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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

we’re talking about nebulous “unwritten� 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

#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.

“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.

"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.

The Ravens gave the rest of the NFL a blueprint on how to allow another game-winning 4th quarter drive by Tom Brady.

#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.

. 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.

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)

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?

@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.

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?

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.

Re: #31

The blatant interference on Welker on Reed's INT that went uncalled, for one.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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?

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.

44:

Tony Kornheiser knows less football than Bill Simmons and Bill Simmons knows less football than every commenter in the history of this site.

@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.

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!

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.

@45 - You've got the rule wrong, not me.

There are 2 conditions that must be met for a throwaway not to be intentional grounding:
1) The qb must be outside the pocket
2) The ball must travel past the LOS.

Click my name to see a list of sources.

As I said, Brady was out of the pocket, but he didn't get the ball past the LOS.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Every Patriots fan thinks that the officiating was biased against New England in the first half."

umm, we do?

#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.

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?

#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.

"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.

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

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.

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.

@59 - It is indisputable that Rex Ryan called for a time out. It is indisputable that the ref should have ignored it, as Rex Ryan was neither a player on the field nor the head coach. It's another referee blunder. Not a conspiracy, but a doubly cruel twist of fate.

On the topic of referees and time outs, I heard Chris Cooley on the radio today say that in the Redskins game, Joe Gibbs asked one of the officials if he could call the second time out before the field goal, and the referee said yes. Oops.

#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.

If Boller had thrown the ball from a kneeling position, the Ravens would have won on the last play of the game.

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.

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.

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.

". 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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

#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.

Does anyone have a link to a video of Bart Scott throwing the ref's flag?

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

#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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

#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.

#62 -

I agree. No one even mentioned it - is there something we don't know about that rule?

83 -

The rule book only specifies an unsportsmanlike conduct for consecutive time outs or for calling a time out when you have none left.

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.

#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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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).

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...

Rex Ryan is a mole, tasked with helping the Pats go 19-0! The Manchurian defensive coordinator!

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."

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.

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.

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, that the Patriots have been known for in the past, you have to accept you're going to get away with it some times, but you're also going to get called for it. If you get called for it, deal with it... don't cry about it. You know you were wrong, based upon the rule, deal with it.

Okee, searching more through the cryptic NFL Rules Digest, I see this little blip...

"A team may not 'buy' an excess timeout in exchange for a penalty"

So that would infer that the referee is simply supposed to ignore a timeout call when a team has none remaining.

re 93: Will, big Phil McKinnely is not exactly a white guy talking to a black man.
I'm well aware of that stigma. It just doesn't strike me as offensive that a big, black, former player might call another black player half his age 'boy'. Just seems reasonable that it was a fatherly term.

#99:
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.
Oh, lighten up. I have defined "consistency" to the specific extent of calling penalties throughout the game using the same standards, especially with respect to avoiding to call penalties late in a game for play infractions that had been obviously ignored throughout the game to that point. It doesn't seem to me a much harder to digest definition than "calling penalties on both teams according to the same standards", which I am sure you understand and accept as a reasonable, if inherently vague, definition of "fairness". Now, just apply that definition temporally instead of spatially.

MJK in #101 raises the possibility that the Ravens may have been warned of defensive penalties, which is plausible. I guess we will never know.

Why was my posting about the insincerity of ray lewis taken off. The guy was involved in 2 murders, then pretend to cry when he's on TV. Why is he still playing and having his ass kissed.

Just saw the video of Ryan's time out again.

Ryan approaches from the right. It's impossible to know if the official did or didn't see him peripherally. The official made no noticable attempt to confirm that the time out was being called by the HC.

Post #81: Carlos...that's one of the best posts I've ever read.

To that, I'd add:

1) More passing=tougher calls. Interference, possession, and Dholding are probably the three toughest calls to correctly make consistently. The NFL passes more now than in 1978, and the Pats pass more than just about every team.

2. We know that an increased heart rate can impair judgment. You think on MNF with The Undefeated Season on the line before a nasty crowd that officials might not be on their A game?

3. It would help if the broadcasters wouldn't be repositories of misinformation, or at least would explain the rules to viewers, e.g., PI isn't a pure "judgment call," there are dileneated standards, such as on incidental contact when only the Defensive player isn't playing the ball. Etc.

@112 'PI isn’t a pure “judgment call,� there are dileneated standards, such as on incidental contact when only the Defensive player isn’t playing the ball. Etc.' That's an example of a judgment call. It's subjective whether the defensive player was playing the ball. A non-judgment call would be if all contact was PI.

Ryan approaches from the right. It’s impossible to know if the official did or didn’t see him peripherally. The official made no noticable attempt to confirm that the time out was being called by the HC.

Do they ever? Is this the very first time that timeout has ever been called by an assistant coach? Or is this actually fairly common? Does anyone know? Is there any actual reason to think that the officials somehow handled that situation incorrectly?

Regarding the Patriots pact with the Devil.

Imagine the Patriots winning the Superbowl in Glendale after posting a perfect season, fireworks going off, huge celebrations on the Pats sideline. Bob Kraft, Bill Belichick and Tom Brady all line up on the podium. Goodell hands the Lombardi trophy to Bob Kraft and as he takes it really loud rumbling starts. It gets louder and louder until with a mighty thunder clap the ground is rent asunder and the dark lord climbs out of the fiery chasm that has been created. He addresses Bob Kraft and says,

"You have your perfect season capped off with a Superbowl win. You know the arrangement and now I return to claim what is mine!"

Bill Belichick and Tom Brady both look shocked and ashen, they both turn to Kraft and say,

"You too?"

The Bart Scott incident reminds me of the quote, "Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

If the official did, indeed, call Scott a "boy," then Scott had good reason to be pissed. However, Scott has to realize that throwing a tantrum about it is going to get called, regardless of the provocation. Bring that up after the game, not during it.

Bravo to posts 81 and 96. Some very interesting insights in both.

Tim (112): Taking your points out further, if increased heart rate --> impaired judgement, then keep in mind that more passing --> increased heartrate, because the refs have to run around a lot more. One thing I think people don't realize is how in-shape football refs have to be, and how physically demanding it is.

I have much less a beef with the refs than I do in many games, probably also because there were no BS PI calls on either side, or BS "roughing" personal fouls where someone breathes on a QB or kicker the wrong way (the two cheapest calls in the book).

> One other point, grounding requires pressure from the defense.

Both the intentional grounding non-calls under discussion easily met this requirement; the pressure was right on top of Brady in each instance. I agree that the first one was blatant (c'mon, Tommy, at least make an effort to zip the ball at the RB's feet-- Brady nonchalantly dumped this one off well into no-man's land). The second, from the rearview replay, I couldn't see a receiver in the picture, but maybe there was more contact with Brady than I had gathered.

I thought the officiating in the game was for the most part OK. It was as good as can be expected in a game like this one, big games often have this kind of problem. The call or non-call I have the biggest problem with though was the block in the back on the Maroney catch and run. They must just have missed it as it was pretty blatant.

Maybe the fact that Scott got flattened by a hit in the back on one of the Pats biggest plays from scrimmage only to get no flag was part of the reason he was so pissed.

Maybe it is all a big plot to get higher ratings for Mike Perreira's spot on NFL network - 'NFL Network, the only place this kind of wierd crap gets explained' might be a good strapline.

On the subject of what to do on the last kickoff. Even Belichick couldn't possibly deny his kicker the sheer joy of blasting a kickoff straight through the posts. When else are you going to get a chance like that?

Regardless of how the actual game went, what strikes me is how Aaron's column is so clearly written by a Patriot fan. I think the FO writers, if they want this to be thought of as more than a Patriot (and sometimes Eagle) homer site, need to look at their sister site, BP - IMHO, they do a much better job of burying their biases and presenting a balanced perspective.

"Is this the very first time that timeout has ever been called by an assistant coach?"

Nope.

"Or is this actually fairly common?"

I don't know that I would call it fairly common but Jaworski and Tirico took pains to point out that it is far from unprecedented.

"Is there any actual reason to think that the officials somehow handled that situation incorrectly?"

I think the rule as it appears in the rule book is all the evidence you need to
know that this official blew the call.

That the same situation has been blown in the past without being a major factor in an outcome doesn't mean it wasn't blown in this situation.

Malene, it likely doesn't strike you as offensive because you are not part of a group that has been denigrated with the term for a few hundred years. I'm not saying he is a racist. I'm saying he is a dunce for not grasping that it is a term to be a avoided when talking to a black male above the age of 15.

111: Seriously, at game speed (and with the trend towards calling last-second timeouts), how is the ref supposed to take the time to verify who it is before deciding whether to grant it? All he needed to know was that a coach (or player) on the Ravens side wanted the time out. If he takes the time to look, the play might be run by that point.

And that's really a better result, as imagine if the following occurs: Ryan's screaming for the time out, ref checks, sees it's just the assistant coach, ignores it, Pats get a first down. Ravens would be screaming "tuck rule" and that the Pats got away with a technicality.

I think there were some definitely questionable calls to lay on the officials, but that one was completely self-inflicted by the Ravens.

Also, just to clarify, I think it's as much an argument against the last-second timeout shenangians as anything (although it didn't seem that's what Ryan was doing there).

And 121, if it becomes a matter of practice and expectation that it will be granted, to make the exception in this case is very strange, and could just as easily have worked against the Ravens.

Will:

I’m not saying he is a racist. I’m saying he is a dunce for not grasping that it is a term to be a avoided when talking to a black male above the age of 15.

Wait... if we're talking about the same official that Bart Scott had to be restrained from tackling at the end, isn't he also black? Somehow, I don't think the word 'boy' has the same racial undertones from one black man to another as it does from a white man to a black man.

Maybe it's just me.

Why was my posting about the insincerity of ray lewis taken off. The guy was involved in 2 murders, then pretend to cry when he’s on TV. Why is he still playing and having his ass kissed.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's because you're quite clearly an idiot. If you really think Ray Lewis' past actually has something to do with the discussion, try explaining this point with correct punctuation and grammar... for a start.

Re: #122

FWIW, the ref in question is black.

123 -

If the official can't verify who is calling the time out, then you just don't grant the time out. In situations like that it's up to the HC to make himself visible to the official, as in cases where a coach enters the field to show the official that he's challenging a play. There is a trend to calling split-second time outs, but notice that in those cases the HC invariably stands right next to the official and makes his identity and intent obvious specifically to avoid any possible confusion.

