Yahoo! Sports Dan Wetzel is a whiny cry baby
by Brad Wells on Nov 17, 2009 9:41 AM EST
in Bad Journalism
Email
PrintSeriously Dan? I mean, seriously?
The worst call of the final 2:08 of the Indianapolis Colts’ 35-34 victory over the New England Patriots on Sunday wasn’t made by Bill Belichick.It came courtesy of head linesman Tom Stabile, who on the now-infamous fourth-and-2 attempt, ruled Patriots running back Kevin Faulk(notes) was juggling the pass until he landed on his back inside the 30-yard line.
Replays show Faulk had jumped in the air and initially batted the ball up. Stabile could see that. Faulk, however, then cradled it into his chest as he planted one foot on each side of the 30 before being pushed down.
Whether replay would have been conclusive enough to overrule Stabile’s call is unknown. The NFL may claim the call on the field would’ve stood, but who knows what would’ve been determined.
Since Wetzel is too dense to see just how pathetic he looks writing this stupid, seemingly redundant "the refs blew the game" love letter to Bill Belichick, I'll just state the obvious for him and anyone else who thinks along the same lines.
Wetzel is wrong in his replay assessment. Completely, flatly, and blatantly wrong. Tom Brady's pass hit Kevin Faulk in the hands. He was then met hard and driven back by Melvin Bullitt, forcing Faulk to bobble the ball. Bullitt drove Faulk back and by the time Faulk had complete and total possession of the football, he was a yard short. Using the TV "line" is not official. It is where the stick are on the sidelines, and from the vantage point of just about every possible TV angle, Faulk had possession when he was one his back, one yard short. That was the call on the field, and after about a billion replays, that is what we viewers saw.
But even if Faulk did make the first down (he didn't, but let's speculate just so we can make Wetzel look even more ridiculous), the Patriots were unable to challenge the play because Belichick and Brady had blown all of their second half timeouts. Now, what's funny about this is Wetzel acknowledges that:
Since the Patriots had blown their timeouts and the play came just outside the two-minute warning, which would’ve triggered an automatic review, it’s all a moot point.
Um, OK. If it's a moot point, THEN WHY DID YOU WRITE THIS STUPID ARTICLE BLASTING THE CALL!
I mean seriously, you got paid to write this, Dan? Paid actual money?Good grief. The article is nothing more than a hit piece on the refs, but even in that Wetzel falls short, pathetically trying to frame how "hard" it is to call NFL games.
you can't have it both ways, Dan. You are either blasting the refs about the call, which would make you look like the Patriots homer you so obviously seem to be, or the call was right on the field and you dispel any suggestion that the refs spoiled the game for Belichick and the Patriots.
Bottom line: The call was right. Replay backed up the call, and even if it didn't the Patriots couldn't challenge it because they mis-managed the game.
So, in a nutshell, Wetzel's article is just a quick hack piece he "mailed in" without thinking about how stupid it reads.
Dan Wetzel = lazy and overpaid.
[UPDATE]: Apologies to the self-important grammar Nazis for the spell check adding a "r" to Wetzel's name. I'll also add that "bad journalism" isn't poor grammar or a lack of spell checking. That's being "human," especially when your site doesn't have a gaggle of interns or proof readers to double-check that stuff. Bad journalism is getting the story or the facts wrong, which Wretzel... er, Wetzel did.
123 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Blah blah blah
YOU DON’T TALK ABOUT THE COLTS THAT WAY!!!1
Geez, I think you’re missing the point. Wetzel (that’s how his name is really spelled, BTW) is pointing out just how narrowly that missed being the winning play of the game. A slightly different angle by the ref – or Billy not blowing his last timeout – and the Pats might very well have iced it right there.
Instead every armchair QB in the world gets to feel smug and superior to the great Belichick because OF COURSE he should have punted it! Dan Wetzel calls bullshit and so do I. It was the narrowest of razor-thin wins that could have been tilted by any one of dozens of plays. Piling on the “Bill sucks” bandwagon is silly and short-sighted.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
Also
Let me reiterate how much I love seeing this filed under “Bad Journalism” when the headline is misspelled. Awesome.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
LOL...
that is pretty ironic!!
"If me and King Kong went into an alley, only one of us would come out. And it wouldn't be the monkey."
"I don't really trust a sane person."
"I never met a man I didn't want to fight." The one and only Lyle Alzado
Ooh, I'm a self-important grammar Nazi
Or am I several of them? I get so confused.
Personally I think good journalism is putting aside HOMER RAGE just long enough to absorb the actual point a writer is trying to make. Wetzel took the time to lay out a case that Stabile might very well have muffed the call, or at the very least that he wasn’t in the right position to call it at all. Was Stabile wrong? Maybe, but as Dan himself says just an inch or so down, it happens. The call itself is moot, it’s not the point.
The point is that 90% of the writers on the planet are under the delusion that it was a flat-out bad play call and it wasn’t. Actually take the time to look and you can see just how close it was.
If you want another opinion, John Czarnecki at Fox Sports says it better:
OK, this is a huge black marker on the Belichick resume as the NFL’s greatest coach. I guess he doesn’t play poker enough. If you are going to gamble big, you go all in. Push your chips to the middle and really go for it.
That’s where I fault him.
When going for the victory, try something more exciting that a three-yard completion to Kevin Faulk. Why not isolate on Moss? Allow Randy to make a double move and chuck it 10, 15 yards down the field, allowing him to run away from his defender. Or a quick slant or a crossing pattern to Wes Welker.
It’s a good point. Maybe not worth much 48 hours after the fact, but still a good point. And it’s worth a goddamn lot more than just screaming at someone who actually took the time to come up with a point just because you think they’re disrespecting your favorite team.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
I've said the same
comments with regards to the play call by the Pats. In fact, I said it practically right after the game. On 4th and 2 you go to Moss, not anyone else….
by DevilsReject on Nov 17, 2009 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
Not to mention
the entire series of events was doomed to fail.
Bring out the punt team….stop them halfway out….call last timeout….decide to go for it on 4th down at the 28….design play for Faulk OR go to Faulk when Welker was open….rub hands on face….bow before Peyton…..run to sideline and nearly whiff on Caldwell handshake….have security guy throw down cameraman.
