Patriots coach Bill Belichick was criticized not only for the decision not to punt while facing fourth and two from his own 28, but also for burning his final time out prior to the play, which left him without a time out — and thus without the ability to challenge a spot that was short of the sticks.
The good news (if there is any) for Belichick is that replay review likely wouldn’t have resulted in a reversal.
NFL V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira said during his “Official Review” segment on NFLN’s Total Access that it was “almost near impossible to tell” whether the spot was incorrect.
This means, of course, that the visual evidence of an error was not indisputable.
“Once [the catch] occurs, he’ll give you forward progress,” Pereira said, via Ian Rapoport of the Boston Herald. “Where is that exactly? Hard to tell where he gets it. . . . It’s a tough play when I look at it in real time, almost impossible to tell . . . but [in the end] really hard to dispute.”
In other words, this is one of those “too close to call” calls that would be immune from reversal, since the replay evidence simply isn’t clear.
Ya and he also never admits when they are wrong.
This is one of those cases where the ref on the field is in the best position to make the call. You like it or you suck it up.
They should put a computer chip in the ball and sensors all over the field so we know exactly where the spot is.
This is all speculation at this point. Pereira would have done one thing, another official another thing.
Bird Man – your suggestion ignores the question of whether he had possession. That seemed to factor into the spot much more so than where the ball was at the time.
# Bird Man says: November 18, 2009 9:12 PM
They should put a computer chip in the ball and sensors all over the field so we know exactly where the spot is.
Okay… and that would have helped in this situation how exactly?
It is really amazing to think that the NFL didn’t give the bratiots and belicheat the call! When you play that team you have to beat the NFL, the team and the officials!
Easy for him to say considering no replay was asked for.
Bird Man says:
November 18, 2009 9:12 PM
They should put a computer chip in the ball and sensors all over the field so we know exactly where the spot is.
Which would not do you any good since Faulk bobbled the ball.
@Bird Man…how would the chip know when possession is made on a bobble then???
Umm…Pats lost people…get over it……..teeheehee
This is stupid. The Patriots choked that game. I’m hearing the media day after day talking about this 4th and 2 crap and how the Patriots dominated the Colts in every way and lost the game on a 4th and 2. This is so retarded. I think Belichek was the only one who actually WATCHED the game, realized from the get go that Mannings numbers would have been better and the Colts offensive production would have been better if Addai, Collie and Garcon can catch passes 20 yards or more in Patriots territory. I mean the ball was bouncing off thier hands, it wasn’t like they weren’t open, wide open dropping the ball. It was just a matter of time given the opportunities and the law of averages that Wayne would eventually get open and ONE of those recievers would eventually make a play or two because they were getting open ALL NIGHT dropping passes. WATCH THE GAME TONIGHT PEOPLE. This is one of those games where you DONT look at the stats and say ” man defense held them all night, why didn’t Belichek punt” They could have scored from the 30 in 20 seconds if they wanted to with timeouts and 1:57 left, what the hell is another 40 yards going to do with that much time left?
The three teams that get favored-nation status on ref calls and absolutely everybody knows it are: New England, Indy, Pittsburgh.
This made it a very tough night for the officials. No one to screw.
Man, that’s rough.
He wouldn’t have had it.
A bigger mistake than going for it on 4th and 2 was trying to stop the Colts instead of letting them walk in, and getting the ball back with 1:45 on the clock (or at the very least not stopping Addai at the 1. WTF?)
The chip in the ball would have worked.
You look at the replay, and find the exact point in time when he had possession. You then look up where the ball was at that point in time.
And they can sync everything up. Its not rocket science. (It is computer science, but its been solved.) That’s how they are able to “rotate” ala the matrix from one shot to another – all the cameras are synced up within a tight tolerance.
Getting such technology into every NFL stadium, and then incorporating it into the replay system, so that the game doesn’t take even longer to finish is the tough part. But it can be done, and probably will be done in 5 years.
Pereira is a tool. His weekly segment on the NFL network is a total joke, it’s always him defending the call on the field and sidestepping questions like a jabbering politician whenever Eisen asks him a direct question.
Yeah, but talking about the bucs/dolphins game he didn’t have a problem with the refs changing the call without having indisputable evidence, Pereira is pathetic as officiating boss.
Considering Pereira has historically acted like he was on the Patriots payroll, it makes it even more clear how the play should have been called.
It wasn’t a completed catch until he hit the ground and maintained possession.
Keep crying Patriots fans and authors..
Well how about a chip in the ball, and in gloves, elbows, helmets, knees, and the rear end (every part of the body that can make a ball carrier down) as well as sensors on the field. So when officials go to replay they can tell whether the ball is caught, when the runner is down, and where the ball is.
They should put sensors all over the field that will tell teams like the Pats and Ravens to quit crying like little bitches after every loss. And sometimes after a win.
Did Pereira review the Dolphins-Bucs interception? A far more interesting play to hear about than the 4th-and-2 from an officiating perspective.
Lol Facts Domino. A catch isn’t a catch until you hit the ground?? You’re apparently too idiotic to realize that’s the rule for going to ground in the end zone. Haha, that’s so sad. Keep making yourself look like a complete moron.
