NFL Week 13

[SenorBeef]

I'm going to list the most common lines I see from various sources.

Thursday:

GB +6.5 @ DAL 51.5

Sunday

1pm
BUF +5.5 @ WAS 37
DET +3.5 @ MIN 45
HOU +4 @ TEN 42.5
JAC +7 @ IND 45
NYJ +1 @ MIA 38
SDC -6 @ KC 37.5
SEA +3 @ PHI 42
SF +3 @ CAR 42

4pm
TAM +3 @ NO 42
CLE -1 @ ARI 51.5
DEN -3.5 @ OAK 42
NYG -2 @ CHI 42.5

8:30
CIN +7 @ Pit 46

Monday
NE -21 @ BAL 51

Bets I like:
GB + 6.5. I like GB to win straight up and I'm considering putting a bet down on the money line although my book is offering a crappy +220. My book's offering even money on the spread for GB though, looks like all the money is going Dallas' way.

Det +3.5. Peterson sounds like he'll be back but it sounds too soon. Minnesota's performance last week says more about Eli Manning than their pass defense. On the other hand, Peterson is Peterson and Detroit sucks on the road so maybe I just talked myself out of this one.

Jacksonville +7. I'd feel much more comfortable taking Jacksonville at home, but the Colts are limping along while Jacksonville is getting hot again. Working against Jacksonville is the Colts' extra time to prepare. Still, I think this will be a close one so I take the team getting a touchdown.

SF +3. Carolina seems like a team that's just giving up, whereas SFO was fiesty last week. I think I like the under (42)

Tampa +3. I'm taking a lot of underdogs this week, aren't I? Tampa is a better team than the inconsistent Saints, but I'd only bet this if Garcia is going to be healthy.

Cle -1. Arizona is a bit scary coming off a tough, embarassing loss, and they've been good at home. But Cleveland is the better team. Arizona's secondary is banged up - Adrian Wilson and Jeremy Green are probably going to be out, which leaves Braylon Edwards and Kellen Winslow having big days. Cleveland's defense is showing vague hints of belonging in the NFL. I like the over, too. (51.5)

Denver -3.5. Oakland is horrible against AFC west opponents. Denver is inconsistent, but has to step up now if they want a shot at the AFC west.

NE -21. Baltimore might not win another game this year. I want Miami to lose tomorrow so that they're still hungry for their first win when they play Baltimore. Their pass defense is overrated and Brady goes back to throwing 3+ TDs.

[Bearflag70]

I've made some picks, but it's a tough week. I'm not comfortable with most of them.

[SenorBeef]

Can any Arizona fans tell me where Ralph Brown fits on your depth chart? We had to put up with the services of Mr. Brown a year ago, so I'm curious where he's going to line up. Will he be the nickel? If so, will he be lining up inside or outside on 3+ receiver sets?

[Bearflag70]

Where is everybody?

I'll take Dallas for the win over the Pack. Sports bars should do pretty well tonight.

[brewha]

Where is everybody?

I'll take Dallas for the win over the Pack. Sports bars should do pretty well tonight.

They're all out bitchin about banner ads :D

You really think Dallas will take it tonight? That's what I fear. Especially with KGB out.

And yes, my local sports bar will be selling a few extra pitchers tonight.

[Bearflag70]

They're all out bitchin about banner ads :D

You really think Dallas will take it tonight? That's what I fear. Especially with KGB out.

And yes, my local sports bar will be selling a few extra pitchers tonight.

Both teams will likely throw pretty well, but Dallas can control the game with the run and strike with some play action. I also have a feeling Witten will have a good game.

However, despite what ESPN thinks, it's not Farve vs. Romo that scares me; Farve vs. Roy Williams does.

[Gangster Octopus]

Hey Bearflag, you gonna watch the game at home or are you going out?

[Bearflag70]

Hey Bearflag, you gonna watch the game at home or are you going out?

out. There's a bar 2 blocks from me.

[Gangster Octopus]

out. There's a bar 2 blocks from me.

Yeah, I am hitting up a place in Fair Oaks area that always has a nice Cowboys and Packers contingent.

[Bearflag70]

Yeah, I am hitting up a place in Fair Oaks area that always has a nice Cowboys and Packers contingent.

Cool. The wife & I will be rooting for our 'Boys.

[BabaBooey]

Definitely rooting for the Boys tonight. On the 50-50 chance that my Saints make it to the playoffs, I like our chances better in Dallas than at Lambeau. I'd say we did pretty well in Dallas last season.

On that note, Josh Bullocks and Jason David are garbage.

[Bearflag70]

Definitely rooting for the Boys tonight. On the 50-50 chance that my Saints make it to the playoffs, I like our chances better in Dallas than at Lambeau. I'd say we did pretty well in Dallas last season.

On that note, Josh Bullocks and Jason David are garbage.

Well, except that Sean Peyton doesn't have Wade Phillips and Jason Garrett pegged.

[SenorBeef]

Question for sports bettors out there.

The site I play on has true odds parlays. Rather than having fixed payouts, they multiply the odds of each bet together to determine the payout. Cool, actually - it means that if a line has moved to be better than -105 or -110, it's reflected in the bet... you can also mix in money line bets into the parlay.

But they also do something I've never seen before - you can't make highly correlated parlays. For example, if a team is favored by 15 and the over/under is 35, they won't let you take the favorite and the over - the bet is rejected when you try to place it. Logic being that in order for a team to cover 15, there's probably enough scoring in the game to be over 35, so you're more likely to win that parlay.

My question was just if this is typical of any sports books, and for that matter if others do the true odds thing.

[Ellis Dee]

My question was just if this is typical of any sports books, and for that matter if others do the true odds thing.I've never heard of either, but then again I haven't placed an actual sports bet in over 10 years.

[SenorBeef]

I'm guessing it's an online thing - it's easy for them to calculate custom parlays for you, but I've only bet in 2 online books and I can't remember how the first did it.

I've started to check wagerline.com 's consensus and expert picks and they've been a decent indicator. I was surprised to see that with a line of NE -20.5, only 56.86% of wagerline pickers picked NE.

To me, this seems like such an obvious pick. Ravens are in full implosion, and while their run defense is still formidable, their pass defense really isn't. And the Patriots pretty much only pass. The Pats are coming off a game in which they had enough of a scare to be refocused and ready to demolish a team.

