Video: Maybe the dumbest football decision ever
posted at 10:55 am on November 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
How dumb was the decision by New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick to go for a fourth down on his own 28 … while leading by six points and with just two minutes on the clock? His defense had kept the Indianapolis Colts bottled up for most of the game, although they had tired a bit in the fourth quarter. A punt would have forced Peyton Manning to drive 70 yards in two minutes with one timeout, and Manning had thrown two interceptions and probably should have had another two passes picked in the game. Instead, Belichick — normally one of the brightest men in the sport — decided to roll the dice, and even Al Michaels and Chris Collinsworth couldn’t believe he was serious until they saw the ball snapped:
The Boston Globe raises the specter of another BB — Bill Buckner (via Tom Maguire):
This was as bad as anything the Red Sox ever did. Had it been a playoff game, it would be right up there with Bucky Dent, Bill Buckner, Aaron Boone, and History Derailed in Glendale, Ariz.
And Bill Belichick played the part of Grady Little.
The Patriots lost to the undefeated Colts in unbelievable fashion last night. Leading, 31-14 in the fourth quarter, and 34-21 with 2:30 remaining, the Patriots took the choke and lost to their hated rivals, 35-34.
So the conference is gone, the playoff bye is probably bye-bye, and the (6-3) Patriots are saddled with a loss that will haunt them for the rest of the season.
And Belichick gets the blame. Too smart for his own good this time. The sin of hubris.
I almost turned this game off in the fourth quarter. When the Pats lead by two TDs at that stage of the game, they don’t lose, or at least they didn’t until last night. Hubris is exactly right; Belichick thought that his offense couldn’t be stopped, even though Tom Brady had almost thrown a pick on the previous play, another quick out to the flat.
Unbelievable.
Update: Collinsworth, not Cunningham. Need … more … coffee, especially after staying up too late watching the end of that game.
Update II: You never know with these threads. They either get a dozen comments, or 300. Meanwhile, King Banaian crunches the numbers in the Green Room to defend Belichick.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
it was a good call . that is how those plays go. you want it to be blatant and in your face when in reality the defensive play interfered.
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Wow you operate on some sort of delay. Do you live in Indiana? Parts there operate often on a 1 hour delay.
Bet you think OJ was innocent.
Why are you women so crabby today. You still have a great team. Calm down.
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 12:27 PM
The player legally has possession when he has it in his hands with control. Faulk does at the 30 1/2 yard line. The fact that he is then driven back by the defender means nothing. Any backward movement of the ball is due to the hit of the defender. Possession doesn’t begin when the receiver’s feet hit the ground. His feet hitting the ground while he still has possession simply means it was a legal catch.
Rocks on November 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Everyone stop talking about Faulk’s feet. They’re completely irrelevant to the question of forward progress on this play.
BadgerHawk on November 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM
He cheated and got caught, and did not own up to it. He’s been a jerk in many other ways. I hate that the coach of my favorite team is so widely reviled. You see a game like this and so many fans are going to say “good, they deserved it, those cheaters.” That makes me furious! There are other great coaches out there who are not cheaters and a-holes.
rockmom on November 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM
The Colts punted 6 times – and Manning was picked twice – so I don’t think you can say the Colts would inevitably drive 70+ yards for the win.
darkegop on November 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM
No, you are the idiot on this. A reciever cannot catch the ball at the oppossing ten yard line and run back to his own ten yard line where he is tackled and have the ball spotted where he caught it at the oppossing ten yard line. He moved the ball back to his own ten yard line. Which is what you think Forward Progress means.
Holger on November 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM
You cannot tell from the angles shown in the video.
Must be a Pats fan.
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Fans with a dislike of the Patriots call it hubris. The football commentators who actually played the game say it showed distrusts of the defense vs. the Colts at that point in the game.
The Patriots work ethic and skill show that they’re not all about a lazy hubris. They have an excellent team. Probably not the best NFL team this year, but under Belichick, they win consistently and have 3 Super Bowl titles.