Good times.
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
Honestly, and it pains me to a degree I think everyone here will understand, I’m sick of the national media killing Belichick for going for it. There wasn’t a Colts fan anywhere that didn’t see them line up on 4th and 2 and think “Oh crap, they’re going to throw it to Welker or Moss or Faulk or just run it up the middle and get the two yards, and that’s the ballgame.” because it’s the Pats. They do this all the time. And they succeed roughly 3/4ths of the time when they do.
Every mathematical formula I’ve seen says that going for it is the better play. And it’s not even close, unless you fudge the numbers and assume something like 100% win probability from the 30, and 0% from the other side of the field, and even then it’s still not that close.
Belichick did what he thought was best to win the game. The Colts JUST went 70 yards in a buck fifty. You think that wasn’t fresh in his head? He had a better than 70 percent chance of winning on that play. It just didn’t go right, that’s all.
I would hope that Caldwell would do something similar in that position, but, well, I wouldn’t bet on it.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go hop in a scalding hot shower and scrub myself until my skin is raw because I just had to defend Bill Belichick from the mainstrem media. I may gargle with bleach. I may not. Just saying, it’s an option.
Bob Sanders eats a forest on Friday so he can lay the wood on Sunday.
http://monkeybiziu.deviantart.com
by MonkeyBusiness on Nov 17, 2009 10:28 AM EST reply actions
Totally agree with you there. It’s not like the Pats were having a hard time gaining yardage on the Colts.
I would have gone for it too, but I’m just surprised they threw it to Fault who was behind the line of scrimmage. I would think Moss or Welker would have been a better option, or just running the ball up the middle.
To heck with the "math"
… the math cannot account for all the variables involved in this game. Those percentages are built on all teams plays from 4th and 2 over several years. There is more noise there that’s inapplicable to the situation at hand than the Advanced NFL Stats guy thinks.
Funny thing is, that actually favors going for it even more. You’re not talking the average of all NFL quarterbacks from 4th and 2, you’re talking Hall of Fame bound Tom Brady. And you’re not talking the average of all NFL quarterbacks driving it in from 70-some yards, you’re talking Hall of Fame bound Peyton Manning. I’d love to see numbers compiled on those players alone in similar situations alone, not the average of all quarterbacks who’ve ever played. There will be a higher percentage of Peyton Manning driving that 70 yards for a touchdown because it’s Manning we’re talking about here; on the flipside, there will be a higher percentage chance of Tom Brady making that 2 yard conversion because it’s Tom Brady. Not Rex Grossman, or Tim Couch, or Joey Harrington. We’re talking Brady and Manning here. Because Manning had a high chance of driving that 70 yards, and because Brady had a high chance of making those 2 measley yards, why in God’s name would Bellichick punt?
On top of that, there’s a non-statistical point to be made: In one play, in order to win the game, who’s playmaker do you want to have to ball? Yours, or the oppositions? I made that exact point in the comments here in Deshawn Zombie’s 18-to-88 blog: Are you going to trust your playmaker to make two yards, or your opponents playmaker to screw up in 70? Why cede control of the ball in that situation when only two yards are needed? And when you’ve been carving that defense all night for way more than 2 yards at a stretch?
Look, I admit, this is weird thinking “How could the Pats have beat my team?”, but seriously, that’s the analysis I’m making. If New England would’ve converted, we’d all be morose over Bill Bellichick’s genius and guts in making that call and beating our team. The fact that it failed doesn’t change the fact that I see it as being the best call possible under the circumstances. All the other national yay-hoos (including the yahoos who write for Yahoo; how appropriate, they’ve achieved the label that they deserve) only see the loss. They’re reverting to the typical "Oh, you must punt, ( *pontificate * * blowhard *, * pretend you know history better than you do * ). And in doing so, they reveal that they truly aren’t thinking correctly. They truly aren’t taking into account all the information at hand. But that’s why they’re writers, and why Bellichick has Super Bowl rings. National pundits may be ripping him, but 9/10ths of them don’t have a leg to stand on with their complaints. They only see the loss. Not the true odds, and definitely not the possibilities.
Man, I can’t believe I’m defending a Bill Bellichick call. I just can’t believe it. The world has truly been turned upsidedown by that game. And I’m defending him honestly, not because it worked out in our favor. I’m defending him because I see the genius at work that came just that close to shutting our Colts down. I’m just… amazed I’m actually doing this.
------
"How can a pickup truck contain enough mass to unfold into a towering machine? I say if Ringling Brothers can get 15 clowns into a Volkswagen, anything is possible."
the ruling is where th ball is, not your feet
Faulk was clearly leaning behind the 30 yard line, making the spot of the ball behind the 30. That slight bobble didnt help his case
I fail to see how a sports writer knows more about a call than the officials.
The officials were right there, I doubt if the writer was even at the game.
"You can't defend the perfect throw, what can I say?" Peyton quoting Marino
"As I grow older, the list of people who can kiss my ass grows longer"-Ancient Hoosier Proverb.
Of course he knows better from a camera from 100 ft away at a bad angle...
than a ref who was standing RIGHT THERE.
Ugh.
Go Colts!
by Marked Hoosier on Nov 17, 2009 11:11 AM EST up reply actions
It's wishful thinking on the reporter's part
Of course, 80-some % of them really do believe they know more than the actual participants involved. That’s why I see the two Phils, as well as Chappie at the Indy Star as being a breath of fresh air. They derive conclusions from honest facts or honest experience. None of those three are blowhards in any way, shape, or form.
Granted, Kravitz ends up more than making up (or dragging down) for all three of them, but still… my point is that we Indy fans are lucky in that regard too.
------
"How can a pickup truck contain enough mass to unfold into a towering machine? I say if Ringling Brothers can get 15 clowns into a Volkswagen, anything is possible."
Ah yes, the weekly "BBS bashes someone in the media" article
Visit FanIQ.com for sports news, bloggings, polls, and more!
+1
Week 1: “We get no respect”
Week 2: “We get no respect”
Week 3: “We get no respect”
Week 4: “We get no respect”
And so forth….