I don't see Balitmore scoring more than 10, and I don't see the Patriots scoring less than 30. Seems like an easy game to me.

Am I going wrong somewhere? I was considering putting up substantial money on NE.

[Jurph]

The Pats will cover the spread, but the Ravens will have so much trouble scoring that the game won't reach the points total. It's going to be that ugly.

[divemaster]

Question for sports bettors out there.

The site I play on has true odds parlays. Rather than having fixed payouts, they multiply the odds of each bet together to determine the payout. Cool, actually - it means that if a line has moved to be better than -105 or -110, it's reflected in the bet... you can also mix in money line bets into the parlay.

But they also do something I've never seen before - you can't make highly correlated parlays. For example, if a team is favored by 15 and the over/under is 35, they won't let you take the favorite and the over - the bet is rejected when you try to place it. Logic being that in order for a team to cover 15, there's probably enough scoring in the game to be over 35, so you're more likely to win that parlay.

My question was just if this is typical of any sports books, and for that matter if others do the true odds thing.

I use a live bookie and an on-line sportsbook. My sportsbook has never rejected the type of parlay you are describing. Last night, I put $60 on Dallas to cover and the over to hit. I don't remember the exact payout (and I can't check it from work), but I definitley got paid off as a valid bet.

(And I do like NE to cover and the over for Monday's game.)

[minlokwat]

How about the Redskins?

I think they are going to come out fired up ready to rally around their fallen teammate. If nothing else after this week, I think they'll embrace the diversion that the game will provide on Sunday and that they will crush the lowly Bills who aren't even at full strength.

I'm not trying to capitalize on tragedy but if the spread is only 5.5 points to Buffalo, this one seems likes a sure thing.

[Bearflag70]

How about the Redskins?

I think they are going to come out fired up ready to rally around their fallen teammate. If nothing else after this week, I think they'll embrace the diversion that the game will provide on Sunday and that they will crush the lowly Bills who aren't even at full strength.

I'm not trying to capitalize on tragedy but if the spread is only 5.5 points to Buffalo, this one seems likes a sure thing.

That's how I see it. I have read others say the Skins will be in the shitter and will lose, but I think the opposite is more likely.

RIP Taylor

[divemaster]

It's hard to get a read on the Redskins game. I'm local, and the papers all talk about how discombobulated the players are. Especially the Miami folks (Portis and Moss). This could go either way. Either they step up and crush the Bills ("win one for Sean"), or their heads just aren't in it and they get beat. I don;t know how the Skins will respond. I know how they'd like to respond, but emtoion can only take you so far and has a way of petering out in the second half. Something that Washington already has a problem with (is there a worse second-half team in the NFL this year?). As a bettor, I'm staying away from this one.

[Bearflag70]

on the bills...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d804a3669&template=without-video&confirm=true

[garygnu]

on the bills...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d804a3669&template=without-video&confirm=true
:eek: Who performed the curse against this team?
I'd say I want the same performed for a 49er rival, but I don't want to be so cruel.

[SenorBeef]

Does anyone know of any good forums or other good resources for sports betting?

Right now I'm mostly using wagerline.com and covers.com and they're very good, but a message board would be good too.

[Osip]

Can any Arizona fans tell me where Ralph Brown fits on your depth chart? We had to put up with the services of Mr. Brown a year ago, so I'm curious where he's going to line up. Will he be the nickel? If so, will he be lining up inside or outside on 3+ receiver sets?

He is listed as the back up for E. Green. Who along with A.Wilson have been moved to IR. There was talk of moving A. Rolle to a starting position, yet it has not been determined yet, since he is doing exceptionally well in the dime and nickle packages.
I have not heard enough to know where anyone will be in the secondary. A. Francisco is also going to be out for Sunday's game as well it seems.

Osip

[MadTheSwine]

Rams win easily.

[SenorBeef]

Cin/Pit O/U moved fast. From 47 to 40 in a few days. I guess they underestimated the public's perception of Pittsburgh's crappy field. Or maybe the weather reports were clearer as time went on.

I'm tempted to go with the deflated over, but with the weather report saying light rain turning into showers, maybe not. I do like Cinci +7 if the field is going to be total garbage again.

Some stats for the Ari/Cle over.

-the total has gone over in 10 of clevelands last 11 games
-the total has gone over in 5 of clevelands last 5 on the road

-the total has gone over in 4 of cards last 5 games
-the total has gone over in 5 of cards last 7 games at home


-browns offense is ranked 3rd overall, and cards offense is ranked 3rd in the nfl @ home.

-arizonas defense is ranked 24th in the league, while clevelands is ranked 32nd.

Add Arizona's defensive injuries on top of that, and you've got a nice bet on the over. Fitzgerald's injury is concerning for the over (although not for the win, me being a fan and all), but I put a sizable parlay on Cle +1/Over 51.5.

[Liberal]

[...sigh...] It's always depressing to see these OPs, despite that they are well conceived and thoughtfully composed. I don't know why the Panthers don't just go ahead and shoot themselves, and get it over with. I cannot for the life of me fathom how or why Jerry Richardson, of all people, puts up with such mediocrity. He makes the best gravy biscuit in the whole world (no easy feat). Why can't he put together a fucking football team?

[SenorBeef]

My book changed the line to NE -19, which means people are betting on Baltimore. I hope I got that one right and the rest of the public is wrong, because I put it in about half of my parlays. It sucks when you make a bunch of bets on a game, and then the line moves in your favor afterwards.

[some white dude]

Well, Cleveland really screwed that up today. The worst part wasn't even the turnovers, but the penalties. Crucial infractions during at least three key moments. There was the kicked ball delay of game on Bodden (or was it Pool?) that extended the Cards' first possession, which would have been a three-and-out. Then the two boneheaded personal fouls near the end, the first on Pool after a long catch at the CLE 35, and the last, most costly foul on the kick return, putting us back inside our own 20. The Cards had their own problems today. That must have been three or four false starts, and they were playing at home.

In the end, it all came down to a ref's judgment call. In my biased opinion, Winslow caught the ball with his feet in bounds, in the air, headed straight toward the back. If he went untouched, I think he would have come down in bounds. I was hoping for the refs to have a Baltimore-esque "discussion" after heading over to the replay booth.