I think this was a bad decision, as was a 4th down & long decision in the Super Bowl loss to the Giants where they avoided a long FG kick attempt. Earlier this year, Belichick went for a 4th down on the Patriots own side of the 50-yard line to seal a victory. So this wasn’t the first time — only the first time Ed noticed.
BruinEric on November 16, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Well, I didn’t think so. I’m not going to argue pass interference here though.
rockmom on November 16, 2009 at 12:33 PM
LOL! That’s the best you could find, an article written over 2 YEARS ago?
Your article is solely about the incident against the Jets. One game. That’s the game Bill was fined for.
The other incident involved allegations of numerous films shot by former Pats employee Sean Walsh. During the investigation, the Boston Globe did some digging and found that Walsh was challenged by the truth in the past in several cases-he embellished his Patriots resume to include duties he never performed, as well as some other stuff.
The NFL investigation concluded that he did not have any evidence to prove his claims, and had no corroborating witnesses to back him up. He’s now back being an assistant golf instructor on Mau’i.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Well all I can is that as a Saints fan this REALLY sucked.
Diogenes of Sinope on November 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM
I could not believe Belicheck went for it, and it looked as though Tom Brady was going – wait, WHAT? I’m no Pat fan, nor am I a Belicheck fan, and I do like the Colts and Peyton and was glad that they won, but geez, kick it away, kick it deep and give your defense a long field to stop ‘em.
TeeDee on November 16, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Pats fan right? Dispute the fact that you are seeing an angle favorable to you view…… if you can.
Fans with a dislike of the Patriots call it hubris. The football commentators who actually played the game say it showed distrusts of the defense vs. the Colts at that point in the game.
Again the Pats have been very successful on 4th and short in the past but they have a very good defense and they had already picked him twice prior in that game.
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Exactly – Manning was having a poor game up until that penultimate drive, and even that one was helped considerably by the pass interference call and might well have stalled without it. I don’t believe Belichick was worried about the Colts offense at all, he wanted to get the first down and make them use all their timeouts. It was a great defensive stand there by the Colts.
rockmom on November 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Exactly. Also, the Pats reckoned their O vs. Indy’s D was a better bet than Indy’s O vs. their D. They bet wrong and didn’t keep a challenge handy.
Christien on November 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM
M’am could you please repeat that one more time.
/
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 12:37 PM
I never suggested anything like this. Faulk didn’t run anywhere after the catch. He’s falling parallel to the first down line. His entire backward movement is due to the defender.
yeah, ya can. It’s obvious. It’s not even close. The ball is fully past the 30 yard line when Faulk has possession. The line judge clearly thought he was still bobbling the ball, he wasn’t. It was a fine on field call, but it was the wrong one. And I’m a life long Cowboys fan.
Rocks on November 16, 2009 at 12:37 PM
I can see why it’s unconventional. Although it’s the right move, the coach will take all the blame and ridicule if it fails. If he punts it, then the defense gets all the blame if they don’t prevent a touchdown.
Belichick was more interested in winning than deflecting blame.
Buddahpundit on November 16, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Brady looked confused on that whole series, inexplicably so. I am curious to find out if the Colts threw some new defensive looks out there that he had not seen and got him rattled. I was surprised by the use of the two timeouts and the conservative play-calling there. But the Patriots are famously tight-lipped about those things so we will probably never know.
rockmom on November 16, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Are you Rockmom’s kid? A Cowboy fan too. Wow that is weird.
Again …the angle you are watching does not do justice. I noticed you did not address that issue.
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Colts MLB Gary Brackett (#58) and another LB kept moving up towards the line showing blitz, then moving back, up then back. You could hear Brady screaming “58! 58!” and pointing at Brackett.
Christien on November 16, 2009 at 12:44 PM
No, I;m not her kid. The angles are fine. You have 2. The first shows his forward progress. Watch Faulk’s feet and leg movement. They are clear. The second shows the possession. Compare his leg positions to when he has possession. They are the ones shown in the last frame of the video. The ball is at the 30 1/2 yard line. Faulk is in the process of being hit by the defender and driven backwards. Any backward movement of the ball from that point on is irrelevant as it is not due to any action by Faulk. It’s a first down.