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
and while we are on the topic...
why can’t we enjoy the boston media putting Bill B on the rack for that game? We shouldn’t have been able to come back YET AGAIN on The Genius. They may be focusing on the one play, but hey that is how the boston media works, they just look at the shiny… but the Pats were out of timeouts, and in a situation to give us a game that they thought they had won in the second quarter.
Don’t get me wrong, we EARNED that win. We came back, got stops on Tommy Terrific and make quick scores to be in a position to win the game at the end. Finding a way to win, I hear that is a sign of a good team.
Did anyone see the smiles, and premature celebrations by the Pats in the first half? THAT is why I am loving this game. They got a pick off Peyton, and celebrated to the point of a penalty! The radio announcers commented that they were taunting the fans to BE LOUDER!
Schadenfreude, ya gotta love it.
/any and all spelling, grammar, or idea errors were made on purpose. SO THERE!
Go Colts!
by Marked Hoosier on Nov 17, 2009 11:27 AM EST reply actions
Fair enough
I did think that Belichick outsmarted himself by not saving a timeout for the challenge. I wouldn’t call it a glaring black mark on his record but it’s nice to see the “genius” fuck up.
And it’s nice to see the Pats eating their own victory celebration, but that’s another close call. They really thought they were about to get their biggest win of the year. Where’s the line between “high-energy” and “gloating”? Probably it depends on which team you’re rooting for.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
Yes. Agreed.
The Colts saw the win the Patriots earned, grabbed hold of it, and forcibly wrenched it right out of their hands and made it their own. As mean as that sounds, that’s exactly what great teams do: They don’t pay attention to who “deserves” to win, nor do they pay attention to who performed the best up until that point or who’s been playing more “proper” and “correct”. They simply put the points up on the board and tear the win away. They don’t just “steal” it, they grab it and wrestle it right out of the opponents hands.
For all the criticisms I have of this year’s team – and believe me, I can retail a bunch of them – the one thing I really like about them is that they have the mentality that “we’re going to grab, wrestle, or beat this win out of this game”, and then they go do exactly that. It sounds more like a 1950’s 3-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust type of running team when I say that, but honestly, the mentality is the same. They just grab it. And in watching them do so, I don’t get the sense of fragility that marked the 2004 “Serious Stats and Records” team. This years team seems to have the mentality in place early. And that’s a great thing to take comfort in.
Even if they lose one of the upcoming games, I don’t see it burying their momentum much. I felt like a high wire act throughout the ‘04 season, and offensively at least, that team was supposed to have been better (Reggie, Marvin, Edge, Stokely, etc.). But when you unbalanced them, you got the sense that they were off track and needed to regain their sense of being centered. I don’t get that feeling with this years team at all, though. Not at all.
------
"How can a pickup truck contain enough mass to unfold into a towering machine? I say if Ringling Brothers can get 15 clowns into a Volkswagen, anything is possible."
Week 1
This Pats loss balances out the 2009 regular season equilibrium that was shifted when they miraculously beat the Bills in Week 1.
Like Seinfeld said….things always have a way of balancing out.
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
I thought the same thing
plus I think the Ravens could/should have beaten them were it not for a couple of dropped passes at their goal line
How can you not love a team that does this?
Here is my take
The moment you bobble the ball, possession cannot be established in the air, you have to maintain possession all the way to the ground and when you hit the ground is when possession will be awarded to you. How many sideline catches have we seen this year in the NFL where the player has a slight bobble and is not given possession till he maintains it when he hits the ground and has his feet in bounce (which was not a factor in this one)? If Mr.Wretzel can comprehend that, then he will comprehend why Faulk was not awarded possession till he hit the ground. As simple as that.
As far as BB’s decision, my problem with that is choosing between a high possibility of winning (4th down conversion) versus a certain possibility of losing (Manning on your 29) with no middle ground.
It was not a choice between a high possibility of winning (4th down conversion) versus a lower possibility of winning (punting and Manning driving down 70 yards). BB should know that if his D could not be trusted to stop Manning from the Colts 30, it was a guarantee Manning will make it from the Pats 29. Besides, it took 3 plays for Manning to convert from the Pats 29 with only 1 timeout left. It would have taken at least 6 to 7 plays with no possibility of run plays for Manning with only 1 timeout left to drive down 70 yards. No possibility of the run meant the Pats could bank on the pass all the time and send the kitchen sink at Manning.
they played that defense in the previous drive where he went 79 yards(?)
for the touchdown in a minute and a half. I mean its all speculation from here, but I don’t think the Pats were stopping the Colts if they got the ball back.
Indianapolis Colts, taking focus away from my DBacks every Sunday.
IMO, the worst decision was not to go for it, but to have to call timeout BEFORE going for it. It completely ruined the moment and backfired in the end.
I agree with your take on possession, but is it true as stated in the NFL rulebook? It seems right to me, but I don’t know if possession starts at the point of ball control or when the feet or body hits the ground after a bobble. It’s all about the bobble….
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
The problem with the media right now
is not articles like these, but for LACK of articles or analysis on how well the Colts fought to win and how they showed how good they are. Instead, it’s all “The Colts should have lost, Belichick is a moron, blah, blah, blah…” If the roles in this game were reversed, I think we all know that the media would be slobbering over Brady, Belichick, and NE and how they would run the table from here on out. And to go off topic a bit, it is also strange that they gave NO credit to Moss for that big TD catch he had, and Brady got all the credit. Yes, he put it on the money, but Moss caught it with Bethea practically laying across his arms. Good pass, better catch. But I digress….
The call was the wrong one, obviously, but not ludicrous. All of us, when we saw the offense go back out there, weren’t thinking, “What an idiot!” as much as “Oh Crap! Please hold them.” The Pats are the type of team that usually can make that, but they clearly did not (regardless of what media idiots like Bayless and ATH heads think). There were three scenarios that could have turned out. 1) They go for it, get it, and kneel it, then win. 2) They punt it, we get it, we score, and belichick knew this. 3) They go for it and don’t get it, and basically seal the game for us. He knew he couldn’t win if Peyton had the ball, regardless of where he would have started from, so he gambled and lost. Hell, Brady is the luckiest person in the league because he barely missed getting a pick six on two straight plays that would have given us the win.
actually the pick 6 looking back
would have probably won the game for the Pats. They would have had 2 minutes to find field goal range on the ensuing drive.