Can someone explain how that call on the Braylon Edwards TD wasn't reversed? The defender clearly made contact with him as he ran by.

[SenorBeef]

Is anyone up to date on the Pittsburgh weather situation? Has it been raining all day? Any reports of field conditions?

[Pel2na]

Can someone explain how that call on the Braylon Edwards TD wasn't reversed? The defender clearly made contact with him as he ran by.

Interference calls (or non-calls) are not reversible.

[some white dude]

The dispute was over whether or not Edwards was down by contact after the catch. He caught the ball, appeared to have been touched on the leg while falling the the ground, and, after hitting the ground, he rolled to his feet and ran into the end zone. I thought it was pretty clear that the defender made contact (as did Dan Dierdorf), so I was just wondering if there was perhaps a rule I don't know about that affected the ref's decision.

[NurseCarmen]

Wow. I was at the Vikings/Lions game. The Vikings are peaking at the right time. Even though the Lions are a division rival, the Vikings let up on them, for some odd reason, in the fourth quarter. But even with their third stringers working the fourth, they didn't let up. Something has clicked with that team. This isn't the team the Packers trounced three weeks ago. The only question is, can they keep it up?

But they were scoring at will. And the coaching has finally reached a level of comfort that trick plays actually are called at the right time. They will be a wild card.

[SenorBeef]

Seemed like Braylon was down to me. However, the defender didn't really cause him to go down, he brushed him on the way down. I don't know if that's relevant to the ruling.

Ok, I don't like the force out rule. But it's a rule. I realize the Browns benefited from a similar situation last year against the Jets, and I'm sure Jets fans were pissed, just as I'm pissed now. The referees reviewed the play for no reason... they took a lot of time to make a decision because they realized the correct decision was to award Cleveland the touchdown, but they were unable to make that ruling so they probably checked with the league office to make sure they were making the right call.

Winslow cleanly caught the ball, and clearly was going to be in bounds. He got nailed by a defender pushing him towards the sideline which totally changed the direction his body was travelling and was pretty much the very definition of a force out. Officiating should be even across the board - no homer calls, no refusing to call penalties in the last minutes of a game, etc. The Browns got jobbed (and so did I - the loss bothers me more, but I had some parlays with Browns/Over which would've hit for a decent bit of money). Not that they played great, but had the rules been properly enforced they win this game in a remarkable comeback which sends Kellen Winslow to the pro bowl and, after a first and goal and the 3 defensive stand, energizes the team for a playoff run. Instead, a chickenshit ref made a bad call to please the home crowd and the Browns are tied for the 6th seed in the AFC instead of a game ahead.

[Scuba_Ben]

What the blazes was up with Joe Gibbs, getting himself flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct for back-to-back time outs?!?! I coulda sworn he was better than making stupid mistakes like that.

[SenorBeef]

Well that was weird. Heith Miller catches the ball by the sideline, gets one foot in but is driven out by the defender before he could get the other foot down. Somehow they called it a catch, saying something about a ... four pout? morse gout? something like that. Is that a rule or something?

[SenorBeef]

To continue a rant, I'd like to see the force out rule removed completely to remove the ambiguity of the situation. There's no reason that situation has to be a judgement call. The offense should have the obligation to conclusively make a catch and put it in bounds. You put up a floater to the sideline that your receiver has to jump for? Too bad if he gets pushed out, that's good defense. Next time work on performing a route you can land in bounds.

Too often it's called inconsistently, and it can be a game changer. But not only that, the ref responsible for it often isn't looking for it - he's usually watching where the feet land. Overall the rule doesn't really benefit the game in any way - it ups the level of control judgement calls have on the game for no reason. Just get rid of it. If the receiver lands both feet in bounds, it's a catch. If he doesn't, it's not.

But, so long as it is in the rulebook, it should be enforced. The Heath Miller force out was almost identical to the Winslow force out. The critical one that decided the game was miscalled, and the relatively unimportant one in the middle of a game got called correctly. Shitty deal.

[Cuckoorex]

Well that was weird. Heith Miller catches the ball by the sideline, gets one foot in but is driven out by the defender before he could get the other foot down. Somehow they called it a catch, saying something about a ... four pout? morse gout? something like that. Is that a rule or something?

"Force out" assuming I'm not being wooshed here...

the rule is, if the defender was most likely going to come down inbounds but the defender pushed them out of bounds while still in the air, they rule it as a good catch.

[Cuckoorex]

To continue a rant, I'd like to see the force out rule removed completely to remove the ambiguity of the situation. There's no reason that situation has to be a judgement call. The offense should have the obligation to conclusively make a catch and put it in bounds. You put up a floater to the sideline that your receiver has to jump for? Too bad if he gets pushed out, that's good defense. Next time work on performing a route you can land in bounds.

Too often it's called inconsistently, and it can be a game changer. But not only that, the ref responsible for it often isn't looking for it - he's usually watching where the feet land. Overall the rule doesn't really benefit the game in any way - it ups the level of control judgement calls have on the game for no reason. Just get rid of it. If the receiver lands both feet in bounds, it's a catch. If he doesn't, it's not.

But, so long as it is in the rulebook, it should be enforced. The Heath Miller force out was almost identical to the Winslow force out. The critical one that decided the game was miscalled, and the relatively unimportant one in the middle of a game got called correctly. Shitty deal.

Yeah, but imagine the shitty deal you would have if: someone catches a pass at midfield but some strong cornerback catches the player while they're jumping for the catch and literally carries them out of bounds. According to the rules (if you eliminate the force out rule) then it was an incomplete pass. How fucked up would THAT be?

[SenorBeef]

It would be the offense's obligation not to put themselves in that sort of position... the sort of thing you describe doesn't come up very often, and it'd be a smaller issue than the follies of the rules as they currently exist.

Besides, if one of those 5'8 175 receivers ended up getting carried out of bounds by some 6'5 260 pound linebacker while kicking and screaming, are you telling me that wouldn't be pure awesome?

[Cuckoorex]

It would be the offense's obligation not to put themselves in that sort of position... the sort of thing you describe doesn't come up very often, and it'd be a smaller issue than the follies of the rules as they currently exist.

