Lucky Pats

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/01/24/ravens-kicking-consultant-cant-rule-out-new-england-patriots-cheating-in-afc-championship/


It takes a lot of work to get lucky.

Originally posted by tomtom232
It wasn't. If the play is obvious then the play is obvious. There is too much precedence in this type of situation... It would not be called a fumble on the rest of the field so it must be incomplete and if it is incomplete on the field then it is incomplete in the endzone.

Apparently, James Ihedigbo, who is a defensive back/special teamer for the Patriots disagrees with you.

In an interview with Boomer and Carton that I just heard maybe 15 minutes ago, he said (and I'm trying for the exact quote here, but forgive me for paraphrasing a little):

That play was so close that I heard that if they'd have ruled it a touchdown, they would not have been able to reverse it.

I don't have a site yet because I just heard it on the radio, but it's very possible that wfan.com will have the interview up on their site later today.

Edit: Check for it on this page later today.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/audio-on-demand/boomer-carton/

Originally posted by sh76
Apparently, James Ihedigbo, who is a defensive back/special teamer for the [b]Patriots disagrees with you.

In an interview with Boomer and Carton that I just heard maybe 15 minutes ago, he said (and I'm trying for the exact quote here, but forgive me for paraphrasing a little):

[quote] That play was so close that I heard that if they'd have ruled it a r it on this page later today.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/audio-on-demand/boomer-carton/[/b]

When it comes to completion in that instance it is very hard to have the call reversed regardless which way the call was made.

This is because reviewing a play is to confirm the call on the field not to reassess the call on the field so if the refs don't see anything different in the review booth than what they saw on the field they are obligated to let the play stand.

I actually think this play isn't even challengable (why it wasn't challenged by the booth) since it is based on possesion and thus is a judgement call (there is nothing else to look for like a knee being down before the ball came out in a fumble or a foot going out of bounds before scoring the touchdown or whether the reiever got both feet in or not etc.)

Of course, if it was ruled a touchdown it would have to be reviewed but it wouldn't have reversed the call.

In conclusion, the call was obvious and would have been a very bad call if they had ruled it a touchdown because, like I said before, it would have been incomplete on any other part of the field which means it must be incomplete in the endzone.

Originally posted by sh76
That wasn't the issue.

Phlabibit didn't say the Patriots scored more points. If he had, he'd have been right (though obvious). But he said that the better team won. All the numbers indicate that the Ravens outplayed the Pats. They lost anyway. Fine. It happens. But that the Pats scored more points doesn't mean they were the better team on that day. Otherwise, the statement is just a redundancy.

The point you're missing is you have to play a WHOLE LOT better than the Pats to beat them. That's how good the Pats are. If you match their statistics, or do slightly better they will still win. You have to pound the bananas out of them to win.

The better team won.

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
The point you're missing is you have to play a WHOLE LOT better than the Pats to beat them. That's how good the Pats are. If you match their statistics, or do slightly better they will still win. You have to pound the bananas out of them to win.

The better team won.

P-

Hey, I have this really cool Patriots shirt I am going to send you!!

A guaranteed lucky charm!!!

Originally posted by tomtom232
When it comes to completion in that instance it is very hard to have the call reversed regardless which way the call was made.

This is because reviewing a play is to confirm the call on the field not to reassess the call on the field so if the refs don't see anything different in the review booth than what they saw on the field they are obligated to let incomplete on any other part of the field which means it must be incomplete in the endzone.

You're wrong about it not being challengeable. Possession catches (or lack thereof) are challenged all the time. Whether it's a judgment call or not doesn't matter. The only time calls are not challengeable is when it's a penalty at issue (and some penalties can be challenged, such as 12 men on the field) and cases in which the ref blew the whistle, thereby ending the play.

Edit: Also, things are different in the end zone than in the rest of the field since once you have possession in the end zone, the play is, by definition, over.

For example, if you cross the 20 and then go back to the 15 and are tackled there, the play isn't over until you're tackled and the ball is on the 15. If you cross the goal line and then come back out to the 5, it's still a touchdown and the play is over the instant the ball crosses the goal line.

Originally posted by sh76
You're wrong about it not being challengeable. Possession catches (or lack thereof) are challenged all the time. Whether it's a judgment call or not doesn't matter. The only time calls are not challengeable is when it's a penalty at issue (and some penalties can be challenged, such as 12 men on the field) and cases in which the ref blew the whistle, thereby end , it's still a touchdown and the play is over the instant the ball crosses the goal line.

Yes, they are, when there is something else to look for.

Did he keep control of the ball all the way to the ground?

Did the ball hit the ground?

Did he get both feet in with control of the ball?

In this case there was nothing else to look for. He was clearly inbounds and he clearly had the ball knocked out of his hands... what else is there? It might be technically challengeable but it would be wasted time and effort since it would, by rule, have to stand in this instance no matter what the call was.


Edit: in reply to your edit... in that case there isn't a question of possesion just a question of spotting.

The difference is when you are on the twenty and you run back to the fifteen and the play is still going you might be able to progress past the twenty but once you make it into the endzone there is no farther to go so your forward progress has stopped and once that happens the play is over.... just like on the rest of the field.

If that rule is the same on the rest of the field then incompletion/completion calls should also be the same in the endzone as on the rest of the field.

What? If he has control of the ball with two feet down it's a TD, it needed me to see it a second time in slow motion to confirm that his second foot touched down just after the ball was leaving his hands. It wasn't a TD but not clearly on first glance, it should've been reviewed.

Originally posted by Trev33
What? If he has control of the ball with two feet down it's a TD, it needed me to see it a second time in slow motion to confirm that his second foot touched down just after the ball was leaving his hands. It wasn't a TD but not clearly on first glance, it should've been reviewed.

No, a catch has to be a catch just like on every other part of the field.

The rules have changed quite a bit over the years. It used to be that if you got both feet in with control of the ball it was instantly a touchdown but those days are over and I think the game is better for it.