Indianapolis Colts, taking focus away from my DBacks every Sunday.
Good point
but maybe Powers would have pulled an MJD and kneeled it……..or not. Regardless, I like the way we won. Belichick and Brady fail, and Manning perseveres…..again. 13.5 to 2.5…….5 of the last 6………I am content.
Agree
I wanted that pick 6 at first, but it easily could have come back to haunt us. Best scenario would be pick six followed by another desperation INT on the final possession.
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
i don't think me makes that pick anyway
that play is what i like to call a desperation safe play, the guy is covered and has little chance to make the catch but the corner has almost no chance for a pick. the play goes like this, it’s a timing play to welker, he runs 3 yards then out to the sideline, brady throws the ball to the sideline, if the corner is a step back the receiver makes the catch cause he stops at the sideline and leans ob to make the catch, if the corner is close enough to make the play, he is running full speed towards the sideline and can’t stop in time to make the catch and stay in bounds. the throw is high on purpose so the corner has to jump to make the pick and his momentum will carry him ob. watch the play again, it was impossible for him to get his feet down ib even if he does hold on to the ball. i know it looks like he almost had the pick, but that is a designed play. it has a moderate chance for a 3 yard gain (which would have been a first down) and no chance for a turnover, which ironically would have given the pats a better chance of winning.
Actually
I am happy that the media is focusing 100% on the Pats and continuing to dismiss the Colts. I like being under the radar and winning while everyone else struggles to make the playoffs.
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
Belichick is a genius...
Why? Because he made that call on purpose…if his team looses he takes the heat, if they make it he is a genius. Everyone thinks the Pats dominated the Colts and only lost because of a stupid call by the head coach. Pure genius…the Pats come out smelling great….the Colts were gifted the win…Belichick is always one ahead of everyone. LOL!!!
"If me and King Kong went into an alley, only one of us would come out. And it wouldn't be the monkey."
"I don't really trust a sane person."
"I never met a man I didn't want to fight." The one and only Lyle Alzado
Why
do I keep seeing the line “I thought we could get the yard” they did get the yard but they needed 2 yards. Am I wrong or wasn’t it 4th & 2 so whenever I read that I laugh because I wish I was there to say….“but Bill you did get the yard you just needed to get 2” Yeah I know pretty petty on my part kind of like the grammar people always about correcting people. Just a way for them to feel better I guess. I thnk we all know they will get their chance to come back in here come playoff time to try and get redemption but when they do will the Colts drop balls, have a wrong route ran versus what Manning thought he was going to run to having Manning lose the grip on a throw and have it lame duck down the field for the pick? I think we all know the team we will see is the one that put on a show late in the 4th
It was 4th and 2...
technically BB isn’t wrong…he thought they could get the yard and they did. But it wasn’t enough.
Bob Sanders does not play Hide-and-Seek, He plays HIDE and PRAY-HE-DOES-NOT FIND-YOU!
well chad, good thing your take doesn’t count on the field. the forward progress rule states that the ball is spotted where the reciever made possession. doesn’t say anything about him being in the air or having both feet down. (think goal line dives over the pile, once the ball touches the goal line it is a touchdown) the replay clearly shows when the ball got there it hit faulks hands and hung in the air for a split second, faulk then snatched it out of the air just before his left foot came down, which was about 6 inches from the 30. the ball itself where forward progress should have been was right on the 30 with the middle of the ball on the 30 yard line.(which should have been a first down by about 6 inches) now as far as if it was a blown call, when i watched the game, to me it looked like he was bobbling the ball until he landed and i though he was short. after viewing the replay it was quite clear he did not bobble the ball long enough to get pushed back beyond the 30. the ref called it exactly as he saw it and made what he thought was the right call. if the pats hadn’t wasted their time outs they could have challenged the call and it would have most likely been overturned. i am neither a pats fan or colts fan so i’m not biased. this is how i saw it. before the replay it looked like he was short, after the replay it was quite clear he did get the first down. the ref made the best decision he could based on what he saw. oh and bigblueshoe, you are an obvious homer and a complete idiot if you still think faulk was short. watch the replay again but this time pretend it’s the colts going for it on fourth down then you might not be blinded by your homerism. <——- ya i know it’s not a real word but it should be.
Think of the 30 yard line as the out of bounds line
Think of the 30 yard line as the out of bounds line. He did not have both feet over the 30 yard line and possession of the ball on the right side of the 30. If he was making this catch on the sideline, he would have been ruled out of bounds because he did not have possession and both feet down. Remember, they changed the force out rule this year to having both feet down, so you have to have both feet down and possession to make a catch. The same rule applys here. So the call would not have been reversed.
wrong
sorry blue but having both feet down only applies to out of bounds passes and fumble or incomplete passes. if a player remains in the field of play and maintains possession throughout the catch, forward progress is from the farthest point upfield once he had clear possession. sorry but i read the rule and it’s quite clear to me he had the first. but again i’m not a colts homer so i understand where your coming from.
Again
why calling the final timeout was the worst decision, not going for it on 4th down.
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
Yes, my take does count
Mr. Don Mail,
Here you go, you say you read the rules, I did too.
Rule 3, section 2, article 7 of the 2009 NFL rule book is my source for this. I have no online source because it isn’t publicly linkable. There are forums out there where you can obtain it but linking to other forums is prohibited.
Rule 3: Definitions
Section 2: Ball in play, dead ball
Article 7: Player Possession
Copied and pasted from the 2009 NFL rule book:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Goodell:
Article 7 A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3).
To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.
The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as distinguished from touching or muffing).
Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by a defender) must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch,interception, or recovery.
Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must retain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the act of falling to the ground and after hitting the ground, or there is no possession.
Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
A catch is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick, or fumble in flight (See 8-1-3).
Note 1: It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground and that control is maintained after the ball has touched the ground.
Note 2: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, and there is contact by a defender causing the ball to come loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.
For those that might be wondering, 3-2-3 explains a ‘loose ball’. It basically says that a loose ball is no longer a loose ball when someone secures possession.
Here is the explanation:
1: ‘If a player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there was any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession.’ Faulk catches the ball, but both hands come off of the ball. Therefore, by rule, he does not have possession of the ball.