Besides, if one of those 5'8 175 receivers ended up getting carried out of bounds by some 6'5 260 pound linebacker while kicking and screaming, are you telling me that wouldn't be pure awesome?

Well, it would also be pure awesome if, instead of simply tackling the quarterback, some lineman would do a flying front snap kick and kick the helmet right off the bastard, but that would also probably draw a penalty.

[SenorBeef]

I was being facetious of course but those are seperate things. The rule that punishes what you're talking about is for player safety, the rule that I'm talking about was designed to make for easier/more successful offensive play.

I don't really see a downside to removing the rule. I've never seen anything happen like what you described, so I'm not sure it's a valid case to counter it with. Ultimately, it would put the burden on the offense to make a valid catch. If you don't want to be subjected to being pushed out of bounds, don't throw jump balls to the sidelines.

Sometimes judgement call penalties are necesary because you can't objectively determine the results. But wherever possible, objective calls should replace judgement calls. And this is certainly a case where that is possible.

Really, I don't see any value in a force out rule. It seems to be among the many rules that the NFL has instituted to handicap defenses, because they seem to believe (and maybe it's true) that football audiences can't appreciate good defense like they do good offense.

[SenorBeef]

I wanted to add that not only is the force out an unnecesary judgement call, but it's unique. In other judgement calls, like pass interference, you're asking an official to give his interpretation of something that just happened. It's subjective, but he's evaluating what actually happened. In a force-out, you're asking the official to evaluate what he think WOULD'VE happened, which a step even further into subjective territory.

[SenorBeef]

Stupid question.

I typically don't bet 2nd half lines because I watch the games at a sports bar. But when the line says Team A +2 (2nd half), that means that to win the bet, Team A's score FOR THAT HALF must be more than Team B's score minus 2, right?

So if team A scores 10 the first half and 20 the second half for a total of 30
and team B scores 30 points in the first half and 10 in the second half for a total of 40
even though team B wins by 10 points, team A won the second half score 20 to 10, and therefore a bet on team A +2 wins, right?

Probably a stupid question, but like I said I don't bet the second half, but I may start, so I wanted to be sure.

[SenorBeef]

Whee! Posting spree!

Wagerline.com is a place where lots of people bet monpoly money on sports, and it's tracked.

The top 10 players who've made the best bets on given teams are declared experts for that team. You can see where the experts on both sides of the matchup are betting this week against the spread and the over/under. I've found in my very short experience there that a strong expert agreement there may have some meaning.

I decided to do a parlay of the bets that got what I concidered to be a strong expert consensus - something like 7-1 - that is 7 experts for, and 1 expert against. I made a 6 leg $5 parlay based on the strongest expert consensuses (is that a word?). Here's what it was:

St. Louis -3 (final 28-16 St. Louis)
Minnesota -4 (final 42-10 Minnesota)
Tennesse -3.5 (28-20 Tennessee)
Carolina -3 (31-14 Carolina)

And the losing bets
TB vs NO under 42 (actual total 50)
Off by 8 points, but I don't think anyone expected the surprisingly good play of Luke McCown

SD/KC over 36.5 (actual total 34)
Off by 2.5. This one especially frustrated me. As of around 3:30 eastern today, I was looking at 4 wins on my 6 leg parlay, and a 5th game was 24-10 SD with 8 minutes (IIRC) left in the game. All I needed was someone to get as much as a field goal, and TB/NO under 42 looked like a good bet, so I was thinking.. as soon as someone kicks a field goal, I've probably just turned $5 into $250. And that field goal never came. KC was on the 10 yard line at one point and threw a pick. Then they had an open receiver drop a ball at the 5 yard line on 4th down in a later drive. That was depressing.... watching 8 minutes go by, needing 3 points by either side, and not getting it. It would've been irrelevant anyway due to the Tampa/NO score, but it sucked at the time.

Anyway, my point is that there might be something to listening to the wagerline.com experts when there's a strong consensus. I'm going to continue to throw $5 a week at a parlay based on those picks.

[Trunk]

There's a betting message board called "madjacksports".

It's similar to here, with one forum for football, one for hoops, hockey, etc.

Re: second half lines. Yes, the lines are JUST for the second half score. If a team is up 7-0 at the half, and you get them -2 for the second half and they win 7-3, you lose.

Not much to say. Gambling wise, the late games were nuts. The Chicago game flip-flopped, the TB game went from a TB cover to a push, back to a cover. The Zona game could have gone the other way if they called the push-out.

[Ellis Dee]

Ok, I don't like the force out rule. But it's a rule. I realize the Browns benefited from a similar situation last year against the Jets, and I'm sure Jets fans were pissed, just as I'm pissed now.Ha! Sweet, sweet karma. Suck it, Brownies!

I will offer you the following consolation:A good, and maybe lucky receiver does indeed make that play - but you can't make a judgement call based on what a good receiver can do when he's lucky.

I'm not saying he'd have clearly been out - just that it's not clearly certain - and if it's not clearly certain, a game shouldn't be awarded based on it.

If his shoulder, wrist, or elbow touched first - which was very much a possibility - it probably would've landed out of bounds.By any objective measure, the non-call against the Jets last year was a (much) worse non-call than the non-call against the Browns this year. I'd love it if we could get links to both for comparison, but I'm not sure where to look for either.

[Capa84]

I really don't think Winslow could have come down in bounds. It was possible, but far from certain. With regards to the force our rule though, the following situation happened a couple of weeks ago in a Steelers game, and is going to come up again if the league doesn't address it:

Receiver leaps near the sidelines, is bobbling the ball, gets shoved, and lands. The referee calls the pass incomplete due to the bobble(he thought it hit the ground). The coach challenges, and the ref finds that the receiver caught the ball, but came down out of bounds due to being forced out. However, the forced out part is not reviewable, so the call on the field must stand. In the Steelers game, the receiver got a knee down, so the force out didn't come into play, but it is going to come up again. The officials in this case need to call the pass both incomplete, and rule a force out for the shove, in case the catch is actually good.

[SenorBeef]

Ha! Sweet, sweet karma. Suck it, Brownies!