Rocks on November 16, 2009 at 12:45 PM
No, unlike yourself, I actually have a life outside of HA. Had a work meeting to go to.
Obviously you’re simply jealous of the Patriots success. I would be too.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 12:45 PM
This isn’t the first time where Belichick’s hubris has cost the Patriots a big game.
In the second quarter of the Super Bowl between the Patriots and the New York Giants, the Patriots had a 4th-and-13 on the Giants’ 30-yard line, leading 7-3. Any “normal” coach would have his team attempt a long but makeable 47-yard field goal.
Instead, Belichick had Tom Brady throw a long pass into the end zone, which was easily knocked incomplete by two Giants defenders. The Giants eventually won the Super Bowl 17-14. Had the Patriots made that field goal in the second quarter, the Super Bowl would have gone into overtime, and the Patriots might have won.
Fourth down on your own 28, with the lead? You punt, and trust your defense. You DON’T risk giving Peyton Manning a short field–make him work for his touchdown.
Steve Z on November 16, 2009 at 12:46 PM
M’am calm down. If you go back you will see I am essentially never on here during the daytime during the week. And you thought you were so smart.
I know I am so jealous. Those 6 rings that we Steeler fans enjoy are nothing./
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Who has the more straight on view ? The camera or the official standing in view of the camera.
A simple
1) the camera
or
2) the official will do.
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Holy crap, Boston Globe. Hyperbole much?
Yes, the conference is gone, but so what? The Pats are up two games in their conference, with a game in hand on each of the two teams behind them. They are in an excellent position to come in as the two seed, which would give them at least one home game.
Yeah, the decision was a bad one, but the team still controls most of its own playoff destiny. Unless, of course, it listens to that crying ninny at the Boston Globe, lays down, and dies.
Jimmie Bise, Jr on November 16, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Steelers and Pats both lost really close games…how sweet is that?
Christien on November 16, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Yes you have.
Forward progress does not mean what you think it means.
Holger on November 16, 2009 at 12:52 PM
As I noted earlier in the thread, a similar sequence happened in yesterday’s Saints-Rams game, where Marc Bulger led the Rams down to the Saints goal line witn no time outs left inside 2 minutes.
Had they scored the TD, the Saints would have lost their first game of the season. And the Rams were 20+ point underdogs in that game! Peyton Manning is also a much more dangerous QB than Bulger is.
Belichick made the correct decision. I am not going to get into the forward progress issue, because it’s inconclusive. But as one of the Pats players said today, saying the “refs made a bad call” on that play is just an excuse. He said they only have themselves to blame for not getting the 2 yards.
That’s a classy statement. Certainly shows the fine work ethic of a team of “cheaters”, doesn’t it?
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 12:53 PM
And this matter’s why? The angle of the camera means nothing. You can see where they are due to positioning of the players feet. The official clearly has the most “straight on view” here as he’s the line judge. His sole job is to look straight down the line. The call was blown because he couldn’t see through Faulk’s back to tell he had possession, not because of his angle.
Rocks on November 16, 2009 at 12:54 PM
LOL! Calling me a female? Thanks for admitting you lost the debate. Saul Alinsky would approve.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 12:56 PM
So the angle you are looking from does not matter? You’re lost. If you cannot understand such a simple idea there is no convincing you.
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 12:57 PM
You are not a female…sorry. You seem to act in a female way.
Sooo sensitive. Most guys I know are not that way. Wow need to check my ChickDar.
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Doh… I was pulling for Indy,anyway
la.rt.wngr on November 16, 2009 at 12:58 PM
No I didn’t. You are suggesting I said Faulk ran backwards after the catch. I never did. You know why? Because he didn’t.
Comparing this to a situation of a receiver reversing field in the process of a run is idiotic. Faulk never reverses his run. He was driven backwards by the defender. He is hit as he makes the catch.
Rocks on November 16, 2009 at 12:58 PM
You said it…that makes it so. Now repeat it over and over.
Oh you already did that.
