (Remember the end of the Cleveland game a few years back???). The Ref’s ignored that.
If the Ref’s were clearly out to help the Patriots, it seems to me they would have made that call.
Then there’s the non-call on the OPI on Derrick Mason at the end of the game.
The reality is, if you’re going to play the physical/holding style of defense, tha