It's not karma. The Browns, and for that matter, the Cardinals, did nothing wrong. If you've done nothing wrong, there's no reason for karmic retribution. In both cases it was the decision of the refs, a decision totally out of the hands of the teams.

In any case, I think both situations are shitty. I'd much rather be saying "he didn't get his feet in bounds, so we lost" than "we really won, but the ref didn't enforce the rule properly" which is much harder to get over. Or more importantly, if the stupid rule didn't exist the offense might've executed in a way that would've avoided the ambiguity of that situation.

It's not karma, no one deserves that bullshit to happen to them. It's a stupid fucking rule that allows the ineptitude/biases/etc. of the ref determine the game.

[Ellis Dee]

I think both situations are shitty.Well that's a 180 degree turnaround from your position last year, some of which I quoted above.It's a stupid fucking rule that allows the ineptitude/biases/etc. of the ref determine the game.I like the rule, and would hate to see it taken off the books. The improper enforcement of it pisses me off to no end, though.

Fuckin' refs. One more eye you'd be a cyclops.

[SenorBeef]

Well that's a 180 degree turnaround from your position last year, some of which I quoted above.


To be fair, I did say then that it was a shitty rule.

I also recall the situations being somewhat different, but my memory may be faulty. They both occured in the nearside corner of the end zone - with the Jets on the right, with Winslow on the left. From what I recall, the Jets receiver's momentum, if you were to draw it as an arrow on the ground, was heading clearly out of bounds. If left untouched by the defenders, he definitely would've gone out of bounds, but it's a matter of whether or not he'd have been able to get his feet in. If you drew Winslow's momentum as an arrow on the ground, it's much more pointed towards the back of the end zone. Untouched, it looked like he'd have landed on his ass.



I like the rule, and would hate to see it taken off the books. The improper enforcement of it pisses me off to no end, though.

Fuckin' refs. One more eye you'd be a cyclops.

It's so subjective that it's hard to have "proper" enforcement. What other rule makes the ref decide what he thought might've happened? What benefit do you see the rule bringing to the game of football?

Edit: Oh, also, now is not the time to jump on the Redskins, but it was nice to see another icing the kicker incident backfire. Two timeouts in a row turns a 51 yarder into a 36 yarder. Brilliant.

[SenorBeef]

In an unrelated request, will you please take Tim Carter back? Somehow he keeps seeing the field occasionally, and then bad things happen.

This week it looked like he ran a poor route, didn't come back to the QB, and didn't attempt to break up the interception that went the other way for 6. That's nastier than his usual "look, I'm open! But don't throw it to me, cause I just gave my hands their special grease treatment!" thing. There was also a fake spike play where it looks like he was supposed to run a go route and didn't, although that's not clear if it was his fault. The route was there, though, probably an easy TD.

For some odd reason he sees time on offense much more than Cribbs.

[garygnu]

It looked like a force-out to me. I think judgement calls like that should be reviewable. I find nothing sacrosanct about an official's judgement. The existing restrictions on reviews would keep too many calls like this from being reviewed anyway. It's just too big a swing to let it go

--

49ers:
Whatever good will Mike Nolan got from the win over Arizona, he and Trent Dilfer blew it against Carolina. Nolan was given complete power over this team's personel and this is what he has to show for it? Combined with years of questionable game management skills, it's time to get rid of him.
I say get multiple athletic QBs, dump the fullback, put Vernon Davis in the slot and run a spread offense from the gun.

[SenorBeef]

http://www.fanmonster.com/livefeed/2007/wislowcatch3.jpg

When he leaped up to make the catch, his momentum was going towards the back of the end zone.

[SenorBeef]

I hate the getting screwed by line moves aspect of sports betting. I have some bets down on NE -20, and the line has actually moved to NE -18.5. If I'd have delayed the bets, I'd be getting a better spread (although I couldn't delay the parlays involing other games). Although you run the opposite risk - delaying the bet gets you a worse spread.

Now the weather is not good for a 20 point spread, with 20 mph winds. But this has been predicted for days. Has it rained in Balitmore today? The forecast is actually more favorable in that regard - they were predicting potential precipitation on Monday night but that seems to have trailed off.

The wind does concern me. The Pats won't be able to run well against the rats. It's somewhat of an equalizer. But Brady's got a strong enough arm that their short passing game should still be very effective, so I still like NE.

The wagerline expert lines are split along homer lines. The Baltimore experts feel Baltimore can cover.

My lines at this time are NE - 18.5, over/under 46.5. I hate taking large spreads and relatively modest unders, but that's the way I'm leaning. Or I might just make a big straight bet on NE - 18.5. Does anyone know why the money is going to Baltimore? Should I rethink this?

I'm seeing something like 37-10. Cutting it close on the O/U.

[SenorBeef]

Scratch that.

[SenorBeef]

Well, I get to watch the Ravens suffer tonight and also gain financially from it. Slightly helps to offset the crapfest that was yesterday.

Go Pats. 45-0. (I win the most if it stays under 48).

[SenorBeef]

Hmm. Concerning. What happened to the Pats?

I still think they can turn it around at half time and possibly still cover the spread. My book does live betting, and right now the NE -18.5 bet is +300. Tempting.

[Jurph]

Go Pats. 45-0. (I win the most if it stays under 48).

I hope you took the spread, and I hope you choked on your Doritos on that last play. The Ravens had the Pats dead in the water on... four? five? consecutive fourth downs. That time-out on 4th and 1... ARGH.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Billick really stepped on his own dick by calling that time out. One more reason that time outs should not be allowed to be called from the sideline.

[drm]

Alright NFL and the press that covers it if one thing has been proven the last two weeks it's that the Pats are not untouchable. They were one stop from losing tonight. If there is one thing that's infuriating me this year it's the idea that they are completely untouchable. I've been hearing this about the patriots 10 times a week this year and it's getting tiresome.

Alright Steelers, you're next and if you go into next Sunday thinking you're going to lose, you will. They're an NFL team made up of honest to god - human players...they CAN lose. The sooner the media and everyone else understands this idea the better.

I hate the press. This means you too Jaws (this refers to PTI today).

[SenorBeef]

Towards the end of the game I was falling asleep, so I watched the last few minutes half asleep. Did the Ravens get jobbed on some of those ref calls? Non-call on intentional grounding, holding or PI, whatever it was, on the 4th down play to Watson, others? I'm not sure cause my memory is half-asleep hazy.