/
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 1:00 PM
My Saints are still undefeated, though I think the injuries are definately affecting them. Could be a snow day in Hell this year.If Saints could win the S.B.
la.rt.wngr on November 16, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Have to agree there
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Heh. I’m glad the Patriots could provide an excuse for all the losing teams out there.
I’m saving this thread for when they sign Larry Johnson and win the Super Bowl again.
Honestly though, this Bellicheat stuff is juvenile, and is shouted the most by teams with crap franchises and crappy coaches.
reaganaut on November 16, 2009 at 1:02 PM
It doesn’t matter if you can clearly mark his position on the field due to his feet. You can here. What is going to convince you besides the fact that Faulk has the ball in his possession beyond the 30 yard line prior to being driven back by the defender?
Rocks on November 16, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Rocks-His feet came down short of the first down. The point at which he had possession is in question. So yes the angle does matter and the ref had a better view than you or me. This all could have been reviewed had Bill saved a time out. In the end does not matter . L for BB and the Pats.
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Yes you are right because such blatant cheating charges backedup by $750000 in fines(the MOST EVER) mean nothing.
Signed,
Big Steeler Fan
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 1:06 PM
No, you are suggesting the ball should be spotted at the furthest advance of a possessed ball. That is not what forward progress is.
Holger on November 16, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Good point, but with two minutes left and the game on the line, Manning is one of the few quarterbacks I would have great faith in to shepherd his team all the way down the field, regardless of the previous 58 minutes. Of course, I’m biased so take that with a grain of salt.
SKYFOX on November 16, 2009 at 1:12 PM
That’s the thing though CWFF, the possession really wasn’t in question. In the video watch the position and angles of Faulk’s legs, they are unique. There’s no other place in the play where Faulk’s legs at at such position. Faulk clearly has possession in the second angle when his left leg is driven into the ground by the defender. That same position in the first angle is at a point where the ball is beyond the 30 yard line. Fully beyond it, not even merely above it which would suffice for a first down.
Rocks on November 16, 2009 at 1:13 PM
His feet have absolutely nothing to do with the question of forward progress.
The only things that matter are:
- When did the receiver gain posession?
- When did the defender make contact?
If the receiver didn’t bobble the ball, and the defender hit him beyond the 30 yard line (doesn’t matter if the receiver was moving parallel or backwards) it’s a first down.
If he either bobbled the ball or the received didn’t contact him until he had already moved back short of the 30 it’s not.
The feet don’t matter.
BadgerHawk on November 16, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Beta males punt the ball and play it safe. Alpha males go for the kill. Didn’t work out for Belichick, but if it had, we’d probably ignore the call or call him a genius.
El_Terrible on November 16, 2009 at 1:16 PM
A little birdy told me the Chargers were 6-3…
“Denver! That object in your mirror may be closer than it appears!”
Theworldisnotenough on November 16, 2009 at 1:20 PM
I don’t know, Ed – it’s pretty hard to top winning the coin toss and then giving the ball to the other guys in overtime.
Blacksmith on November 16, 2009 at 1:21 PM
No I am suggesting that the furthest advance is that point of the ball at which the actions of the person in possession of the ball ceases. The backward movement of the ball here is not due to any action made by the offensive player.
Faulk was in possession of the ball while it was beyond the 30 yard line. Faulk makes no action to move this ball behind the 30 yard line. The ball ends up behind the 30 yard line solely due to the fact that the defender drives the ball, and Faulk, backwards. It is a first down.
Rocks on November 16, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Faulk bobbled the ball and didn’t have possession until he was on his way down. They showed replays from different angles last night.
El_Terrible on November 16, 2009 at 1:23 PM
If Faulk didn’t bobble the ball though, yea, it was a first down.
El_Terrible on November 16, 2009 at 1:25 PM
History repeats itself.
BadgerHawk on November 16, 2009 at 1:25 PM
These feet/ball/forward progress/placement arguments can be fun, but really… I’m half expecting someone to contend that Brady didn’t throw the ball to Faulk. He actually threw it to a phantom receiver on the grassy knoll.