Here is where it gets tricky: does he have possession when he gets that left foot down, or when he hits the ground? I think the rule book is fairly clear on this point, though you do have to interpret slightly:
2: ‘A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by a defender) must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.’
No forward progress can be awarded to a player who has not established possession. As the hit by Bullitt caused him to bobble the ball and at least one foot is off the ground (both hands are completely off the ball for a short time), it is very reasonable to assume he is ‘going to the ground’, in which case he is not in possession of the ball until he completes the catch by controlling the ball through hitting the ground. There is no ‘forward progress’ argument because once he bobbled the ball with Bullitt wrapped around him, there is absolutely no way for him to demonstrate official possession of the ball until he hits the ground.
Spread the word….don’t let anyone continue to use this as an excuse. The call was correct, under the rules.
Summary: 1) the bobble meant no possession 2) since he was in the act of going to the ground as the bobble occurred, possession could not be established until he hit the ground.
by chad72 on Nov 17, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
REC'D
Because I said the same thing earlier in a post toward the bottom, but not nearly as beautifully as you did!
by DevilsReject on Nov 17, 2009 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
Nice
I responded to yours below before I read this.
This does seem to directly contradict things that Pereira said.
What Don Mail said seems like it makes sense, though I’d argue that regardless of the interpretation of the rule, we still can’t say for certain from those camera angles where the ball was, but if we can define the pass as a loose ball (which I’m iffy on), this passage certainly seems to indicate that the spot only applies to where the ball is when he hits the ground.
I'm also iffy on that
but I agree that the camera angles did the Pats no help.
Sidenote: in 2010 do the Colts start their 3-4 year tour of duty in New England for all Colts vs Patriots games? I wish it was @NE, then @Indy, and so on. I don’t like the 3 or 4 years at a time thing.
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
If they place in the same place each year...
then I believe that yes, that’s the case. The next time they’re 100% guaranteed to play them is when the two divisions meet again in 3 years. In that case it’ll be in NE to offset this year’s meeting. I believe I read somewhere that in the two years in between, it’ll be there too, though I’m not sure how that can be guaranteed for 2 years from now. Well, I can, but I don’t see the logic in them having AFCS1 at AFCE1 two years in a row (and if that’s the case, the only way to be sure they meet at NE in 2 years is if AFCS2,3,4 are all also at AFCE2,3, and 4.)
ok so assuming your interpretation is correct, lets say its a quick screen to a wr, the throw is high and he jumps, bobbles the ball for just a second, gets hit just as he secures the ball and gets carried 12 yards backwards. he has possession the whole time but according to your version of the rule it would be a 12 yard loss. i just want to be clear this is what your saying because i seem to remember it happening a few times over the last few years and it’s usually spotted where he secured possesion for short gain.
I ran it by Roger Goodell
and he said that chad’s take is what they ask for while in the replay booth.
It’s science.
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
by AceOfSpades on Nov 17, 2009 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
lol i think he was calling the plays last night. they call butler for pass interference when he bumps a guy going for the pick but bodden completely mauls wayne on the last touchdown and no call? what????
Bodden had the subtle waist grab, which is a common technique because it’s tougher to see. And maybe they didn’t flag it because he caught it anyway and they figured there was no point.
Butler clearly grabbed him and hit him – you can see Collie’s upper body get tugged from the grab in the end zone camera angle. It was obvious and in open space and had to be called.
Still, I’m not going to try to pretend there’s a rhyme or reason to why some things are called and some aren’t. I have yet to see a crew that’s always consistent and gets things right every time.
ummm ok if you call tackling wayne “a subtle waist grab” and bodden has his back to the play, butler was going for the pick when he bumped the receiver (i believe it was wayne but not sure) and if i understand the rule correctly, the corner has as much right to the ball as the receiver does. and i wasn’t talking about the end zone PI, he did interfere on that one, that was a good call. i’m talking about the one around the pats 30 on the 2nd to last TD the colts got. it was a bad call. it’s actually funny cause i don’t get mad over any team losing, even my favorite teams, but i get insane when games get decided by stupid refs. if the pats had won on a couple of bad calls i would have been equally upset. i feel as though they stole my enjoyment of what should have been the game of the year. maybe i need anger management lol.
Hit by Bullitt
I have watched the replay several times, and will watch it again, but to me the Bullitt hit came after he had bobbled the ball and re-caught the ball.
But it’s a moot point anyways.
He should have caught it in the first place to remove any doubt on the part of the sideline official. But he didn’t.
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
Hmm
Your goal line example isn’t the same, because a runner already has possession and makes that play to get the forward progress without risk of losing a fumble, since the play ends once it crosses the line. Even though some rules in the end zone are different, this same play works at the 20 too – but if he fumbles it, it’s in play, which is why it’s less common. Still, either way, a ball carrier is already in control.
The key is the definitions and relationships between control, possession, and progress. We have seen hundreds of examples of comeback routes where receivers catch the ball mid-air and are given the progress even though they were not pushed back. Given the ruling and explanation of the McCoy play last week, apparently this was ruled incorrectly all along, which is why so many of us expected that one to be a first down, including Reid.
But plays like those are caught and secured immediately. Faulk had the bobble, then was hit and forced back… which is why we’re in a grey area. I’m of the belief that his initial bobble should count separately – once he touched it again, he secured it (though I agree, it didn’t look like it in real time) which kind of creates a new instance. And since he was being pushed back, that should be the point of forward progress, according to Pereira.
According to that 3.2 passage, though, that may still not be the case.
They need to make Official Review a full half hour show on NFLn.
If the rule is that possession begins where the ball is controlled regardless of whether it was bobbled or not while the player is still in midair, then I agree that he gained possession of the ball ahead of the 30 yard line. That’s why I was puzzled by all of this. BUT I agree the official saw the first bobble and then could only assume that the bobbling continued on the way to the ground because his view was blocked.
Since there was no opportunity to replay and the camera angle was pretty bad, COLTS WIN!
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
what is BB wearing?
did he cut off his jeans too? what a tool
by Thedreamthejohn on Nov 17, 2009 2:18 PM EST reply actions
Why do you even read this blog
if you wanna bash the head writer? I mean really whats the point? I’m some how failing to see it.
