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).
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.
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.
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)Baker(2)Winslow
As far as momentum, Baker’s momentum was going less out of bounds than Winslow’s was.
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.
#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.
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.
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:
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 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.
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.
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.