I have a different view of your hypothetical. If the official had seen Ryan and ignored him and the play went for a first down the official would have applied the rule correctly and Ravens fans would have to blame Billick for not calling the timeout himself.

MJK in #101 raises the possibility that the Ravens may have been warned of defensive penalties, which is plausible. I guess we will never know.

Well, you'll only "never know" if you live at the bottom of well. Officials in the NFL and NBA spend a tremendous amount of time talking to players, telling them what they're seeing, warning them about repeated infractions and explaining why they didn't make a call the player was looking for.

I go back to my suggestion that those of you casting stones should try refereeing a reasonably fast moving sport. Of course you talk to the players throughout, and of course you're typically saying more constructive things than "Calm down, boy." '-)

I think the fact that the refs wear uniforms that are both black AND white means that they are above any racial strife. Their clothing symbolizes the unity that they represent

Yeah, I know he's black, which means that it is really, really, stupid for him to not grasp that it is advisable to avoid calling an adult black male "boy".

I think idiocy is among the least tolerable shortcomings for someone in a position of authority.

Interesting discussion going on in regard to the last kickoff by the Patriots.

Here is the rule, verbatim, from NFL.com:

"When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines without being touched by the receiving team, the ball belongs to the receivers 30 yards from the spot of the kick or at the out-of-bounds spot unless the ball went out-of-bounds the first time an onside kick was attempted. In this case, the kicking team is penalized five yards and the ball must be kicked again."

By the reading of this rule, and there really isn't room for interpretation based on how it's written, the Patriots would have been best served to kick the ball straight out of bounds as close to the goalline as possible.

The rule says that the receiving team, if they do not touch the ball, would receive the ball 30 yards from the spot of the kickoff, or where the ball went out of bounds.

So, in this instance, if Gostkowski was able to kick the ball out of bounds inside the 5, the Ravens would be forced to start the drive on their own 5 yard line (since the Pats kicked off from the Baltimore 35 yard line).

Notice how the rule doesn't make any consideration for penalties that change kickoff location. For instance, if the Pats were penalized 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct and kicked off from their 15, and then kicked out of bounds. The Ravens would take control on the Patriots 45 yard line, NOT on their own 40.

I think that the wording of the ruling is pretty damn interesting.

I think the fact that the refs wear uniforms that are both black AND white means that they are above any racial strife. Their clothing symbolizes the unity that they represent

no--that just proves that they're prejudiced against Asians

(oh, and Native Americans)

Is a HC even allowed to enter the field with the play clock running?

130 - well played!

Yes, it is more likely to cause offense when a white person calls a black man "boy". That isn't even close to saying that a young black male is unlikely to be be offended if another blacks male calls him "boy". A referee should have a high enough i.q. to grasp that part of his job is to keep tempers in check, and thus comport himself accordingly, and to grasp that calling adult black males "boy" does not fit the bill.

This is my last post on the Ryan time out because I know I'm beating the hell out of this subject.

Personally, I think the game would be better off if coaches couldn't call time out AT ALL.

It would eliminate the potential for the confusion we saw last night. It would eliminate the act of coaches calling a last-second time out to ice a kicker, although players would still be able to do it.

More broadly, I'm generally in favor of things that put more control and responsibility in the hands of the players.

Re: #132

The "rules" on NFL.com are not the official rules, as the NFL alone of the major US sports does not put its rulebook online.

Can anyone with an up-to-date official rulebook (Amazon sells them :) state the by-the-book official rule on kickoffs?

But as AJ says, if that really is the rule, that's rather interesting. Of course, teams don't kick off from the opponent's 35 very often.

It was a great game, and reading this thread weakens the game. Thanks guys!

130:
I think the fact that the refs wear uniforms that are both black AND white means that they are above any racial strife. Their clothing symbolizes the unity that they represent
You don't want to go there, or you'll have to explain why the head ref wears a white hat, and his underlings black ones.
;)

#129
"MJK in #101 raises the possibility that the Ravens may have been warned of defensive penalties, which is plausible. I guess we will never know."

Well, you’ll only “never know� if you live at the bottom of well.
Really? You know for a fact that the refs warned the Ravens DBs they would start calling defensive penalties at the end of the game if they kept mauling the Pats receivers? Man, you must be good at lip-reading. All I guessed was that they must have told Brady to just zip it when he complained about the obvious missed PI on Welker.

re:139

As he stated the rule, is the way I've always understood it. I believe that is correct.

It rarely comes up, and certainly doesn't matter much. Also, if you put yourself in that situation, you should be penalized, and the rule as stated does that.

Re: Aaron in 133:

It's obviously your prerogative to present the material on the site however you choose. I do feel you do yourselves a disservice by not working to present a more objective, global perspective. I also know that it can be done: Joe Sheehan (just to pick one example at BP) is a big Yankees fan, but I never feel that that skews his columns (even though I'm a big Yankees-hater). You will always be accused of bias no matter what you write, and it's certainly possible that I see it when it isn't there. But I think you (all of you) should always be striving to do better. Take it or leave it.

#138, hear, hear, Mikey. I was a child when coaches began to take over playcalling, but I do remember when qbs had much more responsibility in that area. I think is some ways it made for a better game. It certainly made for a sterner test of quarterbacking.

> I’m saying he is a dunce for not grasping that it is a term to be a avoided when talking to a black male above the age of 15.

Referee McKinnely is also a black male over the age of 15-- you did get that fact, right, Will?-- so apparently he is ignorant of his own culture? I don't think McKinnely is ignorant at all; I think he knew exactly what he was doing. He had a couple irate players in his face, and responded in a firm and even intentionally disrespectful way (albeit marginally) to those who were disrespecting his own position. It was getting pretty hot out there-- I thought Bart Scott was actually going to push or strike McKinnely, before he was hauled away by his teammates.

re: 143

I think Aaron is biased. I think sometimes he's biased against the Pats thinking too much about it. Sometimes I think he's biased for the Pats.

You can't really clear bias. It exists, and as long as you know the way it goes, then the issue is resolved.

You need to know one's biases to analyze the situation, and we do.

So we're good. Situation good. Aaron did the correct thing explaining his bias, not trying to overly hide it.

Pats' skill player snap counts (via The Invaluable Mike Reiss):

WR Randy Moss -- 65 of 69 snaps
WR Wes Welker -- 65 of 69
WR Donte' Stallworth -- 56 of 69
TE Benjamin Watson -- 42 of 69
RB Kevin Faulk -- 36 of 69
TE Kyle Brady -- 32 of 69
RB Laurence Maroney -- 29 of 69
WR Jabar Gaffney -- 8 of 69
RB Heath Evans -- 4 of 69
LB/FB Junior Seau -- 4 of 69
LB/TE Mike Vrabel -- 4 of 69
RB Kyle Eckel -- 0 of 69
WR Kelley Washington -- 0 of 69

132:

The problem with aiming for close to the corner is there's a chance that the kick doesn't go out of bounds and Baltimore returns it.

Personally I thought the only play was an onsides kick, but I guess there's an argument for a bad bounce for New England give the ball with baltimore a chance to do something.

I guess the best play would be to ground a kick out of bound about 10-15 yards down field. Keep taking 5 yard penalties and wash about 5 extra seconds off the clock.

Then kick it in for a TB.

138: On that point, we can agree. I think that allowing coaches to call time out has caused more trouble than it's worth. For example, look that the Redskins game - Gibbs would never have been in the position where he'd draw the unsportsmanlike conduct for the second TO if it weren't for his initial TO shenanigans (I hated that he was able to essentially void the initial Lindell kick).

I agree with Aaron, too - I just think the 4th quarter of a close game on 4th down is not the right time to establish a point of emphasis.

In a tight game, the proper move is to kick it through the uprights. Make them beat you. No crazy variables.

Yes, Glen, I got that fact, as I clearly wrote. I'm trying to be charitable to McKinnely. If he deliberately used "boy" in a disrespectful manner, as you assert, that is really inexcusable. He is the person in the authority, thus he has a greater responsibility to maintain self discipline. If he can't do it, then he can find other ways to occupy his time for a few hours on weekends. I really hate how major league umpires have down the path of using direspectful language towards players, and I don't care a bit that players frequently use far more disrespectful language towards umpires. I don't want to see any movement by NFL referees in that direction.

MDS has an interesting post on www.profootballtalk.com, in which he points out that the receiver needs control, not just to have his hands on the ball.

That's right, but I also think Jaws was right that this was a tough call. The problem is that one can still have control and have the ball moving. This occurs most frequently when a player catches a ball, hits the ground, and the ball shifts because of the contact with the ground. As long as the player "maintains control" throughout, that's a catch.

The best way I can see Gaffney's catch being a catch is if you use an analogy, of, say a cup of coffee. If I have a cup of coffee in my hand and as I stand up I shift it to my other hand, it's not that I don't have control of the coffee cup, because I'm moving the cup on purpose. That's what Gaffney's catch looked like to me. But I certainly could see it going the other way.

Of course, I have a lot of trouble thinking that there was "irrefutable" evidence he didn't catch it, so I think they got the review right (unlike in the Giants/Bears game, where I didn't see anything irrefutable at all to overturn the incompletion in the endzone).

The timeout complaints are just stupid. It's their own coach. Just bad luck for the Ravens.

I'm really hoping that after the two timeout fiascos of late, that this obnoxious practice is on its way out. Seriously, it just wastes everyone's time and doesn't do anything useful.

Re: #153

Be fair to Ryan. This wasn't a "make the kicker kick it twice" or "try to play with the other team's mind" timeout. Clearly he must've seen something he didn't like and was trying to call time so he could correct his D.

What was really amazing about this game is that the Patriots had to get very lucky to beat a team that was on a five game losing streak.

154: That might be true. But I actually had the exact opposite reaction when I saw how the teams were lining up. It looked very obvious that the Patriots were going to do their predictable sneak play, and it looked very obvious that the Ravens were selling out on it and they were going to stop it.

Also, despite various reporters' characterizations, the TO wasn't "a nanosecond" before the snap. The ref saw it and started waving his arms a good second or more before the snap. I suspect that with the crowd going bonkers, Brady didn't hear the whistle.

Yeah, Richard, but I think it is less remarkable each time we see the cracks in the Patriots' defense. Maybe the Pats will play in perfect conditions the rest of the way, and score 40 a game, so it will all be a moot point, but their defense has enough issues to make things interesting. I'd love to see the Colts, Jaguars, or somebody beat them in stately Kraft Manor come January, and no, I'm not a Pats hater. It just strikes me as a more interesting thing to watch than a 19-0 season.