SKYFOX on November 16, 2009 at 1:25 PM
It doesn’t even matter if Faulk was moving backwards, provided the defender made contact with him beyond the 30 (and Faulk had posession, which seems to be the major point of contention).
BadgerHawk on November 16, 2009 at 1:27 PM
You dont have possession until both feet are down and you are in control of the ball. PERIOD. Personally, I think it is right at the first down, but it is a judgment call.
Remember, this year you can legally hit a player in the air and drive them out of bounds and it will be no catch. This was no different. He caught the ball past the 30, but he was driven back and then got two feet down, now it comes down to when was he in control of the ball with two feet down.
WoosterOh on November 16, 2009 at 1:29 PM
It was Bush’s fault. He was pointing a red laser at Faulk’s eyes. He doesn’t like Patriots. UnAmerican if you ask me.
El_Terrible on November 16, 2009 at 1:29 PM
The second angle in the video clearly shows Faulk with possession while he is upright. He maintains possession throughout being driven to the ground by the defender.
The last time he is upright the first angle clearly shows that the ball is beyond the 30 yard line. Put the both together and it’s a first down.
Rocks on November 16, 2009 at 1:29 PM
The odds favor Belichick. Top QB’s have a 60 to 70% success rate on 2 minute drives where one score is needed to win.
Belichick’s own teams have failed to hold a lead in 3 SBs and an AFC Championship. They won the SB twice in 01 and 03 because they put the offense on the field. In 06 and 07, they lost both times by putting the game into the hands of the defense.
Most coaches punt because they want to deflect blame on the defense rather than themselves. Belichick made the right call.
vimrich on November 16, 2009 at 1:29 PM
This is incorrect. Under this scenario a defender could grab a receiver who was jumping for a ball and run them back 10 yards before tackling them.
The feet matter for sideline plays. On this particular play they are completely meaningless.
BadgerHawk on November 16, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Once again, for those of you on drugs, the coach was caught breaking an NFL rule in one game, against one team.
When you can credibly prove the Patriots won all those other games by “cheating”, get back to us. Otherwise you’re just showing us how jealous you are of a superior team.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 1:32 PM
As a Indiana resident and COLTS fan all I can say today besides what a dumb decsion by coach B. is PATRIOTS fans STOP YOUR WHINING! You lost. Some of the national media types are whining too. Controversial call on the pass interference maybe. Did Faulk get the first down,it was close. But it’s the PATS own fault for not having a timeout to challenge. Would COLTS fans whine if those calls went aginst them some would. Not I. To be fair Brady and coach B. didn’t cry about the calls and some PATS fans didn’t either. So for those who are give it up and get ready for your next opponent.
PTN 39 on November 16, 2009 at 1:32 PM
They showed it again, different angle, after the two minute warning last night. He didn’t have it.
From these angles it appears he only bobbles it at first and then gets possession. That wasn’t so. If it was, the big story would be how the Patriots got robbed.
El_Terrible on November 16, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Spot on analysis.
But you’re wasting your breath. After all, the Patriots won those 2 SB by “cheating”, remember? They didn’t win because of their players’ athletic excellence.
Just curious-how does one “cheat” when kicking a game-winning field goal? Morten Andersen would like to know.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 1:36 PM
The SCOTUS throw out a suit of the name “Redskins”
Some alternate names in the waiting ..
The LA Crips
The Anaheim Bloods
The Chicago Gangstas
The New York Warriors
The Philadelphia Move-rs (a “back to nature” team)
The Washington Lobbyists
J_Crater on November 16, 2009 at 1:37 PM
I thought the Patriots won 3 SB’s?
They beat the Rams, Panthers and one more??
El_Terrible on November 16, 2009 at 1:37 PM
and the Eagles.
El_Terrible on November 16, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Eagles.
BadgerHawk on November 16, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I haven’t seen much whining from Patriots fans on this thread. All I have seen is juvenile joy from the fans of other teams who are jealous of their success and glad to see them fail.
As a Pats fan myself, I defend the coach’s call as I have adequately explained elsewhere. Especially after seeing the Rams come back in a similar fashion and almost upset the team who was supposed to beat them by 20+ points.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Beta males trying to tell themselves to just play it safe? I think this is a beta vs alpha male thing.