Bob Sanders does not play Hide-and-Seek, He plays HIDE and PRAY-HE-DOES-NOT FIND-YOU!
Oh sorry
I thought you were bashing BBS. So far today I have seen people complaining cause of BBS’s homerism. and BBS as a comment title is burned into my brain. lol my appologies Thedreamjohn
Bob Sanders does not play Hide-and-Seek, He plays HIDE and PRAY-HE-DOES-NOT FIND-YOU!
You're still right though
Why do all of these people come on and bash BBS? Why would you continually come back to a blog where you know you’re just going to get pissed off and end up writing about the head writer? Wouldn’t you rather talk about the Colts?
My only criticism w/BBS is that he needs to be freer w/his banning. Maybe w/less douchebags bitching about the writer, we’ll be able to talk about the Colts again.
It’s one thing to disagree with his article, that’s fine, but another to attack the man that wrote it. Go find another blog.
It’s because he contradicts himself. You can’t write a piece of bad journalism with such arrogance about other bad journalism. Combine the obvious logical issues with the arrogance (which I don’t mind, given how prone to it I am myself) and you make yourself a target. It comes with the territory. If you’re going to be that arrogant about it you’ve got to be right or you’re going to get called on it.
So, wait
It’s because he contradicts himself that everyone feels the need to come back here everyday and bitch about it? Start your own blog, and keep it contradiction-free, just stop polluting a decent Colts blog w/personal vendettas.
Oh shut up
It’s not a personal vendetta. I like him. But you don’t see the irony in you complaining about someone calling another person out for an article with incorrect facts… in the comments section of an article he wrote doing the exact same thing?
If he always made me angry, I would
He only makes me angry about 1/3 of the time. The other times I am usually in full agreement.
And a 66% success rate is pretty good where I come from.
You call him out for lazy journalism and think it’s ridiculous that he gets paid, yet you yourself get paid for equally lazy articles like this. And that’s not even taking into account that you have spelling errors and start sentences with lowercase letters.
You mock him for using the yellow TV line – he never once mentions this. He talks about the 30 yard line, which is the precise line to gain, given that the ball had been at the 20 after a touchback.
You mock him for whining or being a homer – he never does either, and is instead simply making the point that Stabile was completely shielded from the ball by Faulk’s body, and thus cannot possibly know for sure when he gained possession. In my hundred viewings, it seems as though he has it under complete control immediately after he touches it the 2nd time (the first being the bobble). The question then becomes where he is on the field. It’s hard to tell. He seems to be falling more sideways than backwards at that point, with one foot on either side of the line. But that’s from an angle high above and towards the end zone.
It’s impossible to know exactly where the ball was when he got possession because there wasn’t a useful camera angle without ambiguity. It seems like Stabile spotted it where he landed, which may have been overly generous to the Colts. But we don’t know that for sure. It may have been exactly right. Or it may have been a legitimate first down with forward progress over the 30 yard line. If they spotted it there, it wouldn’t have been overturned either. And I wouldn’t be complaining. The only thing we do know is that he did have possession before hitting the ground and maintained it when going to the ground. You assert that he only got possession at the spot he hit the ground, yet you have the nerve to say that someone else is completely, flatly, and blatantly wrong.
Do you know how many Colts drives over the years would have ended prematurely if they spotted the ball using the same logic you employ here when Marvin or Reggie caught low balls right at the sticks while diving back? We’d be the victim of even more ridiculously bad spots than we usually are (though it hasn’t been so bad this year).
He’s not whining about the Patriots; he’s criticizing the rest of the mediots out there who are blasting Belichick based on the results instead of the decision, which was correct. He even goes so far as to acknowledge the other mistakes that truly cost them the game. His point is not that the referee cost the Patriots the game. It is that the positioning of the referee guarantees that he may have been a few inches off in either direction, and that that minor detail is what made all the difference in the nationwide perception of the call made by Belichick.
by willyduer on Nov 17, 2009 2:55 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
This is exactly how I see it
There’s too much question surrounding the entire play so we just have to take it as it was called on the field and move on.
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
My sense
is that the refs were overly watchful on that play because it was clear that that would likely decide the game. With so much scrutiny on the refs, I can see where they’re coming from. On any other middle-of-the-game 4th-and-2 conversion attempt I don’t think they make the same call.
How can you not love a team that does this?
To start....
I quote from the Holy Bible of Football – the NFL Rulebook:
Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.
Which clearly states that you must have BOTH feet down to establish possession. One foot down does NOT establish possession. Once you bobble ANY ball, it then becomes wherever you land or should you get two feet down.
When Faulk caught the ball, he initially bobbled it, which rendered his forward progress moot. Also, he was already traveling backwards which means again, no forward progress will be awarded until he comes into contact with an opposing player or he turns up field.
Don Mail: In order for a receiver to establish forward progress, you must first establish POSSESSION of the football. The rest of the rule is moot without possession.
In fact, to further elaborate on that….this exact issue occured in the Dallas/Philly game a few weeks ago and the NFL already explained the EXACT same situation. As for the Endzone, it is guided by a different set of rules entirely….
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d8142045a/Official-Review-Week-9
Mike Pereira explains the very thing you are debating….2nd half of the video in fact…covering both the possession/forward progress and the rules regarding the TD in the endzone.
by DevilsReject on Nov 17, 2009 3:48 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
The difference between this and the McCoy play in last week’s segment is that Pereira very clearly states “You can’t get forward progress unless you’re knocked back.” Bullitt is the difference here.
Referring to the Don Mail line, it seems like it could be better written as “in order to be awarded forward progress, you must maintain possession.” So if one loses it in the act of going to the ground, it undoes any progress that would’ve happened before that, and renders knocked back/fell back/forward progress moot.
Regarding the Possession definition – which is just one line for the fans, I know the refs get more detail in their definition (oh, it’s above. I should read)- that seems to deal more with in bounds vs out of bounds. Otherwise, one could argue that catching a ball in the air, landing on one foot, and hopping on that one foot for 20 yards to the end zone is actually an incomplete pass. Hell – maybe that is the case. I would think that the 2nd hop on the same foot would clear him.