Why didn’t the Pack get penalized for challenging a play when they were out of challenges?
And Florio, if you watch the Official Review on NFL.com, I suggest you look at sec 34-35 and 39-40. You can see clearly when he makes the catch in the first view (34-35s), but you can’t see where. In the second view (39-40s), you can match it up with when his legs are hitting the ground. You have three guide points, the 1st being when his right foot barely touches, the 2nd when he plants his left foot while falling, and the 3rd when he plants his right foot while falling. Pretty sure that looks like indisputable evidence.
(epeterson21 made the first mention of this in the comments section on the Official Review video at NFL.com)
Pereira is just being PC since no challenge was available. What? He’s going to throw his linesman under the bus by telling us the Pats had the first down and the replay would have confirmed it? He always has an explanation for why the play as called on the field was correct (witness those non-catch TDs of a few weeks back). He’s just a joke… In this case, Faulk establishes clear possession beyond the first down marker but the linesman calling the play was BEHIND Faulk and could not see the instant Faulk established the possession. The replay angle from the opposite side of the field showing the ball in Faulk’s hands clearly shows this in my opinion. I understand the NFL network is showing this game again (the original telecast) so just tune in and watch for that angle. They only showed it one time so record it and stop it at the point of possession and note where Faulk is with respect to the gold line.
Because Jeff Tripplette is stupid.
Pereira has never had a problem in the past admitting mistakes if there’s no way he can sugarcoat it. He was pretty obviously dancing in this case about the actual spot. I believe he’s right that it couldn’t be overturned on review… but I also believe the ball should’ve been spotted on the 30. And I’m a Colts fan.
That said, they also re-spotted the ball after the 3rd and 2 incompletion a full 12-18 inches farther forward than it was on the previous play (seriously – watch the NFLn replay tonight) so it all evens out.
and baghdad bob said there were no americans at the airport
I think you’re taking his words a bit too absolutely, Florio. It sounds to me like he’s just saying it’s hard to tell so that he can avoid saying whether it was a good call or not altogether. Besides, he’s talking about seeing the play in real time; in a challenge, they’re not watching the play in real time.
I doubt it would have been reversed, but to say these comments mean that it would not is just silly.
inthetrenches.. Aka Dumb ass,
When the receiver goes to the ground he has to maintain possession whether he’s in the end zone, 1, 25, 50 or the yardline of your choice.
The reason why going to the ground is even mentioned is because of the bobble. He never had two feet down with control. It became a catch when he hit the ground and maintained possession, which is why it was spotted where it was.
Your welcome for the lesson.
This from the same dufuss that defended the tuck..
Again, NE only gained 9.5 yards on that 4 play. the ball was spotted the wrong place after Welker’s catch and after the near interception, so NE got an extra 0.5 yard and a ball length. The did not deserve a first down. Stop crying!………And again, Bodden committed at least 10 PIs, one was called. NE should be happy, with what they got as officiating….
I can’t stand the Patriots and I hate to admit this, but it looked to me like Faulk had possession beyond the marker…
inthetrenches says:
November 18, 2009 11:20 PM
Lol Facts Domino. A catch isn’t a catch until you hit the ground?? You’re apparently too idiotic to realize that’s the rule for going to ground in the end zone. Haha, that’s so sad. Keep making yourself look like a complete moron.
——————————–
The “going to the ground to complete the catch” rule applies to all catches when the receiver begins falling to the ground before getting two feet down, regardless of position on the field. NFL.com has an “Official Review” segment that covers this pretty well.
To borrow from you, “keep making yourself look like a complete moron.”
Pereira didn’t say that the spot was correct or incorrect….only that the replay would not support over-turning the call. He added that if the call on the filed was a first down, replay would not support over-turning that call either.
Basically, the replay was inconclusive either way.
BTW, ChunkySoupSales, what Patriots did you hear crying about this loss? I’ve heard at least ten Patriots interviewed and not one cried or complained. Please cite examples to support your claim….otherwise you just come across as a whiny little bitch yourself!!
“bonecity7 says:
November 19, 2009 6:28 AM
BTW, ChunkySoupSales, what Patriots did you hear crying about this loss? I’ve heard at least ten Patriots interviewed and not one cried or complained. Please cite examples to support your claim….otherwise you just come across as a whiny little bitch yourself!!”
Absolutely.
Imagine if it had been the Ravens. I haven’t heard one Pats player say they caught a bad break, or not take responsibility for the L.
From the NFL Rulebook:
“Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds. ”
In the replay his left foot clearly lands on the 29 1/2 yard line. Forward Progress is measured from that point, and he was being put on his backside immediately.
“jsphill says:
November 19, 2009 8:10 AM
From the NFL Rulebook:
“Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds. ”
In the replay his left foot clearly lands on the 29 1/2 yard line. Forward Progress is measured from that point, and he was being put on his backside immediately.”
He was juggling the ball as he went to the ground. Once he officially has possession, the spot is where the first part of his body lands. That would be his butt. There was nothing wrong with the call.