El_Terrible on November 16, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Melvin Bullitt offered the best defense of Bellichick’s call.
Heh.
Christien on November 16, 2009 at 2:00 PM
It was a tough call and a major gamble, but not a dumb call.
If the Patriots punted the ball away, Peyton Manning and crew would have had 2 minutes and 1 timeout to move the ball down the field. Seeing as how the Pats were burned out, and the Colts were on a roll offensively, putting in the hands of Peyton Manning again, would probably end up unfavorably for the Patriots.
If the Patriots made that first down, all what they needed was another first down to secure the victory. And even they didn’t make another first down, the Colts would have been pinned in their side of the field, with no timeouts and less than 40 seconds left.
So if you look at it that way, Bill Belichick didn’t make a dumb decision at all. He just felt that his offense could stop the Colts more than his defense.
Frank T.J Mackey on November 16, 2009 at 2:08 PM
I am a big time colts fan (live in Indy) and lets just say Bellicek is not my favorite person but I can’t fault him here. It’s much easier to gain two yards against the Colts D then to stop Peyton in the last two minutes. Actually, the smart thing to do once the Colts got the ball back would have been to let them score their TD on the first play and put the ball back in Bradys hands to score the winning TD in 1:50 which would have been left on the clock. But even Bill B. doesn’t have cojones big enough to do that.
tommyboy on November 16, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Good points. Belichick had to make a bet either way. He thought his offense had a better chance to make 3 yards and win the game than his defense had of stopping Peyton Manning. I’d have punted, but Belichick knows his team and it is very possible that Peyton would have made up the 40 yard punt with 1 or 2 throws.
As it was, the Pats defense didn’t offer much resistance on the final Indy TD. Overall, though, Pats have to feel they can beat Indy in Indy which they’ll have to for a trip to the Super Bowl.
dedalus on November 16, 2009 at 2:15 PM
what’s all the hubbub, bub? NE still still covered..and all is right with the world.
DrW on November 16, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Why are you questioning Bill…His call was not out of the ordinary of his coaching….big deal…roll the dice you loose…. blah blah blah.
hawkman on November 16, 2009 at 2:38 PM
And Belichick said as much in the press conference after the game. He wanted to win the game with that one play. I yelled at the screen that he should do it and so he must have heard me or something.
But upon reflection, if the Pats punted, they would have some number of chances to get the ball back. Those odds are more conservative and probably better tactically.
dogsoldier on November 16, 2009 at 2:39 PM
When do you get any work done?
/
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Errr…the Patriots did get the 2 yards. The ref was wrong…there was no bobble.
SouthernGent on November 16, 2009 at 2:47 PM
I am still shaken over that game. 2 timeouts wasted and then they went for it on their own 28, while leading by more than a field goal? I can’t explain it except that BB is simply bored of just winning and wants to win in style, even if it means losing in disgrace.
Daemonocracy on November 16, 2009 at 2:48 PM
…but yes he did get the first down. Refs blew the call, but the Pats blew two timeouts and couldn’t challenge.
Daemonocracy on November 16, 2009 at 2:49 PM
I hate the Patriots sooooooooo much…
Akzed on November 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM
I would have punted too, but either scenario would have been a big gamble. You either trust your offense or trust your defense.
Frank T.J Mackey on November 16, 2009 at 2:52 PM
I’m no Patsy fan primarily because of their coach and their fans. But in this case, I applaud the way he and Brady handled the situation after the game. He did what he thought would give them the best chance to win them the game–period. Brady agreed, and that it was up to them to execute. They failed. No one is perfect.
It’s one REGULAR SEASON game. I thought the way the Bungles beat the Steelers in Pittsburgh was more notable than Indy beating the Patsies.
Napolean on November 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM
I pretty much think BB is evil incarnate, but he made the right call. King Banian is right and the site he links has the numbers to back it up. At the very least, it’s not even in the top ten for dumbest calls in week 10. It was a tough call with disadvantages either way. If he got it wrong, he didn’t get it wrong by much.