[Jurph]

Towards the end of the game I was falling asleep, so I watched the last few minutes half asleep. Did the Ravens get jobbed on some of those ref calls? Non-call on intentional grounding, holding or PI, whatever it was, on the 4th down play to Watson, others? I'm not sure cause my memory is half-asleep hazy.

As a Ravens fan, it pains me to say that the Ravens did it to themselves in the end. Billick's time-out when they had already made the stop... that broke their spirit. They started making stupid mistakes, emotional penalties, mental screw-ups, and the game swirled around the bowl once or twice before sinking down the drain. I'd like to have seen a pass interference call on the last play -- everyone was all over everyone else at the 1 yard line -- but everyone was playing the ball.

The formula for beating the Pats is this:
(1) Hold onto the ball for as much of the clock as possible
(2) Shut down the pass
(3) Use a backup quarterback (e.g. Feely, Boller)
(4) Don't get greedy when you're marching down the field (see (1) above)
(5) Continue to play first-quarter football right up until the last whistle

I'll be rooting for the Steelers next week. Take the Philadelphia / Baltimore playbook and make it work, guys.

[Hampshire]

Alright NFL and the press that covers it if one thing has been proven the last two weeks it's that the Pats are not untouchable. They were one stop from losing tonight. If there is one thing that's infuriating me this year it's the idea that they are completely untouchable. I've been hearing this about the patriots 10 times a week this year and it's getting tiresome.

Alright Steelers, you're next and if you go into next Sunday thinking you're going to lose, you will. They're an NFL team made up of honest to god - human players...they CAN lose. The sooner the media and everyone else understands this idea the better.

I hate the press. This means you too Jaws (this refers to PTI today).

Agreed whole heartedly!

Thae Pats sure aren't the dominating force they were at the beginning of the season. I mean barely squeaking by a non-McNabb Eagles team, then again barely squeaking by a losing Baltimore team. They're looking totally vulnerable at this point.
They're not going to get the perfect season record and they're going to get squashed in the playoffs.

[storyteller0910]

They're not going to get the perfect season record and they're going to get squashed in the playoffs.

I'm not willing to do so on the first half of that sentence, but would you care to place a small wager on the second?

[Ellis Dee]

To be fair, I did say then that it was a shitty rule.Granted, but right before it you said:When there's ambiguity in the call, you simply can't award the offense a TD. As it is, the pushout rule is rarely invoked - that call probably gets called that way more than 75% of the time. As it should.It would seem that your position is now completely the opposite; last year the refs did the right thing given the rule you don't like, but now this year it's the wrong call. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

And as for comparing the two, the Jets call was about a thousand times worse. (Yet your defense of that non-call was hundreds of words in several posts.) Baker was no more than six inches off the ground, and his entire body was inside the endzone. Winslow was a couple feet off the ground and most of his body was out of bounds. For comparison: Baker(1) (http://thefeed.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/baker.jpg) Baker(2) (http://images.usatoday.com/sports/_photos/2006/10/29/topper-jets.jpg) Winslow (http://www.fanmonster.com/livefeed/2007/wislowcatch3.jpg)

As far as momentum, Baker's momentum was going less out of bounds than Winslow's was.It's so subjective that it's hard to have "proper" enforcement. What other rule makes the ref decide what he thought might've happened? What benefit do you see the rule bringing to the game of football?Protecting defenseless receivers. As for how to enforce it, I've heard that the rule is based on whether the majority of the receiver's body is in-bounds or out-of-bounds at the time of the contact. I can't verify this; it's what Golic explained on Mike & Mike. According to that, the refs don't have to predict what "would have happened" at all. And of course, by that measure the Baker non-call -- which you defended vigorously -- was far more egregious than the Winslow call.Edit: Oh, also, now is not the time to jump on the Redskins, but it was nice to see another icing the kicker incident backfire. Two timeouts in a row turns a 51 yarder into a 36 yarder. Brilliant.Agreed.

[Ellis Dee]

I found video of the Baker force-out. (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=28963&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2006&week=REG8) It's at the end of the highlight reel, and they show several slow-motion replays.

Tell me again how it was a good call.

[Darth Sensitive]

The formula for beating the Pats is this:
(1) Hold onto the ball for as much of the clock as possible
(2) Shut down the pass
(3) Use a backup quarterback (e.g. Feely, Boller)
(4) Don't get greedy when you're marching down the field (see (1) above)
(5) Continue to play first-quarter football right up until the last whistle


#3 - How come? Have both the starters been out because of injury? The Pat's defense prepares for the starter but doesn't adjust well to the backup? Their backups are like Tony Romo compared to Drew Bledsoe? Or is it just a "hey, it's almost worked twice, third times the charm" joke?

[ShadowFacts]

(2) Shut down the pass


Better yet, shut down the pass and run! Problem solved!

[Darth Sensitive]

Better yet, shut down the pass and run! Problem solved!

Have you considered taking a job with ESPN or Fox yet? If you can service Brady and make comments like this at the same time, you belong on TV!

[ShadowFacts]

Have you considered taking a job with ESPN or Fox yet? If you can service Brady and make comments like this at the same time, you belong on TV!
:D

[Xema]

Tell me again how it was a good call.
A real stinker of a call.

[Jurph]

#3 - How come? Have both the starters been out because of injury? The Pat's defense prepares for the starter but doesn't adjust well to the backup? Their backups are like Tony Romo compared to Drew Bledsoe? Or is it just a "hey, it's almost worked twice, third times the charm" joke?

Yeah, it's pointing out that the two teams that have come closest to beating the Pats did it with backup QBs.

As for stopping the pass, you don't really need to stop the run against the Pats this year. You can't let them get seven yards a carry, but I watched their running back last night and I don't even remember his name - I'm sure he's a talented guy but he's no Westbrook, Addai, or McGahee. Anyway, maybe it was the Ravens' defense, but the guy didn't even look like he was trying. Did he have a good night? A mediocre night? I feel like an average defensive line could hold him to three or four yards two thirds of the time, and stuff him for no gain or a loss about a third of the time.

[pulykamell]

*oops, nevermind*

[NurseCarmen]

Wow. That really was a bad call.

[Kiros]

Towards the end of the game I was falling asleep, so I watched the last few minutes half asleep. Did the Ravens get jobbed on some of those ref calls? Non-call on intentional grounding, holding or PI, whatever it was, on the 4th down play to Watson, others? I'm not sure cause my memory is half-asleep hazy.

Re: the holding call on Watson on 4th down, I'm sure you've seen it several more times today... but here's my feeling on it: It was definitely the RIGHT call, but it was a lucky call for the Pats at the same time. Why? Well, as pretty much anyone who had ever followed a team with a stud receiving tight end can tell you, tight ends get mauled regularly on that sort of pattern, and virtually never get the calls. I'm sure you probably see it a bunch with Winslow. Prime example of this for me is Ben Coates in the mid-90s on the Pats - the same effect, plus the fact that it was before Bill Polian whined like a little girl and got the PI rules tweaked (or, "enforced", if you'd prefer).

I am pretty surprised that we didn't see more (anything?) about the non-call on the intentional grounding - I actually know exactly what play you're referring to. I REALLY don't like it when QBs do that "throw it at the ground in the general area of someone with my color shirt on" thing.

[SenorBeef]

I found video of the Baker force-out. (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=28963&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2006&week=REG8) It's at the end of the highlight reel, and they show several slow-motion replays.

Tell me again how it was a good call.

I don't think there's anything I can say here that won't make me sound like a hypocrite. And maybe you're right - I'm biased on the issue.

However, I disagree with these statements:


And as for comparing the two, the Jets call was about a thousand times worse.
...
As far as momentum, Baker's momentum was going less out of bounds than Winslow's was.
...
Winslow was a couple feet off the ground and most of his body was out of bounds


Upon reviewing both of them, I'll say that both probably shouldn't have been TDs. It's a difficult position for me - it's hard to argue in favor of a rule I hate in situations that could go either way. On one hand, the result in both are in accordance with my ideal scenario - that is, both should've been out of bounds because I don't want the rule that made them questionable to exist. On the other hand, the rule does exist, and I dislike the way the officials suddenly swallow their whistles at the end of a game - I think the game should be called evenly at all times.

However, to specifically dissect the two calls, most of Winslow's body is not out of bounds. You can see in this picture (http://www.fanmonster.com/livefeed/2007/wislowcatch3.jpg) that his right foot is inside the pylon. Now the perspective is distorted because of the angle, so the apparent distance between his foot and the pylon isn't quite right, but it's clear that his right foot is inside the end zone and it looks like with at least a foot to spare. Which gives the possibility of his right shoulder and head being out of bounds, but not most of his body.

His momentum was heading towards the sideline and back of the end zone, true. But look at where his feet are - they're level relative to the ground. The act of jumping cancelled out some of his backwards momentum, and if you remove the defender from the picture, it's clear that his feet will land before any other part of his body. And his feet are level with the ground and both in bounds at that point. Even with the massive push (his momentum changed about 80 degrees), his right foot, the one closest to the sideline, still only came out of bounds by a few inches. His left foot didn't get down, not because it was out of bounds, but because the push made his body rotate in a way that put his left foot into the air when, without the push, it would've been level with the right foot. If you take the defender out of the picture, I think it's clear that he lands on both feet - the question is whether or not his right one would've been in bounds. Given that it was only out by a few inches even with the push, there's a good chance, taking the defender out of the picture, that he comes down with it. But I did say when there was ambiguity, you can't award the TD, so I guess that should be my position.

The main issue with Baker's catch is that he's stretching out and falling foward to make the play. His right leg is below his left leg, and his body momentum is rotating him in a way where the falling forward - that is, his upper body is going closer to the ground and his lower body is moving away - and he's twisting left to right - the right side of his body is moving towards the ground while the left side is moving up. Now take the defender out of the picture here too. He'd probably have gotten his right foot in bounds, but his body is moving in such a way that his right shoulder and elbow were moving towards the ground while his left foot was moving up into the air. If his right shoulder or elbow hit first, it would've been out of bounds. I may be exaggerating the degree to which his momentum was rotating him.. it's hard to tell because the defender hits him before it's clear if he's recovered his balance or is taking a dive into his shoulder.

With some time to review them, I'll say that, given my feelings towards the enforcement of that rule, neither should've been ruled a catch. I disagree that Baker's claim to a force out is significantly better than Winslow's.

Something that's interesting about the Winslow case is that they reviewed the play even though there was nothing to review. You can't review a force out, and it's clear he didn't get 2 feet in bounds, so there was no need to review. And yet... when they did review, it wasn't like a 30 second review, and then "clearly he's out, later bitches" - they spent several minutes reviewing it. My guess is that the head official felt like they fucked up, and they bought time to call the league office to find out if there was anything they could do about it.

[Xema]

The main issue with Baker's catch is that he's stretching out and falling foward to make the play. His right leg is below his left leg, and his body momentum is rotating him in a way where the falling forward - that is, his upper body is going closer to the ground and his lower body is moving away - and he's twisting left to right - the right side of his body is moving towards the ground while the left side is moving up. Now take the defender out of the picture here too. He'd probably have gotten his right foot in bounds, but his body is moving in such a way that his right shoulder and elbow were moving towards the ground while his left foot was moving up into the air. If his right shoulder or elbow hit first, it would've been out of bounds. I may be exaggerating the degree to which his momentum was rotating him.. it's hard to tell because the defender hits him before it's clear if he's recovered his balance or is taking a dive into his shoulder.
The video linked above shows the play 3 times; the final one is clearly the most useful. I disagree that Baker is falling forward - it seems to me that the chance that his feet would have hit first is 98%, and the chance they would have hit in bounds is about the same, or perhaps a bit better.

You say that his left foot was moving upward. This may be so, but (as the final shot shows) its vertical velocity at the time of the catch is very low - not nearly enough to suggest that he'd have had any trouble getting it onto the ground before his shoulder or elbow. Bear in mind that NFL receivers are quite good at dragging the second foot when necessary (though I doubt that in this case it would have been necessary).

So while we can't be absolutely certain he'd have come down in bounds, the evidence strongly suggests this.