> Yes, Glen, I got that fact, as I clearly wrote. I’m trying to be charitable

My apologies Will; our responses overlapped at a point where it didn't seem that you realized that McKinnely was black, and were citing ignorance of black historical context as an explanation (charitably, as you now point out).

Given the clarification I do see your point on responsibility and control. But I can also see that kind of hard, blunt language (again, in context) when it appears that a player might just be crazy enough to attack me, and thus I'm going to let him know his place. As a referee I could see calling someone from my own ethnic group a "young punk" or the like in such a volatile situation where likewise I am clearly being shown disrespect for my position. I guess technically an official should never resort to name-calling or profanity, but given what's coming from the other direction, I know it does happen and I can partially understand it.

So, according to TMQ, McKinnely using "boy" calls into question whether the officiating crew was neutral.

Re: 127

It makes it only slightly worse if a black man calls you a boy, you never, ever, ever in America call a black man 'boy' unless you are deliberately trying to start a fight.

I watched as the jawing continued. That ref was incredibly unprofessional. A professional ref turns his back on a jawing player and walks away. This ref kept on talking, egging him on. It was obviously personal, which should never happen in sport. Probably the ref was so pissed because he knew he was in the wrong.

So, according to TMQ, McKinnely using “boy� calls into question whether the officiating crew was neutral.
He should know, I am told he's an expert in racial sensitivity issues.

And Reiss's look at the positional groupings:

3 WR/1 TE/1 RB – 60 of 69 snaps
3 TE/1 FB/1 RB – 4 of 69
2 WR/2 TE/1 RB – 3 of 69
4 WR/1 RB – 2 of 69

(snaps include four penalties that don't count as official plays)

ANALYSIS: Monday night marked the most straight-up the Patriots offense has played, as it basically stayed in the 3 WR/1 TE/1 RB package all night. The overall usage of just four positional groupings was a season low. For perspective, the Patriots utilized eight different groupings against the Colts. ... It appeared the Ravens' pressure kept the Patriots from being comfortable using the 4 WR/1 RB package, as Baltimore overloaded the right side of the New England offensive line out of that grouping and had the quickness to get to Tom Brady before the receivers could finish their routes. So after the Ravens sacked Brady out of the 4 WR/1 RB package in the first quarter, it was scrapped for the night. ... The tight ends played a key role in pass protection in nthe 3 WR/1 TE/1 RB package, most often lining up to the right side to account for the pressure the Ravens were bringing from that direction. ... The goal-line 3 TE/1 FB/1 RB package that includes Kyle Brady, Benjamin Watson and Mike Vrabel as tight ends, Junior Seau as a fullback, and Heath Evans as the running back scored one touchdown on four plays (2 passing, 2 running). The TD came on a Heath Evans 1-yard run over the left side.

I'm not saying it's easy, Glenn, but the job description includes, never, ever, losing one's self control. The guy fell short of the standard by a wide margin, it seems to me.

In the real official NFL rulebook, the penalty for a kick out of bounds is
"Receivers’ ball 30 yards from the spot of the kick, or the receivers may elect
to take possession of the ball at the out-of-bounds spot or five yards from
previous spot and rekick."
So the Ravens could simply push the Pats back 5 yards and make them rekick, meaning that the Pats gained nothing from kicking out of bounds.

(A different set of rules applies to onside kicks, which are defined as kicks that travel less than 20 yards.)

Heh. From someone's fan blog:

"When are the Patriots going to start playing well again? I'm assuming 'Sixty Minutes' includes the first forty-five."

Re #77 (injury/sickness in AFCC)
#80 blown FG call vs Philly
#91 PI calls, Denver return fumble call

Look, all of those clearly went against the Pats, but in each except #77, fans were split on which was right. I'm not talking about where someone has a beef. I am talking about legitimate, clear-cut events outside Brady's control, and that are clear cut in the execution.
1) He was correctly given a second chance on the obscure tuck rule
2) His kicker hit the FG in the snow
3) His kicker hit one FG to win a SB
4) His kicker his another FG to win a SB
5) Last night, the opposing coaches clearly called a TO, giving him a second chance
6) Last night, his RG clearly false started, giving him a 3rd chance

Look, don't get in a tizzy. I am not saying Brady's not good. I am saying I would like him to be my sidekick when I go to Vegas. He's lived a charmed life. Sure, lots of other things he has influenced have gone for or against him. I am strictly talking about no-brainer, clear-cut events (the FG is good, or not) which he doesn't control.

He alters the cliche, from "I'd rather be lucky than good" to "I'd rather be lucky and good"

And, for reference of a clear-cut, is the FG good or not, example, see Vander-shank, Mike.

My super-long post! Yay!

Not since the SD playoff game last year have I been so wiped out after just watching a freaking game. Add in an offensive player getting a strip, a defense that looked like is was a play away from breaking down stepping up late and a late comeback and there are some similarities there.

Here are my weekly semi-lucid thoughts:

* I am surprised by the amount of controversy that there appears to be with the officiating. I don't quite understand why the refs correctly calling the final few minutes is considered biased against Baltimore. Shouldn't all the holding that they got away with mean that the refs favored them? I am confused.

* Most saw the near tackle of Samuel by Mason, but it seems that not too many noticed that Mason grabbed Gay when he was setting his position (like a rebounder) and literally threw him from the two yard line to 3 yards deep into the EZ. Then he went and grabbed Samuel. Without those plays, there is no way that the pass isn't batted down.

* I am also surprised by the negative tone surrounding Maroney's game - running in particular. Maroney had one play where I felt that he ran poorly; the stuff on 3rd and 1. And on that play it looked to me like he ran up into Mankins expecting the big guy to get a push that never came. I do think that he could have done more with that play, but his running was MUCH better than people give him credit for. He just ran against a very good run defense. Of course couple that with clearly his best blocking and receiving and I walked away from that game thinking that he played extremely well.

* If you want to point to someone who had a bad game, look at Hobbs. He just waited for McGahee on the long TD run and gave a marginal effort to stop him. He was beaten on the subsequent TD as well, although in fairness to him he did slip. But I did see several other times where he could have been more of a factor in run support, but he seemed to decide not to.

* I thought that Watson almost single-handedly kept Baltimore tied in the first half. His dropped TD was an easy catch and he had another play where he absolutely should have gotten a first down but he let himself get stopped by one guy with a 1/2 yard to go. Add another drop and you have a recipe for a very bad half. He did have a big catch late, though.

* Can someone explain to me why NE took so long to adjust from a passive, vanilla type defense to an agressive, attacking style with tons of penetration? Why didn't they do anything possible to force Boller to throw the ball? I was very surprised by this. Obviously some of this is great blocking and intense running by McGahee, but it was no surprise that they couldn't do much once NE got guys in the backfield.

* I found it humorous just how much they kept pointing out Boller's great numbers without pointing out that most of his yardage (at that time) came on a complete fluke play.

* Faulk had a terrific game. He ran very well up the middle (he just seems to squirt through any little hole like a damn mouse) and he had some key catches. The only two negatives were a drop and I thought he could have gotten the first down just prior to the notorious 4th and 1. It seemed that he ran OOB when there was room to push forward.

* I am starting to get worried about the dropped balls. Watson had a couple, Moss should have caught the TD. Faulk dropped a sure 10 yard gain. Stallworth allowed a ball to get into his chest that he subsequently dropped when hit. You can't have that when passing is your identity. Hell, you can't have that period.

* Same criticism, different week. While NE gets a decent push on the pass rush, they seem to get there just a half-second too late all the time. This week, that was joined by a secondary that was just a half second late trying to tip passes.

* I wonder how much this game was affect by Sean Taylor's death. It just seemed to me that the Ravens - with their three most prominant players very close to him - played inspired because of it. Obviously NE has Wilfork and Meriweather who were there as well, but I don't think that the Taylor thing was just an ESPN storyline.

* Was it me or was Welker held on Brady's int? Or, said differently: Was it me, or was Wes Welker held on nearly every route he ran all night? I hate to sound like a Colt fan circa 2003, but whatever. Just don't shove this bias crap down my throat when the calls finally came. You played with fire and ultimately you got burned.

* On the second of the two consecutive sacks of Brady in the second half, it seemed to me that Light had trouble getting out of his stance. Either that or he expect a bull rush, because he was still set when the defender was passing him despite it not being Freeney-esque. It found it humorous that the guy got the sack despite Light getting away with a blatant uncalled hold.

* On Gafney's TD, I have heard many try to make it sound much more controversial than it really was. Lest we forget, the ref said, "The review confirmed the call on the field". He did not say, "there is not indisputable evidence" or something like that. It was a catch. The movement of the ball was Gafney just slipping it under his arm like every WR is taught to do from birth.

Not since the SD playoff game last year have I been so wiped out after just watching a freaking game. Add in an offensive player getting a strip, a defense that looked like is was a play away from breaking down stepping up late and a late comeback and there are some similarities there.

Here are my weekly semi-lucid thoughts:

* I am surprised by the amount of controversy that there appears to be with the officiating. I don't quite understand why the refs correctly calling the final few minutes is considered biased against Baltimore. Shouldn't all the holding that they got away with mean that the refs favored them? I am confused.

* Most saw the near tackle of Samuel by Mason, but it seems that not too many noticed that Mason grabbed Gay when he was setting his position (like a rebounder) and literally threw him from the two yard line to 3 yards deep into the EZ. Then he went and grabbed Samuel. Without those plays, there is no way that the pass isn't batted down.

* I am also surprised by the negative tone surrounding Maroney's game - running in particular. Maroney had one play where I felt that he ran poorly; the stuff on 3rd and 1. And on that play it looked to me like he ran up into Mankins expecting the big guy to get a push that never came. I do think that he could have done more with that play, but his running was MUCH better than people give him credit for. He just ran against a very good run defense. Of course couple that with clearly his best blocking and receiving and I walked away from that game thinking that he played extremely well.

* If you want to point to someone who had a bad game, look at Hobbs. He just waited for McGahee on the long TD run and gave a marginal effort to stop him. He was beaten on the subsequent TD as well, although in fairness to him he did slip. But I did see several other times where he could have been more of a factor in run support, but he seemed to decide not to.