My understanding is that possession and progress are two different things – had he gone to the ground and lost control, that invalidates possession, but since he maintained it through the play, that then enables him to be allowed forward progress at the spot at which he gained control – which could very well have been while straddling the 30 and falling towards the sideline and slightly towards the 29. If Reggie dons a cape and flies horizontally from the 10 to the 15 coming back for a catch, which he secures while airborne at the 13, they’ll likely spot it at the 13 if he maintains possession when going to the ground. [Which is incorrect, according to the McCoy example… though history has shown otherwise on many occasions.] If he loses possession, though, the whole play is invalidated. (There’s probably a necessary/sufficient analogy here. Like that gaining control is sufficient to establish possession, but that the two feet are necessary to maintain it and thus be awarded the catch. Maybe that’s not right.)
This all seems to contradict everything that we learned back in that Pittsburgh-Baltimore game last year though, and honestly, it confuses me more and more the more I think about it. Pereira gives a great explanation of why the end zone is different in that video… but that still doesn’t explain the play last year, because he didn’t have two feet down to end the play.
I’m fairly sure Pereira will address the spot tomorrow on the show. He did already back the guy’s positioning and said he trusted him fully – which I agree with… no replay would overturn it, regardless of where he put it, unless it was blatantly on the 31 or 28 or something – but I’d like his full explanation of the rule in that case.
hmmm...
hopping on that one foot for 20 yards to the end zone is actually an incomplete pass
That would put disabled football players at an incredible disadvantage – quick… someone call the ACLU!
How can you not love a team that does this?
i would think two feet down would be a completed pass, regardless if it was both feet or the same foot twice. hmm a one legged receiver. he would have to be a raider lol
We call that trolling.
If you’re going to rip everyone else’s take on the play it would help if you could cite specific passages from the NFL rulebook to prove you’re right like DevilsReject has tried to do. If not you’re just basically saying, “These are the criteria for possession and forward progress because I said so”. Find some facts to further you’re argument or head over to Pats Pulpit with all the other complainers. I’m sure they will welcome you with open arms.
by peytonsurdaddy on Nov 17, 2009 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
peytonlover i did not rip anyone and i did post an example you really can’t argue. (hint: look up) i merely posted my opinion. a couple of posts were just plain wrong and i corrected them but where did i rip anyone?
Is there some particular reason you're here?
You say you’re neither a Colts fan or a Pats fan, so why are you over here obsessing over a play in a game that you have absolutely no stake in? I read you’re argument before I posted the last comment. It was the reason why I asked you to back it up with specific rules from the rulebook. Show me the specific quotes from the book about forward progress and possession and I’ll change my mind about you and apologize. I doubt you will. I’ve seen plenty of pot-stirrers in my time and it’s obvious to me that you, sir, are a troll.
by peytonsurdaddy on Nov 17, 2009 9:22 PM EST up reply actions
peytonsbytch do i really have to go search through and post a rule someone already posted? i’m here because i’ve been a football fan for 30+ years and i just watched one of the most exciting games of the season. i did not agree with and call and the title of this blog compelled me to come here and post my opinion. is that ok with you? am i not allowed to post here if i don’t want to swallow peyton mannin’s nut sack? if you want to get personal you won’t win.
See...
peytonlover i did not rip anyone
peytonsbytch
Now, you’re ripping somebody. I think you’re Dan Wetzel.
"But whenever I meet dynamic, nonretarded Americans, I notice that they all seem to share a single unifying characteristic: the inability to experience the kind of mind-blowing, transcendent romantic relationship they perceive to be a normal part of living. And someone needs to take the fall for this. So instead of blaming no one for this (which is kind of cowardly) or blaming everyone (which is kind of meaningless), I'm going to blame John Cusack."
— Chuck Klosterman (Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto)
by Addai Another Aday on Nov 17, 2009 9:38 PM EST up reply actions
Yet, you don't deny being Dan Wetzel....
Hmmmmmmm…..
"But whenever I meet dynamic, nonretarded Americans, I notice that they all seem to share a single unifying characteristic: the inability to experience the kind of mind-blowing, transcendent romantic relationship they perceive to be a normal part of living. And someone needs to take the fall for this. So instead of blaming no one for this (which is kind of cowardly) or blaming everyone (which is kind of meaningless), I'm going to blame John Cusack."
— Chuck Klosterman (Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto)
by Addai Another Aday on Nov 17, 2009 9:45 PM EST up reply actions
LOL This is true
But in peytonsurdaddy’s defense, you did create your profile today and you have only commented on this particular thread. Not to offend, but that does point in a certain direction. We’re on guard here, as we get a lot of trolls, usually from the Texans camp.
"But whenever I meet dynamic, nonretarded Americans, I notice that they all seem to share a single unifying characteristic: the inability to experience the kind of mind-blowing, transcendent romantic relationship they perceive to be a normal part of living. And someone needs to take the fall for this. So instead of blaming no one for this (which is kind of cowardly) or blaming everyone (which is kind of meaningless), I'm going to blame John Cusack."
— Chuck Klosterman (Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto)
by Addai Another Aday on Nov 17, 2009 9:48 PM EST up reply actions
no. honestly, i’m a miami fan (i won’t say which team) but while i do love the game dearly i don’t really lose any sleep if my team looses. it is after all just a game.
and i rarely post on any web sites, i didn’t agree with his blog so i wanted to post my opinion. i had to create the account to post
Ah. Gotcha.
Like I said, no offense intended. We have a Steeler fan that posts on here, and we’ve accepted him as one of our own. We actually had the lead blogger at the Pats blog run this blog for a few days last week and it was fun. No hate, just mutual respect. I’m going out on a limb and guess that since you won’t say which Miami team you’re a fan of, it can’t be the obvious (Dolphins) and you’re on football blog (Heat/Marlins), so I’m gonna say ’Canes.
"But whenever I meet dynamic, nonretarded Americans, I notice that they all seem to share a single unifying characteristic: the inability to experience the kind of mind-blowing, transcendent romantic relationship they perceive to be a normal part of living. And someone needs to take the fall for this. So instead of blaming no one for this (which is kind of cowardly) or blaming everyone (which is kind of meaningless), I'm going to blame John Cusack."
— Chuck Klosterman (Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto)
by Addai Another Aday on Nov 17, 2009 9:59 PM EST up reply actions
Ah.
There’s the answer.