This is pretty cut and dry from the comments section, that very rarely can anyone be impartial. Everyone that hates the Pats, thinks the spot was correct. Everyone that likes the Pats, thinks the spot was wrong, plus, a few people have to throw in comments about the Pats whining, getting better calls from the officials, etc. If you think the officials are “Pro-Patriots”, dont you think that the linesman would have given him a favorable spot, instead of saying the receiver was bobbling the ball? It is pretty obvious from the replay, that he didnt make the catch initially, but the linesman clearly over stated the bobble. He made it seem as if it was bobbled all the way to the ground. Faulk had possession prior to being hit, otherwise Bullit would have separated Faulk from the ball. So the bobble wasnt as dramatic as the official made it seem. Plus, Faulk had his back to the official, but instead of huddling up with the other officials, to get the call right, he made it himself, when he clearly couldnt see the ball, unless he had x-ray vision.
I think the spot of the ball was wrong, however, I dont think Faulk made a first down, but it was a hell of a lot closer than the spot. The Pats didnt lose this game because of the 4th and 2, they lost the game when they QB sneaked on first down, and only gained 6 inches, so that Indy couldnt challenge the Moss first down catch. If thy hadnt wasted that play, and ran a play that got them say, 2 yards, different outcome……
The refs suck this year, the Eagles were robbed against Dallas the ball should have been placed on the beak !!!
Even the all time homer and suck up Perreria said that the senile Walt Coleman got it wrong.
Don’t tell me that call didn’t matter the Eagles went from leading and driving in the fourth quarter to losing.
The Faulk call was disputable but the Mcnabb call was not he had the first down.
I do not like either team at all, but I loved the game and I loved the call, and I think he made the 30 yard line at least.
Upon further review the bobble was not much of a bobble. I do not think he lost enough controll of the ball to hose him on the spot so hard.
The spot ended up being where he hit the ground, but possesion was clearly established in the air around the 30 with forward progress being stopped by a defender.
Ball spots, pass int, holding, roughing the Brady, you never know what is going to happen or what is going to get called.
The NFL should review any big play like that and just make sure the call is right seperate of timeouts and challenges. The NFL is supposed to be anti gambling, but the HC has to gamble his time outs just to try to get the game called right, and other than the Clowns most teams only get 3 of them, and have always needed them for other key strategy issues.
i think the point is, regardless of the call on the field, it how do you let it be close? why not run a play for 5 or 6 yards? they know can’t challenge because they are out of timeouts. give credit to melvin bullitt and the colts for a great stop on 4th down. 1st down or not, it was close enough to be called short on the field. either punt, or be DAMN sure you get those yards… don’t let it be close. you know you can’t review it.
Harm City,
You make some good points, but you said it yourself.
“The spot ended up being where he hit the ground, but possesion was clearly established in the air around the 30 with forward progress being stopped by a defender.”
That isn’t possession. Not until two feet, or a body part hits the ground and he maintains possession through the act of going to the ground. With the bobble, he didn’t have a catch until he hit the ground.
pubobby,
Let’s give the defense a little credit here….if no defender was in the vacinity, Faulk could have easily gone a yard or two further to “not make it close”. However, it was very tight coverage and Faulk did well to make sure he gained the 32 yard line (well beyond the yardage necessary) and then came back to the ball like all quality receivers should. There was nothing wrong with his pattern or the depth he acquired on the route. Indy simply defended it well. Had the pass not been bobbled, however, the Pats would have had a first down……nothing to do with how deep he/they ran the route.
“He was juggling the ball as he went to the ground. Once he officially has possession, the spot is where the first part of his body lands. That would be his butt. There was nothing wrong with the call.”
This is not the rule is applied. Forward progress is applied at the MOMENT he gains control of the ball, NOT where his butt hits the ground. The whole “to the ground” rule is used to help define the complete “control” part, but you still get credit for where you first got control. I know that might sound confusing, and I hope I worded it correctly.
Notice how the ref ruled the play. Faulk first touched the ball at the 30. He landed with the ball behind the 29. The ref spotted it forward, ahead of the 29 but still behind the 30.
That point aside…Using the angles to determine where his left foot was, when possession happened, and that the ball was in Faulk’s right arm, it looked like he had possession at the 30. But I can see how a ref might still rule the play inconclusive, and go with the call on the field.
“LightningLucci says:
November 19, 2009 12:37 PM
This is not the rule is applied. Forward progress is applied at the MOMENT he gains control of the ball, NOT where his butt hits the ground. The whole “to the ground” rule is used to help define the complete “control” part, but you still get credit for where you first got control. I know that might sound confusing, and I hope I worded it correctly.”
My point is, he didn’t have control while he was in the air. As he is going to the ground, he gained control, so the spot is where he lands. Not where one foot lands while he is trying to gain control.
bonecity7 -
i said give the colts and melvin bullitt credit! that was the play of the game.
you make one good point though… faulk ran the route deep enough, but had to come back for the ball. that is on tom brady. brady did not make that play. he did not finish the game this time. good route, good playcall, great defense, bad pass.