* I thought that Watson almost single-handedly kept Baltimore tied in the first half. His dropped TD was an easy catch and he had another play where he absolutely should have gotten a first down but he let himself get stopped by one guy with a 1/2 yard to go. Add another drop and you have a recipe for a very bad half. He did have a big catch late, though.

* Can someone explain to me why NE took so long to adjust from a passive, vanilla type defense to an agressive, attacking style with tons of penetration? Why didn't they do anything possible to force Boller to throw the ball? I was very surprised by this. Obviously some of this is great blocking and intense running by McGahee, but it was no surprise that they couldn't do much once NE got guys in the backfield.

* I found it humorous just how much they kept pointing out Boller's great numbers without pointing out that most of his yardage (at that time) came on a complete fluke play.

* Faulk had a terrific game. He ran very well up the middle (he just seems to squirt through any little hole like a damn mouse) and he had some key catches. The only two negatives were a drop and I thought he could have gotten the first down just prior to the notorious 4th and 1. It seemed that he ran OOB when there was room to push forward.

* I am starting to get worried about the dropped balls. Watson had a couple, Moss should have caught the TD. Faulk dropped a sure 10 yard gain. Stallworth allowed a ball to get into his chest that he subsequently dropped when hit. You can't have that when passing is your identity. Hell, you can't have that period.

* Same criticism, different week. While NE gets a decent push on the pass rush, they seem to get there just a half-second too late all the time. This week, that was joined by a secondary that was just a half second late trying to tip passes.

* I wonder how much this game was affect by Sean Taylor's death. It just seemed to me that the Ravens - with their three most prominant players very close to him - played inspired because of it. Obviously NE has Wilfork and Meriweather who were there as well, but I don't think that the Taylor thing was just an ESPN storyline.

* Was it me or was Welker held on Brady's int? Or, said differently: Was it me, or was Wes Welker held on nearly every route he ran all night? I hate to sound like a Colt fan circa 2003, but whatever. Just don't shove this bias crap down my throat when the calls finally came. You played with fire and ultimately you got burned.

* On the second of the two consecutive sacks of Brady in the second half, it seemed to me that Light had trouble getting out of his stance. Either that or he expect a bull rush, because he was still set when the defender was passing him despite it not being Freeney-esque. It found it humorous that the guy got the sack despite Light getting away with a blatant uncalled hold.

* On Gafney's TD, I have heard many try to make it sound much more controversial than it really was. Lest we forget, the ref said, "The review confirmed the call on the field". He did not say, "there is not indisputable evidence" or something like that. It was a catch. The movement of the ball was Gafney just slipping it under his arm like every WR is taught to do from birth.

* There were several runs by Baltimore where a NE player missed the tackle because they were trying for a big hit.

Also, I have seen at least 2 plays per game over the past few weeks where it appeared that a NE defender speared a teammate with this same technique.

* My heart stopped when that ball was tipped up at the end. How often is that not intercepted?

* I was kind of surprised that NE didn't onside the final KO. That would have given them the chance of ending the game right then and it would have only cost them ~5 yards of field position over what they did. It also would have likely run another 4-5 seconds off the clock.

* How big was Balitmore running an extra 6 seconds off the clock because they were in the wrong formation?

Clearly NE is in the middle of a downswing. Time will tell if these two teams have keyed in on something that NE legitmately has issues with, or whether it is just a standard lull that every team has.

I am sorry about that. I double posted in one post.

I only intended on adding this to the bottom, not a complete duplication:

* There were several runs by Baltimore where a NE player missed the tackle because they were trying for a big hit.

Also, I have seen at least 2 plays per game over the past few weeks where it appeared that a NE defender speared a teammate with this same technique.

* My heart stopped when that ball was tipped up at the end. How often is that not intercepted?

* I was kind of surprised that NE didn't onside the final KO. That would have given them the chance of ending the game right then and it would have only cost them ~5 yards of field position over what they did. It also would have likely run another 4-5 seconds off the clock.

* How big was Balitmore running an extra 6 seconds off the clock because they were in the wrong formation?

170 (Purds):
The original point was that we have an unbalanced sample, so of course we have more examples of Brady being lucky. By our definition, he can only be unlucky in games he loses, and he has just 14 of those in the last four seasons against 54 wins. With average "luck" we would expect lucky days to outnumber unlucky days by almost 4-1.

Even so, Brady was extremely unlucky in both playoff losses. He had no control over a major flu outbreak in the Colts loss. Against Denver, the Broncos recovered all four fumbles in the game, a 1-in-16 chance, and determined by FO analysis to be unrelated to a repeatable skill, essentially unlucky bounces.

To balance that, Brady would have had to been incredibly lucky in seven or eight playoff wins. But only two of six were close enough to even qualify as luck-driven.

By your standards, Brady and the Patriots are "owed" another 5-8 lucky playoff wins. If anything, Brady has been "cursed", not lucky.

But such is the nature of deals with Satan, yes?

Peter king has " talked to people in the know" about the Patriots/Ravens game, and agrees with me that the Patriots didn't benefit from any bad calls. On the timeout, his sources indicate that "the league has interpreted the rule on a last-millisecond timeout call that the side official cannot be responsible for seeing whether it's the head coach or another coach who calls time. So it's technically legal for Ryan to have called the timeout, and the league's point is the head coach is responsible for controlling his bench." Which makes sense, obviously...

I rarely post here (though I read almost every post) and I am an Indiana resident who doesn't care for the Colts (the Bengals were my team since I was a kid, well before the Colts showed up) and didn't really care one way or the other about the Patriots. I actively dislike the Ravens and always have, but I find myself becoming anti-Pats to the point that I was actually hoping to see Baltimore win. So I started to wonder why? Is it because I don't like seeing anybody win 'em all? Partly, I guess, (I was happy to see the Bears, Broncos and Colts get beat when they threatened to run the table and I'm sure tired of those '72 Dolphins) but to get me rooting for the Ravens? (They played their usual game BTW, tough D, sporadically effective O, no discipline whatsoever)

Is it the cheating thing? Partly, I guess, but I don't think filming the Jets has anything in particular to do with success this year.

Is it that Belichick acts like a paranoid kook even more than most coaches? Partly, I guess, but I think his philosophy on how to run an organization is full of admirable qualities worthy of emulation.

Mostly, I think its because of the Patriot fans/media. This is the same phenomenon that caused me to despise the late 80's Bears. I liked them in '84 but then was inundated by Bears fans who were absolutely convinced that no team could ever be as marvelous as that team, nobody could be as cool as Payton, Dent, MaMahon, Gault, Covert, Ditka, blah, blah, blah. I know now that it was caused by the fans of a historically downtrodden team finally getting their day in the sun, but it still rankled. I thought I was beyond being affected by such things, but this seems like the same thing over again. I liked the '01 Pats, but I've had enough now. I think Aaron Schatz is the antithesis of Bill Simmons, so articles like this one, that make Aaron sound a little like Bill, disappoint me. Be a fan, but not an insufferable one.

Well, let me add, since the server won't let me post yet, that Samari Rolle's and Bart Scott's comments are everything I've come to expect out of the Ravens over the last few years. They show a lack of respect for authority and knowledge of the history of the game.

Speaking of such things, I know I must be incredibly naive, but I had no idea it was considered racist for someone to call a black man "boy". I'm not really old enough to be calling anyone "boy" (such terms call to mind like, a grandfather, or a war veteran, or something, telling stories, or someone like a father chastising a son) but I guess it's good I found out about that.

I may just be completely out of touch with reality, but I had no idea.

This is OT, but is there any way to delete posts while preserving the original numbering of the other posts? Following the discussion becomes impossible otherwise.

#178, Kurt

I started referencing people's nametags as well as their posts after a few of the posts got a little confusing. If everyone did the same it might help a bit.

"f the official did, indeed, call Scott a “boy,� then Scott had good reason to be pissed. However, Scott has to realize that throwing a tantrum about it is going to get called, regardless of the provocation. Bring that up after the game, not during it."

That I disagree with. You talk shit to the referee, don't be surprised when he talks shit back. Handle it properly, like Billick did, and diffuse the situation. Rodney Harrison was talking shit to him, his responce: making kissy faces at him.

". A referee should have a high enough i.q. to grasp that part of his job is to keep tempers in check, and thus comport himself accordingly, and to grasp that calling adult black males “boy� does not fit the bill."

Yes Will, and a player should have a high enough IQ to grasp the fact that insulting the refs is not acceptable. Scott should have been thrown off the field immediately.

80/Carlos:

That was a very, very good post. It should precede all NFL games and discussions of the "analysts" afterwards.

Can't resist one more post...

The explanation from the league is weak. It's a retro-fit (and I feel the league makes a habit of issuing tortured post-facto "interpretations" of rules like this). As Aaron said, either enforce the rule or change the rule, but don't have a rule on the books and then say it's ok to ignore it.

The one thing that the time out is clearly not is "technically legal." That is straight-up bovine excrement. It's accurate to say that it's "literally illegal" but often unenforced due to practical considerations.

Will:
"I’d love to see the Colts, Jaguars, or somebody beat them in stately Kraft Manor come January, and no, I’m not a Pats hater. "

Will, you've stated every one of the last couple of games that you're routing for the other team. You've stated numerous times you want the patriots to lose. A Pats hater is clearly, exactly what you are at this point, whether you choose to admit it or not (not that theres really anything wrong with that)

I meant 84 for Carlos' excellent post.

12:
No DVR here. Also, broken TV and no complaints. Listening to that game last night on FieldPass as called by the Baltimore announcers was awesome. Very exciting.

Nat:

Nice of you to attribute to me your logic. "By your standards"? Why don't you at least be honest, and call this logic your own? Gees. You're the one saying he should get 15 good days with each bad one. I didn't say that, and frankly, I don't follow the thin logic on that one (and, did all those Patriots just die of the flu last year in the AFCC? The farther we get from that game, the more dire the NE situation was. Funny that it barely received a word of reporting on that day-- just like all good urban legends).

And, what's so wrong about calling Brady lucky AND good? You make it seem like he's never gotten a break. Did you honestly say he's had a cursed career? Wow. I never knew. I wish I were so cursed.

Finally, I'm not buying it. I know most of the folks on a numbers-crunching site like this do not believe in luck, and neither do I consider anyone "lucky" in the long term. However, are you really saying Brady was unlucky last night? Unlucky with the tuck rule? Unlucky that his FG kicker hit a deep shot in the snow? Unlucky in AV's two SB winning FG's? Unlucky in Bledsoe getting his chest cavity imploded instead of stepping out of bounds?

