Ryan Allen's Decision to pass on the Safety, and Dierdorf's odd analysis

[Uncle Rico]

Earlier today, on one of the many threads discussing this play, someone asked the question, "how many hall of fame quarterbacks have held for extra points and kicks?" I(I searched a bunch of threads but can't find the post).

I think the answer is, IIRC: Quite a few. Wasn't it once pretty much standard for QBs to hold on kicks, at least up until maybe the early '80s or so?

 

[Mack Herron]

The source is the very rule you quoted that says impetus only transfers to defense if the ball was illegally kicked or batted. For a kick or bat to be illegal there has to be intent. So intent is essentially incorporated by reference from the definition of illegal kick/bat.

Thanks. It "felt" like a safety, but I do not understand the rule.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

It depends on what penalty was called. Remember the penalty for intentional grounding includes loss of down, so intentional grounding on fourth down, if accepted, automatically results in a turnover on downs.

I was talking about the penalty for illegal kick/bat (which is what would be called if the punter (or anyone else) kicked the ball out the back of the EZ).

 

[RayClay]

Earlier today, on one of the many threads discussing this play, someone asked the question, "how many hall of fame quarterbacks have held for extra points and kicks?" I(I searched a bunch of threads but can't find the post).

I think the answer is, IIRC: Quite a few. Wasn't it once pretty much standard for QBs to hold on kicks, at least up until maybe the early '80s or so?

Tom Tupa was the punter and backup QB and he ran fakes as a holder I believe. For what it's worth, Tom Yewcic was also, however...

Starting QB Babe Parillis might have been the only holder so good he had a nickname(Goldfinger).

Besides his considerable skills as a quarterback, he was one of the best holders in the history of football and was nicknamed "gold-finger" as a result of kicker Jim Turner's then-record 145 points kicked in 1968 (plus another 19 points in the play-offs and in Super Bowl III). He is one of only twenty players who were in the American Football League for its entire ten-year existence, and is a member of the University of Kentucky Athletic Hall of Fame. In 1982 Parilli was named to the College Football Hall of Fame.

The wide receiver-quarterback duo of Cappelletti and Parilli was nicknamed "Grand Opera".

 

[PP2]

As noted above, impetus has a very specific meaning in football.

From the moment of the snap, the impetus belonged to the Patriots. Until and unless the Colts gained possession of the ball, the impetus remained with the Patriots.

Slight correction there: the offense is always assumed to have impetus unless the ball comes to a rest or near a rest and the defense creates a new force on it, so it's not simply a change of possession.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Slight correction there: the offense is always assumed to have impetus unless the ball comes to a rest or near a rest and the defense creates a new force on it, so it's not simply a change of possession.

Also, if the defense illegally bats or kicks the ball, even w/o gaining possession, or even if the ball is not at or near rest, impetus transfers to the defense. So if that Colt had illegally batted the ball it would have been a touchback.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I was talking about the penalty for illegal kick/bat (which is what would be called if the punter (or anyone else) kicked the ball out the back of the EZ).

I have to double check the rules, but I'm fairly sure it's not an illegal kick/bat in this instance, since it's not "helping" the team doing it (i.e., away from the Colts' EZ and toward the Patriots').

 

[SB39]

I almost had to mute the broadcast. Why would you want the Colts first and goal on the two versus 2 points? Even if you held them, they automatically get 3 points. I was thinking the punter should have swatted the ball to the back of the end zone to begin with.

I'd rather give up 3 points and get the ball than 2 points and have to free-kick punt it away because possessions are worth more than just 1 point.

HOWEVER, in that case, the ball would have been given to Indy on the 2 so the odds are strongly in favor of them getting a touchdown. The safety was a good thing for the Patriots compared to the alternative.

 

[SB39]

Okay, BUT...

would it have been ruled change of possession/change of possession, granting a 1st and 10 for the Pats on the 20, or would it have been no change, thus giving the Colts a 1t and 10 on the Patriots 20 in turnover on downs?

The Colts never possessed the ball so it was the right call. If it was ruled the Colts recovered the fumble in the end zone then, obviously, that's a touchdown. If it was ruled they recovered the fumble in the field of play and then fumbled it through the end zone, then it's a touchback, Patriots ball 1st and 10 on the 20. And that's the way it would be no matter what down it was when the play took place.

 

[brdmaverick]

As others have pointed out, we all wanted it to stand as a safety.

My concern was that the longer the refs talked about it, the more they may have felt that it was an incomplete pass, and have ruled it IND ball at our 2.

I am guessing that they ruled it a fumble, and that's why the safety stood.

.

An incomplete pass wouldn't have been THAT bad either as it would have meant the Colts got it at the original line of scrimmage (not the 2).

Sorry if this has already been mentioned.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

As others have stated, that was my concern anyway--that they'd have ruled it incomplete and the Colts would have taken over at the 2 somehow.

My worry, when they were taking forever to officially signal the safety, was that they were going to rule Allen down by forward progress stopped and give IND the ball at the NE 1 yd line or so. That would have been a horrible call of course, but you never know with refs.

 

[Ring 6]

Tom Tupa was the punter and backup QB and he ran fakes as a holder I believe.

That was when he played for BB in Cleveland. He would take the snap then run up the middle for an easy 2 points. I've been waiting for it for 14 years.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

As the ball went out of the end zone, all I could think was, "Whoa! That's the best possible outcome of three bad possibilities!" Two points and the ball to the Broncos at around midfield vs. a virtually certain seven.

I still don't know exactly what he was trying to do with the ball (other than maybe channel his inner Garo Yepremian), but it worked out as well as could be expected.