[Ellis Dee]

I don't think there's anything I can say here that won't make me sound like a hypocrite.Based on your last post, I'm forced to agree.

[SenorBeef]

Based on your last post, I'm forced to agree.

And I was right. Even though after the emotion of the moment has faded (and I was emotional when I posted Sunday), I re-examined both and declared that both should've been called the same way, you've decided ahead of time you were going to think negatively of my response regardless of what it was.

[Ellis Dee]

And I was right. Even though after the emotion of the moment has faded (and I was emotional when I posted Sunday), I re-examined both and declared that both should've been called the same way, you've decided ahead of time you were going to think negatively of my response regardless of what it was.Well, it would've helped if you hadn't come to the wrong conclusion. Both were force-outs. (It would also help if you ever apologized for, or at least acknowleged, your prior screeds that you subsequently disavow. A quick mea culpa goes a long way.)

As for the force-out rule itself, it's actually pretty consistent for the rules of football. Momentum is a big deal in football rules, with "forward progress" being the main embodiment. Think of a sack on the offense's 1 yard line resulting in the QB being tackled in the endzone. That's never ruled a safety because the QB's momentum didn't carry him backwards, the tackle did.

Now instead of a sack, imagine the QB just gets off a duck of a swing pass, and the RB jumps up to get it at the 1 yard line along the sideline. While in mid-air, the RB makes the catch and gets hit. His feet still haven't touched the ground. Here's where the consistency comes in: If he's tackled backwards into the endzone, it is NOT a safety; he is awarded forward progress to the 1.
If he's tackled sideways out of bounds, it is NOT an incomplete; he is awarded a force-out at the 1.That's the underlying principle of the rule, at least.

[SenorBeef]

Well, it would've helped if you hadn't come to the wrong conclusion. Both were force-outs. (It would also help if you ever apologized for, or at least acknowleged, your prior screeds that you subsequently disavow. A quick mea culpa goes a long way.)



What am I disavowing? On Sunday, when my emotions were high and the memory of the baker catch was a year away, I said they were different. Upon a more objective review, I said they should be treated the same way. I disagreed with your assertion that Baker's call was a thousand times more egregious, but I said they should've been called the same way.



As for the force-out rule itself, it's actually pretty consistent for the rules of football. Momentum is a big deal in football rules, with "forward progress" being the main embodiment. Think of a sack on the offense's 1 yard line resulting in the QB being tackled in the endzone. That's never ruled a safety because the QB's momentum didn't carry him backwards, the tackle did.

Now instead of a sack, imagine the QB just gets off a duck of a swing pass, and the RB jumps up to get it at the 1 yard line along the sideline. While in mid-air, the RB makes the catch and gets hit. His feet still haven't touched the ground. Here's where the consistency comes in: If he's tackled backwards into the endzone, it is NOT a safety; he is awarded forward progress to the 1.
If he's tackled sideways out of bounds, it is NOT an incomplete; he is awarded a force-out at the 1.That's the underlying principle of the rule, at least.

I would have to see the actual rule and guidelines about calling a force out. If it has to do with how much of a person is in bounds at the time of the contact, then these rules may be similar. But if not, then I disagree that they're entirely analogous. Forward progress rules (which I also think are far too generous - yet another one of those offense encouraging rules the NFL has adopted over time) attempt to judge where a person was at when something happened - how far they were forward when the play became dead. While it's something of a judgement call too, they're fundamentally trying to figure out something that actually happened - where a person was at a particular moment in time.

Unless the force out rules say something about where the receiver's body was at the time of the contact, they're asking the referees to speculate where a receiver could've been, rather than trying to determine where they actually were.

[Ellis Dee]

What am I disavowing?You describe it in the sentence following this one.I would have to see the actual rule and guidelines about calling a force out. If it has to do with how much of a person is in bounds at the time of the contact, then these rules may be similar. But if not, then I disagree that they're entirely analogous.Mike Pereira (sp?) -- the head of officiating -- was on Inside the NFL and basically torpedoed the "most of the body was inbounds" idea. He flat-out stated that the officials must determine if the receiver would have come down inbounds.

Apart from that, I don't think you understood my comparison. The RB catches the ball in the air and the first thing he touches is: endzone. Not a safety.
out of bounds. Completed pass.

[SenorBeef]

You describe it in the sentence following this one.

I don't understand. You said that I disavowed what I said last year, but as I said, after reviewing both plays, that I'm in agreement with what I said last year. I may be wrong, but I'm not inconsistent.

The next statement you quoted was about how force outs are actually determined, so I don't understand what bearing that statement has on my supposed disavowing.

[pulykamell]

So while we can't be absolutely certain he'd have come down in bounds, the evidence strongly suggests this.

I'd bet my life Baker would have landed in bounds had he not been touched. I mean, he's about three feet inbounds with his right foot coming down before he gets knocked the heck out. It would have taken some amazing acrobatics for his left foot not to have come inbounds, too. I've watched this replay over about a dozen times (I missed it last year) and showed it to about five other people, and I cannot for the life of me understand how anybody with a knowledge of earthly gravity could conclude Baker would not have landed in bounds. It's not even close. The call really, really baffles me.

[Ellis Dee]

I don't understand. You said that I disavowed what I said last year, but as I said, after reviewing both plays, that I'm in agreement with what I said last year. I may be wrong, but I'm not inconsistent.I was refering to this year's screed, not last year's rationalization. And I do give you credit for at least being consistent(ly wrong.)The next statement you quoted was about how force outs are actually determined, so I don't understand what bearing that statement has on my supposed disavowing.It doesn't have any bearing at all. It's a whole separate part of the conversation, which is why I quoted it separately. I was letting you know that the head of officiating contradicted what Golic said.

[Ellis Dee]

I'd bet my life Baker would have landed in bounds had he not been touched. I mean, he's about three feet inbounds with his right foot coming down before he gets knocked the heck out. It would have taken some amazing acrobatics for his left foot not to have come inbounds, too. I've watched this replay over about a dozen times (I missed it last year) and showed it to about five other people, and I cannot for the life of me understand how anybody with a knowledge of earthly gravity could conclude Baker would not have landed in bounds. It's not even close. The call really, really baffles me.I'm right there with you. You've heard of the "new math;" not calling Baker's catch a force-out has to be the "new physics."