I wish I had such terrible luck in Vegas.

(By the way, get over it. This isn't an either/or position. You're taking it as either Brady is lucky or good, but if he's one, he can't be the other. Not true. Good people sometimes get lucky breaks, and he got them last night.)

"Well, let me add, since the server won’t let me post yet, that Samari Rolle’s and Bart Scott’s comments are everything I’ve come to expect out of the Ravens over the last few years. They show a lack of respect for authority and knowledge of the history of the game."

Really? So when the officials start to insult and disrespect Raven players in the middle of the game, the Ravens should "respect authority"? If the refs can't behave in a civil manner, they don't deserve respect. It sucks for the Ravens they had to deal with that distraction during the game (I didn't mind the officiating, though).

The Ravens had this problem in 05: "There's an angry black man! 15-yard penalty!"

"Really? So when the officials start to insult and disrespect Raven players in the middle of the game, the Ravens should “respect authority�"

maybe, but thats not actually the case.

From everything I've read, the Ravens players were making derogatory comments about the Refs well before the refs said anything.

Purds:

Funny that it barely received a word of reporting on that day– just like all good urban legends

And like all people trying to make the urban legends, they practice revisionist history. There was plenty of reports of the Patriots players being stricken with the flu. It started about mid-week before the Super Bowl and was mentioned almost daily up until kickoff. The fact you have a selective memory doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Unlucky with the tuck rule?

How many times has that type of play been challenged and the official called it the other way? Unless you can give me some information, you're basically attributing 'luck' to the correct call being made. Unless you can show me that the majority of the time, upon replay,that goes against the QB, your attributing 'luck' to the play doesn't pan out.

Unlucky that his FG kicker hit a deep shot in the snow?

I'll give you this one, as many kickers probably don't make that kick. In fact, if you lined up Vinatieri to kick that 9 more times that night, he maybe hits 4 more and misses 5.

Unlucky in AV’s two SB winning FG’s?

Those were lucky kicks? Really? By the way, who drove them into field goal range?

It's apparent you don't understand what the word 'luck' means.

A tipped pass that falls in an unintended receivers hands that gains yardage is 'luck'. A correct interpretation of a rule is not. An 80% field goal kicker, who is well above 80% indoors, kicking winning field goals on the carpet indoors is not 'luck'... especially when it was Brady who drove them into that position.

It really is sad how deranged some people become when talking about the Patriots and Tom Brady.

As far as last night, I counted one 'luck' play. The fact a timeout was called before Brady was stuffed on 4th and 1. Of course, if you want to be fair, it was 'unlucky' (based upon your loose definition of 'luck') that Kevin Faulk decided to scamper out of bounds a yard short of the 1st down marker the play before when he could have driven hard for the first down thereby negating the necessity for a 4th and 1 play.

Also, the second 4th and 1 play shouldn't be counted as luck, as the tackler who took down Evans came directly through the hole Logan Mankins (I believe it was LM) vacated early on the false start. Had he not done so, it's unlikely the tackler gets to Evans in time to stop the first down, as Mankins would have occupied that hole.

Between this game and Shanahan's habit of calling for time out a split second before the other team tries a field goal, I bet the Competition Committee considers rescinding the "coach can call a time out" rule this spring.

184:

I'll agree with you that Brady was lucky in the Snow Bowl. I'm not going to agree on the Vinatieri field goals -- in both cases, Brady got him into a position where he should be expected to make the kick.

And I *REALLY* not going to agree that he got lucky last night. At best, his luck was even. There were some lucky plays (Reed fumbling the interception, tipped ball late in the game not being picked, The Timeout), and there were some unlucky plays (the hold on Welker not being called on the aforementioned Reed interception, awful drops by Watson/Gaffney/Faulk/Moss -- two of which cost points).

johnnyblazin:

Really? So when the officials start to insult and disrespect Raven players in the middle of the game, the Ravens should “respect authority�? If the refs can’t behave in a civil manner, they don’t deserve respect. It sucks for the Ravens they had to deal with that distraction during the game (I didn’t mind the officiating, though).

According to the chronological order of events, as I read on either cnnsi or espn, the ref didn't use the term 'boy' until after the first Bart Scott penalty when Samare Rolle and Scott complained about the legitimate holding call, and said a guy (meaning the ref) who didn't play football shouldn't be making those calls. Of course, he did play football, so that insult looks even dumber in retrospect.

I don't condone the ref's handling of the situation. It reminds me of how many umpires handle arguments in MLB. That being said, Rolle and Scott began the confrontation. You make it sound as though they were reacting to it, which is blatantly false.

"Unlucky in AV’s two SB winning FG’s"

yeah, brady was so lucky that in those two games, Vinateri could Hit 22yd and 41yd field goals, while missing 31 and 35 yd kicks. Really friggen lucky.

If anything, he was unlucky in those games. If Vinateri doesn't miss so many chipshots, the games aren't close.

#7. I think you're right. When the league fined Belichick and took away his draft pick for cameragate, that was just a cover. I know, because I'm a league official too. And no, I'm not here to keep an eye on you. Maybe.
Julio

Way back at 99, Fisher: A nugget that I found interesting in the Halberstam book about BB was that one of his significant influences as a young coach was a former coach from the Raiders (McCabe) who described the Al Davis system in Oakland: namely, that players couldn't rest on their laurels, there wasn't a seniority system, and that players would be continuously and rigorously evaluated and graded on their performance and practice, regardless of how long they've been with the team. Apparently, this was fairly revolutionary for the time.

184: Eh, not to pile on, but I just don't find "luck" discussions all that useful. I don't disagree that Brady's been lucky (particularly to be surrounded by talented personnel), but is that rare from SB winners?

I mean, if we define "luck" so broadly, then Kurt Warner was "lucky" that Mike Jones could tackle, Manning was "lucky" that Caldwell can't catch and/or the Colts D intercepted Brady on 3rd and 4, Brady was "lucky" that McGinest tackled Edgerrin James in 2003, etc.

And, of course, the likes of Brady, Manning, and Favre (just to name a few)are "lucky" not to have suffered the kind of freak injury that befelled Palmer, Big Ben, Ronnie Brown, etc. *knocks on wood*

I'm not that worked up about it, but I think that other than stating the general proposition that winners (including Tom Brady) are often lucky, extensive discussion of "luck" never ends well.

#104-MJK:
Brian Daboll is the QB coach with the Jets--Nick Caserio is the new Patriots WR coach.

Rich, it is the professional responsibility of a referee to exercise his authority regarding what happens on the field. People in positions of authority are reasonably held to higher standards regarding their behavior and self control, and if they can't meet that standard they should be stripped of their authority. A referee cannot control the playing field if he cannot control himself.

If hoping that the Pats don't win the Super Bowl makes me a Pats hater in your book, so be it, but I really don't dislike them.

First, one more thought on the success rate of officials. In recent seasons, it's become fashionable on the internet(s) to focus on 4-5 penalty call or non-calls a game, and then conclude that (1) the officials are incompetent and/or (2)the NFL has a systemic problem that it is not managing to the best of its ability, thereby threatening the integrity of the game.

But what is the success rate of the refs implied by these (call it) 5 "big gaffes"? I run into this all the time in my business with auditors. They'll come in, audit transactions, find 5 (non-repeated) issues in their sample of 40 transactions and conclude that this is a huge problem b/c the error rate is 12.5%. That's absurd. Each transactions has about 20 items in it that the auditors are testing, and so the error is more like 5 /(40*20) = 0.6%.

An NFL game has something like 140 plays. Each play has -- very conservatively -- at least 20 "transactions" or "events" that need to be monitored for rule compliance. 5 / (140 * 20) = 0.17%. That seems pretty darn good to me.

Second, thanks for the several compliments to my earlier post. Nice to get at least a little positive feedback!

ESPN's poll question tonight is "Do you want the Pats to go undefeated?"

57% No 43% Yes

8 States Voting Yes: All 6 New England States (lead by NH at 87%) plus Michigan at 62% and Alabama at 52%. Brady pulls the Michigan vote but why would Alabamans(so far) want to see the Pats win out?

Montana (only 96 votes at the moment) are the biggest Pats Haters at 21% Yes followed closely by Indiana at 23%.

re: 189
Link please.

Right, so by questioning a call, they deserved to be insulted. Its a good thing Tom Brady never questions the officials, or else I'm sure he'd be treated the exact same way.

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.

You and the others voicing a similar complaing should take it up with Bill Polian and the Competition Committee.

If you recall, the NFL clarified the defensive holding rule several years ago. DBs must wear tutus and ballerina slippers and are not allowed to play pass defense. I am quite certain that the Patriots were not big supporters of this clarification, so don't take it out on them.

Athelas,

Thanks, my bad. I must have missed the coaching change. Anyway, the Pats need some better hands, and I expect they'll be working on catching drills this week.

Carlos,

You raise excellent points. I was actually thinking about this, and have a thought about why there is the perception that the refs do a bad job. It may be a result of highlight shows and selection bias.

I think everyone will agree that if Team A commits penalty but the refs don't see it and it doesn get called, there is a higher than normal probability that team A will be successful on that play. I.e. if an O-lineman happens to get away with holding a pass rusher, or if a WR executes a successful and uncalled pick, then that improves the probability that there will be a long pass completion. If a DB hits a receiver after 5 yards and knocks him off his route, but it doesn't get called, that increases the probability of an interception.

So plays with uncalled penalties are more likely to be "big plays" than plays that are called perfectly.

Now consider a highlights show, like the sort that is shown on ESPN or NFL Network. They pretty much ONLY show big plays, and almost never show plays that don't count because there was a holding or illegal contact penalty. In fact, the only "highlight reel" worthy plays that contain penalties are typically ones where the refs screwed up big time and it is obvious. This is a clear case of selection bias. The "highlight reel" plays will have a much higher probability of containing uncalled penalties than a randomly selected play would, and the only called penalties they contain will be wrong ones. Hence people who only watch a highlight reel will have the impression that the refs were bad in that game.

Case in point--I didn't see the game, but I saw highlights from the SEA-PHI game this weekend. On every big SEA offensive play they showed, I saw offensive holding; on one of them (a long TD) the DE was essentially taken down with a wrestling move by the LT. My first thought was "Ah, the Seahawks must win games by holding like crazy and the refs must just not be calling it on them". Then I thought about selection bias, and decided I could come to no such conclusion. Maybe the Seahawks only got away with holding on 3 plays. However, there's a much higher probability that they would do something impressive on those three plays because they got away with holding, and so those are the three plays that got shown.