RightOFLeft on November 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Yes, Belichick did own up to it.
From wiki referring to a 2006 interview Bill did with C-BS:
Fact: Belichick was caught for violating NFL rules in one game against one team. And was punished.
But the Patriots-haters here are still taking the word of a disgraced former Patriots employee who was fired for secretly taping conversations between team employees as well as lying on his resume. He turned over tapes of 6 games between 2000 and 2002, and the NFL found no evidence to support Walsh’s claims, nor any corroborating witnesses. Yet in the world of the Patriots haters, actual evidence is irrelevant.
Actual facts aren’t important to these folks, just their own bias and prejudices.
Y’all sure you’re really not Democrats? They’re the ones who say the gravity of the charge is much more important than whether or not the charge is true.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Jealous about that too?
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 3:02 PM
You’re forgetting that Peyton Manning is a 3-time NFL MVP and 1-time Super Bowl MVP. This is like giving the ball to Montana and Elway, within the last two minutes of a close game.
Belichick understand that his veteran offense is better than his young defense. He understands that Brady had a big day. All what he needed was two yards.
Frank T.J Mackey on November 16, 2009 at 3:02 PM
The only fair thing to do is replay the entire game–over and over, if necessary–until the Pats win and their fans get to show what gracious winners they are.
Anything less would be unsportsmanlike.
Christien on November 16, 2009 at 3:03 PM
So was it a Forward Pass or a Backwards Pass?
Holger on November 16, 2009 at 3:11 PM
BadgerHawk, I understand it the same way WoosterOH stated it. I’m sure WoosterOH got the part about the rule change right regarding out of bounds — it used to be that where the feet would have hit in the opinion of the ref mattered and that was nonreviewable. Now, what matter is whether 2 feet are in bounds. I don’t know why the rule would be different for the first down marker?
I also would expect that if a defender was actually able to catch a receiver and walk/run with him for a material distance, there could be a different outcome — that the defender’s feet would count because he was in control of a player with the ball. But that’s not what happened yesterday. There was contact, the ball was juggled, and then the receiver’s feet touched behind the first down line.
The great thing is that none of this would have happened if the Hoodie had shown confidence in his defense and punted the ball.
EconomicNeocon on November 16, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Belichek’s too experienced for this rookie mistake.
When he went for it, I applauded his epic failure; that’s what you get for not trusting your defense… and near your OWN 30-yard line?
Newsflash to Coach B: You may have a Hall of Fame quarterback, but when you’re Playing one, don’t take foolish chances.
nationspatriotcom on November 16, 2009 at 3:25 PM
NFL is an entertainment franchise.
Belicheck threw the game to keep the Colts undefeated.
Not even convincingly…
alexwest on November 16, 2009 at 3:29 PM
+1
Napolean on November 16, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Actually it is relevant. By your logic, if a player jumps in the air, catches the ball, is hit before he touches the ground and the ball comes loose it would be a fumble. Alas, that is not the case. It would be ruled an incomplete pass.
According to the NFL Rules definitions:
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.
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Yeah, I agree. Belichick is a great coach. The call didn’t work out for him, but he may have been playing the percentages correctly. Most coaches would have punted because they know they’d be fired if they didn’t. Belichick is one of the few with the job security to do something so unconventional.
Already looking forward to a rematch in January.
dedalus on November 16, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Actually YOU are incorrect. You cannot legally have possession until you control the ball with both feet, or any other part of your body (except the hands) touching the ground. So, I the reciever jumps to catch the ball and I push him back 2 yards while he is in the air, and he lands two yards back from where he jumps with both feet in bounds and possession of the ball, forward progress if where he lands. Now, if I push him back another two yards after he lands and tackle him two yards back from where he landed, forward progress will mark him where he landed—with possession of the ball.
I can say I am an official (albeit not an NFL official), but I have no way of proving that. You’ll just have to take me at my word. Forward progress rules are consistent across all levels of football. And it is one of the most misunderstood rules.
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Media is over-playing this. I don’t think the result would have been any different had they punted.
MajorKong on November 16, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »