Welcome to PatsFans.com

Kraft's comment about the Denver game....

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Pats726, May 17, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    In Kraft's interview on EEI, he mentioned that a league official who he talked to had said that there was NO WAY that Bailey's fumbled ball did not go through part of the end zone and that it shold have been Patriot ball on the 20. I found this rather interesting...and was surprised no one had mentioned it. Wonder who the league official was??
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,327
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +248 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Although I think it went through the end zone, I haven't seen one angle in which you can be sure either way.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 27, 2005
  3. Urgent

    Urgent Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,937
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +49 / 0 / -0

    #24 Jersey

    Impossible to prove technicality.

    The clearly Pats lost that game.
  4. richpats

    richpats Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Messages:
    3,499
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I think they lost it after the ensuing TD. At 17-6 in the 3rd quarter, it was still a winnable game. The overthrow to Brown for a sure TD, the Vinatieri miss, the Brown fumble, those were the plays that truly lost the game. The Bailey pick/fumble was just a huge momentum killer that the Pats obviously never recovered from.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 27, 2005
  5. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    While the league is reluctant to admit officiating errors in public, they routinely do so as some sort of pseudo-apology to victimized coaches and owners in private. That acknowledgement and the promise to strive to do better going forward is the only way they keep guys with millions at their disposal (and on the line) who can pay their fines out of petty cash from making too many inflamatory public statements about the leagues continuing struggle with officiating incompetence. The technology exists to replace much of what they do, as is the case with umpires in baseball. They have to make nice in order to keep ownership on the side of maintaining the human element as a core part of the game.
  6. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,990
    Likes Received:
    331
    Ratings:
    +709 / 8 / -9

    Disable Jersey

    Why do they feel they must maintain the human element? It's the 21st century. Inexpensive laser detectors hooked to readily available cameras could monitor out of bounds and goaline crossings. Less importantly, precise line of scrimmage references could be established. A technical step further could soon place a nanoscale wireless transponder on the football.

    The NFL accepts radios to the QB's helmuts and other innovations. Get with the times and deploy Radio Shack available technology.

    One of the many reasons I gave up on the NBA was their 2 tiered human style officiating where the Stars were rarely called for travelling or for fouling.
    Last edited: May 17, 2006
  7. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    While I agree athletes are much better now than years ago, I think it interesting to look at games from the 60s..and see what was called "traveling".."palming"..etc and how those definitions are totally changed. Put one of today's players with the old rules..MUCH different.
    I agree..and how many "stars" are protected to fouls is getting absurd...I always thought they did..how else Wilt the Stilt NEVER fouled out of a game..some things do not change.
    Yes bring in the technology and upgrade!! The human element will always be there, but the way officiating has been..it is getting WORSE by leaps and bounds, NOT in anyway better!!
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 27, 2005
  8. arrellbee

    arrellbee Rookie

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    When I stopped watching the NBA was when Moses Malone came in (and Darrel Dawkins) and the game allowed these thug type centers to physically back a defender down to the basket. I guess the league and referees didn't have any choice, because the teams would have screamed if their uber-high paid center was fouled out of the game in the first quarter of each game - or was pretty ineffective because he could only score within 4 or 5 feet of the basket. I'm not sure if another thing was allowed in the 'good old days', but I also think it is ugly to call a foul on a defender when the shooter jumps into the defender or extends his shooting motion into the defender's arms which are straight over the defender's head. At least they made some attempt to disallow the heavy hand-checking that was going on.
  9. BradyManny

    BradyManny Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    9,697
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +33 / 0 / -0

    I don't give a crap about camera angles and what not, it's physically impossible that ball did not travel through the goalline. As Ben Watson said, some nerds at MIT proved it to him. The bottom line is, any idiot knows that for that Bailey ball to not pass through that end zone, it would've had to shoot out absolutely directly left, which it did not.

    Perhaps a more appropriate comment would be to say that 99/100 times a ball is fumbled that close to the goal line, it's called a touchback.

    The officiating throughout the playoffs sucked hardcore, and in every case, the officials just went with the hometeam. I think that the refereeing was so bad that the refs were demoralized and just went with what would avoid getting boos.

    Anyway, I think in 10 years we'll look back on the Denver loss as a blessing as it ended up providing us not only with an absurd amount of motivation going forth, but with a draft in which we got 2 players who will likely become offensive stars in Pats uniforms for years to come.
    Last edited: May 17, 2006
  10. arrellbee

    arrellbee Rookie

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    It's water long gone over the dam, but it's very likely that the ball did sail out of bounds before the goal line. There are two key camera angles of sequences that provide pretty sound evidence. The first shows that Bailey was bringing his right hand with the ball from a position hanging down on his right side up across the front of his body just before Watson made his hit. So you had the momentum of his arm bringing the ball up across his body AND that the ball was close to his body when Watson hit him. Watson did not hit the ball when he tackled Bailey (even if he had, there is no way he could have punched the ball towards the goal line when it was close to Bailey's body). The second crucial angle that was not shown very much in replays but which was shown at least once that I saw was an angle that was looking almost directly down the sideline from the vantage point of the end zone. This clearly shows the ball in the frame after the hit to the left of Bailey's body and then in the next frame outside the sideline. For the ball to have crossed the goal line, the ball would have had to appear as though it was still in front of Bailey's body in those two frames. I'm not sure what the MIT folks were analyzing, but they must not have been using elementary analytical drafting techniques of striking a line based on points in two orthogonal views.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 27, 2005
  11. BradyManny

    BradyManny Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    9,697
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +33 / 0 / -0

    I agree this is old news and probably not worth discusging, but they were analyzing where the ball landed and proved that it simply could not have gotten there without going through the endzone. The ball had to get out of bounds in about a foot's space (if that) - thus if it really did travel OB before crossing the goal line, it should've landed nearly dead left of the playing field, right? I'm not sure about the angles you are referring to, but I'm pretty adamant that simple logic tells us it went through the endzone, not to mention every camera angle I saw seemed to show likewise.
  12. pats1

    pats1 Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    13,261
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    This Broncos website has some good pictures from the NFL Network that supposedly prove that the ball went out before the end zone, but it doesn't mention at all that a simple reposition of the camera can make the ball appear to to any direction in terms of the pilon.

    http://www.tnedstats.com/broncos/ChampsINTFUMB.htm

    [​IMG]

    For example, mentally reposition the camera to the right. Now where does the ball appear?
    Last edited: May 17, 2006
  13. BradyManny

    BradyManny Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    9,697
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +33 / 0 / -0

    Leave it to Broncos fans to prove the other team's points, I think those pics show its quite likely the ball did pass through the endzone. It's quite clear that if that camera were dead on with the sideline, the ball would be quite on line with the pylon. For it to go that far and on that line means it couldn't have made its way OB before it crossed the pylon.

    But this is all besides the point I was trying to make, which is that the refs more often than not call that play a touchback - and that the referees for all playoff games was quite sketch.
    Last edited: May 17, 2006
  14. pats1

    pats1 Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    13,261
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Nantz: "Incomplete, nice play by Asante Samuel...NOW A LATE FLAG!"

    :Lelie and Samuel both throw their hands up.:

    Simms: "I've always said there's no such thing as a late flag. I was wrong. That took a LONG time to happen. They might pick it up."

    :Colvin gets in Triplette's face. Triplette waves his hand at him saying "No, No, No." Pushes him away.:

    Simms: "There was a lot of contact, and Asante Samuel DID look back for the football."

    Nantz: "There's a couple of teammates trying to restrain him right now..."

    "Pass Interference, defense, #22. Foul occured in endzone. It will be first and goal."

    Simms: "Watch them down the field..."

    :replay shown:

    Simms: "Oh, there's going to be a lot of talk about this. Asante Samuel is in GOOD position. Lelie actually puts his hands on Asante Samuel! He's looking for the football the whole way. They're going to say he cut across the receiver. Not really! He beat Ashley Lelie to the spot!"

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    Last edited: May 17, 2006
  15. CheerforTom

    CheerforTom Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Ugh. Bad memories.

    But yeah, that was definately the day that I actually gained a liking for Phil Simms. I thought his was the voice of reason through both the PI call and the Bailey hit. Naturally, the refs ignored him both times.

    Oh well.
  16. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,327
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +248 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    This is why we need a better regular season and HF next year. That call doesn't get made at Gillette. Right or wrong, that's how it is and why we need 14-2 (or better ;)) in 2006.
  17. pats1

    pats1 Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    13,261
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Hench's two great articles on the entire playoffs' atrocious officiating:

    http://www.google.com/search?hs=rJ8... sports kevin hench asante samuel&btnG=Search

    http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5311162

  18. Patjew

    Patjew PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    9,574
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +52 / 0 / -0

    No Jersey Selected

    Stop re-opening the wound!!!
  19. ayjackson

    ayjackson Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,232
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    whether it went into the end zone or not, it's a stupid rule....

    if you fumble and it goes out at the one-foot line, it's your ball at the one-foot line....if you fumble and it travels a foot further before it goes out, it's your opponent's ball at their 20! it really is not a very sound peice of logic...it's a tough one to solve though.

    in the end, denver deserved a touchdown on that play....the interference on samuel was the one call that caused me the most grief.
  20. arrellbee

    arrellbee Rookie

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    You begin to get a clue about credibility when you read accounts that Bailey was hit at the one yard line. The first frame shows he was hit at the 2 yard line. The vertical line I added shows the ball at that point being about 6 feet from the goal line.
    [​IMG]

    Now look at the second frame. The ball is at Bailey's eye level and the pylon is visible to the right - at this time, the ball is NOT over the goal line. The ball is in a plane that cuts thru Bailey's knee
    [​IMG]

    Now the third frame from an end zone view with ball at Bailey's eye level at the same instant as the second frame where the ball is at Bailey's eye level - clearly the ball is two or three feet outside of bounds - and remember, from the second frame at the same instant the ball is absolutely not over the goal line yet.

    I'm not sure how the MIT guys came up with the ball crossing the goal line before it was out of bounds. I think maybe I don't want to drive over any bridges that these particular guys design.

    I hope this puts a lot of folks mind at ease about this particular play. The ref got it very right.

    [​IMG]
    Last edited: May 17, 2006
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>