#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.

First, I wasn't talking about mistakes, per se. I was talking about a QB literally bursting into flames without warning in the middle of the field. Now, I'm not sure that the Patriots defense can do that, but it might explain why Belichick doesn't seem too anxious to replace his slow, aging LBs with younger, faster players. Perhaps Adalius Thomas is even more...versatile than we thought? Clearly a superb Free Agent pickup by the Pats in that case.

Second, people make mistakes against the Pats for the same reason they make mistakes against everyone else: they are human.

Seriously, I get that there are many interesting theories regarding the psychology of professional athletes, and how their performance might be affected by trash talking, bulletin board material, momentum, emotion, swagger, intangibles, etc. But before you propose a theory to explain a phenomenon, it's a good idea to at least check to see if the phenomenon truly exists.

I realize that teams make mistakes against the Patriots, but do they really make more mistakes when playing the Patriots, or do we just notice the mistakes more when they happen on MNF against an undefeated team?

Frankly, I'd bet that the Ravens have made plenty of mistakes this season before this game. Like, say, the 4 INTs and 9 Fumbles (8 Lost) in two games against the Bengals. There's a reason they're 4-8, after all.

I don't think we need to posit any "Patriots intimidation variable" to explain the mistakes the Ravens made. Not when the Ravens have been making those kinds of mistakes routinely all season.

What was really amazing about this game is that the Patriots had to get very lucky to beat a team that was on a five game losing streak.

Fans put far too much emphasis on streaks, or team records, or what an opponent did the week before. Sure, there are some really bad teams, but most NFL teams (including the Baltimore Ravens or the Phila Eagles) are more than capable of playing an outstanding game, regardless of their record.

The difference between winning and losing in the NFL is usually razor thin. As often as not, it comes down a few plays here or there.

What matters is not the records of the teams, but the individual matchups and circumstances of the two teams on that particular day.

For example, the Steelers would be no easier for the Pats next week if they had blown two games and had a 7-5 record or if they had won two more games and were 11-1. It's still the Steelers and whatever matchup problems they present to the Pats would still dictate the game.

If you think about it logically, we know that past performance and records don't determine outcomes of games. Otherwise, you wouldn't see matchups between division rivals that go wildly in one direction the first game and wildly the other direction in the second game.

Funny that it barely received a word of reporting on that day– just like all good urban legends

Apparently you were/are too lazy to read injury reports and newspaper articles, at least when they conflict with your little private world. Or maybe it's just that the IndyStar staff is incompetent. In any case, in the week leading up to the AFCCG, the Pats listed multiple players in the daily injury report on multiple days with "flu" or "flulike symptoms". And the Boston papers on the Friday or Saturday before the game reported that some other players (Bruschi was one of the ones mentioned) who were not listed on the report looked like "death warmed over."

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.

Tedy Bruschi said today on the radio that the Pats coaches had shown film of Ed Reed carrying the ball and pointed out Reed's carelessness with the ball and the opportunity for strips on interception returns.

Kevin Faulk took advantage of an opportunity the coaching staff had specifically prepared the Pats team to look for.

What's the old saying? You make your own luck?

For example, the report on the Wednesday before the game:
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/01/inju...

The next two days were "no changes".

Or this from the January 19, 2007 Boston Herald:
FOXBORO - Remember the flu bug that knocked you out earlier this month? Don't feel bad. It's wreaking havoc on the three-time Super Bowl champion Patriots, too. A number of Pats have fallen victim in recent days to the sickness galloping through New England like Paul Revere. Troy Brown and Tedy Bruschi canceled press conferences yesterday, while Mike Wright and rookie Ryan O'Callaghan (as well as Brown) are questionable for Sunday's AFC Championship Game with the Indianapolis Colts.

For the luck thing, statisticians will tell you that luck evens out over an infinite length of time, but games are finite, so one team or another can have better luck in an individual game or even a season. The Patriots were lucky to win that game, since they had a -30% VOA.

MJK - you raise a number of questions that would be interesting to research further, such as, how do the "big 5 call/non-call gaffes" in each game break out between acts of commission vs. ommission; allowing big plays vs. voiding big plays; etc..

You also mention selection bias, and I agree that's a contributor. However, I think even more at play is what Thomas Gilovich has referred to as the failure to treat supportive and antagonistic information even-handedly. Or as someone once mispoke, "I'll see it when I believe it."

The FO authors (whom I admire greatly) clearly believe that officiating is poor and that in turn is clearly biasing what they're noticing and remembering from the games they are watching. Supportive data are noted, remembered and written about. Unsupportive data are ignored.

Wow.

A: "Boy"

Player: "Dude, don't call that wussy call on me. You ain't never played football."
Ref: "Boy, I was knocking down lineman when you were still sucking at your mama's tit."

Am I the only person who reads that as a completely plausible exchange, which as an insult entirely of AGE? Hell, I lived in the South for a few years, and was called "boy", as a white 25-year old, by anyone with a smidge of grey in their hair, with both white and black skin.

B: VOA issue:

Is it me, or is coaching just not something captured in VOA? If the Faulk strip of Ed Reed was a result of good coaching, but isn't captured in VOA, then WTF? If heads up offensive players on the Pats are saving their games by stripping defensive players of interceptions, and we don't include that in the team metric, clearly there is a problem. These aren't random fumbles.

C: Disclaimers:

Yes, I love the Pats. No, I didn't think they played well for the first 45 minutes of the game. No, I didn't think the calls were bogus. Yes, I have a 60" HD TV on which I could watch the football cease rotation on the Gaffney catch and be cleanly transferred to his body, and his arm wrapped around it for further protection. Yes, I think watching Bill Simmons explode might be funny, except I like his Uncle Sal segment. Even funnier will be watching everyone else explode if the Pats keep doing this. It's like watching the 04 ALCS all over again. Yes, I think Hobbs is playing very injured and is avoiding getting creamed by Harrison (again).

Last word that nobody will ever read. I'll feel like I've neglected a duty if I don't say it though.

NOTHING THAT HAPPENED DURING MONDAY NIGHT'S TELEVISED BROADCAST OF SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT REQUIRES YOU TO GET INTO EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS WITH STRANGERS.

It's a game. If you have complaints about the game, well, nobody's forcing you to watch it.

154: That might be true. But I actually had the exact opposite reaction when I saw how the teams were lining up. It looked very obvious that the Patriots were going to do their predictable sneak play, and it looked very obvious that the Ravens were selling out on it and they were going to stop it.

:: Yaguar — 12/4/2007 @ 2:44 pm

Maybe Ryan out thought himself, thought the Patriots only showing QB sneak to trick the Ravens into over committing, then *bam* big play, and oh, better call time-out!

I have to say I am really surprised by the 'boy,' comment. From what I saw on NFL Network earlier this evening the league is investigating. It is not acceptable at all no matter who the ref. This is the first I can recall a ref insulting a player, and I have followed the NFL since 1974.

211 AndyE:

It cannot be predicted with any kind of accuracy whether or not Reed was careless and/or poorly coached while Faulk was exceptionally skilled and/or well coached to cause the fumble.

Once the fumble is forced the recovery comes down to luck (flip a coin).

Why would DVOA want to put something that is fluky and has such a small sample size into its system?

re:180
Harrison is just classless...And Billick is greater now than before...

#214 jas:
Small sample size? The entire game of football is a small sample size. At least twice this season I have seen Patriots players strip a ball, feel the ball leave the hands of the opposing player, track the ball with their eyes, move/tackle the opposing player away from the ball, ensuring a Patriots recovery. (I think the other one was Randall Gay early in the season; whoever it was also had the fumble recovery).

Sure, statistically fumble recovery is apparently random. But is it? If good coaching and headsup play shifts the odds a few points in your favor, isn't that exactly what VOA is supposed to track? That over the average of the league, you have more value in a given circumstance?

200, Fat Tony,

Hey Tony can't you see Bledsoe, who lives in Montana, at his computer frantically typing in
"No" 75 times??!!

Recovering fumbles is random, but causing them isn't. Every team, when they get intercepted on offense, immediately tries to strip the ball from the defender. The Patriots, apparently, happen to be better at it than other teams. As for the recoveries, there are skills that players can use to increase their odds of recovering one, but random chance is still involved.

AndyE #211:

Causing Reed to fumble is credited to the Pats, if I understand correctly. Recovering the fumble is mostly blind luck.

VOA vs. Drive Stats

An interesting feature of the Pats-Ravens game was that, despite the VOA advantage (30% above average vs. 3% above average for each team's offense), the drive stats are almost identical. Depending on whether you count the Hail Mary drive and the run-out-the-clock "drive" at the end of the first half, punts/drive, turnovers/drive, TDs/drive, yards/drive, and first down conversion rate (aka drive efficiency) are all about the same.

If all you knew was those drive stats and the extra 45 yards of field position the Patriots gained on special teams due to penalties, you might have expected the final score. But the VOA numbers (and my own eyes) say the Ravens outplayed the Patriots by 27% on drives, and also won the special teams battle.

So, what's happenning? Does VOA ignore penalties? I gather it ignores forcing fumbles on interception returns - which I understand since the sample size is too small for the stats to be predictive. Were the Ravens getting bonus VOA for style of play? Did a lot of their VOA come from the Hail Mary completion? Does their credit for the interception account for a lot of the VOA?

I'm trying to figure out whether the VOA number is to be believed (Ravens played better but lost) or not (Pats and Ravens played even, but the Ravens final numbers look better because of 50+ yards on a Hail Mary play that was unsuccessful).

I know what I saw, but I also know that our impressions often don't match the reality. Any thoughts?

AndyE:

Sure, causing fumbles is a skill. To what extent this forced fumble is skill on Faulk's part versus carelessness on Reed's part is a matter of opinion.

The Pats do get some credit for the forced fumble in DVOA. Of course, the interception that immediately preceded it is likely a larger negative play than the forced fumble is a positive play for the Pats.

As for sample size - that's why DVOA is based on plays. Every game has hundreds of plays - dozens of them for the offense. Times that by the number of games in the season and you find that forced fumble recoveries after an interception is hardly a predictable event for any team.

I'm not saying it was entirely luck - the Pats have done it enough in the past year to demonstrate that.

I'm saying that given the entire context of the play - the interception preceding the forced fumble (i.e. poor skill then high skill) led to a lucky outcome.