"But whenever I meet dynamic, nonretarded Americans, I notice that they all seem to share a single unifying characteristic: the inability to experience the kind of mind-blowing, transcendent romantic relationship they perceive to be a normal part of living. And someone needs to take the fall for this. So instead of blaming no one for this (which is kind of cowardly) or blaming everyone (which is kind of meaningless), I'm going to blame John Cusack."
— Chuck Klosterman (Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto)
by Addai Another Aday on Nov 17, 2009 10:00 PM EST up reply actions
i just love the game, i played in highs school when i was a kid and i still have some great memories. to me any other sport is boring crap and i can’t wait for football season to start.
Nothing wrong with that.
As long as you don’t hire my ’Horns D-coordinator Muschamp as your next head coach. :)
"But whenever I meet dynamic, nonretarded Americans, I notice that they all seem to share a single unifying characteristic: the inability to experience the kind of mind-blowing, transcendent romantic relationship they perceive to be a normal part of living. And someone needs to take the fall for this. So instead of blaming no one for this (which is kind of cowardly) or blaming everyone (which is kind of meaningless), I'm going to blame John Cusack."
— Chuck Klosterman (Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto)
by Addai Another Aday on Nov 17, 2009 10:01 PM EST up reply actions
LOL
"But whenever I meet dynamic, nonretarded Americans, I notice that they all seem to share a single unifying characteristic: the inability to experience the kind of mind-blowing, transcendent romantic relationship they perceive to be a normal part of living. And someone needs to take the fall for this. So instead of blaming no one for this (which is kind of cowardly) or blaming everyone (which is kind of meaningless), I'm going to blame John Cusack."
— Chuck Klosterman (Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto)
by Addai Another Aday on Nov 17, 2009 10:03 PM EST up reply actions
You were saying Wetzel has no sense of humor, correct?
Cause peytonsurdaddy has a great sense of humor. Just check out a game thread. I agree, though, that Wetzel has no sense of humor. Just to clarify.
"But whenever I meet dynamic, nonretarded Americans, I notice that they all seem to share a single unifying characteristic: the inability to experience the kind of mind-blowing, transcendent romantic relationship they perceive to be a normal part of living. And someone needs to take the fall for this. So instead of blaming no one for this (which is kind of cowardly) or blaming everyone (which is kind of meaningless), I'm going to blame John Cusack."
— Chuck Klosterman (Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto)
by Addai Another Aday on Nov 17, 2009 9:50 PM EST up reply actions
Who is peyton mannin?
You are welcome to swallow his nut sack if you like but I would at least ask for ID first if I was you.
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
Well, guys it looks like the trolls have shown up early this week.
I SUGGEST NO ONE REPLY FURTHER TO Don Mail’s COMMENTS. Of course, you’re free to do whatever you want, but trust me, it’s not worth you’re time.
by peytonsurdaddy on Nov 17, 2009 9:47 PM EST up reply actions
WHEN YOU BOBBLE THE BALL YOU MUST ESTABLISH POSSESSION AND GET TWO FEET DOWN FOR IT TO BE A CATCH. IN THE EVENT THAT THE RECEIVER BOBBLES THE BALL AND THEN PROCEEDS TO “GO TO THE GROUND” AS PART OF THE CATCH, THE RECEIVER MUST MAINTAIN POSSESSION OF THE BALL THROUGH HIS TRIP TO THE GROUND. THE CATCH WAS NOT A CATCH UNTIL ALL OF THOSE CONDITIONS WERE MET.
I was going to look forward to official review tomorrow night, but once he says that, everyone will just say he’s covering up the cover up.
Never doubt Peyton Manning, he’ll make you look silly
Im a douchebag, an asshole, and I'm rarely right.
by SpazMo on Nov 17, 2009 5:39 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
it's all a conspiracy!
This all could’ve been avoided if they just had them run 3 yard outs instead of 2.5 yard outs… so really, it’s still BB’s fault.
I said the same thing.
Why not throw a 5 yard out?
"But whenever I meet dynamic, nonretarded Americans, I notice that they all seem to share a single unifying characteristic: the inability to experience the kind of mind-blowing, transcendent romantic relationship they perceive to be a normal part of living. And someone needs to take the fall for this. So instead of blaming no one for this (which is kind of cowardly) or blaming everyone (which is kind of meaningless), I'm going to blame John Cusack."
— Chuck Klosterman (Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto)
by Addai Another Aday on Nov 17, 2009 9:40 PM EST up reply actions
can we make this green please??
rec the hell out of it. this must be one of the times he is rarely right.
rec, rec, rec
As long as we have Peyton we will always have a chance to win.
He does make a mean pretzel though
"Brett Favre was a man who thought he was retired, but he knew it wouldn't last."
Shouldn't have used those timeouts
Who knows what would have happened if they could challenge the call. I have a different take on the play than BBS, but it is close enough. To me, it appeared that Faulk bobbled the ball just before securing possession and Bullitt hit him AFTER he stopped bobbling the ball. I can’t tell whether Faulk got his second foot down or not since he was being driven backwards at the time.
If he got the second foot down, would it have been ruled forward progress at that point (assuming he had complete possession)? OR is it not considered possession until his body hits the ground simply because he bobbled it at first?
One thing I wish everyone would understand….Just because the Colts won this game doesn’t mean that all is well in Colts country. We were outplayed for the majority of the game and our offense didn’t start dominating until the Pats went into a prevent defense which allowed that quick score around the 4:00 mark. I am still concerned with our ability to score against the Pats (A effort) defense because I bet we see them again in the playoffs.
Good news is that, aside from 2 big plays, the defense played pretty well and a LB blitz up the middle erases any chance of Brady going deep to Moss. I wish they would have done more of that earlier in the game. Also, Hayden will be back in the playoffs so that means more veteran defensive leadership.
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
Update
Pereira states that forward progress is awarded, regardless of foot position, where he secured the ball, not where he landed.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8144f81a/Official-Review-Week-10
The door is left wide open for debate on where exactly the ball was at the point when he secured it. The only thing we know for sure is that it’s too hard to tell. But there’s a fairly decent chance we got lucky.
I'm ok with that
There have been many times where my team has ended up on the other end of a call like that
How can you not love a team that does this?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Stampede Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