Andrew, jas, AndyE,

The fumble by the Raven's defense was not counted in DVOA. The sample size of defensive returns is too small to get any predictive value out of defensive fumbles. Aaron made a point of mentioning this in this week's DVOA thread.

Disclaimer: Colts Fan.

Most fans believe their team was screwed in nearly every close game. I don't think the officials won or lost this game. It's tiring to see/hear, week-in and week-out, so many focused on perceived one-sided officiating.
I played quite a bit at several different levels. Here's what I know...no matter how good or bad the officiating, my teammates and I had almost total control over the outcome of the game. Luck doesn't exist. There is no such thing as losing a game because of the flu, or because it was too icy or whatever other bullshit excuses you want to make. My point, the Patriots have been executing better than others. Most of the time if you out-execute your opponent, you win. This was, perhaps, the only game where they should've lost. I think DVOA supports my position.

220: The Ravens penalties were the difference in the game, and penalties aren't counted in VOA. The hail mary didn't affect the VOA much for either team. As for who played better, it depends on how you view the penalties. On plays not negated by a penalty, the Patriots were on the whole outplayed, but the Ravens kept committing penalties, and that was nobody's fault but their own. I think the team that should have won was the Patriots, because the didn't have as many mistakes as the Ravens did.

Do people think these games are really fixed? "Tuck Rule" Oh yeah maybe they are fixed:)

223 BigB:
I pretty much have to agree.

There are two modes of talking about luck in the NFL. In one, events beyond your control are part of the game. It is not bad luck to have your team weakened by the flu. It's part of the game that you need to avoid if possible and plan for, much like weather, field conditions, altitude, officiating style, fumble bounces, etc. In the other mode, non-skill-related events are "luck", and are grist for the might-have-been mill.

I've referred to the Patriots flu outbreak against the Colts last year. Please do not take that as an excuse or as disrespect of the Colts. In the first mode, which I think is the one that counts, the Colts played better and won. I only consider the flu "luck" when I'm discussing luck in the second mode.

For all we know, a healthy Patriots team would have overpursued the Colts offense, given up more big plays, and lost in a blowout. Anything could have happened, which is why the second mode of talking about luck generally doesn't get very far.

I counted four blatantly obvious, huge calls that all went the Patriots way. I'm not even counting the little things that may or may not even out over a game. If those four were called correctly, or even if they went two each direction, the team that actually won the game would have walked away with a victory. It is asininely stupid, and by stupid I mean an inability to think on a basic level, to claim that officiating does not effect games and that bad or deliberately preferential officiating does not change the outcome of games.

This is a clear example of a game in which the outcome was changed by the application of the rules by the officials. Whether it was deliberate or not is not known at this time.

While I know that nothing I say to the legion of idiot Patriot fans on this site isn't going to make any difference, surely others can recognize that games like this cause some people to lose faith in the integrity of the NFL and to curtail their support of the league. This sort of thing grows on itself. The more games like this, the more that cheaters are assumed to win in the NFL, the more a portion of the population will start to turn away from the league. If you care about football, then you want to combat the perception that the games are fixed. If improvements aren't made, then people will someday look back at this and see that this was the zenith of the NFL and their inability to control the officiating led to their NBA-esque decline.

I know Patriot fans are hardwired without rational thought when it comes to their Patriots, but perhaps some can at least agree that the perception of bad officiating or corrupt officials is bad for the NFL.

RE: 218

Don't go spreading that! If teams start to realize this, they'll intercept the ball and fall on it (like they should), instead of trying for glory.

I think Reed is a top 3 safety in the league and a great returner, so maybe he thought he could score a TD. But in that situation, having the lead with very little time remaining, falling on it was the best thing to do.

But I thank him, and whoever it was last year on SD. And I thank Faulk and Brown, and whoever coaches them that.

"It is asininely stupid, and by stupid I mean an inability to think on a basic level,"

to say the following:

"While I know that nothing I say to the legion of idiot Patriot fans on this site isn’t going to make any difference"

Double negative. And please, document those four blatantly missed calls for me, because I didn't see them.

227: Wow, I guess more ad hominem remarks are what this thread needed. Nice.

I assume the Mason OPI was too subtle to make it in your calculation?

Which four plays are you talking about, by the way? The Gaffney TD couldn't have been one of them, as I can't imagine how you can plausibly say that the Ravens "would have" walked away with a victory had that call not happened. It wasn't a fourth down play (even leaving the Scott penalties aside).

Similarly, the purported Moss OPI wouldn't have ended the game either.

And I can't imagine that you're completely ignoring situational football and saying that the Ravens "would have" won the game if it weren't for the Scott penalties (by adding 30 yards to the end of their drive)?

Please, if you're going to attack a group of fans as idiots, stating vague generalities as facts doesn't help your cause.

I remember back during the 2003 and 2004 seasons when the Patriots went 14-2
and won Superbowls. After winning a close game, the other team said things
like "They're not that good." Many opposing players wonder out loud how they
lost when they know they are better than the Patriots. It's as if the opposing
players thought they outplayed the Patriots and were surprised that they had
fewer points on the scoreboard at the end of the game.
If the losing team says this only once or twice, you discount it, but almost
every team (the players) said this so you know there is some sort of repeatable
pattern here.

Belichick teams prepare for different situations every week. I get the impression
that they prepare for more special situations than any other team. In close games,
the outcome usually is dictated by just a few plays. If the Patriot players have
practiced those specific situations (like how Ed Reed specifically holds the football
after a turnover) that occur during critical junctures of a game and the other team
hasn't, then the probability of a favorable Patriot outcome is very high, resulting
in a won game.

Note that during the Ravens-Patriots game, the Patriots were never more than 7 pts
behind the Ravens. The scored was tied at the end of 3 quarters (yes, the Ravens
scored at the beginning of the 4th). So even if the Ravens appeared to clearly
outplay the Patriots, the score indicated a very close game.

I believe there are intangibles that can definitely affect the outcome of the games
that are not only not being measured, they are not being recognized other than
"better prepared", "luck", "more disciplined", or "better coached".

I counted four blatantly obvious, huge calls that all went the Patriots way.

Could you list them, please? I counted zero.

#227:
I counted numerous plays of dubious sportmanship by the Ravens, who were obviously being allowed to freely foul the Patriots all game long, hence the screaming by Vrabel at the officials at the end of the game. In particular, on the pass int call on Watson at the end of the game, that was obviously intentional interference, with a coordinated attempt by two defensive players to maim Watson. One flys behind him with his arm out straight to hit him in the neck with a glancing blow
(i.e., clotheslining)while the other passes in front of Watson going the other way to confuse the view of the play to officials. I imagine that was part of what Harrison was giving Billick a hard time about.

"If hoping that the Pats don’t win the Super Bowl makes me a Pats hater in your book, so be it, but I really don’t dislike them."

Its not that Will. You hoped the colts won. You hoped the ravens won. You hoped the eagles won. You hoped the cowboys won. You hope the patriots lose.

Again, if you have to qualify things by saying "I'm not a ....", you generally are.

Comments like 227 (perplexed) are not even worth reading. When a person is so obviously jaded, his ability for rational thought evaporates. It's ironic that 227 rails about rational thought.

I'm surprised VOA doesn't take penalties into account. I can see logic for not crediting the non-penalized team's VOA, but I can't see logic for not penalizing (in VOA) a team that is penalized on the field.

Isn't VOA supposed to measure how a team performs on average over a large sample of plays? If on every snap, a team has a 50% chance of gaining 10 yards (which ought to lead to a huge VOA) but a 50% chance of getting an offensive penalty, then that team is probably not going to win very many games. If a defense stops 99% of long pass plays when no flag is thrown, but gets called for DPI on 20% of their plays, then they're not going to win many games, either.

I think a pretty good argument that a large part of the Pats low VOA and the Raven's good VOA (at least when the Pats had the ball) is due to the fact that the Ravens DB's were playing to the very edge of the rules regarding contact. Every now and then they stepped over the edge. And so they got flags. It was a risk-reward strategy--they traded a higher probability of getting a key flag against them for being able to play better defense. It almost payed off, but not quite...

#227: This is a clear example of a game in which the outcome was changed by the application of the rules by the officials. Whether it was deliberate or not is not known at this time.

Strictly speaking, that is true. If the referees had applied the rules as written and reiterated by the Polian-sponsored "points of emphasis" in 2003, then the Ravens would not have been able to mug the Patriots receivers all game, and the final result would have likely been closer to 40-24 for the Pats than 27-24, but so be it.

The fact that the refs started applying the rules correctly only in the final minutes of the game can explain, and I think partially excuse, the frustration the Ravens defenders felt (and as I stated before, it's an example of bad refereeing in itself). But it is simply absurd to claim that because all of a sudden the refs chickened out from effectively throwing the game to the Ravens by shoddy refereeing, then they must have intended to throw it to the Pats by applying the rules.

Luck doesn’t exist. There is no such thing as losing a game because of the flu, or because it was too icy or whatever other bullshit excuses you want to make.
I tend to agree with this, to a large extent. But note that the original argument was raised by Purds, who stated that Brady was supposedly "lucky" because he got to three SBs, and won 2, thanks to clutch kicks by his kicker, events which he called "beyond his [Brady's] control". I just pointed out that putting a kicker in the position of winning a game is very much in a QB's control, and not all QB's succeed in doing it when it matters, while a flu outbreak is outside of a QB's control.

I could have pointed out that Manning needed the very same kicker to kick 5 (or at the very least least 3) FGs to win his one SB, but that would have been just cruel. ;)

Isn't kicking from an opponent's side of the field an ideal time to try an onside kick? It isn't like you give up that much if you do not get the ball.

227: I think you got lost here on your way to me. Please reset your nav system.

1) Block to the back during Maroney's 42 yard run after the catch.

2) Hands to the helmet of the quarterback.

3) hitting the QB below the knees after he released the ball

4) The TD 'catch'.

I can excuse the Patriot fans. They are so use to seeing the patriots get every call that they actually do not know the rules or how they are applied to other teams.

MJK, pray do tell, in your fortress of rational thought that exists safely insulated from any hint of jadedness, how is it irrational to believe that in a sport worth billions of dollars, on which billions every year are wagered, it is possible that officials are influenced to make calls one way or the other.

I'm interested in your analysis which proclaims that it is totally outside the realm of possibility for officials to be corrupt. It is so far outside the realm of possibility that it is apparently totally insane to even bring up the idea. Please do explain yourself. I would love to know why I am being dismissed out of hand as irrational.

1- That is a game changing play? Baltimore would have "definitely won" had it been called?

2- If you saw the replays, (if we are thinking of the same play), Thomas grabbed his shoulder pad. If not, I don't know what play you're talking about.

3- He dove, the QB released, he hit the legs. It wasn't intentional, not flaggable, in my opinion.

4- Sorry, plenty of authority types have already ruled that this was either a catch, or at least there was not indisputable evidence that it was not a catch, so there was no way to overturn it.

As someone else mentioned, being able to see frame by frame video in HD has made every fan think they know better than the referees. It isn't meant to be broken down to that level, for one, and even if it is broken down, he was transferring the ball to his right hand.

239: perplexed

I don't have the benefit of a DVR to review the plays but I also wondered about your points 1, 2 and 4 during the game.

1. Initially, I also thought I saw a block in the back when the play actually happened. ESPN ran a replay from a different angle and I saw the blocker block the side of the defender with the blocker's head in front of the defender. I can easily see that an official won't throw the flag upon seeing this.

2. I also thought Thomas hit the head of the QB but an earlier post here says that a slow motion replay shows that Thomas actually only hit the shoulder pads and not the helmet.

3. Don't know what play you're referring to.

4. I think the numerous replays on my TV shows that an official could have called it either way. I don't have an HDTV so maybe that shows a catch. The official on the spot indicated a catch and there definitely was not enough evidence to overturn it.

Every team, when they get intercepted on offense, immediately tries to strip the ball from the defender. The Patriots, apparently, happen to be better at it than other teams. As for the recoveries, there are skills that players can use to increase their odds of recovering one, but random chance is still involved.

I was interested in finding out whether the Patriots are really that good at forcing/recovering fumbles on interception returns, so I did a bit of checking. Since 2004, Tom Brady has thrown 51 interceptions (including playoffs), and 5 of them have been fumbled. 2 were recovered by the player who fumbled, one was fumbled out of bounds (Champ Bailey in the playoffs), and 2 were recovered by the Patriots (Marlon McCree in the playoffs and Ed Reed on Monday).

So, in the last four years, the Patriots have recovered a fumble after a Tom Brady interception twice (they've also allowed two TD returns on Brady interceptions, fwiw). I think it's perfectly reasonable to ignore those fumble recoveries in DVOA when they only happen about once every two years.

Alex,

If we accept that fumble recoveries are random, then the Pats have caused interceptors to fumble 5 out of 51 times, or at a 10% rate. That's certainly higher than say, kick or punt returners (other players who get the ball in space and try to run a long way with it) fumble.

So either the Patriots really are good at causing fumbles by interceptors, or interceptors (i.e. defensive players, usually other than linemen) are worse than kick and punt returners at protecting the ball.

I'd bet it's mostly the latter, although if the Patriots do specifically practice that and other teams don't, it's interesting. I wonder what the average fumble rate during interception returns is league-wide?

#239: I would love to know why I am being dismissed out of hand as irrational.

Because people are sick of hearing conspiracy theories about officials every time the Patriots win a close game? Because people only complain about officiating conspiracies when the alleged officiating errors hurt the team they like/help the team they dislike? Because if the officials were really trying to help the Patriots go undefeated, they wouldn't have penalized them 10 times for 146 yards in the game against the Colts, while Indianapolis was only penalized 4 times for 25 yards? I don't know, it's an interesting question.

The more games like this, the more that cheaters are assumed to win in the NFL, the more a portion of the population will start to turn away from the league.

You know, conspiracy theorists have been warning us about stuff like that for years, yet the NFL keeps getting more and more popular. I wonder when these jaded fans are going to finally stop watching?

If you care about football, then you want to combat the perception that the games are fixed. If improvements aren’t made,

Improvements like what? Making the officials omniscient? Because that's about the only way to completely eliminate the perception that the games are fixed. As long as there are officiating errors, someone will claim that the games are fixed. And as long as the officials are human beings, there will be officiating errors.

Don't believe me? Try officiating football or soccer, where there are lots of players moving very quickly over a large field, and a ton of rules to enforce. Then, have a few people take videos of the games you officiate from various places, so that you get several angles to view the action. Then, have someone with sufficient knowledge of the rules watch all that game film, and see if they can find any errors. I guarantee you, there will be plenty. And some of them will probably look like pretty blatant errors, as well.

Or, instead of reviewing game tape, you could just listen to the fans on the sideline yelling at you about all of the horrible calls you've been making, and otherwise harassing you as you try to work. Oh well, at least the pay's good.*

*The pay usually isn't very good.

Regarding the block in the back (and AFAIK, a block in the back is NOT the same as a clip)... I don't recall seeing any good angles of that part of the play. The one replay from behind the line of scrimmage made it look as though it might have been in the shoulder and not the back, so at the very least, I think there is some question as to whether it was an infraction or not.

I am agast at the amount of people who actually believe that NE was favored against Balt in any way whatsoever. Not to be a jackass, but I really have to question either your eyesight or your objectivity.

Wasn't it just four years ago that the entire football world was turned upside down by those scary rough Patriots? Every football program led off with someone showing a clip of Pollard being held or Law clutching at someone or Bill Polian threatening to take it up with the comp committee.

Fast forward four years and NE has reluctantly remolded their team after the emphasis, only they did a better job than anyone had done prior. Now, though, everyone applauds the Ravens tough hard-nosed play and they bitch when a play where two blatant penalties occur happens to be flagged. C'mon people. The Ravens were much, much worse than NE ever was. They held Welker on every play where he as able to get off a legal jam. They grabbed the jersey of nearly every receiver who was crossing free in front of a defender. So an action done by a NE player is dispicable, but if done by someone against NE it is to be lauded? Give me a break.

And what is with all the "NE gets the calls" nonsense? Have any of you ever watched a NE game in the past couple years? Sure the tuck thing was controversial, and NE certainly did get a way with some clutching and grabbing in the 2003 AFCCG, but it seems that some of you have formulated your opinions on just those games. If anything, NE is watched more closely than most teams and has been for some time. Doesn't anyone remember the worst officiated game of alltime in the playoffs against Denver in 2005? Or the three incorrect secondary calls in last year's AFCCG? Or the Indy game just 4 weeks ago? Oh, wait. They went against NE so they must have been solid.

I am saddened to see the quality of the commentary drop on in such an embarassing manner.

If we accept that fumble recoveries are random, then the Pats have caused interceptors to fumble 5 out of 51 times, or at a 10% rate. That’s certainly higher than say, kick or punt returners (other players who get the ball in space and try to run a long way with it) fumble.

So either the Patriots really are good at causing fumbles by interceptors, or interceptors (i.e. defensive players, usually other than linemen) are worse than kick and punt returners at protecting the ball.

Don't forget about random chance. The sample size here is small enough that it could easily just be luck. For example, in weeks 7-8 of 2004, Priest Holmes had 4 fumbles in 60 touches (54 carries + 6 receptions) for a 6.7% fumble rate. He then had 1 fumble in his next 211 touches (0.5%). Over his career, he had 16 fumbles in 2119 touches (1780 carries + 339 receptions) for a fumble rate of 0.8%.

Also, I would agree that the rate of fumbles on interceptions is probably higher than that of kick/punt returners, simply because the people making the interceptions don't usually have much experience carrying the ball.

#236: Slo-mo-jo

I wasn't referring to any original argument. My point is many of the people here focus so much on the officiating and other nonsense when that stuff is so secondary to on-field performance. The Colts win last January was as legit as any past Patriot win. Most Pats fans thought they should've won the AFC championship last year. Well, most Indy fans thought the Colts should've won a few weeks ago.The flu, top players being out, iced up field, bad calls, all that stuff is just noise. You outperform your opponent and that's all there is to it. If you don't then you can likely expect a loss. It's simple. Bart Scott & other Ravens know that but it's hard for them to accept the fact that every so often, you do outperform your opponent and still lose.

Now we know why the Redskins have "head coaches" at every turn: more legal timeout callers.

51 - Purds - Brady is the luckiest QB alive? And Manning is very unlucky I suppose?

How about in the Indy/Jax game when Utecht caught a ball, ran three steps and fumbled it to Jax. The play is challenged and the ref comes back with "After reviewing the play, it was an incomplete pass." INCOMPLETE PASS? Are you kidding me? I never would have imagined that was even an option. Of course, CBS never showed a replay of the "incomplete pass," (except the actual fumbling part) and unless you could DVR it, you probably didn't give it a second thought. The networks obviously don't show this horrendous call. They show only the 48 yard TD pass that happens on the next play.

Any Colts fan out there that doesn't think you've received the benefit of favorable calls for several years is in denial.

Calls go both ways and even out in the end. The only difference is that when the Pats are on the wrong end of the calls, you don't here about it from anyone in the Pats organization. Blaming a loss on poor officiating is loser talk, something that Polian and the Colts know all too much.

Late to the party here - but the thing that stuck out to me about the game was mostly how close it was to being a Pats blowout.

Think about it - Moss and Watson were open in the end zone 5 times, actually got their hands on the ball all 5 times -- and only got 1 TD out of it.

If, say, they get 3 TDs instead of 1, the Ravens are playing from way behind - they abandon the run which was so successful in the 3rd qtr - and put the game in Boller's hands.

Boller turns the ball over an extra time or two and the Pats score a bit more from that - and suddenly this game looks like many other games the Pats have played this season and the media is back to talking about "juggernaut" instead of "blueprint".

However, the Pats aren't quite as good as their first 9 weeks where they executed nearly perfectly on offense....but they certainly aren't as bad as they were this past week where tons of drops almost took them down.

Every team has games where there is a disproportionate amount of bad stuff that happens...even if just by random chance...it is just that the Pats are good enough where they get away with it.

As a disappointed Ravens fan, I thought I would put in my two cents worth.

I thought the calls at the end of the game were at least defensible, although I thought the holding call on Winbourne was ticky-tack.

The calls that bothered me were the block in the back on the long pass and run by the Patriots and what I perceived to be the repeated failure of the officials to call roughing the passer when Boller was getting beat up. At least twice he took blows to the head that were not called. Also he got hit at the knees twice and that wasn't called. There is no doubt in my mind that if those shots had been taken at Brady there would have been flags.

Still, it was a very exciting game in a disappointing season. At the end of the year, I'll be glad of the better draft position the loss will bring